There is no need for mystery and I don't think there really is anything too mysterious about VDWs approach. However, by his own admission he did leave some work for us to complete and he did present things piece by piece over a long period of time. As he said "to splash the whole lot in front of readers would be a pointless exercise." It was in fact Tony Peach who called a halt to discussions of his method in the Sports Forum due to unrest from some of the readership. VDW had no quibble with that by all accounts.

I remarked on Racing In My Systems expanding on the Roushayd exercise, and whilst it was in fact a shorter text, VDW did highlight some extra areas of interest though. For instance in his description of how to produce an easy race class rating for comparison he warns that "the class of a horse is different from the class of race in which they run and as I shall be referring SPECIFICALLY to the races run, here is I how I produce...".

He also pointed out that "I appraise each horse's record from 2yo (flat racing) and this should prove useful to serious punters".

He went on "The draft concerned Roushayd and this is the one I will be evaluating in MORE DEPTH, but please keep in mind that in practice ALL HORSES receive the same attention".

He then gave a brief summary of Roushayds 2yo career and noted considerable improvement on his 2nd run at Newbury and stated "One way to note improvement is to equate race class with ratings achieved".

VDW set out the races involved by listing the finishing order in full with previous class, distance and position, but he analysed each race as if he was looking at it beforehand. In practice he would have been and that is a key point so many are completely missing I feel.

In the 2nd race he noted that "the three with a run and the highest race class, Shimshek,Ala Hounak and Merce Cunningham were an odd bunch. Neither Shimshek nor Ala Hounak have much in the way of class (AS HORSES) and both have shown they would be better over longer distance. Merce Cunningham does have some class."

Let's look at the ability ratings in this race down the card.

Iben Bey 316
Ala Hounak 46
Roushayd 231
Chauve Souris 34
Golden Isle 29
Merce Cunningham 56
Milton Burn 28
Our Eliaso 17
Shimshek 19

One further point of interest was in the Northern Dancer, the 3rd race where he noted "..and Failiq, 2nd to Billet last time, had been dropped a long way in class. Nothing in that race hinted at a reversal this time."

Fulham,
As VDW was writing under an alias, how would the intimidators know who to intimidate? No-one knew who the man was except for Tony Peach (and he only knew partially), despite people combing voter lists and suchlike. Surely youre not suggesting there was an enlightened group of racing adepts who jealously guarded certain hidden secrets and would stop at nothing to ensure those secrets didnt find their way into the public domain? This is getting a bit far-fetched!
regards

Statajack

As I said, it is just one suggestion that has come my way - I have no idea whether it is true. It would, however, be consistent with the phrase in VDW's Feb. 1996 letter to Tony Peach: "you [Peach] will remember I received words of warning at the time and as you know they came true." (I fully accept that those words could have other meanings.)

As regards the possibility of intimidation and violence, it is not unknown in this broad field. The family of a fellow contributor to this thread has received an intimidatory visit from thugs connected to a tipster or similar whose scam our colleague helped to reveal.

As regards VDW's true identity, don't forget that it was known to Raceform - they, after all, published his booklet and there would have been correspondence etc over drafts, copyright, fees etc. (That said, the current Managing Director, with whom I have been in correspondence on the matter, says no records have survived - which, as a professional historian, I can say is not untypical of private sector organisations.)

GUEST,

yet another insightfull post, thank you.

vdw also points out in that piece that class and form combined are the two principal ingredients to finding winners.

A question if I may,

in the first race vdw passed comment that "other seasonal debut horses require a run or two" what do you think led vdw too that view?

Guest,

A little surprised by your patronising tone in your post yesterday. While I agree a10 year old could see the OBVIOUS points in the article, what about the not so obvious? I ask again is it coincidence that if the process AS SHOWN also finds the winning selections of many of the other earlier examples? Once again I think you are ignoring the logic, and explanations given by VDW. All this to make a x check work as the main method.

Barney thinks your last post was enlightening, I can't see it. All it does is copy the passages nearly word for word. You have said in the earlier post these words are not correct and there are other (hidden) reasons for backing the selections. I can understand why you need to be right, as you have years of records that are useless if your not. I think it was a pity Fulham answered the question about Roushayd being in form as it was aimed at you. The way Fulham has suggested is the only way, but not really satisfactory. To takes a lot of faith to believe just because one horse has improved, that will apply to other horses from the same race. I would rather believe VDW was right and the way he worked eliminated the need for that aspect of form reading. If you can show me a VDW example were this is the ONLY way of solving it I will of course apologise.

Fulham,

I think there is a very big difference in the two examples. In the first VDW explained in detail how he found the answer. The fact he didn't explain how he arrived at his ratings doesn't distract from the fact he said he used them. In the Roushayd example he gave definite reasons, and had a hidden agenda?? A big difference, why do it? If he did!!

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I think it possible we are at cross purposes. When you refer to two examples, are we discussing the same two? I was comparing the circumstances which made First Division the c/f (in my opinion) in the first race Roushayd contested in 1988 (the race at Newmarket on 14/4/88) and those which made Roushayd (again in my opinion) the c/f for the Old Newton Cup in July 1988.

Fulham,

Sorry, I was talking about the two examples (Prominent King and Roushayd) in the way VDW explained them. In answer to your first post today.

Be Lucky

Mtoto/Fulham
i apologise for saying this,But no matter what you say,The way you go about it,Guest will never lower his guard.The amount of work involved in sorting out a from b is quite hard.I personally feel that Guest made 2 errors lately,Using my perception of the methods.

1/ parasol had the beating of Adiemus in the book
2/Pablo was well worthy of a single bet,With absolutely no need for a book to be made.

I base my analysis on recent examples given as good things,And a lot of what happened in the past.

Mtoto

Thanks.

I agree that there was a considerable difference in the extent to which he explained the Prominent King and Roushayd examples, and I think the rationale is to be found in VDW's letter of February 1996 to Tony Peach, where he wrote:

"When I first began to write for Sports Forum it was clear that to splash the whole lot in front of your readers would be a pointless exercise and only by adding bits as time went by could it be hoped that a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership would eventually see the light."

Now, that may, of course, be a post hoc rationalisation, but to me it fits the facts. The introduction of the two up front ideas (and less obvious ones) in the PK article, the ability rating in the "Method not Rules Needed" article, the notion of the class/form horse in the 26/1/85 article, etc etc.

By the time of the Roushayd article, VDW might reasonably have hoped that all that he had shown previously had been taken on board, and in that February 1996 letter he explicitly said that in the published version of "Systematic Betting" he "took the cautious step of only advancing my methods slightly".

No doubt people will have differing views as to what, precisely, that slight advance was, but in my view the most important element of it is contained in the main Roushayd section, chapter 5, which helped in identifying parameters for the application of the "missing link" process.


Investor

For me it is not a question of getting Guest to "lower his guard", as you put it. Guest has made it crystal clear that he will not spell everything out, and a very good thing, too. But he has been known to give some clues to those of us deeply engaged in trying fully to understand VDW's approach, and for that we are very grateful.

As you know, I share your view on Adiemus/Pablo, but alas carelessness meant I got there after the race rather than before it.

mtoto,

many who are trying to get to the bottom of VDW's unexplained methods would have not recognized the importance of the passages that Guest points out, even less so given them the consideration they deserve.

Fulham
A good example of a vdw good thing as just gone in at liecester TARAWAN after the event i know,Drifted alarmingly in the market from 1/1 to 7/4 but nevertheless the horse's form was there to be seen well before the race was run.You can stick up for Guest as much as you like,But he drops b......s just the same as we do

Investor

I agree re Tarawan: a clear c/f with, arguably, only one other form horse in the race.

As far as I'm aware, Guest has never claimed to be the Pope: indeed he has acknowledged mistakes from time to time on this very thread. And that is to be expected, because VDW's approach is complex: contrary to what some obviously think, it is not just a question of adding up a few figures. (Even if it were, I for one would still make the odd mistake!).

Fulham
i (like you) have been folowing this thread from the very start.Iv'e learn't a lot and also made some money along the way.the thing that bugs me more than anything is,Guest will never acknowledge the merits of others involved in the thread.he seems to think that his way is the be all and end all of the matter.Which to me is a very arrogant attitude,I ask nothing of guest or anybody else involved with this thread,To be quite blunt,i don't need it.

GUEST/FULHAM
A few points from Systematic Betting;
Doing it your way, and with Roushayd not a form horse, doesn't that make Merce Cunningham a 'good thing'?. VDW didn't think so!
In the 'Make Racing Pay' series, the piece was entitled 'The MYTH Of The Missing Link' and in that passage, VDW went on to explain that his method had been set out IN SOME DETAIL in March 1981. Unless, of course, we assume he was lying again, does that not clearly suggest that;
A) There was no missing link.
B) That he had in fact set it out in some detail, and not, as your method needs to make it fit, cleverly disguised it with innuendo.
I do know, for a fact, that my interpretation fits with all the Roushayd examples, and without any subterfuge.
Did anyone answer my question on Desert Orchid?

[This message was edited by johnd on March 27, 2003 at 05:22 PM.]

johnd
in your last post to me,you spoke about consistency,The only way i can express my views on desert orchid are consistent,in every sense of the word.If you want to go further with the example then let's do it,But my guess is you don't need to,Iv'e slagged you off in the past,And i still think yourself and Guest /fulham aren't a million miles apart in your evaluations,And maybe you should look deeper into what is being imparted.Both of them (believe it or not) are trying to be helpful.

Investor

I think Guest believes that he has sussed the essence of VDW's approach (I certainly believe he has), and from that position many other contributions to this thread (from me as well as others) must seem either facile or perverse.


Johnd

I'd be interested in why you think that, working the way I do, Merce Cunningham would emerge as a good thing. If you'll set out what leads you to that conclusion, I'll gladly comment.

Similarly, if you'll spell out your question re Desert orchid (which I've clearly missed), I'll gladly try to answer it.

Fulham
don't get me wrong,i'm not for one minute slagging guest off,he has contributed to this thread over the last year,And helped a lot of posters ( including both of us ) i fully agree that he's sussed the methods,but still there are are differing views coming from various parties.if you actually look at johnd's interpretation the similarity's are there,Especially regarding the Paco venture argument.i still feel that we should bring our heads together,rather than smashing them into each other i'm sure it would be benefficial in the long run.

Investor

It is as if Johnd were interested in cricket, while I'm interested in tennis. Nothing inherently wrong with either, but they are not the same. In furthering my understanding of the niceties of tennis I'm interested in the views of others who know more than I do about tennis, and I'm not much interested in cricket.

Fulham
lol,Well that's one way of looking at it.But if you actually LOOK at the particular example i mention,the clash is understandable.

mtoto,

some help in guests post you may not have investigated/appreciated yet.

failiq is very similar to petronisi, oof.

there are specific circumstances where these types will not be out of form.

ie horus and adiemus to name but two recent ones.

these exhibit circumstances when a reversal is possible/likely.