Epi

thats probably where the Key comes in
And temperement
Extract the winner from the 3 probables
Better than dutching 3

Easier said than done and always will be
But possible on a lot of occasions

As far as I am concerned there is nothing that special about VDW

It is a procedure that anyone that backs horses could relate to

Hence my interest in VDW

From letter 34 Lets Have A Lottery:.

The remaining two letters from F.Chester and R.Smith can be covered by putting forward the outline of a very simple method.Consider the two races on the card having the highest prize money. On the course study the boards, but in the betting shop you will have to wait for a show.If the favourite is at reasonable odds and the field not too large, select the first five in the betting.
From these sort out the three that have been off course for the shortest time.You can use the three highest race numbers from returns if you like, but watch for any that ran a few days previous and are not listed. Call the the three horses A,B,C and split them into two bets (A being the first quote) AB AND BC.Stake two points A and one point B for the first bet and one point each BC for the second.Each of the two bets are kept seperate and applied to a simple staking method.If A or C wins that particular series wins. If B wins both succeed.

I will give a few illustrations to show points to watch out for from the "pull out" of the same issue as the letters (jan 17).

Race 1387. Favourite is odds-on and not a race to bet on with this method as Dikaro Lady was among the three.On the other hand, note race 1432.The even money favourite Tommy Joe does not come in the three, so a bet favoured AB winning with Mac Vidi 4-1.The same applies to race 1418 where again AB wins with Turk 11-4.
Note also race 1399 Stockton 1-45, Jan 8th.Rigorous has a 10lb penalty so leave it out. Here BC wins with Burelor 9-1.Note also race 1393, Fontwell. In this race four come out, but it does not require much thought to leave out St Gawin. Both AB & BC win with Cabar Feidh 100-30.

I have outlined just the bare bones of the method leaving readers to use a little initiative.Those who studied my previous contributions will appreciate this is just another way to reduce the field and it will no doubt help them to arrive at just one selection for the race.The process is very simple.

For Mr Chester, i hope it shows there is always another way round a problem. Mr R.Smith may care to consider that although Rough and Tumble featured in my three for last year`s National it is one that lacks a turn of foot when the chps are down, but i wish him luck. He may need it.

You`d think there must be something of worth in there?.

Thanks for the replies. Again VDW turns out to be full of contradictions, considering "his" own advice about consistency I cant find the writings trustworthy. As far as Dutching goes it shows a slight refinement on just taking those under the mark, but as a winner finding method it seems pretty useless to me.

boozer

Would you be confident - that extracing the winner from the 3 probables - would give the 85/90 % that "he" claims -- ????

I cant be !

As you say - there is nothing that special about "VDW" - except that it condenses an awfull lot of "Good Advice" for those who are looking to "Make a Start" betting on the "Horses" !!!


tc

"Nothing special" is an understatement, "thoroughly cliche-ridden" is about the strength.

Put it this way

If you could extract the winner from the first 3 in the betting
and be correct every time when the winner fell in the first 3 in the betting
you would never have to work again
even if you backed in every race on the card every day and taking into account the races that were won outside the first 3 in the betting

a 3 horse race to evaluate every day and every race run

can it be that hard?

There was a TV program on Discovery Channel entitled The History of Gambling in America. The most interesting thing was a pro saying "odds dont represent the probabilities, they're there to attract equal amounts of money".

From RFU March 3rd 2001. qoute: Rio Grande.

"It is clear that, if prices reflected the chances of each horse perfectly, no horse that should be 2-1 would be 8-1 when it wins".

If prices reflected chances all races would be won by odds-on favourites. Dutching the short end isn't enough.

Epi and Wp

I dont quite see your point but

the finest filter I have seen in 35 years is the first 6 in the betting forecast
And it is not a VDW exclusive
far from it

The fact is racing is biosed in favour of the form student
Which would explain why the first 6 is such a good indicator

Allthough I dont know how they compile the forecast nowadays to take account of say the fallon factor

epi

bit late at night and brain isn't 100% - but I have seen elswhere - that "Odds" bear no relationship whatever to " Chances" - I do work on this basis !!!

Regards -

tc

Boozer: To an extent I agree. Horse racing has been studied for god knows how long and the most efficient method of picking winners is the one that defines favourites, yet raw favourites only have a mean strike rate around 33%. There's something to said for concentrating at the market head but as it's standard behaviour it's unlikely to lead to "value", particularly if ameliorated by Dutching.

Boozer it carries on,

"Consequently, as long as punters know how to interpret the information given out by bookmakers, they have valuable clues as to what is going on in the `live market`, as it is the prices displayed by bookmakers (non -verbal) that offer clues to THEIR opinions.

Tuppenycat: I think there are various circumstances in which "favourite thinking" falls short and one can find better priced winners but this is nothing to do with VDW.

"On the course study the boards but in the betting shop you will have to wait for a show". Why?

epi

x'plain -- "perleeze" ???

tc

VDW is getting a good "Slagging" --

Do the " Class/Form" Merchants - have nothing to say ????

tc

From the 7 winners VDW gave up to letter 13:

Good proposition; Prominent King

Outstanding bets; Celtic Pleasure, Rifle Brigade, orchestra, Derrylin.

Good things; Battlement, Strombolus.

All HIS descriptions, and no sign of a dutched bet.

From G Hall, letter 13.
I spotted the key, which was plainly there to see. He then went on to mention 4 individual winners on one day, all of which VDW later described as 'good things on the day'.
Again no sign of a dutched bet.

It is worth pointing out, that from the 1,000's of readers of Sports Forum, up to the time of letter 14, only one reader had given any indication of 'spotting the key'. This should illustrate that the vast majority had not read and understood what was there.
It is then axiomatic that many, without the apparent understanding of G Hall, would form their own theory as to the method.
VDW later went on to congratulate G Hall on 'spotting the key', and in a further letter said, " Possibly because one contributor introduced what he called the 'Key', readers have sought what is not there in the form of some magic formula".
No magic formula, just plain common sense?

Tuppenycat: When planning to select from the market leaders the first consideration is the suitability or otherwise of the race, conversly the races that are unsuitable for market based thinking lend themselves to more race-specific ideas. As a student of trainer performance I imagine you have various parameters within which you consider a race to be analytically "trainer susceptible".

Johnd: in that sense I would take the "key" to be using everything together to suggest the same horse from several angles of analysis. The problem with this is that too many horses are given as examples.