Boozer

The answer to your question is that there are numerous examples of VDW selections where probability in the sense you've quoted seems irrelevant. If we take, for example, one of VDW's better known examples, Roushayd, in the probability terms to which you refer his figures were 340, not a combination VDW gives but clearly down among the single figure percentages. In the same race, Tender Type's figures were 231 again, I think, not a combination VDW gives but likely to be in the mid 20%s.

Thus we have two horses - both, in my view, "form" horses - where, on the form of probability to which you refer, Tender Type was clearly much the more probable.

Of course, Roushayd was miles ahead on the "silly" ability rating, and as the c/f with everything in his favour (with the possible exception of Probability in the relevant sense, as I don't yet know what that was), he was, as VDW described him, a "dead certainty", and won accordingly.

Why for you does every example have to fit 100%
When he states it is a method not a system
Surely a method does not allow such rigidity
more like flexible/discretion or put in a broader sense

Flaunting the odds or not Flaunting the odds

Highly probable
or
Highly improbable

[This message was edited by boozer on October 02, 2003 at 08:01 PM.]

With kind acknw'gments to boozer - for finding it

quote:

---

The Letter to Mr Spiers

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

---

I take it all on board -

v-little "Stat Bashing" in here !!

However - plenty of "Good Basic" advice !!


tc



but no doubt - "Plenty to argue about" !!

[This message was edited by Tuppenycat on October 02, 2003 at 08:40 PM.]

Boozer

I certainly don't believe that the root of VDW's approach is a system, but I do think there are "rules" which form the essence of the approach, and from which he exercised discretion where there was good reason, eg Ekbalco.

I don't know what VDW meant by Probability when he included that as the fourth term in his equation. But having examined all the handicap examples in detail it would surprise me if he meant either of the two "probabilities" he discusses early in his writings (ie being within the first six in the betting forecast or being placed in the last three runs). There are simply too many exceptions for, in my view, either to be what he meant.

Amazing, VDW even says look at the race with the least number of runners.

Hi epi

glad to see you are still here !


Maybe I will convice, even you - that - VDW was no fool - even tho "some", manage to - paint him as so !

tc

Part of your quote

"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."

Can you see why?

Nope ! - not at this time of night anyway !!

I dont think that I need the "Books - etc" to "work it out" tho

Logicaly - the answer must ly in the previous text -

He is not going to go on an open forum and to refer to facts and information that 99% of the readers have no access to !


Tell me - "Why" - please -


I am just an ignorrant "Auss" who wishes to lay out his knowledge - and recieve some "silver" in return !

tc

re "Letter" and boozers question.

VDW clearly regarded the guy as a "new and nieve" punter who needed to be pointed in the right direction !

Why would he then pose an obscure unanwserable question, without giving some "Major" clues as to where to go ?? - he didn't - the answer is there - in the letter !!

tc

TC,

Unfortunately you have choosen a method were he didn't go into as much detail as with the 2 main methods. The information is now even harder to get hold of than the form books. Although it is possible Fulham may have some of it. However it was much easier to check all statements at the time of writing.

This is a completely separate method, and for someone to jump on the races with few runners makes as much sense as saying VDW did not back in hurdle races, or select horse outside the first 2/3 in the forecast. We all know these facts are not part of the main methods.

Boozer,

I'm well aware of what the speed man says, I just can't see how he works the class element into his figures. When you look at the times given for the races, and the same going allowance is used what ever the class of race at the meeting.

Be Lucky

MTOTO
You say you are surprised that I didn't ' Start something off'. I thought I had made it clear that I will not communicate in a one way flow of information.
You wish to keep your views on a private thread, yet you expect me to air mine on here. That will never be the case!
However, as you bring up Roushayd, I will give you something to ponder.
Why was he ridden differently in his victory to how he was ridden in his two previous defeats, a fundament of understanding form,yet something I will lay odds your 'Expert' mentors have never even considered?

John,

Reading this thread I would hardly call it a one way flow of information. I think many have given a broad idea of how they work. You, among others think it is wrong. Wouldn't the best way be to show how they/we are wrong? The only way to do that is to show us how and why.

As you know I'm disagree with some of the reasoning behind the ideas put forward. Guest, Fulham, etc. have gone to great pains to explain on this board how and why I'm wrong. I have explained as much as I can on a public board, but it is all there theirs, and mine.

I have no way of knowing how Roushayd ran when he won his races the season before. Equally no one knew how he was going to run in the ONC until after the race.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

As I know you appreciate, if one works from a set of "rules" relating to data that is in the public arena before a race is run, be they simple such as backing the top weighted horse in nurseries, or less simple such as those by which VDW established the class/form horse in a race, those who know the "rules" can independently check which was the "qualifier", either before or after the race. (Which is why you and I and some others see almost as much value in post race discussions as in pre-race.)

But as your reply to Johnd indicates, if the data is not in the public arena prior to the race, then only those with ESP have any chance. Fortunately, while getting to grips with VDW's approach requires the qualities I referred to in a recent post, ESP is not one of them!

FULHAM
Nothing to do with ESP. Just the reading and understanding of form in the way VDW intended.
There is though, a marked difference between 'learning' and 'understanding', a difference that you epitomise so very well!

Johnd

I'm second to none in my admiration of VDW, but even he didn't know what tactics would be employed before the race!

Fulham, you don't need VDW for your class B h'caps... you need ' measwell '... he's just given the first 3 home in the right order in the showcase!



Perhaps he's got this ESP stuff.

cheers IMP

DUMARAN
Well,well who have we got running in the big one tomorrow but none other than Dumaran-who for all you newer members sparked a big debate over a race on this thread back in May.
He has won CLASS races+does not get home over 10F,likes cut(whats the forecast+how much waters going on Newmarket)ran a decent race staying on at Ascot last time-held up at the back over 10F-All his wins have come when tracking the leaders-so never put into the race, and before his last run the quote from Andrew Balding, trainer of Dumaran
"Ideally we want a bit more rain, but he likes the course and has freshened up after a break."
He is also running from a mark of 91 exactly the same as his last win.I am not saying he will definately win as the race is a lottery-but he is interesting as he was sickened a bit due to a winter of hurdling.
Comments Fulham,guest or anyone.

hi everyone, does any member have a copy of van der wheils letter in which he mentioned beldale flutters race i believe in the mecca dante stakes where he mentions the value factor?...mtoto would it be possible to contact you.

grundy, do you have the 'ultimate wheil of fortune'?

There is a mention of BF and the Dante in his letter of Oct 10, 1981.

Can't see anything about a value factor though!

cheers IMP

Bio - In my view Dumaran is probably being aimed at the Rated Stakes handicap at Newbury at the end of the month, the race he won last year (and landed me a nice bet to boot). He's got no chance for me in the Cambridgeshire.

The most likely winners look to be Zabagalione,Jazz Messenger or Tug Of Love. If I had to pick one it would be Zabaglione, but the prices should allow a book to be made. However, it's a race I won't be backing anything to win in.