Ectoo
LOL your a card you are (not an ace for sure) i have gone through the examples that vdw gave and all the horses have consistent form the way vdw portrayed it,I am happy with my findings.I will spell something out for you and i want it to finally sink in YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND VDW'S METHODS.hope that's loud enough you carry on slagging something off you know nothing about is it makes you happy,I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore as you have no more idea than the man on the moon.

Right, back down to Earth with a bump. Here are the results of the experiment in banded racing at Southwell:

5 races

2 winners ( 3/1 and 9/2)

3 placed

6 unplaced.

In comparison,

the RP betting forecast favs got one winner ( 3/1).

Spotlight got the same two winners as my figures.

Topspeed got one and the Sun got one.

Investor

you along with PKBoy & JohnD appear to talk a lot about VDW but you know very little about racing and finding winners..obviously both subjects have little to do with each other..you have a hobby that involves having little understanding with it's subject.

You all three seem happy with it so who I am to object..except that the hobby has given you the idea that you have some superiority over others when in fact exactly the opposite is true..amusing.. but at the end of the day..an aimless pursuit of glorification on the back of ignorance.

I hope you are making lots from the sale of the booklets..it's the only reason I can see for the consistent preaching of prattle that finds no profit but consoles you in some monetary way that can only be had from peddling the shite on the open market.

remember HILL OF SLANE

ECTOO,

Your percentage figures for the past 18 years cannot be disputed. What can be disputed is your assertion that CVDW's figures are/were innacurate or misleading. If you can provide the required figures for the 131 400 race between 1960 and 1978, the time period that is covered by CVDW's analysis then your argument about CVDW's theories being based on innacurate data would carry far more weight.

Noting your reluctance to go through old form books, I will humbly suggest some thing that may or may not illustrate the gradual reduction of the percentage figures between those of CVDW's, 1960-1978 and your present day figures 1986-2004.

Break the eighteen years of data into managable "chunks" into say of periods of about three years and quote the same statistics for each of the previous "three run" combinations quoted, if there are general indications of reduction then the statistical advantage that CVDW noted may in fact have deteriorated over time. If, as you appear to be suggesting, that from the earliest part of your figures, there is a sudden reduction in the percentages IE they have always been 25% for form figures of 111. Then we can either A) accept that CVDW may have miscalsulated his percentage quotations. B) try to find a reason in the intervining period which could have such catastrophic consequences as to affect the very consistency of a racehorses performances.

All to many will go for the former as an easy solution to apparent anomaly. Few, I think, would try to indentify the reasons underlying B. If you find time in your number crunching episode perhaps you could provide for us the contrasting data for the two periods which detail the total number of horses which achieved the form figures 111 in each of the two periods of analysis and perhaps express them as a percentage of the total number of A) horses that ran. B) total number of runnings. This I am sure will provide evidence Of B in the last paragraph. Ie. something fundamerntal happened to the horse racing industry to redress the balance back in favour of the "book".

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

PK

I have seen the above argument many times
But
111 111 111 does not make 99% certain etc
Tis blatently wrong
Cant be disputed
If VDW was so naive to utter such nonsense
I would be worried about some of the rest

ectoo -

You are -

"just wasting your time" -

the guy only has 10 fingers - and can't "count" beyond that !

As for - reading past - Page 3 of the letters - forget it !

"Mack and Tosh" - come into the category of "Virgil" - as far as his abilitity to understand the written word is concerned !!

COMMON SENSE - ????

jfc !

He hasn't the "sense" that he was

-

"Born With" !!!!!

F Chester (the ultimate conclusion)

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.

VDW’s Answer

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,

If the percentages no longer produce then the ultimate conclusion is
VDW no longer works
If it ever did that is

PKB,

Perhaps I am mistaken but was it not yourself who argued to Mtoto that VDW would not have altered his methods because contrary to Mtotos belief racing has not changed?

Ectoo has mentioned that according to VDW if there are three horses in a race with form figs of 111 there is a 99% chance of the race being won by one of them. Well lets extrapolate VDW a bit more, what happens if there are 4 such sets of form figs in the race....132%!

Or for investor to ponder a 9 horse race, with each runner having the form figs:
111 = 33%
121 = 32%
131 = 29%
141 = 26%
122 = 30%
313 = 24%
214 = 24%
404 = 5%
000 = 2%

a 172% chance of the race being won by one of them!!!!

pkboy -

If I read your post correctly -

then you are agreeing that in the period since VDW was writing -

That Racing has "Changed" -

and that we must now take "Account" of those changes !!!!

Be nice to hear your views as to how the -

"Approach" - might be changed .

Boozer,

Maybe you have, but has anyone ever put in the necessary work to come back with the argument won?

I have seen your argument many times also, In my view CVDW was looking at the three most consistent from the forcast area and quite possibly the three most consistent from the forcast area of the indicated races. I have not researched the matter anywhere near thoroughly enough to reach an informed unbiased opinion and certaintly not conclusivly enough to berate an individuals "supposedly" whole approach to betting.

If however, I were to speculate on the matter, I would suggest the number of times the above criteria are metin the indicated races more than likely it would prove to be correct. This I have seen proven pre race many times, most recently by Investor.

In any event, what is undisputable from both sets of data, Is that consistent horses provide a significant statistical advantage over non-consistent or inconsistent horses.

JIB,

I clearly stated that racing has changed and brought to light several areas where this was the case. What I stated had not changed, was my view that CVDW would have changed his methods of evaluation.

The principal reason for this being the factors affecting CVDW's method of evaluation have not chaged and nor are they likely to in the forseeable future. Something CVDW was astute enough to recognise AND point out for us.

PK
I can see your point nearly
But first 6 in betting all 111 = 6*33% ?

But would never agree with the last paragraph
There are thousands of consistent horses based on form figures
Too many to be used as a filter to gain an edge

boozer - an Edge ????

from consistent horses ???

didn't VDW suggest an 80% "strike rate "

PKB,

If VDW didnt see that the logic behind his original consistency percentages was absurd then it doesnt say much for his reasoning.

In the light of Ectoos statistics if VDWologists dont change there ideas about consistency they should earn the epiphet of racing 'Luddites'.

Boozer,

You point me to the race where that has been the case and I will point out which are the consistent horses from those six, undoubtedly all will not be consistent and would prove a useful act for all.

Jib,

Anyone who constructs whole theories based on incompletely researched material and inconclusive "evidence" strike me as being better served here:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Boozer/Jib
I actually know what vdw meant when he said that if there are three horses with a cons rating of 3 then there is a 99% chance that one of them would win.HOW you may ask,Because i have studied the examples and understand the concept and the logic behind it.It was once said that it isn't Rocket science and it isn't.But nonetheless it is apparent through vdw's examples.So before you start spouting off about these certain aspects of vdw make sure you know your facts.Because it is quite evident that you do not and probably never will understand Form in the way that vdw did.He even said this all them years ago and it's still true today.I'm not bothered because it's you lot that keep a roof over my head,Kep it coming.

Investor

You continue to TRY to undermine peoples intelligence

Typical salesman sorry salesperson

Boozer
Not difficult.

Jib
You are scared shitless of these methods,Or should i say you are scared shitless of Finding out they actually work.You proved that to me when you turned down my offer,You couldn't bare the fact that you would have to eat humble pie after all the crap that you have spouted about these methods.It is quite obvious that you had some kind of compulsion to gamble in that past.And you still persist in betting on 2 flies running up a wall.Never put your eggs in one basket otherwise you may end up in a far away land chasing yellow shit.Oh iv'e moved up a notch it's now a peugeot 307 BRAND NEW i don't like Rovers.