Mtoto

Thanks for your very consructive and logical post. I will look forward to you or anybody else,s answers to Pipedreamers not unreasonable questions.

Trypod

Pipedreamer,

To try to answer your questions. but please understand these are my thoughts and as I have never meet he man they can only thoughts/ideas.

1/ Was VDW a pro punter or did he have a conventional job.

VDW was not a pro gambler. I think he only ever had a conventional job. However I do think he was a talented amateur who did have ideas well ahead of his time.

2/ Was he in your opinion, based on what you know, a genuine character.

I think when he started writing to the SCHB he was trying to find a platform to launch himself and his ideas into the public arena. Personally I think this was in effort to make enough money to become a pro. Yes I think he, and his ideas were genuine, but I do think perhaps of the manipulation he became a very bitter man.

3/ More importantly do you feel that what was produced in the VDW booklets,was genuine or was some of it misleading?

I think from the Peach booklets the early examples are the bare bones of the methods/ideas. Systematic Betting was putting the flesh on the bones. The bulk of the Peach booklets are just a money making exercise, to make money and muddy the waters. The muddied waters have helped distract the people who tried to make sense of VDW's ideas thus perpetuating the whole VDW legend. That is the real problem, and I don't think its what VDW had in mind when he started. I think VDW had a real grasp on horse racing and he hoped to make a few bob out of helping others along the way.

I have no way of proving it but I think VDW was dropped when Raceform discovered he wasn't this rich Dutchman, and this left the way clear for others to cash in on the VDW name. Let's be honest more than a few have.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Thanks for your reply,your a real gent as ever,and I take your post onboard in the spirit it was given.If what you say about VDW is true,and I have know reason to doubt you,then I am truly saddened,at the way it has turned out.I for one will be forever grateful to him for what he passed on,in terms of his racing knowledge.

I have always had reservations about some of the later writings,and there has been some contradictory messages running through them in my opinion.This has led to countless frustration in the past.

I have been fortunate to have been the receipient of much valued help on the subject of VDW and in particular from one person,who's generosity of spirit has shone through like a beacon.It has transformed me from an average run of the mill punter,to a much more successful punter.I will always be indebted to this person.

I would like one day to be able to give a little back,and hopefully I will,but the one thing I will not do is mislead anyone,so if I don't post anything constructive I won't post at all.

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

Pipedreamer

Would I be correct in assuming that the person you speak so fondly of is either Lee or Guest.

I know one thing, VDW was no ordinary man so I will remain far from convinced about Fulhams findings.

Trypod

PIPEDREAMER

You can give a little bit back on this thread if you like, im sure we all would appreciate what ever you think is constructive vdw.

quote:

Originally posted by Mtoto:
Far to many are looking for an easy answer, and here I don't think JohnD is helping very much by suggesting the answer is simple. I think by saying this he is fuelling the idea followed by many a simple system is the way forward. I think we all know by how that is far from the truth, there is a lot more to it than that.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

The answer to VDW's method is simple. He said so himself, and spelt it out quite clearly.
True enough, you've first got to find it, then learn to operate it, and even then, never lose sight of the all important temperament, but none of that detracts from its basic simplicity.
Trouble is though, everyone automatically assumes it's an intellectual pursuit and, humans being humans and having egoes, figure that they're smarter than everyone else, and look for some deep, dark, and obscure magic trick, when all along it's an entirely simple, sensible, and logical way of looking at form.
Now I could pretend, as many others have, that you need to buy all the ancient form books, and spend half of your life checking and cross-checking his examples, and scrutinising every word and statement he ever made, (I actually did all that myself, and for a number of years), which I can assure anyone who wants to try it, will lead to a great deal of frustration, or I can implore them to read and believe what was said, and look for the simple answer.
Whoever or whatever VDW was, there is no denying he said, again and again, that there was no particular genius to what he wrote, and the biggest hurdle to understanding him will always be assuming that there is.
Strangely enough, once you begin to view it for its simplicity, you also begin to appreciate how much hot air is talked about many other aspects of racing, all by supposedly informed people (Not just on internet forums either), who haven't really a clue about how to read form.

Incidentally, for the Chester Cup, I have DOUBLE BANDED as much the likeliest winner, with GREENWICH MEANTIME as the danger.
Be interesting to see other points of view, before the race, natch.

In the Chester Cup the winner will come from;

Black Rock, Highland Legacy, or Double Banded.

At the time of writing they can be dutched to 11/8 though for the sake of my experiment I will be having a point on each.

I would lay Highland legacy

Bet Double banded,

Bet Black rock,Trainer stats good

And keeping a close eye on the betting for Easterby's Wing Collar,Terrible trainer stats though

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

Ive had a fun bet on Bulwark to win and place at 75.00 & 10.00 would be over the moon if he could get into the frame.

SHIPMASTER
SENTRY DUTY
FAIR ALONG

mr moloko 07 May 10:15


Good morning.

Another at a big price for me e/w.

A few stats.
The last ten had won at class 2 or 3 level with 7 succesful at class 2 level.
9/10 had won or placed in a 16 runner field.
All had won at 16f + on either the flat or N/H.
9/10 had no more than 26 career starts.
Quite a few other pointers stats wise.
Short list
Fair Along
Bulwark
Som Tala
Highland Legacy

At the prices I think Bulwark is worth a try e/w.
He's dropped down to a very decent mark since joining Ian Williams & having the blinds dispensed with but is now fitted with a first time visor which will hopefully be a positive.
He's a class 2 winner over 16f & ran a great race here in this event in 2006 to be 6th to Admiral from stall 15. Greenwich Meantime was 3rd that day & he's a little better off in the weights today with a slightly better draw.
He goes well in a big field, the ground should be turning in his favour & for a horse who was placing in Group company last year & has some solid class 2 handicap form
not that long ago looks worth a try despite having a few more career starts than ideal. He's a bit of a character ! but at the price I shall take a chance e/w.

..................................................

Just read this from the betfair forum seems he gives my horse a wee chance as well 85`s & 10`s last time i looked.

Did you double your stakes after reading that Walt?

I didnae think anyone else would give it a wee shout, more surprised than anything else.

The answer to VDW's method is simple. He said so himself, and spelt it out quite clearly.

JohnD,

If the above is true can I ask why so many are having trouble unravelling the methods? With all due respect I would include you among the many. Here I would ask where did VDW spell anything out CLEARLY?

If you run true to form you will point to SIAO, but is that really the case? He starts this article by CLEARLY stating..............Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk ("¢*). The plain simple truth is if these guide lines are adhered to many of his early selections will have been eliminated, that is a fact. If these guide lines held true for those examples I would agree SIAO did do what it says on the tin, but to make them work the guide lines have to be ignored. You will perhaps argue that as guide lines they should not be taken literally and any consistent horse that ranks well in the a/rating should be considered, fair enough. However when looking at those early selections we find many of them didn't rank that well, did he ever explain how to get around that problem? In this same article he makes Gaye Chance the c/form horse, why is that a problem? For me it is the only horse mentioned until SB that wasn't in the lowest five for consistency, agreed he does show in a later article going to the lowest five does bring its rewards. In all fairness he does give an explanation for "forgiving" the poor run, but that could just be down to VDW's experience as many horses fail when raised in class and don't return to form. Apart from the fact GC won that race how would you have judged its chance of doing so, before the off?

You scorn the need to use the old form books to help solve the puzzle, but I would suggest even they are not enough. To solve the puzzle one needs to have ALL the information VDW had to hand at the time to stand any sort of chance. Apart from the mention of a daily paper and two racing papers we can only guess at what others aids he used. Although as he did mention the SCHB we do know he used that.

You talk about folk resorting to looking for some dark magical trick, I think that is far from the truth. All they are doing is trying to make sense of something that HASN'T been explained CLEARLY. Even the simple word form can be used to mean different things, how do you look on it? Does he mean a horse being in form, recent runs being progressive and/or holding a certain standard, or a horse having the form in the book to compete with this field on the day?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

On the contrary, it has been explained quite clearly.
Only those that believe it hasn't tie themselves in knots.

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
Ive had a fun bet on Bulwark to win and place at 75.00 & 10.00 would be over the moon if he could get into the frame.

Well done Walter the Pige...

Well done Walt,I can see you having the fillet steak tonight

Well done indeed Walter; couldn't have picked that in a million years!

Oldtimer

thanks

think this sums it up


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i2OVRcrEw0&feature=related