BC,

It wasn't your remarks about Investor that surprised me. It was more the general tone of the message. That this thread is like a chapter from the Masons or some other secret society.

You have listed the factors you think are important, and I agree with many but not all of them. I think you will find the important factors have all ready been mentioned, many times by others on this thread. It is all here if anyone can be bothered to read and look for it.

You say the key Mr Hall found is not worth looking for, and it is a simple thing we all know. Strange that by looking at these first examples I think I found what I think is the answer to most of the VDW thinking. It is very worth looking for, it's not simple and I don't for one moment think most know the answer. In fact I'm not sure if Mr Hall did find it he used it in the same way as VDW. What I do know is without the form books (and papers) of this period it can't be found.

JIB,

Just because you can't see the point in something doesn't make it a lie. Surely the only way to study something properly is to look at the examples? Until one knows the full form of the runners in those old races how can you decide what decisions VDW had to make? I agree racing has changed in the mean time, but VDW said it would. Have the basics changed, is the main thing still for the trainer to win as much money as possible for his owners and himself? Training methods have improved, but all the trainers know about them. Some things will never change, consistent horses will win more races than non consistent horses. The best horses will always stand more chance of winning than the not so good. Reading your posts I think the main difference between us is you put the faith in the trainer I put mine in the horse.

I agree winning 25K a year seems a daunting task. However if it is broken down to a target of two winners a week is that so impossible? How many weeks do you not find the 2 winners? The problem then is to win the £500 needed on these 2 winners. Cut out all the fun bets, the this may just about win this bets and the task gets a little easier. Cut out the bets that too much money would have to be staked to win the £250 per winner. Take the consistent horses with the proven ability that run at a fair price say 4/1 or better. Look to retrieve losses on the higher priced horses only. Surprisingly enough there are more than a few of these, but as Investor tells me not every day. With patience and temperament it is possible, but it MUST be treated as a business. No time to waste on fast cars and high living!!


Investor/BC.

I notice both of you are in favour of the a/rating. As you both know I think it is badly lacking in logic. Investor accuses me of having a closed mind, and not prepared to change it under any circumstance. How would you like to explain why you think it works and why you think it is an important part of the methods? I have pointed out the flaws and given examples of them. Convince me I'm wrong, show me examples of this rating in action and explain how it shows a horses will to win.

Be Lucky

Yes - that was it - there was never a bet. I remember now! And once when there was a bet, he came on the line and told us not to bet it as another horse had certain attributes that often overturned his method selections!

The race selection was See you Sometime, but he said Classified would win... and it did. In fairness, that was good of him.

Many thanks for putting the selections up. I don't get the RP at present, so can't go back over the pre-race stats. So yes, it will be interesting to see them as they come up. Thank you. I can see why you didn't bet Azertioup. Flagship, Seebald and Edredon Bleu would have made it very competitive for this point in teh season.

I look forward to seeing the future ones.

In return, I will post my selections, time permitting. I have recently finished a major project, and if I can keep a low profile, will be able to have just a little more time... for a while at least!

I started my Incremental thread back up on RSUK today (after 3 months absence). My selection being 1.50 Ex. Escompteur. Drawing clear when fell 2 out. Never mind.

Hi Mtoto

Hmmmm... recent posts by Investor had indicated to Seanrua that there was more to it. But wouldn't say what more.

In fairness to VDWers generally, most have posted fairly openly. But there is always that little bit of 'I know something you don't - you have to dig and work'. It is not surprising that VDWers use this chain of thinking, as it is found in the earliest letters of Mr. Van der Wheil himself! Even later on he said to Tony Peach "you don't tell everone everything".

Well that's OK. I am not necessarily saying he should have. Or you should. Or Investor should. What I think I object to is the giving of scraps. Why say anything? We understand from what he's told us that Seanrua hasn't got the books and is not in the state of health to get them or digest them.

There has been a 'secret society' feel to the whole VDW thing. And that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Everyone loves a conspiracy or a whodunit or a puzzle that needs solving. But if we are on a thread where we are going to help people, let's help people.

I was very disappointed by your post. Especially as I was setting you up as someone who deserved to be heard. I still think that you do have a very interesting and challenging way of interpreting races and the VDW message. But I did not appreciate the tone of your response either.

As for ability rating... I know something you don't. (joke)

Be happy

investor

When you attended the Bury St Edmunds Seminar - was CD joined up with Tony Evans ??

The date you quote suggests that he was

T.c
Yes,Tony evans was there Along with 2 meatheads Davey's chauffeur and of course Serena.

Mtoto

I find it most interesting that you say that - "without the "PAPERS" of the period" - the Key cannot be found !!!

I believe that the "Form Book" does not tell all - Then - or - now !!

Yup

Serena is/ was his wife and helped in the early days when he split from Tony - she was office manager - Lean then became his PA - she is v bright .


Small world isn't it.

For various reasons, I ended up with a few telephone numbers in my phone book relating to Colin. - anyway -

in Sept when his "Show no Fear" won , I was interested to see if he had tipped it on his premium line, so I rang what I thought was the premium line, and got through to him directly at his house !

We ended up talking for about an hour - I think he was glad to have someone to talk to.

We talked mainly about VDW - he quotes from the books almost verbatum and freely admited to using the method - but he says that "Little Owl" is the only example that he uses when looking for a bet !

I asked about "Roushyd" but he says that he has no time for it.

Interestingly, Tony Evans who used to be associated with him has gone down the "Roushyd" route !!

Ability Rating

This is how I see it. Not everyone will agree, and that's OK.

It is a rating. A numerical picture of a horses past winning performance, but in essence, a rating nonetheless.

IMO, it can only be entertained where the contenders have fairly exposed form. No point using it with 3 y.o. only races in May.

It is a rating. Nothing more. Not a magic formulae to winner finding, no more than the RPM or Topspeed. Just a rating. I stress this because it seems that some think the whole VDW foundation may stand or fall on this thing, which I don't think should be the case.

At the point this was given by Mr. van der Wheil, he had given selection examples that I believe I'm right in saying do not adhere to this rating. Some have speculated that he gave the rating to deflect the demands for him to release the 'other' ratings he used. This may well all be the case, and is worth bearing in mind.

Anyway. To my mind, the logic of this rating says we are looking at a proven winner. A winner who has won in as good or better class that its rivals.

One small addition people who use it may care to include is a horses highest winning value. After all, one of the frailties will be that some horses with a low AR may have won only one high value race. The AR then being devalued by other low winning values.

And again, you may care to observe the value that all horses ran in LTO. This may also lead to caution being attributed to the AR.

But overall, I think the Ability Rating is a useful rating. It should be used as directed by the doctor. And that is with two other ratings also indicatng the potential selection(s) as being the 'class' horse.

(Sidenote to Seanrua: Remember also, that according to the method, class alone is not enough. Recent, consistent form should be ascertained also).

This is not a defence of the Ability Rating. If you have better ratings that work more effectively, then use them. If not, then this is a rating that you can use (in conjuction with others) that may help you identify a potential selection.

Be happy

Hi TC

I think Serena is his sister. Could be wrong. It's been known. (Not on here of course!)

BlackCat

Could be - she drives a V Nice Porche tho !

Evans interests me more !!

He is much brighter than CD (who works the crowd better) -

But I keep looking at Evans style of writing and comparing it to the VDW articles - either he is unashamedly plagiarizing VDWs letters and theories - or there is a connection !

T.C
I think B.c is right about serena,R.e little owl,No wonder he doesn't give many bets because this type don't come along like buses.

I remember when Tony Evans introduced C.D he said that when he was a young lad he had written to the handicap Book and was seen as a genius.At the time i knew nothing of vdw but what was evans implying,Surely not.

When i went to the seminar there were 130 people there and it was the first of 2 days,If the same amount went the second day that's 260 x 475 quid that's a cool 123 grand in 2days and he did about 4 a year no wonder Serena drove a f.....g porsche.But i must say if you play about with his method it is very good.

Evans claims to have paid Cd - £100,000 for the CD method in 1995 - they then went on to publish "The Key " which included as well as "Ability Rating" - "Highest Value Race lto - and also to promise - to follow -"System X" - for £ Multi !!

I suggest that "System X" - probably involved - "Time Figures" !! -

Anyone paid £ Multi ??? for system X ??? -

I BELIEVE CURRENT ASKING PRICE IS £3500 - and - sign in the presence of a Solicitor !!!

My selection for Wednesday 3rd is Mus 3.05 Ego Trip.

(Not VDW as such - but VDW influenced)

All interesting stuff. We don't often hear positive things about CD and co.

I have to admit that I'm guilty of ignoring recent form, but I hope to change this by using

adjusted RPR added to best TS of last 6.

( Idea copied from another Gummy thread).

Perhaps this way I'll strike the happy balance!

I'm toying with the idea of using a points system to try evaluate the difference between

1st in £5K, 4th in £20K, 2nd in £9K etc.

At the moment I'm thinking of awarding points like this:

1st 5pts
2nd 3
3rd 2
4th 1

These points to be added to the figure in the race value.

The aim is to give some credit for finishing at or near the front of the race.

If any have experience or knowledge of similar ideas, please let me know your conclusions, before I set off on a wild goose chase.

I'd be grateful of the time and effort saved, so.

No knowledge - sorry.

TC,

The main reason for the remark about the papers was because we know both Mr Hall and VDW read the SCHB. In this paper the Split Second s/f were readily available. I think Mr Hall would have been able to use, and check these figures in the examples given by VDW.

I think most are happy that one of the other 'ratings' was speed. Mr Hall could of seen from the Erin, speed, or bare speed wasn't enough. With a little digging around I think he would have seen why Beacon Light was well out of it on VDW's ratings.

The other reason is without the papers how do we know what the forecast was? Without that how do we know what the short list was, and what decisions Mr Hall had to make?

Seanrua,

Again this brings us back to how to judge the class of a race. Is it the penalty value or the strength of the competition that puts the class to a race? Why would you give a horse that finished 4th to 3 90 + horses (perhaps even beating a few) less than a horse that beat a field of 80 rated horses?

If you would like to e-mail me Mtoto44@aol I may be able to help with some VDW literature, and some thoughts on your idea above.

JohnD, before you jump up and down. I'm not trying to poach anyone I'm only trying to help Sean. The items I will give him can't be posted on here, because they are to big.

Be Lucky

Seanrua
Some interesting and erudite posts to help you on your way; differing interpretations of various parts of VDW, all of which may be helpful in some way. However, IMO, all of them, (Apart from Bc touching upon it), ignore what I believe to be the absolute essence of VDW, how the horse has been placed.
Although he never revealed all, and I couldn't claim to understand all, he did, in his later work stress this aspect of the method to the point where he showed horses that the trainer told us were really out to win.
To me this is an absolute fundament of his method, yet is ignored, or only paid lip service to, by many who claim to understand his work.
Not only are they wrong, they are missing out the very mortar that IMO binds all the various bricks together.
In his later writings VDW went to some lengths to highlight this aspect, yet some spend endless time on a/r and suchlike, without ever considering that which is basic to the whole thing.
May I suggest, that rather than trying to form systems and/or lists of ratings from his work, you spend more of your valuable time concentrating your efforts on the end game, how the trainer has placed the horse.
This can often be gleaned from contemporary races, without the need to spend years going through old examples, and a study of any Saturday edition of the RP along with the results of the better races, should enable you to shed a great deal of light on the subject.
It is all well and good to pore over the old form books, but, unless you look at them from the above angle, you will, IMO, still be as confused as many who have chosen that route before you.
I wouldn't pretend to understand the placing of horses yet as VDW intended, I still remain convinced that it is the very essence of his work, and, as one who has studied the old form books, and read all of this thread at least once, remain convinced that the jigsaw will never be complete without that understanding.
A couple of recent examples for your perusal:
The winner Investor gave yesterday, which is extremely straightforward, and the more subtle one Greg gave the other day, nb: I make no claims about either horse other than they were both placed to win: and it shows.
From a brief look at today's racing, there is one horse that fits the bill IMO, 2,35 Muss, Fiddle Me Blue. Only my opinion, and it may go tits up, even if it does it merits a study of how it has been raced and placed.

Mtoto
Don't know whether to read the last 2 para's of your post as a confession or an apology?

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

How someone could mistake the Branston Pickle factory for CDs office beats me - I'll have to have another word with them