May I suggest you readthe post again, but this time engage the other 3 cells

Johnd

The point you make re Mr Dinos is a fair one: on a close reading of the form he probably was the more likely stayer. On the other hand, Mamool appeared the classier horse, and the going was something of a question mark with Mr Dinos. With hindsight, possibly the prudent option would have been a two horse book, which could probably have been contrived at evens.

I agree, too, about the draw. New Seeker's win yesterday was referred to as a fluke (from the draw point of view) on Attheraces just now, but Attache's win from the same side forced the commentators to eat their words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnd:
Unlike many on this thread, it is my view that VDW was a logical person with commonsense views on racing. That he honed this logic to the point where he was able to sort out the wheat from the chaff is generally accepted on this thread. How he did it is the big question?
In the Gold Cup yesterday, I, along with most of the rest of the country, had it down to the first 2 in the betting. I didn't bet, because it appeared a guess as to which would stay the distance better. In hindsight, that is not the case.
Reading through the form again, using nothing but the simple and logical processes he openly illustrated, Mr Dinos had met Mamool once before over this course, over 2m, run at a slowish pace, in a gp3 race. The form read respectively;

Mamool.....LED 3 OUT, KICKED CLEAR 1 OUT, HELD ON TOWARDS FINISH.

Mr Dinos...UNABLE TO QUICKEN WELL OVER 1 OUT, STAYED ON AgAIN FINAL FURL., CLOSING AT FINISH.

Since that race M had 3 more races, all over shorter, culminating in his best perfomance, over York's sharper 14f, a gp2 run at a good pace, where he was hard ridden and stayed on well to lead near the finish.
Conversely, Mr D.had had 2 races, the first over 2m at Longchamp in heavy ground, a gp1, run at a modest pace, where he made all and ran on well.
His next run was over Sandown's stiff 2m, a gp2 run at a decent pace, where he led 2 out, and was pushed out to beat inferior opposition.
It is my firm view, (Once again, in hindsight), that had VDW studied this race, he would himself have used consistency, class, etc, to sort out the 2 principals, but would have made his final selection, Mr Dinos, on the grounds of capability, not using any 'missing links', or ' idiosyncratic form reading', but the simple tools he gifted us in SIAO, and that Mr Dinos would have been a GENUINE VDW SELECTION, simply on the probability of one staying better than the other.
A similar case, using the same skills, could have been made out for New Seeker, in the last, and although the draw once again proved contentious, this, once again, (Except when the course had been unevenly watered), proved to be more in the heads of the jockeys than factual.

---

Johnd,guest,fulham
I have not read every page in this thread but I doubt if any are as informative or bare bones as this one(578)
I must admit I have had my arguments with guest & fulham(still feeling bad about abusing u in one,apologies again) before, but have to admit they are really on the ball as far as VDW goes.
Johnd
In a trial race last year for the St.Leger bandari held on by a rapidly subtracting 1/2 length from Bollin Eric and went into the big race as a hot fav.I had won a few quid from Bandari prev, and let my heart rule my head as my head was saying Bollin Eric would outstay Bandari over 2f longer.Johnd this post set alarm bells ringing in my head as I deduced exactly what you mentioned about Mr.Dinos & Mamool,although I was working and had only a small stake on him.Do these examples exemplify what I have been rattling on about for a while about the last two furlongs of a race?
I think they do.Many of VDW's selections quickened or ran on strongly at the end,in races preceding his writings.
Maybe we might have unearthed another wee clue to his mystique.What do you all think?

Bio,
Ive lost the book (silver lining) but one of the contributors stated the methods had a lot to do with weeding out non-stayers amongst the probables, re - f.chester (alverton) bus trips n`fares maybe?.

BT

There is no doubt at all that, in what I am sure is an important paragraph in the "Spells it all out" article, VDW indicated that it was "most important" to note how horses "performed in the later stages of each race".

In practice, though, I for one find it difficult to know how to evaluate this information, which is often conflicting. To take an early example, Battlement, and concentrating on the horse's last three runs, we have (from the Life's form section):

3rd last race (1.5m): "never troubled leaders";
2nd last race (1.25m): "progress 3f out, challenged two out, soon led, comfortably";
last run (1.5m): "progress approaching three furlongs out, not reach winner".

I simply don't know what can reasonably be deduced from such comments, and therefore whether they strengthen the sense that he would be a good bet for his next run (over 1.5m, at markedly higher class than his two previous 1.5m races, but comparable to the class of his 1.25m race).

Neither does studying the last runs of relevant horses always help. Comments like "ran on strongly" (My Therape); "ran on well" (Love from Verona) and "stayed on well" (Fair Season) obviously encourage. But "not quicken" (Baronet and Lyric Dance); "one pace final two" (Pragmatic) and "led over two furlongs out till headed and weakened below distance" (Philodantes) don't exactly encourage.

All this really just to say that, while one tries to glean what one can from such comments, and obviously it is one of the elements in the whole that is the VDW approach, I think that is all it is. But others have probably been able to glean more from this aspect of VDW than I have.

Fulham
I have the lit in the loft and as I said before it will be like looking for a needle in a haystack, trying to find them.
What tracks were his 3rd last run+class,2nd run+class,last run+class-his eventual 1.5 win + how many runners were in each race,also what was the going in all four races.I can see the need for these books again and rather than trying to find them I would buy them new-thats how much I would rather not look for them.
I had if I remember racing in my system+golden years-I never had systematic betting.Are there any others?

BT

There are eight books/booklets which are wholly or partly relevant:

"The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil",
"The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune",
"Betting the VDW Way",
"Racing in My System",
"Systems in my Racing",

are all compilations by Tony Peach, the first three being wholly relevant, the last two having relevant sections.

Then there is another Peach compilation called "The Silver Lining", which costs about as much as the other five put together and is to my mind of limited interest save for one letter from VDW not, as far as I know, published elsewhere.

VDW's own booklet, "Systematic Betting", has recently been re-printed.

Finally, there is a booklet entitled "Be A Winner" by Jock Bingham, which has two short pieces by VDW in it.

All are available from Browzers, (www.browzers.co.uk) and, no doubt, elsewhere, and Browzers used to, and probably still do, offer a "VDW collection" which I think comprises the first five items at less cost than if purchased individually.

Personally, I regard all but "The Silver Lining" as important, and if I was assembling the material from scratch I'd be hoping someone might send me a copy of the one letter in "The Silver Lining" that could also be so categorised. (A board member was kind enough to send me a copy, and I'd be happy to match his generosity. Indeed if anyone has a scanner and would be prepared to scan onto the thread a copy if I post (snail-mail) them one, that might benefit a number of members. I don't have a scanning facility. "The Silver Lining", overall, is to my mind an expensive catch-penny.)

Where abouts in the silver lining is the letter

As a fairly new recruit to this thread, you will probably not have been aware of my understanding of that particular line in SIAO. Others have different, and possibly valid, interpretations, most of which I am also aware of.
All I would say is that my interpretation is literal, and that, as far as I am aware, is the only one that makes complete sense in that it depends upon every single word of that passage for its basis.
There is little argument that capability was a conerstone of VDW's method, and to apppraise any race without due consideration for this aspect would be foolish. It is my firm view that capability cannot be properly appraised unless one considers every single aspect of that passage for every race analysed.
It is a fact that any one horse, no matter how consistent, will vary its performance under different circumstances. There is more to it than that, much more, but until one takes on board this way of reading form, progress with the method, no matter how fruitful, will be, in my view, unnecessarily limited. Indeed, used properly, it will often prove the final arbiter in the decision to bet.
Hope this helps.

The final 2 furlong comments that Fulham has highlighted from VDWs bets are exactly the reason I concluded long ago that VDW was not talking about race reader's comments. After all, it is someone's opinion, nothing more.

As to Mamool/Mr Dinos, it is obvious after the result that Mr Dinos has improved to a greater extent than Mamool. There was some indication of improvement in the fact that at Sandown, Mr Dinos eclipsed Bangalore who only last year had given lumps of weight to Mr D in the Plate at Newcastle. However, Bangalore was not involved at the business end of the race so there were doubts given that those that were involved were not in the same league as Warrsan and Bollin Eric. At the end of the day, the sensible bet was a book.

I'm still not clear about JohnD's reasoning though, because as far as I can recall he hasn't explained it at all. How does he go about finding the class/form horses?

A few others on this thread have deduced how I go about it and more often than not come to the same conclusions, but how would anyone arrive at JohnD's conclusions based on what he has said?

Boozer

The letter to which I referred is that to Mr Spiers on pages 8-10.

Are you seriously suggesting that the distance wasn't a factor?

Dear Mr Spiers,
Please excuse me for not answering your letter but regret that I have been ill for over a year and am often unable to attend business at all so would ask your understanding on this matter.
Regarding your letter to Mr Peach requesting information concerning a method I mentioned in an article published in S.C.H.B 2/4/83 which gave Desert Hero 20/1, Gaye Brief 7/1 Badsworth Boy 2/7 and Bregawn 100-30. I regret it is not possible to use Sporting Life as a substitute.
You will recall that the S.C.H.B. carried a 'Summary of Selections' in a small block for each meeting which represented the views of about 20 tipsters.
If you care to observe the races with the highest penalty value you will note that the winners are usually from the three market leaders, or put in a different way, horses which . . . for those who know the game, are fancied. For that
particular method it was the three most fancied from the 'Summary' and not the betting fcast otherwise you were well on the way to solving the problem. As I recall Desert Hero, which was amongst the three was top rated on time and I believe 'Split Seconds' nap, but as you say it did not feature in the F'cast.
There is always another mode of action when working from a logical basis and you may care to give some attention to the following in the light of what I said above and in the knowledge of articles I have written to S.C.H.B.
First of all delete EVERY hurdle race from the cards (This is ALL cards for the day).
From the chases delete all handicaps EXCEPT the one with the highest penalty value. Do the same with the non-handicaps so that you are left with the day's two best races (as far as this method is concerned). Note that it is not always the principal meeting that provides the races for consideration.
Observation will show you that the first two in the frcst and especially the favourite are prime candidates for the winner's enclosure. Please do not look upon this as a SYSTEM because it isn 't, what it will do is focus attention upon just four horses from the many and push the scales well in your favour.
There are three factors which govern success in racing, knowing what to look for, knowing where to find it, and the most important TEMPERAMENT. Anyone can be shown the first two, but the last is down to the individual and only mastery of that will bring about backing more winners than losers.
People can talk about value bets and all the rest of it but it still boils down to backing more winners than losers. I see no point or satisfaction in backing a 6/1 shot because it is value if it finishes down the field.
I have enclosed Saturday's 'cards' from the Daily Mail (not Towcester as it was not relevant). You will note that at Ascot Canny Danny was the class horse and had a pull of three pounds on handicap. This with other factors easy to see made Fitzgerald's horse a very fine bet indeed. On the other hand Townley Stone at Doncaster (which was called off) was a hefty 7lbs out on handicap and although his class could and probably would, enable him to score it wasn 't a wager I would want to take.
The previous day Direct Line and Zamandra were the candidates but if you care to observe all the factors you will understand why only Direct Line carried my money. You will note that again the same Malton trainer is
involved. Also last week Kumbi, Blue Reef etc were all sound wagers. Once you have grasped the essentials you will quickly see how to adapt for Flat racing. You may also care to observe the race with the least number of runners at the Principal Meeting.
Hoping these few words will be of help may I wish you the season's greetings and a fruitful 1985 on the race track
Kind regards C.Van der Wheil

Boozer

That is certainly the letter, and I hope those who may not have seen it before will find it a useful addition to the main VDW texts.

You are a star!

JohnD - Obviously the distance had a bearing, but the point was, neither horse had tried the extra 4 furlongs, but both had won at 2m. Mamool had tried 2m just once, stepped up 4f from his last race and beaten Mr Dinos. That was a year ago though and both horses had improved a lot since.

As I said, the correct decision should have been to back both as there was a doubt, but sometimes an exact result cannot be predicted based on the evidence. I might remind you that the trainer himself (those people that everyone thinks know exactly who is going to win every race) was very concerned about the going this week. In the event the horse improved and came on again, but there is no way that VDWs approach showed Mr Dinos having better form than Mamool. Interesting that Clive Brittain was keen to run Warrsan in the Gold Cup. I wonder where that would have finished?

There is more to VDW than one horse is better than another. That you refuse to see it is your problem.
Any rational person looking back at the result could only reasonably come to one conclusion; that Mr D is better than M over 2.5 miles.

Hardwicke Stakes
I have studied this race for 2 hrs and have used my usual method of isolating probable winners.
They are as follows
Balakheri 8
Bandari 9
Bollin Eric 9
Compton Bolter 4
Highest 9
Indian creek 5
Parasol 7
Princely Venture 5
Rawyaan 3
Zindabad 9
I find this an interesting race as on paper any of the 4 main protaginists could win.
In saying that if one looks at their finishing abilities my OWN summing up is as follows.
Bandari-Tends to hang on rather than quicken or run on strongly at the end of races+trainer+owner feels does not truely stay 12F.
Bollin Eric-Does seem to run on stronger than the rest but incurs 5lb Gp 1 penalty,would have been my selection without it and with less Firm going.
Highest-Does not seem to find a lot at the business end and is much like Bandari in that respect,however unlike Bandari Highest wants to come from behind.
Zindabad-Will want to lead, but so will Bandari,making it a furious gallop throughout,if the horse is as good as last year then would be a bet.
If there was more give in the ground Bollin Eric would have been the pick,even with his penalty as the race will be run to suit him.Unless anyone else can come up with a different angle, its a race between Zindabad & Highest with preference for the former as he has everything in his favour-essential for winning Gp 1's.

The letter to Mr Spiers is indeed a useful addition and its one I definitely hadnt seen before as I would surely have commented upon it.
Its contents appear to further support my contention that VDW used ratings (whether his own or commercial) to complement his method of selection. This would also explain why ratings were printed for the examples where he showed the numerical picture. Why bother if he was not going to use them in some way?
Its also interesting to note that all the form ratings I came across gave Mr Dinos the edge over Mamool....
regards,

Statajack,

In the context of your last post, how do you see things between Sun Bird, Timing, and Gralmano?