Epi
Have had a look for you, and as far as I can see it is all there. G Hall's letter was no.14, so you only need up to 13.

Black Cat
To clarify, AlanB is/was Fulham. I see he is still desperately casting his net in the hope that one day he may land the fish that will give him the answer he craves. Don't get suckered in!

Thanks.

I dont understand, letter 8 appears to be in response to G.Hall??

It was the same G Hall, but letter 8 was a response to VDW's first letter, "the key" was introduced in 14.

Epi
Letter2:
"Most weeks Sports Forum is a mixture of rubbish,slanging and frustration to the point of exasperation, a sure road to the knacker's yard.Only once in a while do we get real gems among the contributions. On Jan 12, Win, Brighton, makes a useful contribution but ends by asking 4 questions, all of which I can answer. But it would have been better if HE had done so for the benefit of the unitiated. If he and others will come clean, I myself am prepared to offer proven winning ideas. Between us we can really set this page alight. After all, none of us knows the lot, but with a combination of knowledge we can really go places".

Letters 8 & 13 are on the 'Extra' thread, the only other letter he wrote prior to 14 was no.7,was a staking plan, and totally unrelated to his method.
Hope this helps.

Okay, I think I get the picture. This passage you quoted is one that I find interesting as it's quite clear that at that point VDW didn't view himself as the "teacher" he's later portrayed as.

I've re-read those letters and looked at today's races. In my opinion the only races that are "on" are the 2:50 at Warwick and the 4:45 at Windsor, by following the method described I take the selections to be Vindication and Bayhirr respectively. Incidentally I see nothing cryptic or key-like in either letter.

Tony Peach described VDW as 'a modest and unassuming person'.
Bearing in mind that, only 3 months after letter 2, he wrote of 29 winners from 32 selections, that line could have been attributed to his modesty.
It is no surprise that you couldn't find a 'key' in those 3 letters; many on here have spent much more time and come to the same conclusion. However, G Hall and the RSUK correspondent did find one, so perhaps all is not lost?

In G.Halls first letter, he describes himself as a "Novice" -

This I regard as very important . -- VDW is therefore addressing his reply to this catagory of punter !!!!

Don't then look for deep and hidden meanings in these early letters !!


Letters 8 and 13 describe 2 completly separate "methods" - The mistake often made is to combine "all" of VDWs writings, and to assume that he was trying to lead us logicaly towards Nirvana --- WRONG - if that was so, then there would be no long long intervals between the letters - they would be more logicaly structured !!!


Letter 8,

describes to a simpleton - a simple way of increasing the chances of finding the winner. -- Note that he refers to the staking plan that he gave earlier, which features up to 4 losses in a row !!!!

no reference here to 80/90 % winners !!!

Just take the method as it is, stand alone - good advice !


Letter 13,

Introduces a new concept, and argues against Methodmakers bias towards betting forcasts.

VDW argues that Form figures give better results, and goes on to point out that some of his winners did not even feature in the betting forcast !

The "KEY" to this letter is that he is talking and refering to "percentages" !!!!

He gives the % strike rate for each of the placing combinations -- then goes on to give the % strike rate for the Three most consistent horses !! -- talking about 99% 95% 90% etc.

At the end of the letter he talks about his own strike rate as being inside this area - with a strike rate of 29/32 !

It is blindingly obvious that he is saying that if you take the 3 horses with the best three consisency figures - and "Dutch" them, then you can achieve that sort of strike figure. !!!!


Nothing to do with earlier or later letters - just another - Simple stand alone system - for simple novices !!!!


Now - who wants to shoot me down in flames ???


tc

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

The Key or Not the Key That is The question


I dont know if its been put up before but heres F Chesters Letter and VDW's Answer

F.Chester of St Albans was also mentioned, and his letter written on April 19 is appended below:
(JJT) PAYS TO PLAY PERCENTAGES
LAYING it on the line, I think the key to Mr Van der Wheil's method of preliminary evaluation lies in his own percentages. They support his device of adding together the figures for the last three placings and at the same time provide a means to eliminate a great many races. They direct attention to the races offering the most exposed form.
Having found a race worth attention on this basis you then need to apply suitable tests to the five or six leading horses in the forecast. Personally, I would apply tests of speed and recentness of form. Mr Van der Wheil's unspecified methods must surely be in those areas.
If no clear choice emerges from methodical study, one of two things should become plain, the competition is too keen to justify a bet or the winner must be looked for among the outsiders.
Mr Van der Wheil's betting forecast device helps concentrate attention. With that help I backed Alverton for the Gold Cup. What I added in personal method can be summed up as follows.
Alverton and Night Nurse had the most recent good form. Alverton, however, had won on the course and was considered to have the stamina to justify entry in the Grand National. - F.Chester, St Albans.


In this letter on May 24, VDW answers J.P.Hollis, A.Duncan and F.Chester: 20 Dutchman states: 'No magic formula'
LAST year, in response to a challenge, I submitted what to my mind is a very elementary method of finding winners with the remark that it may provide food for thought. Apparently it did and although I feel enough was outlined for readers to grasp the idea it is obvious that many have failed to do so. Possibly because one contributor introduced what he called the 'Key' readers have sought what is not there in the form of some magic formula (A reference to G.Hall, SEE 15).
If it will assist J.P.Hollis, A.Duncan and F.Chester, the latter has by the way, gone a long way towards the ultimate conclusion, may I suggest they first look to the prize money and type of race. Good consistent horses are not to be found in a £500 seller but they are in a £5,000 handicap. Saturday, April 14 provided only five races from all cards worth consideration, Kempton 2.00, 2.30, 3.05, Newcastle 2.30 and Towcester 2.15. If they care to read again my first letter and apply the principles, they will find five winners, Proven, Man of Vision, Sofronoff, Baptism and Mitchelstown. It does not follow that a good thing always shows from the preliminary mechanical procedure; this can only be determined from a close study of Form and associated aspects. However, the mechanical part does isolate a narrow area that consistently produces winners. Something for nothing is a myth, a great deal of hard work has to go in also, if you care to put the method into a logical formula it is quite simple. Constant Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners.
Therefore, first look for good class stakes and handicaps. At present values and these are constantly changing, a novice chase or hurdle with prize money £3,000 upwards will attract horses worth looking at, but elsewhere values are different. On the Flat caution is needed in the early part of the season, especially in races confined to three-year-olds, when some of the field did not run as two-year-olds. Better to confine interest to races for all aged horses until a full understanding has been gained.
Ratings are also part of a mechanical procedure and should be regarded as a guide and not the be-all and end-all. A top-rated horse on a time basis is not much good if Form does not support it. Also ask the question, which is the better performance?, a winner at Redcar with a figure of 86 or a fourth at Epsom beaten three lengths in similar conditions with a figure of 79.
If readers care to check, recent good things have included Pragmatic, Inside Quarter, Lyric Dance only just beaten last year by One in a Million and also a good thing but not at the price. Ela-Mana-Mou, Drumlerry, Quickapenny, Hawaiin Sound, Vaigly Great and not forgetting Lyphard's Wish.
It has been expressed in these pages that many punters look for too many bets and I will repeat something 1 myself quoted, temperament plays a big part in sorting out the winners and losers. You don't HAVE to bet but using this elementary method your field of vision will be restricted to a narrow area full of potential and if you fail to achieve a minimum of 80% success evaluate your reading of Form. There are many other ways of doing the same thing and also they can be used to confirm findings from this method. If readers areinterested, I will be glad to submit to these pages for discussion.
In conclusion may I refer to a point in F.Chester's letter. I quote 'if no clear choice emerges from methodical study, one of two things should become plain, the competition is too keen to justify a bet or the winner must be looked for among the outsiders'. May I suggest his first alternative is the one to adopt (temperament).
C.Van der Wheil, Market Harborough.
PEACH-NOTE: VDW tells readers that they are seeking something that is not there, ' a magic formula' so to speak. Then VDW goes on to tell three particular readers that they should read his first letter and 'apply the principles'. But perhaps even more important he reiterates the point that the 'mechanical part' will not always show up the 'good thing', although it isolates the consistent winners. END NOTE.


F.Chester, the latter has by the way, gone a long way towards the ultimate conclusion,?????

Did he finger the so called key in his letter?

Johnd
29/32 bets,
Not selections,
Makes a big difference as its not what people tell you that matters more what they dont
fits in with TC's Post above

Quote
It is blindingly obvious that he is saying that if you take the 3 horses with the best three consisency figures - and "Dutch" them, then you can achieve that sort of strike figure. !!!!

Boozer
I still admire your computer skills, thanks!

Boozer/Tc
It isn't dutching. Up to letter 13 he had given 6 selections, all clear and unequivocal. G Hall also mentioned quite a few winners, all singly.
It is interesting that both who have found the key state that it is staring you in the face.
Hardly the spur to buy 20 years of old form books, is it?

Epi
I would be concerned about the drop back in trip for Bayhirr.

I make North Light a confident vdw bet today.

Pipedreamer
With Percussionist for the forecast?

You miss the point - I still maintain that letters 8 and 13 refer to 2 completly separate methods !!!

The last paragraph of letter 15 ( in reply to novice punter G.Hall) gives yet another - simple - method, and refers to the "other" method -

quote:

---

If our friend insists on more bets he may care to note the two shortest priced favourites at the two main meetings and check their merit using the same criteria as in the other method.

---

He follows by refering again to his staking plan which certainly would not be needed if a 90% strike rate was achievable.

people are looking at these 2 letters, and attempting to link the illustrated horses with latter contributions. -- this is totaly irrational, espesialy when you look at the level of understanding of the readers he is directing his letters to. !!!!


tc

Johnd: the fact that the winners were mentioned doesn't detract from the fact of them being in the first three.

Pipedreamer: that degree of assessment of form appears to go beyond VDW requirements.

I looked at six races: U 3:50, U 4:25, Wa 2:50, Wi 3:40, Wi 4:10, Wi 4:45. In no case was the winner highlighted. If we just took the consistency within the forecast, ignoring ratings, we got the winner, (this has to allow for the 3:40 and 4:10 in which I didn't note the qualifiers because of rating conflict). Why did the VDW writings mention ratings?

He always covered his arse by suggesting -"Subject to other considerations" etc.

But this is realy only commensence realy , you cant simply take a blind stab just using a bunch of numbers !

This is why he then introduced the concept of "Class" --- Form figures are realy not much use, unless you view them in the context of the level at whiech they are achieved !!!

ie three wins at third division level do not equate to 3 wins in Division 1 !!

Hence he moves on to the concept of class - the idea of introducing the value of the race seems to be the best way of explaining "Class" to the "Novice" punter.

I always worry about this cos Handicaps are always more valuable than stakes races, and race values abroad can not be equated to race values in this country ! - The problem is nowadays getting worse - indeed in his later writing he himself pointed this out !!

Remember tho at this stage he was simply trying to point out a set of usefull guidelines for Novice punters !!!

Don't try and make the job "Complicated" !!!!

tc

What I'm saying is as a Dutching system "he" did fine today, so why the bullshit about finding the winner?