GUMMY
Having just seen your post, I will reply before I take my leave.
Had you taken any notice of my recent posts, you would have seen that any agression has been directed specifically at those who have tried to undermine your thread. Everything may be rosy in the garden at the moment, but the nuclear winter may well return, (Perhaps you should look who started the ball rolling after the last one?).
I have always remained loyal to this thread, never posting on any other, public or private, and likely never will, and in my own way, have contributed much to the discussion and understanding of VDW. It seems that I am to be rewarded in the same way as Swish, the originator of this thread.
That is your choice, though I would suggest, that before you stab anybody else in the back, you take a good look at their face, it may not be one of your enemies.
Goodbye.

Johnd

In an effort to be helpful - to others even if you won't allow for the possibility - consider this.

Toward the end of his "correspondence", in February 1996, VDW wrote Tony Peach a letter reprinted in the latter's "Systems in My Racing" which starts as follows:

"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 a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership would eventually see the light.

I had intended to give away everything in due time, but you will recall telling me that you had decided to call a halt to discussions of my methods in your column. That was fine by me, but only a fraction had been revealed at that time."

If we are to take this as authentic - and I can't see any reason why we should regard it as any less authentic than any of VDW's other letters or articles, surely you must agree it undermines the "single bullet" theory that you are putting forward - ie that there is a simple idea which provides the "solution" to VDW?

But of course there is that other quote that has been referred to lately:

"The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element had been chosen to fit into the method. Calculating consistent horses, ability ratings and everything else, providing you READ WHAT WAS THERE. The last in capitals because it was all there although a vital factor, call it the missing link if you like was not deliberately pointed out. It is there for you to see and it was not covered up, but until you approach the problem in the right way the odds are it will remain obscure. Once you find it everything will be so clear that you will wonder how on earth you could miss it and you will have the same horses as myself."

Can these two quotes be seen as consistent, or are they fundamentally inconsistent - in which case we have no basis for regarded one as more authoritative than the other, and you could be right?

I would suggest that there is no inconsistency, and these are my reasons for taking this view:

1) VDW had a basic method, the class/form approach, described virtually in those terms even prior to his first usage of the phrase "class/form horse" which I think occurred in his 26/1/85 article. (And it is my proposition, which can be discussed in a later post if anyone is interested, that the class/form approach is at the heart of what are often referred to, sometimes by VDW himself, as separate methods - "consistency", "winner in a race", "Roushayd", "Handicap Hurdles", "Chase", "Pegwell Bay" or "2yos to follow at 3");

2) a key part - though obviously not the whole - of what I'm calling the class/form approach is how VDW assessed which horses in any given race where "form" horses, and which were not. I believe that this is what VDW meant by "the vital factor call it the missing link if you like [that] was not deliberately pointed out". (It was pointed out but not signposted: many, including me, for years failed to notice that for VDW "form" and "consistency" were not synonyms, and even when we'd grasped that - in my case courtesy of Guest - it was necessary to work out what IN OPERATIONAL TERMS VDW meant by form when referring to it as one performance better than another.);

3) once the "missing link" as I see it is understood, then one "will have the same horses as myself", in the very specific sense that one will identify exactly the same horse in any given race as the "class/form horse";

4) but in the first of the two quotes at the beginning of this post VDW said "only a fraction had been revealed". How does that square with the notion that, once the "missing link" was grasped, we'd have the same horses as him? The answer to that, I believe, lies in the fact that, in adddition to the class/form approach, which he had "shown" us over the years, he had other methods on quite different bases, ie not the underlying class/form approach. VDW later (in his brief contribution to Jock Bingham's "Be a Winner"), gave us six selections he had found by one of these, writing that "this is done quite differently from anything I have shown to date". And my research strongly suggests that he was quite right - of the six "Best Bet/Next Best" method selections, four were "form" horses on the class/form basis (though not on that account selections). But two could not possibly be found even by a "generous" interpretation of the class/form approach: some other approach, about which I've not yet the semblance of a clue, was used to find them, and probably to show why four form horses which, on the normal class/form basis don't immediately shout "bet", were, for VDW, bets.

Now, obviously I don't know for sure that I'm right in my four numbered points above, but I suggest that they at least offer an interpretation that deals with concerns about inconsistencies between passages in VDW's letters and articles and, I think, provide a framework for understanding into which everything else VDW wrotes can readily be accommodated.

So much for logic. I want to offer two supporting arguments for the likelihood of the "complex" explanation over the "single bullet" one.

First, if there was a simple explanation, is it not likely that by now someone would have found it, and if not revealed it at least there would be some sense that it had been found. (By contrast, if I'm right, and the "solution" is complex and can only be found by the intelligent analysis of the examples VDW gave us, it is far less likely to have been found. How many, even of those genuinely interested in VDW, (a) have ALL the necessary Form Books and (b) can, hand on heart, say they have researched each and every example? I suspect that the answer, among contributors to this thread, and indeed to all the other boards and private groups of which I've been a member over the years, is a single digit one and, as a betting man, personally I'd wager on it being two).

Second, (and this truly isn't meant offensively), Guest, we know, is of the "complex" school - indeed he is one of my "two" above. You are the most consistent advocate of the "simple" solution, and some while ago posted to the effect that you'd researched at least some of the old examples but had suddenly come across the solution without them, and it was simple. Both of you contributed a worthwhile number of selections to the "80%" thread. While Guest would not, I think, see his performance there as characteristic of his strike rate generally, he nevertheless had a 25% strike rate, whereas yours was 4%. This is at least congruent with the idea what the true solution is more likely to be the complex" one rather than the "simple" one, though on the evidence of that particular "test" I can see why those sceptical of VDW's approach would not be dashing off to buy the two dozen or more old form books necessary, in my view, to discover the "missing link".

Finally, as I argued in a longish post a few days ago, discovering the "missing link" isn't the end of the story. By being able to sort out "form" horses properly, we will have the same class/form horses as VDW, but we still have to work out how VDW decided which c/fs to back, and that takes us into the "Capability" and "Probability" terms of VDW's equation. It is my belief that it is shortcomings in undertanding how VDW worked in these areas which is currently preventing some of us yet hitting that 80+% strike rate.

[This message was edited by Fulham on October 12, 2003 at 09:03 AM.]

[This message was edited by Fulham on October 12, 2003 at 09:05 AM.]

Fulham
Good read!

Fulham
A very interesting and informative read this is more like it sending me here and there
you mentioned VDW'S brief contribution to Jock Bingham's book be a winner, the horses he picked out are they any thing to do with Jock's other book 4 ways 2 win where Jock puts up some other races for evaluating or are they something different then in which case i'll have to go and buy a copy of it.

Also when you mentioned the 80% thread when you consider how VDW picked out his wagers he did say you would'nt find a bet all the time so why did most people expect a winner or two every day no wonder Guest got annoyed with it
sorry if any of it sounds weird but i'm hurrying to finish this as i've got a lot on today.

have fun

john d,
You posted this recently about Fulham "The man really has no scruples. Isn't it time you kicked him off, before he does any more damage to this board?

Has that really got anything to do with VDW?No,is the answer so I have made my point and will leave it at that for now.

Gummy

Michael

Before he killed himself, Jock Bingham wrote five booklets, four of which were published. The five set out his interpretations of aspects of VDW's approach, some of which were in my view more insightful than others. But only one of the booklets - that to which I referred - has anything in it directly by VDW.

Unlike some here (particularly perhaps those who bought some of his systems or joined his "odds to" service), I actually benefitted considerably from Jock's writings, and two of the methods in his "4 Ways to Win" provided me with 20-30 bets a year and an approx. equal number of points profit a year over some five or six seasons. But Jock's work is, at best, a partial and in some respects misleading interpretation of VDW's work.

My view is that, for those with very little time, the purchase of "4 Ways to Win", at a ridiculously small price (less than a tenner, I think) is probably the best investment they can make, and the sensible application of the methods therein will provide quite a lot of bets, and the good chance of showing a long term profit. But for anyone wanting to get to grips with VDW, the only one of the Bingham booklets which should be bought is "Be A Winner", and only the two very short pieces by VDW should be read. Indeed, as I hope my earlier post today made clear, even the value of those VDW contributions is questionable - they cover quite different ground to mainstream VDW and personally I have yet to come across anyone who is confident of having cracked the "Best Bet/Next Best" method.

I am new here and have an interest in VDW,i have read through this thread and found it most colourful.

Does anyone know the s/r in terms of races won by one of the top four rated for ability.
Also the top three rated for consistency and or both combined?
A rough estimate would do.

Ben
Im sure that there are some stats about the topics you are looking for somewhere on the VDW thread-a seach through this forum should uncover the relevant data
Bio

Ben

BT may be right, though I honestly don't recall them. The fact is that the two criteria you mention are actually of only limited interest to many VDWers and thus no one is likely to have done a survey sufficiently extensive as to be definitive.

At the micro level, of the four B grade handicaps yesterday, two were won by horses in the top four of the ability ranking, none by horses among those with the three lowest consistency aggregates. Subjectively, I would think that, for races with say eight or more runners, that is probably rather higher for the "ability" horses, and markedly lower for the "consistent" horses, than one would typically find.

The fact that people are now starting to include the relevent passages relating to the point, that they are trying to make - is most helpfull !! -

Not least to newcomers to the thread, who don't "have the books" - I think that giving people a regular - "Taste" - of VDW in this way, is the best way of giving them an incentive to "Buy the Books"


tc




Perhaps Gummy could give some thought in some way,-of- enabling these passages to be placed at a "Central" point on the Forum, so that a "LINK" can be put into the posting, to the passage ! - This would alow those familiar with the passage to read the argument "unclutered" whilst at the same time making the passage availible to those who wished to read (or Reread) VDWs words !!!

TC,

I've just has a look at the Traytonic race. I hadn't looked at it before because I seldom look at races for 2 year olds.

I don't use Top Speed but assume you do. I don't think his s/f is high enough to warrant a second look, and I don't have it as an improvement on the race before.

This said if you always use Top Speed, and it is an improvement, and you think the drop in class is significant enough. It is what you think that matters. I have no way of knowing, but doesn't Danzig River also follow the criteria you are looking for as well?

While I can see the logic of copying the passages for the relevant books it does raise a couple of points. These books are not expensive, and anyone with even a passing interest can afford them. How do we stand with copyrights issues? I think this idea that it is ok to use and share anything we want, and post it on message boards is a little unethical.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Thanks for the reply - It's good to have an experienced hand confirm the points about which I had reservations !

As it happens I thought that at 10/1 that made it a value "each way" bet, and I bet it as such - but to no significant money - certainly not my "Mortgage" !!

Re Time figures - I understand that there has been a change in the person who compiles the Topspeed figures for the Racing Post, now - Dave Edwards, and that only now is he begining to get up to speed. The alterative I am told is Dave Bellinham of Raceform Update, and I am going to take a close interest in his figures over the next few weeks.

I take your point about 2 year olds, - Even the Trainer is to a large extent "working in the dark" until he has run the horse a few times, - and "consitancy figures" may be a bit "hit and miss" - but by the back end of the season hopefully a "picture" begins to emerge !

Am I right in saying that VDW "avoided 2 year olds as well ??

tc



I still think that giving people a "Taster" of VDWs writings is a good way to encourage them to buy the books .

Personally I dont even look at 3 year old races. The degree of improvement is too unpredictable.

Epi
2 y olds + 3 y olds are dodgy bets for me, except in group 1 races, where a bit of improvement does not matter as much.IMO
Bio

Epi
2 y olds + 3 y olds are dodgy bets for me, except in group 1 races, where a bit of improvement does not matter as much.IMO
Bio

Epi
2 y olds + 3 y olds are dodgy bets for me, except in group 1 races, where a bit of improvement does not matter as much.IMO
Bio

Thanks for the reply.

BIO,

While I can understand we all have personal preferences, isn't the idea to work out now VDW worked?

If we knock out all 3 year old races, plus all the races with over say 15 runners. We aren't following the VDW examples as he had more than a few examples in this group.

He appreciated races for unexposed 3 years old had to be handled in a different way, he went into detail to explain it. He didn't have any qualms about them or big handicaps. so why should we?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Surely the aim is to use vdw's ideas to make money.
We do not need to understand everything he said or even try to.

Ben

VDW offered an inter-related set of ideas which, when used as a whole, works well. The individual parts do not work well, in the sense of making long term profits, when used alone: they weren't designed to be used in that way, and VDW never claimed they would be profitable if used that way.

You won't make money out of VDW without understanding his approach, and you won't understand his approach without putting in a great deal of hard work. But that is true for anyone making serious money, long term, from horse racing, whether by VDW's approach or any other.