Are VDW`s writings something akin to War and Peace or the Encyclopedia Britanica vis-a-vis volume. I like to read this thread but can only find references to a couple of pamphlets and the odd article. I don`t believe this argument can have been sustained for so long if it`s only the latter........just how much is there to read and understand?

Mtoto - The question as to which method provides which selection has arisen because in the past I have held back some of my selections from the board, but mentioned them after the event. This resulted in aqcusations of after timing,etc.

The race in which I found Lord protector amongst several possibles backed, featured the result of different methods. However, they all had class and form applied in much the same way.
LP was 3rd rated on speed/merit but you won't find his attributes in the last 3 runs. He was found via a completely different method to the consistency approach.

With Majed, it is clear to me that despite what you may say, you don't seem to understand some points I am making. Majed was left because he was not proven with the weight against that sort of class. BUT, he had won a better class of RACE last time out with much less weight. On this basis he had a lot in common with Canny danny at Sandown. Had Majed won a lower class of RACE last time then he would not have been considered much at all.

I tend to agree with Fulham that the demonstrations by VDW with Little Owl and A Wing & A Prayer were used to show those that stick out like a sore thumb, but at the same time gave some info on the bigger picture with those such as Gaye Chance, Kenlis, Justafancy and Ekbalco. In fact if you consider the Wing & A Prayer article, VDW is again scant on info for his 2nd bet Cool Gin and doesn't give too much away about a couple of well rated horses. He always did this when mentioning bets that APPEARED to go against his formula.

Ask yourself this. Why did no one address VDW on his selection of Ekbalco in the Imperial Cup at Sandown when the horse was beaten out of sight in a much lower class race last time out?

Then ask why VDW neglected to elucidate?

III

The actual volume of VDW's letters and articles is slight - significantly less than 200 pages (and those pages small, especially the 48 in "Systematic Betting" which measure approx. 4 inches by 6.25 inches.

BUT they introduce the reader to well over 100 examples (my own list includes 124), for none of which (in my view) all the necessary details are given in the letters/articles.

So if one was thinking about VDW as a course of study, one has several basic texts (the "Golden Years" and "Ultimate Wheil of Fortune" compilations, VDW's own booklet "Systematic Betting", plus a few other bits and pieces elsewhere) AND case material spread over some 30 or so Form Books (and, arguably, a need to be able to access relevant copies of the Sporting Life and Sporting Chronicle).

Others, of course, believe that the essence of VDW is set out in one or two of the more often cited articles, especially one subtitled (by the sub-editor of the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book, not VDW) "Van Der Wheil Spells It All Out", which appeared in March 1981 (and is reprinted in "The Golden Years"). And as far as I can see one of our number believes the essence is contained within one short paragraph - even just one sentence - of the "Spells It All Out" article.

I was going to write about the change in VDW from his early letters to what you people have made him, pointing out how this was consequent to him underestimating the stupidity of his correspondents but why bother? After all the problem here is also the unimaginable stupidity of the members of this thread. So, I'll just ask if any of you people have read Braddock? Braddock also says that a strike rate of nearly 100% is available for those who only bet when everything is lined up, Braddock doesn't have any crap about adding prize money or place figures, he gives a bunch of worked examples, he explains simply how to decide a value price, etc. What's meant to be special about VDW other than it's doubtfulness?

Thankyou Fulham, it would appear my beliefs are unfounded.

Was there a comic version..........for the likes of Investor, LOL

Epi, my stupidity isn`t unimaginable, it`s fairly simple.

quote:

---

Originally posted by epiglotis:
I was going to write about the change in VDW from his early letters to what you people have made him, pointing out how this was consequent to him underestimating the stupidity of his correspondents but why bother? After all the problem here is also the unimaginable stupidity of the members of this thread. So, I'll just ask if any of you people have read Braddock? Braddock also says that a strike rate of nearly 100% is available for those who only bet when everything is lined up, Braddock doesn't have any crap about adding prize money or place figures, he gives a bunch of worked examples, he explains simply how to decide a value price, etc. What's meant to be special about VDW other than it's doubtfulness?

---

Epiglotis

Yes Braddock's book was very informative and useful. The same goes for Clive Holt, particularly 'Be A Successful Punter' which was as good an example of a method in action as I can remember reading. The latter used placings as a means of reducing the numbers to investigate. When I first started trying to select winners my youthful brain considered it easiest to look at those with winning and placed form, as that was 'likely' to be the best form. Not 'must be' or 'is', just 'likely' to be the best form.

However, we are here to discuss Van Der Wheil, not Braddock. Van Der Wheil's method is not the only successful method but it's one that works for a fair number of people.

It seems to me that your argument is rapidly boiling down to 'if you don't agree with me you are wrong'. If you consider that Braddock is worthy of discussion then why not set up a Braddock thread?

Rob

Mister Ed
Thanks very much.email karensparkes1@ntlworld.com that's my wife by the way not me.

I am discussing the method of VDW, specifically I'm asking why people persist with it when there are equally effective alternatives that are communicated in a straight forward manner. Personally I'm interested in as a broad a range of views as are available, that however doesn't appear to be what's going on here. I have said before that I have no interest in being 'right' in other people's eyes nor in following someone else's method.

Guest,

Thanks for your reply on Lord Protector. As you are VDW orientated to such a strong degree I can only assume it is a VDW method, although I can't find it mentioned. The interesting point about this selection is the fact you say it is based on speed/merit. Can I ask why this method of rating ability is being used, on exposed horses at this time of the year?

The other thing I find very interesting is apart from one horse (Al Aali, can't understand why it was included in the four) by applying a simple guide line you could have had the winner in one. Also using this method why are Certain Justice and Barking Mad not considered in the best four? Can I ask was LP a selection using this method, on the 10/8/02 at Newmarket? Right course, right weight, dropped in class.

I can't really comment on Ekbalco, as I haven't any information on the race. I will though ask, if he was beaten out of sight in a lower class race how is he a form horse? I expect it must be based on one of his other runs, or was he giving lumps of weight to all that finished in front of him?

Be Lucky

Guest,
I appreciate what you are saying but the initial numerical picture is of such importance that it constitutes the main reason as to whether or not to pursue a race to see if there is a bet. Dont take my word for it though, pick some races and apply it. There will be quite a few races where the winner may not fit the complete picture but in almost all the races where there is a messy picture, the winner will not be the class/form horse. As VDW constantly reminded us, it was the ones which stood out, and only those, that are the ones worthy of support.

Fulham,
I was quoting from SIAO to illustrate a point and yes, its not that simple - as well you know, so dont be so obtuse. Love from Verona was a winner in its race from the numerical picture, as was Rifle Brigade and all the early examples before the ability rating was introduced. Try them if you dont believe me. Those examples were chosen with a reason in mind. Why did Spiers and Chester manage to do so well, being as they were, unaware of the ability rating?

Barney,
I'm certain on at least 2 saturdays I put up a list of horses that had come through the numerical picture pre off. No matter, all my claims are easily checkable today as they are not dealing with form interpretation at all. The required info is still there now as it was pre race. You can approach the races in question as though they were taking place tomorrow if you wish. Thought and interpretation dont come into it at the numerical picture stage, one is just compiling data.
But, the fact that the variables were so carefully chosen that even at this stage just punting the "winner in the race" will bring profits (in a similar but better way than the Van Der Mail system on another thread which also stops at an early stage) shows just how clever VDW really was.
regards,

Statajack

If you really believe that the ability rating was only used from the Diamond Edge example onward you are touchingly naive.

And even if you were right (not a chance in a thousand) some of the other examples to which I referred - Righthand Man, Desert Hero - were well afterwards.

In a closely reasoned post, and with explicit references to the facts, I have shown you that the approach you espouse is merely part of the story. As you are content to stop part way, good luck to you, but the view from further along is an altogether more pleasing (and profitable) one.

statajack,

I remember the selections very well, I agreed with them all, apart from the analysis of the minor races.

You are right of course that you will not go far wrong with the sore thumbs, providing you have the temperament. Something that I am sure you have.

but there is more to be gleaned, from further study of numerous pointers.

Fulham,
Until now we've normally agreed on matters VDW, but you seem to be going to great lengths to avoid giving me a direct answer. The proof is in the pudding as they say so why not try to prove me wrong?
Maybe, as you claim, the ability rating was used from PK onwards by VDW, it matters little. If as you never tire of reminding us, everything was done for a reason by him, why were they not originally mentioned? How were G. Hall and F.Chester able to get a handle on the methodology without recourse to them? Its hard enough for people now-are we to suppose that these two individuals were able to work them out and apply them correctly without any printed statement as to their existence? If so, I would suggest that these 2 gentlemen are much more worthy of having an internet forum devoted to them than VDW, seeing as they are able to add clairvoyance to their form reading skills!
regards,

Statajack

I'm usually happy to try to answer a direct question (though there are some I won't answer).

Your first question is why did VDW not introduce the ability rating earlier? In my view, VDW answered this question himself, in his letter of February 1996 to Tony Peach, reprinted in "Systems in My Racing".

Your second question is how were G. Hall and F.Chester able to get a handle on the methodology without recourse to them [which I take to be ability ratings]? Hr Hall certainly named four horses VDW said were good things. I think he found them by following the "Narrow the Field to Gain Winning Strip" approach, and then simply applied decent conventional form reading to the qualifiers. As regards Mr Chester, I am aware of several contributions from him reprinted in "The Golden Years", none of which suggests to me that he had any "handle on the methodology".

Mtoto,

Ekbalco was 2nd rated on the ability rating for the race in question.

1st rated on ability was definately not a form horse.

Ekbalco`s form figures leading upto the race were 42139.

The win was over the same course and distance namely Sandown in class £9888 where he won cleverly recording a speed figure of 80 carrying 10-00.

His next run, class £7190 with 11-13 ( incl` 8 lbs penalty ) saw him finish 3rd.

2 month break followed when he ran in class £3071 with 11-13 finishing 9th. Raceform comments = l.w. hld up bhd, never dangerous.

VDW wouldn`t say it in print and I suppose I ought to be careful but if that run was in front of todays stewards the jockey and horse would be having a long holiday.

Although I haven`t looked at the opposition in any great detail it looks as though his ability rating and his high class earlier win were far and above anything else in the field.

Ekbalco, I guess was that winner in the race.

*** should you want any further info` on this example feel free to ask ***

Cheers,

Guest/Fulham,

A little while ago I stated I thought the c/form (method) was a x check. Fulham answered he didn't think so, as I had misplaced my notes I didn't go into any more detail. I have since found them.

VDW begins his article on the method he used to find Desert Hero with the words....

{All these were achieved with the aid of nothing more than can be found each day in the Sporting Chronicle.}

If this is correct the best the c/form can be is a x check. What isn't explained is this x check applied to all the horses in the race, or just the relevant few. Desert Hero wasn't highlighted because he was a c/form horse. It may well be the final reason. I think this is why so many of the selections fit the bill of being c/form horses. When VDW explained how he arrived at the c/form horse he started by saying the once a year man could use this method. Again not the sort of person who would keep records. Do you really think this person would understand the intricacies of true form? He then pointed out of the 6 selections only 2 were to be backed. Which 2? the consistent ones.

He gave another example of how to narrow the field, and then said Soaf could be found by using the same method. Many have since told me the favourite was out of form, or the form not strong enough. The simple fact is the favourite wasn't included in the short list. If the c/form formula is applied to the short list hey presto another success for the class/form.

Any thoughts on this angle?

Determined.

Thanks for that. I have a couple of questions, how many horses in the race had a better consistency rating than E? How many days between the the bad run, and the win?

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

The consistency ratings from the 1st five in the STARTING PRICE forecast are

4/1 Run Hard 14
8/1 Ekbalco 13
Random Leg 10
Applalto 13 (?)
Walnut Wonder 10
9/1 Bealnablath 17
10/1 Bootlaces 24
12/1 News King 12


Ekbalco`s previous run was 12 days before ( clearly a pipeopener )



Newbury Spring Cup ( tomorrow )

I`d be interested in your thoughts ( after the race if necessary ).

Cheers,

Mtoto - I have never said that speed is no use. I have re-iterated VDWs view though that speed is no use without form.

Lord Protector had won just one low class maiden on the AW, but from his record in hcaps was clearly better than that. He did seem to find one too good though most runs, but his best form and speed figures showed him to have talent, but not being placed to capitalise on it.

I only bypass higher rated ability horses if the method deems them to be either out of form, or not a form horse for the race. I would not bypass one because it was not one of the consistent horses, a point amply demonstrated by VDW in his 6 class/form horses for Boxing Day. Consistency was not the sole reason for betting Zamandra and Stray Shot. In fact other consistent c/fs were left anyway so that cancels out that argument. No, there was a much clearer reason and it is all to do with the very factor that so many think I have wrong. yet, Investor is just one of a few who seem to have finally understood the point I have conveyed over the past year. I'm sure Investor and others hopefully have checked the idea with these two horses and no doubt the penny has dropped.

Determined - You seem to have noted some very good points re Ekbalco especially concerning the short period between Doncaster and Sandown and in contrast the lengthy absence before.

So who`s got the biggest dick so far?