The Key

This is my reasoning. You may agree. You may disagree. Whatever you decide, I do promise you this one thing: you WILL be disappointed.

To follow my profound logic properly, you will need a copy of Golden Years, as I make reference to the numbered letters.

Mr Hall found the key as HE called it. It is apparently there for us to see in the articles... (and I suppose we must assume that this is so, as Mr. Van der Wheil tells us that it is there, but deliberately not pointed out). So,…

Let's narrow the field!

The articles in question must have appeared before Mr. Hall's letter. So the key must be in letters written in 1978. i.e. letters "1" (by WIN of Brighton),"2", "7", "8", or "13".

I suspect that letter 1, although of great value, does not hold the key. Letter 2 likewise, being Mr. Van der Wheils introduction into letter contribution. Letter 7 carries the staking plan, so not there either.

So there it is in letter 8 (the PK example) or letter 13 (the Numbers Game letter).

What does letter 8 contain?

A. Consistent horses win a high percentage of races. Fair enough, but not the key.

B. The only race that was 'on'... hang on, what does that mean? Well it was the Erin Foods Champion Hurdle wasn't it? Top class race. And NO OTHER RACE THAT DAY WAS 'ON'!!!!

C. Two methods of rating... well he says in enough places that these are not he 'be all' and should be used as a guide, so we'll discount that.

D. Then there's the one I had put down as my favourite possibility... "weight". Mr. Van der Wheil goes into detail about the weights both would be carrying compared to their last outing. And in another place, he says that weight is a great leveller doesn't he? (I know that one VDWite says that you "shouldn't give weight away to another form horse". But I don't know how trustworthy that person is... but the statement has always rung a bell.

And letter 13?

E. Subject to other considerations. Well, I think we’d agree that this is form study, course, going, etc. wouldn’t we? So it’s not that.

F. Percentage placements “3-3-3 99%” etc. Now, it is interesting that F.Chester of St. Albans says “I think the key to Mr. Van der Wheil’s method of preliminary elimination lies in his own percentages”. Mr. Van der Wheil replies that Mr. Chester has “gone a long way towards the ultimate conclusion”.

G. Again, all relevant horses were rated by two different methods. Ah, but is this rating, or ratings? (Oh no, I’m beginning to sound like the worst kind of VDWologist!) So, does he mean two sets of ratings, or two methods of assessment? I think I am over-complicating it here (again). Does it in fact actually matter if it is rating or ratings? Isn’t a rating just a number used in rating?!

H. Celtic pleasure, Little Nugget, Battlement, Strombolus, Rifle Brigade, Orchestra, Derrylin, the Scottish national… I don’t have access to the newspapers, but I do have my suspicians…

The key MUST be contained in these eight points above. (Have I missed anything?)

Can we throw any of these eight out?

A: is important, but not the key.
C: Ratings are not the ‘be all and end all’ – not the key.
E: other considerations – form study, not spelt out specically enough – not the key
G: Ratings again. Not the key.

So I am left with four.

B: The only race that was ‘on’?
D: weight (looked at from some angle or other)?
F: Percentages?
H: those horses?

A phrase from later popped into my head: “It is all tied up with temperament and odds”. I mention it in passing whilst writing in case it proves useful.

The next I am going to discount is ‘F’ - those percentages. Fair enough, they may be important in giving us a reason to go with the most consistent. But Mr. Van der Wheil’s examples don’t only deal in 3-3-3 races do they. Take the Old Fellow example (781).

What else can I discount. Well, I have thought up to now that the key was weight, that “great leveller”. But doesn’t weight come into form study? Yes. So really, isn’t weight is taken into account in those “other considerations”?

Which leaves me with two. B and H. Or are they in fact the same?! Unfortunately, I don’t have the papers to know for sure, but I have my suspicions, especially bearing in mind that one race was The Whitbread Gold Cup at Sandown, One was the Scottish National, and two other top tracks Beverley and Newbury are mentioned in the horse list, add to that the Erin Foods Champion Hurdle. And the fact that Mr. Hall starts his campaign by finding the winner of the Lincoln.

The moderator from another forum who got me thinking about this key thing had responded to something I’d written on another thread by saying "What's a key race anyway?" Well I think the key is a type of race. As simple as the best race(s) of the day!

Later on, he 'spelt it all out' didn't he. Remember that I was looking for Mr. Halls key. What could Mr. Hall have possibly seen in those races. Mr. Van der Wheil goes on to say (in response to people who have been trying to find 'the key' that there is no magic formula and that people were searching for something that was not there.

Now, by studying the races, some people have come up with things that they say are important (Mtoto for instance, who I know does disagree with my opinion). I would say to him and to you that perhaps there IS thing that is important in the speed figures or whatever. But why can't that be YOUR discovery. Why can't that bit of knowledge become known as the "Mtoto Method"? Why does it have to be attributed to this VDW method?

Have a look at the letter in the way I have described. List for yourself the pointers that appear in whatever you consider to be the relavent letters BEFORE the great find. Then tell me what you think!

I’d said you would be disappointed. I bet you are really, really hoping I'm wrong!

BlackCat

sorry mate. you will have to "spell it out"

[Why can't that bit of knowledge become known as the "Mtoto Method"? Why does it have to be attributed to this VDW method?}

BC,

I think the simple answer to that question is it can only become the Mtoto method if he thought of it and it is just one, of many ways to solve the problem. Others have tried to solve the problem by making horses (that would other wise be a major problem) non form horses. Mr Hall didn't have this luxury as he knew nothing of the a/rating and c/form horses. When he came across consistent horses that also where in the forecast be had to choose one over the rest. From memory there were only 2 races where there was only one horse in the forecast that was consistent, here there was no decisions to make.

How did Mr Hall choose between Baronet c/rating 7 and Town and Country c/rating 6, Evesboy c/r 7, Rhineland c/r 7 and Petronisi c/r 9. These are the lowest 3 c/rating in the forecast for this race. Guest and others eliminate Petronisi as being a non (out) of form horse for this race. This is because he had beaten Baronet 3 times in their last 3 meetings. The reason given is because P could only win his last race on a disqualification, this last race being a class 28 race. He (P) had won a class 72 in his previous race, a downturn in form! The interesting thing is in both those races P had beaten B. Between these 2 runs Baronet had won a class 38, how is one out of form but the other in form?

What ever the key was, Mr Hall was presented with the problem of sorting this race out, how did he do it?

No, there is no way Mtoto can claim anything, it is down to VDW. That's because it also solves the Erin and the first 7/8 examples. It also solves the vast majority of the other examples.

Be Lucky

G.Hall had the luxury of reading letter 7 - which out lined a method that VDW had used for 40 years - which related to a "Staking Plan" !!!

VDW concludes letter 8 which dicusses the 3 "most consistent" from the "first 5 in the betting " -
with the Sentence - " With a sensible Staking Pan" - the method works well for me !!

Notice that G.Hall refers to VDWs letter "Towards the end of the National Hunt Season ( Letter 8 April 1978 ) -

Letter 13 was written in June 78 and is therefore irrelevent !!

So G.Hall can only then be talking about letters up to letter 8 !!!!

Go back to letters 7 and 8 !!!

If VDW had a method which gave "80% to 90% " winners - why would he "need" a "staking plan" and use it for 40 years ? -

He had another and completly separate Method !!!

Jock Bingham found the answer - to letter 13 which talked about the % winners in the top 3 of the top consistency figures !!¬ -

And of course to get this strike rate - He had to "Dutch" the top 3 !! -

He goes on to describe the Dutching Method for 3 horses when the lowest price is 5/2 -

this is the A-B-C method - where the bet is split into 2, - backing 2pts horse A , 1pt horse B - and second bet 1pt horse B , 1pt horse C !

If horse A wins - Return on 2pts

if horse B wins - Return on 2pts

if horse C wins - return on 1pt

Swish -

Comments plese ???

Not so TC
G Hall Said
My first bet was the Lincoln winner, but then things started to go wrong. Fortunately, C.Van der Wheil elaborated following comments by Methodmaker and after burning more midnight oil, I spotted the 'key' which was plainly there to see.

VDW's Elaboration

13 Numbers Game To Form A Picture
METHODMAKER comments on my contribution with the suggestion that I appear to accept previous form figures without question and in this context may be skating on very thin ice. He omitted to mention that I stated, with regards to the numerical picture: 'This can be very illuminating and show, SUBJECT TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, the good betting propositions.' Presumably if someone of Methodmaker's calibre has misinterpreted my suggestion there will be many readers who have failed to grasp the intent.

I stated that consistent horses win a high percentage of races and now present a few form-figures from my own extensive surveys. Disregarding ALL factors other than the last three placings, my figures show percentage wins next time:
111 33%, 121 32%, 221 31%, 321 29%, 132 26%, 313 24%, 213 25%, 214 24%, 204 8%, 302 8%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
Using Methodmaker's figures, which I accept, the first five produce winners. My own combined figures from the three most consistent produce - 3-3-3 99%, 3-3-4 98%, 3-4-5 96%, 4-4-4 95%, 4-5-6 90%, 5-6-12 73%, 16-18-30 17%. I also stated in my contribution that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods.
April 21 at Sandown, the day following Methodmaker's comments, there was on outstanding bet by my calculations, Celtic Pleasure won 7/2. It is interesting that on the same card Little Nugget scored and I leave it to readers to ponder without further comment ot,her than to say it did not feature in the first six in my paper, in fact it was not mentioned. The following day Saturday, April 22, produced two more good things (by my calculations) Battlement won 9/2 at Thirsk, and Strombolus won 7/1 in the Whitbread Gold Cup at Sandown.
Again it is interesting that Strombolus did not feature in the first six in my daily, or in a well known sporting daily. To the credit of the Sporting Chronicle it did feature. A further point I feel worthy of mention is that both first and second in this race had a total of three from last three placings. The previous Saturday, April 15 produced three outstanding bets, again by my calculations. Rifle Brigade won 5/2 (Beverley), Orchestra won 6/1, Derrylin won 4/1 (Newbury). In the latter's race note Weth Nan second, and in Orchestra's race Welsh Dancer second. Readers may also like to ponder over the Scottish National on the same day.
Since the opening of the Flat I have placed 32 bets of which 29 won. No wonder I smile when a self-appointed 'old 'un' of 50 years' experience topples himself from his pedestal by stating he finds it even more difficult to show a profit now tax has been increased to 9%. I accept Methodmaker's comments and concede the ice breaks sometimes, but assure him that on the whole it is much thicker than it may appear.

Bc Said

And the fact that Mr. Hall starts his campaign by finding the winner of the Lincoln.

But He hadnt found the key then BC see above
He cant have found the LIncoln winner using the key

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

boozer -

Yup - the dates work - not so simple is it !! ??

Why ?? then -

was he constantly harping on about Staking Plans ???

God Know's
How come he didnt back losers either

TC.

[My first bet was the Lincoln winner, but then things started to go wrong.
Fortunately, C.Van der Wheil elaborated following comments by Methodmaker
and after burning more midnight oil, I spotted the 'key' which was plainly there
to see. I followed the system throughout the rest of the season and have
finished the period with a tidy bank, even after taking out the cost of a family
holiday to sunny Malta.
A system that can give the spring and autumn double, with a constant
stream of winners in between, can't be any fluke and I look forward to next Flat
season. My best day produced a nice Yankee, with Buckskin (2-1); Swiss Maid
(5-1), My Therape (5-1) and Cambridgeshire winner Baronet (12-1).]

On reading this letter (14), how can letter 13 be irrelevent? Doesn't it quite clearly say he didn't solve the problem until after reading letter 13.

Be Lucky

My best day produced a nice Yankee, with Buckskin (2-1); Swiss Maid
(5-1), My Therape (5-1) and Cambridgeshire winner Baronet (12-1).]

So the key is contained in these selections at least
And BC's theory of the best race goes down the pan maybe cos this is a Yankee on the same day

Mtoto - agreed

see my reply to boozer -

I was wrong

See however my questions re Staking plans and reference to - 40 years - of method !!

Would he suddenly abandon this ??

Did he have a sudden "Divine Revalation" ???

Hi Nessie
I thought I had spelt it out (albeit long-windedly). I think Mr. Hall’s Key is to look in the better class races. Simple as that. “No magic formula”.

Hi Mtoto
All I am saying is that by a process of elimination, this is how I have solved the great mystery. A disappointment, but nevertheless I am convinced. “People are looking for what is not there”.

Hi TC
Letter 14: Mr Hall says that Fortunately, C. Van der Wheil elaborated following comments by Methodmaker and after burning more midnight oil, I spotted the ‘key’. The elaboration was contained in letter 13.

From Boozers post, you can see that this is so, so the dates is a red herring as “things started to go wrong”. He needed letter 13 to find the key. And what did he see in letter 13:

“April 21 at Sandown, the day following Methodmaker's comments, there was on outstanding bet by my calculations, Celtic Pleasure won 7/2. It is interesting that on the same card Little Nugget scored and I leave it to readers to ponder without further comment ot,her than to say it did not feature in the first six in my paper, in fact it was not mentioned. The following day Saturday, April 22, produced two more good things (by my calculations) Battlement won 9/2 at Thirsk, and Strombolus won 7/1 in the Whitbread Gold Cup at Sandown.
Again it is interesting that Strombolus did not feature in the first six in my daily, or in a well known sporting daily. To the credit of the Sporting Chronicle it did feature. A further point I feel worthy of mention is that both first and second in this race had a total of three from last three placings. The previous Saturday, April 15 produced three outstanding bets, again by my calculations. Rifle Brigade won 5/2 (Beverley), Orchestra won 6/1, Derrylin won 4/1 (Newbury). In the latter's race note Weth Nan second, and in Orchestra's race Welsh Dancer second. Readers may also like to ponder over the Scottish National on the same day.”

In all cases, these are good quality races. The only one I was unable to verify as being a quality race was confirmed to me by Mtoto as having a high value as I recall.

So yes, I’d say it is that simple. You are fully entitled to disagree, and I don’t mind. I have not put this up to convert anyone to my way of thinking, just to help. From my chair, it seems obvious. But I know that we all think differently, and that is what is good about sharing ideas. This little debate is perhaps a small taster of a more important discussions to come perhaps.

I am not indicating that that the staking plan is Mr. Halls key. Not sure I understood what you meant there. With regard to the 85% strike rate, I do believe that the only way this is possible was by dutching bets. That is my view. I accept that it isn’t shared by many, and we will never know for sure.

Hi Boozer
Why does a yankee send the theory down the pan… if all the bets were in quality races. Mr. Van der Wheil provided a method, and did not even like to use the word “system”. (‘Systematic Betting’ was Tony Peaches title). That is why I think he seemingly rigid ‘Best 2 races at the main meeting etc… was for the novice).

General
In my own mind, I am satisfied that the Mr. Hall’s key is no more difficult than looking in the better races. I am not saying that there isn’t more to the method. But I am saying that we may be chasing a ghost if we look for a magic formula that is not present.

BlackCat

Ok, he found the Lincoln winner before he found the key. When he found it, he checked and that horse also fitted the key.

He also says it found the spring and autumn double, but VDW doesn't confirm this. So is Mr Hall's key an important part of the methods as VDW used them? Did VDW also find the other 3 winners?

I'm happy that 2 of them could be found using VDW, I don't know about the National winner as I have let that form book go.

Be Lucky

Are we wasting our time with G.Hall ??

is he simply a "lucky bugger" - did he realy discover a "Key" -

and - shouldn't we be concentrating on VDW and his letters ??

I think most of us have the "Key" - and in each case it is "our own" - it is locked away in our own "subconscious"

did VDW suggest that ??

Bc
At the time it looked a bit thin to find 4 good class races on the same day in a Yankee
but Your argument could be correct
To be sure you need the form book for that year and date
I slung all mine back in 1994
The ceiling was sagging

But
G halls key
The vital factor
The second numerical picture

Are they all the same thing ??

Somebody on here described the 2nd numerical picture and concluded
Never back in races where the percentages of the 3 most consistent add up to less than 83%
It may have been Statajack or Walter the pigeon

Personaly I think the Vital factor that was not deliberately pointed out and is there for you to see is the one to go for

Whether it is the same as the other 2 I dont know

G.Halls key - Class ?

The second numerical picture - Class ?

The vital factor - Class?

BC,

I am reasonably happy Mr Hall stuck to the better races. I would have thought the key had more to do with sorting out the potential candidates from the narrowed field.

Picking the right races to analyse is one thing, sorting out the bet is another.

TC,

I'm no expert, but even a strike rate of 80% must give losing runs of 4/5 on occasions. So wasn't it just good sense to use a staking plan? I can see if he did dutch some of his bets, the returns are fairly low and a staking plan would be needed. He also did back a few very short priced horses again a plan is needed for those types.

Be Lucky

Mtoto -

Swish appears to have concentrated on this area -
I would be interested in his contributions

in all events - Big - Spectacular Profits from VDW would seem hard to come by - small and steady would seem to be the "Name of the Game"

Nessie seems to have sussed this