WP

Has Lee awarded you a pointy hat yet ???

Naw TC,
Pointed boot more like .

WP
The original intention was for personal, rather than financial, reasons,so I would have to decline your generous offer.
Your 'reliable' informant on the other VDW forum is "barking" if he thinks that Roushayd cannot be solved without half of the raceform library, much like those on there who quibble for days about some disputed figure from the past form of those in the Erin.
They appear to have created an industry all of their own, which I am certain was not VDW's intention when he said that the Roushayd exercise, if understood, would have carried readers a long way.
Maybe he was referring to the London Newspaper Library?

The 'Fools and Horses' forum is now settling to its true metier.
Fulham has polished up his fishing tackle, and is now casting around to find the answers he never had. Any promising fish he lands will no doubt be whisked off to his private pond.
Investor has now got the method down to the fine art of 'subsets' where he claims a success rate of 80% plus. Thus far, he has given 4 horses in each of 5 races without getting near a winner, and still they believe him?
The other clones and refugees continue to study miniscule differences in weights, in the firm belief that 4 or 5lbs less could make a horse a racing certainty, and the head gypsy continues to foist his wares on the unwary.
Newcomers having the temerity to question the 'expertise' of the alumni are given the same short shrift they were given on here, by the same people, thus perpetuating the situation of the blind leading the blind, rather than progressing to a rarional solution.
Personally, I find it highly amusing, but VDW must be turning in his grave!

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

Sat April 2.

A VDW type attempt from one who doesn't know the Key or the Missing Link:

Lincoln.
320 Doncaster.

MINE
Blue Spinnaker
El Coto.

I'd fancy El Coto most.

In fact, I've even had a place bet on him!

My selections would be...

Common World : El Coto : Mine

(But no actual bet from me today)

Mtoto
Why not get your arse over there and show your wisdom.it's obvious your boy is trying but he's been brainwashed by his old man,And unfortunately can't yet see the wood for the trees.

Johnd
I can't for the life of me understand how you can say anybody doesn't understand vdw's methods given the total crap that you have churned out over the last couple of years.Your winners are as rare as rocking horse shit,So don't try and say that you understand vdw because you most certainly don't and probably never will.

Sat

Lincoln.

My selection was extremely bad; finished 16th.

Hopeless.

Investor or Pro (lol)

I don't have any intention of joining the other forum. The reason for that is I don't for one moment think I could stomach much of the nonsense you are spouting over there. If there is one thing I can't stand it's instant experts that can't answer a straight question. You hide behind I can't spell it out on a public forum, you and I know that is just an excuse. You can't explain because you DON'T have the answers. I agree some of the abuse you had to take on here was unnecessary, but in some cases understandable. If I came over there you would revert to the same stupid tactics you are using on here now senseless and unwarranted abuse. No, it would be better for both of us if I stay away.

I will just put you right on one thing though. I have never even talked to my son about VDW until he started to ask questions. Even then I wait for him to ask and then it is always qualified with that is my opinion and other people don't always agree make up your own mind. I did give him a list of people's post's he may like to find and think about. Sad to say your name wasn't on the list and I think it will be a long time (if ever) before you make it on to that list. If there is one quality you have that I wish he and I had, it would be your ability to speed read. You went through those form books a lot faster than we can. To read and UNDERSTAND all the examples that fast takes some doing, or believing. However, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Be Lucky (or never fall out with your e-mail friend)

Mtoto
Frustration is a powerful emotion,You make racing pay of that i have no doubt.So do i,You can take that any way you want i don't really care.All i hope is that your boy will eventually see what you quite clearly can't.I have long since gone past caring what folk on here think of me least of all you.I respect you for the way you make your living.As for how you interpret vdw,We will just have to agree to differ on that score.let your lad make his own way i personally wish him no harm.i just hope he can eventually pull himself away from your train of thought.

Not knowing much about this thread I came across this and wondered if anybody might find it interesting. You have all probably seen it.

I have recently suggested that to achieve a regular strike rate of 85% or thereabouts, VDW must have used Multiple

Betting - backing more than one horse in many of the races he describes. From the examples, that I am aware of, the prices of the winners quoted would lend themselves to having been the subject of multiple betting. My reasons for reaching this conclusion are that when I run a computer program looking at all odds on winners of 20/21or shorter it is extremely difficult to obtain a strike rate of around 80%. Of course, VDW's listings do not show any odds on winners. I also wondered why he spoke about staking plans in his very early letters, but never mentioned Multiple Betting. Furthermore he devotes a chapter to Multiple Betting in the book Systematic Betting (The logical approach to racing winnings) which is usually regarded as the only book that VDW actually penned although published by Raceform in spring 1990. It does seem, however, that VDW's first sojourn into the subject was a letter of the 26th December 1981 but this was not carried in The Golden Years of Van der Wheil. But, reader Ronald Walker's letter of the 23rd January, 1982 approved the quality of the VDW letter but not the suggestion.

VDW's letter of the 26th December, 1981 (was Kempton Park abandoned or had he already sorted out the winner of the King George over his Christmas lunch!) in the book 'The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune'. This is almost four years after his first letter to the SCHB on the 2nd February, 1978. This, I think stresses, that his methods were always being added to or altered and were a portfolio of methods, which sometime in the future should be defined into a list in time order, as I feel that, maybe this will make the methods easier to define. Maybe, this is what Tony Peach tried to do but in my opinion spoilt his efforts by introducing letters by other readers possibly to fill up his publications. Anyway, that is of course a personal opinion Back to the subject matter - Multiple Betting - which VDW is quick to point out is not those fancy bets, the bread and butter of bookmakers, like doubles, trebles, yankees, patents, round robins etc. In this context it refers to backing more than one horse in the race also strangely enough now also known as 'dutching'. VDW was aware that this type of betting was considered sheer folly by many as of course any race can usually only have one winner and you only have one winning bet. However, there is sound reasoning to use this style of betting when any race is suitable as it gives you a better chance of being on the winner.

VDW said that everyday there were races where only two, or at the most, three horses have any real chance and the rest are just making up the numbers. An American ˜dutching' exponent said you should make sure the horses you intend to use are contenders and not pretenders. Once you learn how to cut a race down to its real size, you will be in a position to play the bookmaker at his own game.

The bookmaker ensures a profit by making his book over-round but he of course is at a disadvantage as he has to take account of all the runners. Once you have learnt to sort out the real contenders from the pretenders, by making your own book within the market you will take a profit whichever wins. When you back a single horse, you are taking one against the field and the bookmaker has the rest running for him and naturally each additional horse you back reduces the odds against yourself.

When you think you know the winner can only come from two or three horses in a race and you can back all of them and still make a profit, then surely this is a method equal to a punter's dream! However, it still requires careful study to ascertain that a profit can be made and furthermore that the percentage profit is acceptable. I did read that the highly respected Alec Bird used multiple betting but stressed that even a regular small profit was acceptable.

Although, there are several ways to back a number of horses in the same race, VDW more or less suggested just two. Firstly the relatively straightforward method of adding to your selections, as follows: your two horses priced at 1/1 and 3/1. You add one point to each of your selections and stake that on the other horse:

Horse A at 1/1 Price of horse B plus 1=4points Horse B at 3/1 Price of horse A plus 1=2points.

Then to find out if a profit can be taken multiply the stakes together 4 x 2 =8 and take away an addition of both stakes 4+2=6 which shows a profit of 2 points; a profitability of 33% - which serious punters would consider a very acceptable proposition. VDW says ˜there are many good opportunities without cramping your play ( when the expected profit is not worth striking a bet) and once again Temperament comes in to play!

Professional Punters I understand prefer to use Multiple Betting in a slightly different way and bet with the objective of getting agiven return. There are several tables available to indicate what it is needed to get your return and many of these are based on a return of 100 points.

Taking our example above (1/1 and 3/1) the table shows that a horse at 1/1 requires 50 points staked to return 100 points and the 3/1 horse requires 25 points to return 100 points. The total stake is of course 75 points and whichever wins you will return your 100 points and a profit of 25 points I always understood it was unwise to invest more than 60%, preferably less of the intended return, for example in a three horse multiple bet: If you wanted a £20 return you could wager £5 on a 3/1 shot, £4 on a 5/1 and £2 on a 10/1 for a total of £11 staked to get back a return of £20 if any one of your three chosen horses won.

Note that our staking equals 55% of our chosen return and make sure you always select your horses carefully.

This systematic betting brings VDW to say; ˜betting everyday down and across the card is a fool's game when, by being in complete control you can strike one two or perhaps three good bets over a period of a week. Why bust your gut when there is no need? Leave that to the mug punters who are going to pay your way for you'. You are on much safer ground with Multiple Betting than you would be by taking a single selection even if at times your percentage profit margin might seem low. Don't scoff at an average between 10-20%, it was my understanding that Alec Bird looked at very fine margins as long as he showed an acceptable profit margin over a long period

Maybe the returns are less than you might get from your occasional winning double, treble or annual yankee, but I

suggest you will win on a more regular and professional basis. That is just a brief outline of Multiple betting just using two horses in a race, I should mention that it is possible (there is a three horse example quoted above) to use more but of course any such attempts must be seriously considered to make certain there is a profit available.

(Note) If any one would like a copy of the table, then please send an email to gummy to pass on to me.

WHY PROMINENT KING?

This is of course the first example given by VDW in his letter 8th April, 1978; unfortunately the detail given in 'The Golden Years of Van der Wheil' were incorrect! The errors related to the consistency ratings. The example was in relation to just the basics of one of his methods, the numerical picture which provided a way of narrowing
down the field - an area where many winners were to be found. The corrected details are as follows:



18/2/78 LEOPARDSTOWN Yielding
2m Irish Champion Hurdle Class 90 16 run

Last 3 Runs Horse Weight Cons

0 1 0 P MASTER MONDAY 8-12-0 21
3 1 3L DECENT FELLOW 5-11-11 7(14)
1 1 0 MELADON 5-11-11 12
1 1 2 BEACON LIGHT 7-11-8 4*
3 3 6 MONKSFIELD 6-11-8 12
- 8 9 0 BALLYMOUNTAIN GIRL 9-11-4 27
4 1 1 BANSWARA 6-11-4 6

5 1 0 - COOCH BEHAR 6-11-4 16
3 1 2 DRUMGORA 6-11-4 6
1 5 - 0 MULTIPLE 8-11-4 16
4 - 2 2 PROMINENT KING 6-11-4 8*
1 5 7L TROYSWOOD 6-11-4 16
1 1 MR KILDARE 5-11-1 3*
1 3 F 5 SILVINE 5-11-1 9
1 1 2 BEPARAEJOJO 4-10-0 4
3 2 2 BUGLE BEADS 4-10-0 7


Actual Betting Evens Beacon.Light,5 Decent Fellow, Mr Kildare 6 Prominent .King, 10 Meladon,11 Monksfield,20 Bar
VDW F/Cast: Beacon Light, Decent Fellow, Mr Kildare, Prominent King and Monksfield
(note actual betting differed slightly to F/Cast)

Here was the form for the race according to an egroup posting:

MR. KILDARE
28/1 1st 14 8 10-10 2m NAAS Sft Cond Hd 8/11f 11-0 3/1
27/12 1st 6 2.5 10-9 2m LEOP Yld Mdn Hd 2/5f 10-9 10/1

BEACON LIGHT
4/2 2nd 39 1 12-2 2m SAND Hvy CondHd 6/4f 11-12 2/1
2/1 1st 43 2 12-1 2m WIND Gd CondHd 4/5f 11-9 7/2
26/12 1st 85 2 11-10 2m KEMP Yld CondHd 5/2 11-7 6/4f

DRUMGORA (for reference)
28/1 2nd 17 1.5 10-9 2m3fNAAS Sft HcpHd 9/4f 9-7 5/2
14/1 1st 6 5 11-2 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 6/4f 12-7 9/4
27/12 3rd116 2.5 10-1 2mLEOP Yld HcpHd 33/1 11-4 4/1f

PROMINENT KING
14/1 2nd 6 5 12-7 2m LEOP Gd HcpHd 9/4 11-2 6/4f
31/12 2nd 14 4 11-4 2m4fPUNCHSftCondHd 8/1 11-4 12/1
17/2 4th 88 11 11-11 2m LEOP HvyCondHd 10/1 12-0 20/1

DECENT FELLOW
28/1 3rdL 22 25 11-12 2mDONSftCondHd 9/4 11-12 13/8jf
27/12 1st 116 1.5 11-4 2mLEOPYld HcpHd 4/1f 10-4 14/1
17/12 3rd 28 12 11-8 2m ASCGd CondHd 4/7f 11-8 13/2

Result
Prominent King WON 6/1


Notes: the above table shows:

Date, Finishing Position, Race Value, Lengths beaten or winning distance, Weight carried, Race details, Starting Price, weight of horses they beat or were beaten by and their price

As you can see , taking the placings literally , the 3 most consistent from the first 5 in the betting forecast at the time would have been Decent Fellow (7) , Beacon Light (4 not 3 as printed) and Mr Kildare (3). Prominent King was given as 5 but this must be a
printing error because his total was in fact 8. It should also be noted that in the case of Decent Fellow, his last race 3rd place (when 13/8F) was in fact a very poor last of three and deserved to be judged as finishing last and given 10 points making his total 14 points. Remember that VDW said last=10

We then arrive at the top three on consistency (which is what we are interested in) as those * above, Beacon Light, Mr Kildare and Prominent King (even with his revised figure).
Here is a summary of the race given by a well known VDW exponent to the methodology e-group:


Prominent King ran in the lowest class of the 3 probables last time out.
All 3 horses were going up in class.
Beacon Light was dropped in class last time for the second time and was beaten although giving 4lb to Sea Pigeon.
Note the Starting Prices of the horses last 3 runs.
Note the Starting Prices of the horses they beat or were beaten by (Weight and S.P. of
those horses on the far right of the form evaluation after each run)

At no point did VDW state that the consistent horses were the form horses,
so why do so many think that they are ? This is always a point to remember as is the fact, that later on VDW offered the Roushayd method,(down in class) at this stage he was quite happy to select horses going up in class.

Going back to Prominent King you can see that in his last race Prominent King was carrying 12-7 giving 19lb to the 6/4fav Drumgora who had previously finished 3rd in a
class 116 race. Prominent King went down by 5 lengths and finished 2nd. Before that on his seasonal debut 2 weeks earlier he had contested a class 14 race over 2m 4f carrying 11-4 beaten 4 lengths by a horse carrying11-4 who had just won a class 24 race. His last race of the previous season was in the corresponding Erins race (then class 88) carrying 11-11 and finishing 4th beaten 11 lengths. Of the other 2 probables , Mr. Kildare had won 2 races from 2 starts. Firstly a class 6 maiden race beating a horse who had previously placed 5th in class 4. Then he was raised to class 14 carrying 10-10 and beat a horse carrying 11-0 by 8 lengths who had previously placed 2nd in class 17.

Beacon Light had won 3 out 5 that season. His third last race had been a win in class 85 carrying 11-10 giving 3lb and a 2 length beating to a horse who had placed 2nd in class 37 previously. Then Beacon Light was dropped to class 43 and again won by 2 lengths carrying 12-1 and giving 6lb to a horse who had previously run 2nd in class 70. Then dropped again to class 39 carrying 12-2 but beaten a length by Sea
Pigeon carrying 11-12 whose only previous run that season had been 2 months earlier in a class 350 chase (The Colonial Cup International) when he fell. Which was the better performance when considering the respective last races of Beacon Light & Prominent King?

Other points to bear in my mind are how often the 3 probables had raced that season, the prices they started in their races and also the Starting Prices of those they raced against. Why was Prominent King raced first time out after a long lay off over a 4f greater trip and then asked to carry a massive weight next time against a horse who had placed 3rd in an even higher class race than the race Prominent King was contesting that day? All these points are worth looking at to get the picture!

The two terms concerned with here are "Illusions in form" and "Blown its top" both are credited to VDW in his writings, and both are beautifully illustrated in the Prominent King example.

First lets take Beacon Light and show how he was able to show that this horse had blown its top, and could be eliminated from calculations: If we look back to BL's, third last race (1608) we can see that it won a £8,500 race beating the likes of Night Nurse and Drumgora. Next race (1764) this time is dropped in class to £4,300 and again takes the spoils, now to the downturn, race (2175) dropped in class to £3,930 beaten and hard ridden flat, is favourite, and also for good measure a downturn in SF, solid evidence on three counts that Beacon Light has well and truly "Blown his top".

Now lets look at how the trainer keeps Prominent King on ice till the following season before placing him to win, his trainer had noted what a fine performance the horse had put up in finishing 4th in the valuable Erins Food Champion Hurdle race (2015)on Sat Feb 19th.1977, the horse is then put away till the last day of the year, in a race (1746) which now becomes his first run of the 77-78 season and is placed at his wrong distance (two & a quarter miles) and first run of the new season placed so he cannot
win in a modest £1,400 race, but still manages 2nd. a clear illusion of form. Prominent King is now sent to contest another modest race (1961) this time the trainer has placed him in a handicap with a massive 12st.7lb to shoulder, and up against Drumgora, who had just previously ran 3rd. in the valuable Sweeps Hurdle (£11,673), Prominent King also has to give Drumgora 19lbs who is made the 64 favourite, with Prominent King second favourite, so therefore fully expected to be beaten by Drumgora. Another clear illusion in form.

Exactly one year later, Prominent King now goes back to contest the race where he showed such improvement the previous year, and is now poised to win. Hopefully readers will be able to see the logic of these evaluations. A point worth noting is in respect of evaluating previous races and not just taking them at face value. Half the battle can be won simply by putting yourself in the position of the respective horses trainer and weighing up 'WHERE should I put this horse next time out'? A trainer, like all of us, only has limited resources and time and by no means can they afford to go into an in depth study of previous races so it is almost inevitable that a quick & easy
method of weighing up how their horse is progressing ( in relation to the others it ran against ) has to be found.

The writer of this piece used prize money as it was virtually all that was available in those days, however old hands can now avail themselves to the Official Ratings which are readily available these days, and probably more accurate.


In the book VDW says ˜ using two methods of rating (?) all five horses shown, I found that the three starred horses came out best; if any of you have read any of my previous articles, I used my own consistency chart and split seconds speed figure (unadjusted) plus the horses OR to form a rating.


That is , to my mind, a very fascinating resume of Prominent King and I hope helps to unravel the plot. For my own part what it tells me is that a horses previous runs, as in the case of Roushayd - using a different VDW method are of the utmost importance. In similar fashion building up towards the planned coup. In Prominent King's case going up in class and in Roushayd's case going down in class. As the writer said, the
starting prices of previous races also shows a picture, worth studying. I have also seen it suggested that VDW had spotted a 'link' between the trainer & the race in question.......either directly or via the previous race run in.


Prominent. King had raced better class than Mr Kildare although he was the only winner last time out and had the beating of that horse and I assume that with Beacon Light VDW felt that it had a hard race last time out against Sea Pigeon and did not perform well even though it had been lowered in class in both of its last two races.

It is still my own personal view that an improving horse going up in class with the right previous race preparation is a better proposition than a horse being lowered in class for the wrong reasons. We have to remember that the foregoing resume is not the work of VDW and is based on knowing the result; we cannot be sure that the writer would have reached the same conclusions prior to the race - but we hope so!


There are some races which do not require such an involved investigation, but in this case, I do no think that any short cut would have produced the right result. Finally, if you were not happy, or could not spare the time necessary to do a complicated form check, or only used the numerical picture and unable to split the top three on consistency; then use multiple betting (the secret weapon of VDW in my book and the answer to his 85% Strike Rate) back all three!


MARCHWOOD ON ABILITY

My thoughts on ability or is it class?

I am aware that several people, recognised as knowing a thing or two about the VDW methodology, are not happy about how the ability ratings are formulated. Many are confused by the words class and ability although VDW suggests they are the same thing. It should also be noted that when tables are shown in articles about VDW the ability ratings seem to take pride of place. Those familiar will know that VDW suggested that a simple way, in his mind, to rate the field for ability, is to relate the prize money won to the number of races won. This can be accomplished by viewing the prize money in hundreds of pounds divided by the number of races won. He then says 'THIS IS NOT FOOLPROOF'. These days with many people using the RP Internet pages the hundreds have changed into thousands as this is how they are depicted. The overall results though still offer a similar type of rating.

From my own point of view, I am not happy, as I feel this form of rating could show a 4 year old horse that had a very successful 2 year old career, winning one of the major races, a poor 3 year old campaign with maybe a couple of small races but showing a very high ability rating based on what was achieved in his or her early career which maybe it has left behind. The rating is based on horses winnings only and many people tend to argue it should include all races and all winnings. But the experts tend to frown on this idea. So what about other ideas. Here is one I saw published by Charlie Anderson who was someone I always regarded in the VDW league.

"we base evaluations on the class of the last race each horse has run in, we would also like to modify this rating based on the position the horse finished in this race to give some value to the form aspect of this last performance. this method does not cover all aspects of individual evaluation, but will give a reasonable measure of the horses in our race which with other considerations will allow a better judgement to be reached. example of basic method: take a horse that last ran in a 25,000 race, its rating will be 250. now we modify by percentage reduction based on its finishing position

PERCENTAGE REDUCTION TABLE:

POSITION LAST TIME OUT

1ST 100%

2ND 90%

3RD 80%

4TH 70%

5TH 60%

6TH 50%

7TH 40%

8TH 30%

9TH 20%

10TH 10%

so if our horse in the above example finished 4TH in a race class 250 its modified rating will be 175.ie 250 x 75%, if it won the race it would retain the full class value of 250. the above is not perfect but is as good as you will get for rating on a CLASS/FORM basis using a number based method." Charlie backed this up by suggesting that you should always consider what the horse did, as far as running style in this last race was as important as the rating. Maybe, an even better solution would be to use Charlie's formula on a horses last three races. I liked his reasoning and his tabular rating and wonder what other members feel about it and whether they have any of their own pet ideas. One other point I think worth stressing is that good horses, those who have demonstrated ability, rarely run for the smaller prizes but their ability rating usually means they can be easily spotted against the other runners when they do. There could be reasons why it has been entered in a low class race or at a lower grade of racecourse, maybe it is just after easy pickings, maybe the trainer is trying to recapture a horses sudden loss of form or interest or maybe even it is being used as a racecourse gallop. However, a small win will reduce its ability rating but that doesnot matter to the trainer!

To end with I would like to go back to our discussions on consistency where I showed an item to do with taking the last two outings instead of the last three. That of course was also what lead me on to my pieces about Clive Holt and Fineform. The more I look at VDW the more I become convinced that the last two or three outings, for he used them both in examples when indicating that this was the area that winner finding should be concentrated. I am more than a little surprised that those of you looking back at the old results or studying them through ˜The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune' have not said that most of the winners shown come from horses that finished mostly first but sometimes second last time out and therefore have a consistency rating of less than (7)* I know there are the exceptions. Several people took me to task when I brought this up last time but I am getting more convinced that this an area for a much more detailed research than maybe even the ability rating. I think I have also said this consistency rating can be backed up by many of the commercial ratings available today in Daily Newspapers, Racing Papers, Web Sites like Adrian Massey etc.. I repeat what VDW said "that ratings are only used to support the numerical picture. He did say that did he not"? Or maybe Tony Peach is putting out different copies of the books to keep this over 20 year phenomenon still going to the press! Lastly just let me add this time, I have been carrying on a private correspondence with one of our members who is very impressed with my ratings which are commercially based. But I was also able to show him that in the examples we looked at my own consistency chart plus points for course or distance wins produced the same horse to back as it did when I added the commercial ratings to the figures. Just like VDW!

Marchwood.

Marchwood's N.H. Formel System

We have always believed that the Fineform system was a successful formula and so we set out to try and improve it. However, due to lack of time and other interests, we have not followed our system up since 1996. However, as Fineform we believe dates back to 1983 and is still being advertised today, we see no reason why our system should still not apply.

We still use a horses last two outings but now use a chart to award points. Our chart puts the emphasis on a horses last outing, for example 12 gives 18 points but 21 ( a win last time out) gives 19 points. Here is our chart:

LATEST OUTING

PREVIOUS OUTING 1 2 3 4 0
1 20 18 16 15 9
2 19 17 15 14 8
3 17 16 14 12 7
4 16 15 13 11 6
0 10 9 8 7 0

Please note that any horse finishing 5th or lower is classified as 0. Examples 15 = 9points; 48 = 6 points; 00 = 0 points

We suggest you need only rate the first six in the betting forecast irrespective of type of race; it is up to you; rate as many as you wish

Then to the ratings figures, further additions are made in respect of the following:

Course Winner only add 1 point

Distance Winner only add 3 points

Course & Distance Winner add 5 points

Our experience indicated that meetings with the least total number of runners on the day were the most successful and suggest that 55 runners be considered as the maximum. In the same way races with 10 or less runners do best. Our through the card day at Aintree only had a total of 28 runners!

Where two horses have the same ratings you can back both of them, use them in a forecast (especially when there are only four or five declared runners) or take the one with the lowest weight or lowest race card number.

Our experience suggested that you should avoid races that include more than half the field of runners having their first run and N.H. Flat races.

Try to use the current seasons form; where a horse has only had one race this season then we suggest using that form for the two races, ignoring last seasons form. For example a horse with form figures 70PP/2 take as 22.

More experience may show that certain types and grade of races are more successful than others. Although Fineform did not seem to make distinctions in this respect.

Marchwood

November 1996

Marchwood in Fineform!

Before posting the system that I promised, I felt I should add a few more thoughts to what I have already posted. Firstly, it was my colleague's father that had the original Clive Holt book that featured the Fineform system which we then adapted. This was in 1996 when Clive Holt was still taking large full page colour advertisements in Raceform Update. Some of the claims made could be easily checked and our own experience shows what we used from the system confirmed the claims made in his advertisements. I should add that we also checked the standard system against many of the claims and can again not dispute them. Indeed Raceform Update took a reader to task on their Sports Forum page for suggesting ' that any reader who backed Fineform's Maximums were on a loser'. Clive Holt supplied RfU with total results from 1983 to June 1997 which in RfU's words 'proved conclusively that by following the rules set out in Chapter 4 of the book "Winners back Winners" a considerable overall profit has been achieved'. I have read many criticisms of Clive Holt and his bogus claims but at this stage I cannot agree. I would not accept RfU's words as gospel as I had experience with them over another full page advertisement for a book and they failed to give me any satisfactory explanations and still repeated the advertisement complete with false claims. Might have something to do with advertising revenue! That episode ended my writing to the Sports Forum in my own name and in future only used aliases!

Anyway, back to Fineform and our experiences. We only started in October 1996 and carried it through to March 1997 when our partnership split up and due to other interests and business demands

I have not checked what we found since. I am sorry that also at this stage, I can only find one months results part October/November 1996.

However, I can truthfully say they were representative of what we found.

It was also noticed that National Hunt proved more reliable than the flat mainly we felt due to the smaller fields.

Our adaptation of the Fineform system included a last two outings chart which allocated points (I used a similar chart, but three placings when using VDW on the flat). Our points for C, D and C&D were also different as we felt that a win over the distance was worth more which also amended our figure for C&D. We did not rate all horses but used a betting forecast formula, we also suggested races with less than ten runners and meetings with the fewest runners. In races with few runners, we took the top two ratings and did a forecast and this was also successful.

At that time we were seriously concerned about having to bet in every race, but then with the results being achieved maybe we should not have worried. This area of reducing the number of races is one that I feel maybe gummy members might come up with some ideas.

Our through the card day at Aintree produced the same horses as Fineform and they used the results in their advertising 4/1; 5/2; 9/4; 13/8; 2/5; 9/4. I accept that an overall strike rate of 37.76% is less than many others claim but with more up-to-data, ideas etc., I am certain that this could be improved. In the month we are able to quote, the highest winner prices were 10/1 and 9/1 with eight dual forecasts and a placed 33/1 in an 8 horse race.

Am I right in thinking that there are at least three Fineform Systems, Fineform Master Formula, Fineform Maximums and Fineform Inform. I am aware of the first two but would welcome enlightenment on the third one. Does anyone doubt the powers of Fineform or have proof that shows the claims not to be true?

Before I post up the whole system, I will try and check a couple of recent meetings to see whether MARCHWOOD is still in FINEFORM.

MARCHWOODS METHODOLOGY PART 2

Following on from last weeks piece, we are now going to look at in depth the second letter of the five that were suggested as the basis of the VDW methodology. This is the letter dated 1st June 1978 and headed 'Numbers game to form a picture'

The letter starts off regarding criticism or comment from ˜Methodmaker' suggesting that VDW accepts previous form figures without question. VDW now emphasises the point that this is not justified as in the previous letter, that we analysed last week, he stated ˜subject to other considerations' good betting propositions can be found. VDW also feels that if Methodmaker has misinterpreted my suggestion, many readers would have failed to grasp the intent.

He repeats what I think we all already accept as fact ˜that consistent horses win a high percentage of races' He then goes on to say ˜DISREGARDING all factors other than the last three ratings' my figures show percentage wins next time.

It is not my intention to publish these figures again as I have already analysed this matter under the thread percentages on the message board and in articles,

However, what I would like to point out is taking the last three outings 111 which VDW gave as 33% a recent check over a fourteen period suggested that this percentage figure was now much nearer 24%. From the research, we could not find any last three placings combinations as high as VDW quoted nor did we find any that had taken their place. The only other noticeable fact was that 000 which VDW quoted as 2% was now nearer 5%. Does this mean that the last three outings formula is now far less reliable.

Personally, I have never believed that a horses third last race form should be taken at the same face value level as its last race. For this reason, I produced my own ˜last three outings chart' which allocated more points for a horse's last race than for the other two. This formed the basis of an article written by Philip Alexander (Methodmaker) in Raceform Update. I did also send this to Gummy but it was not in a repeatable format.

This chart formed the basis of my own interpretation of VDW as I have said previously. Taking the first five or six in the betting forecast, depending on type of race, I then allocated points from my chart to each of these horses. To this figure, I added the horse official rating and the speed figure shown inRaceform Update which gave me a rating for each horse and the top figure was my selection.

I often wonder whether, what I did was similar to what VDW did as he says ˜that all relevant horses were rated by two different methods'

No mention of ability in so many words but maybe this was accounted for both in a horses official rating and any speed figures.

VDW then goes on to offer several races for serious consideration and points out that in one of the example races, that of Strombolus; it did not feature in the first six in his paper's betting forecast and also that the horses place first and second had the same last three placings of 111.

He suggests pondering over these races, which is an aspect which has always caused me concern, but this may be too controversial to discuss my reasons further at this stage.

The letter concludes that since the opening of the flat (presumably around the 24th March) VDW had placed 32 bets of which 29 had won (a strike rate of 90.63%). A period of 10 weeks to the 1st June confirming his average of three bets a week or were some of them multiple bets!

Marchwood

MARCHWOODS METHODOLOGY PART 1

Hello everyone; our good friend Gummy suggested that I might be interested in contributing a regular article and hopefully, establish a regular page. Any comments, questions or ideas can be posted to the usual message board. I thought I would like to try and expand on the VDW methodology thread which I started and I think I am right in saying has attracted the most attention on the message board.

Firstly, what VDW calls the 'numerical picture' and is first mentioned in his letter to the SCHB Sports' Forum in April 1978. He says that what he is offering is not a system but one of many ways to narrow the field and at the same time put the odds in your favour. What he is suggesting are two factors that can be coupled together to leave three horses for consideration.

He elaborates firstly by saying ' consistent horses win a high percentage of races'. The first factor is that using the betting forecast, as suggested, can trap over 80% of all winners. List the first six in handicaps and the first five in non-handicaps. Remember that this was written in 1978 but checking the situation in 2001, the picture is still almost the same. I would go on to say that my recent own research indicates that certain races produce higher results and handicaps are now just below the 80% mark. I produced a table to indicate this point, which did not reproduce very well, that showed the situation for a 14 year period, 1986-1999, which was used to confirm the VDW figures. It should also be noted that the number of races of all types is more than 33% more now than in the VDW days. So I suggest that anyone making selections from outside the accepted betting forecast range is working under a handicap from the start. I am aware that betting forecasts vary from paper to paper but I believe that those given on the TV text pages are those used by the Racing Post. Furthermore, I feel that if you use your favourite daily newspaper and stick with it, you will not be a big time loser.

To the two factors, he then suggests adding the last three placings of the respective horses in the betting forecast together to produce the 'numerical picture'. The placings are calculated as follows: Placings from 1 to 9 are counted as they stand and those in 10th place through to last place, count as 10. At a later stage VDW suggests that for N.H. the placings F, U, R, PU are looked at in a different way.

Back to the plot; VDW states 'This exercise can be very illuminating and show 'subject to other considerations', the good betting propositions'. A high percentage of winners come from the three lowest figures. Leaving out sellers and novice handicaps it often traps the winner of all races on the card.

What I feel is very important here, is that he does not say winners come from using the lowest figure but from the three lowest.

He then goes on to analyse an Irish Champion Hurdle race and indicates the three lowest in the placings method, one of which had only run two races so the horses last placing was used again to give a rating. Now he states ' Using two methods of rating all five horses, I found that the three starred horses came out best'. He then gives a form analysis and comes to the conclusion that the highest of the starred horses ' looked a good betting proposition'.

My own view is that the 'numerical picture' is only used as he says to 'narrow the field' to enable him to then rate the three lowest horses using, in this case a form study. Speed is not mentioned.

What is more, the last paragraph of the letter, to my mind adds to a welter of confusion! His method and form study produced a 6/1 winner and a 5/1 second place. Why then, does he go on to say 'With a sensible Staking Plan, the method works well for me'.

The more times I read VDW the more I come to the conclusion that to achieve his claimed 85-90% winners; he was backing more than one horse in most races. Otherwise, why did he need to mention a staking plan in this letter?

What should also be noted at this stage, apart from two types of race, that the quality of the race or the value to the winner or the age of the horse is no matter for consideration. He just says that consistent horses win a high percentage of races.



A LETTER IN FULL FROM VAN DER WHEIL TO THE SPORTING CHRONICLE HANDICAP BOOK ON AUGUST 23RD 1979

I reply to Mr T.A. Swann, I must first suggest he is starting from the wrong point. He states that he was confident of discovering my methods of rating which, I understand, he feels is the answer to his problem.

This is not so, and I have previously suggested that although ratings have a value they are not the " be all and end all " but should be treated as a guide.

I'm sure that if he understood a previous letter, which perhaps he had not seen before writing, the situation would have been clearer.

Although the elementary mechanical procedure can be used to effect on any race, I suggest that by concentrating on better class races, he will soon gain a full understanding. Relatively consistent horses can be found in any race, but GOOD consistent horses are usually found only in better events. The value of any ratings must be determined from the basis used to compile them and in this respect I suggest form must play a major role.

Speed figures alone have little value in not supported by form. It is true form is a complex thing, and subject to interpretation, but there are many aspects which give clear indications. Mr. Swann may care to give thought not to a race as a whole but to the respective horses performances over the last two furlongs in each of their three previous outings. What a horse does. or does not do, at this stage will provide the answers.

As one example, a horse that noticeably improves to make a race of it at this stage without winning can be looked upon as a potential candidate in the near future and note should be made of how the trainer places it.

Mr. Swann states he had found good reasons to back the horses mentioned and I suggest he examines this aspect in depth. With the obvious effort he has put in, this will give him the answers he seeks.

The placing of an investment must be backed by solid reasons and not by compulsion to gamble.

The Goodwood meeting produced a string of good things rounding off with Connaught Bridge and Philodantes on Saturday August 4th. The only other race of the day to consider provided Soaf at Newmarket.

Another of the many ways to reduce the field, which can be used in conjunction with the previous method I gave is as follows. The combination of the two usually isolates the probables. Again I suggest the better class races but illustrate using a scrubber to show potential.

A star has been used to indicate selections at each stage. The previous method I gave isolates Secret Express, Easter Girl, The Old Fellow giving four out of the 16 with probability. Most readers will be aware of the statistics regarding horses placed 1, 2, 3, 4 last time out and here a variation is used for the first stage of the mechanical procedure.

Stage one. From the last two placings of each horse mark all those with form figures 1 to 4 ( note as in the race illustrated none had a 2nd place so mark those with a 5th place).

Stage two. Select in days the first five most recent runs. In this case 3, 7, 9 , 10, 11 days.

Stage three. Select from above the three most consistent by adding together the last three placings of the respective horses.

Reading through the form there can be little doubt that The Old Fellow represents a reasonable wager if you care to bet in scrubber races.

NEWMARKET AUGUST 4th COBNUT SELLING STAKES HANDICAP 3-Y-0 16 RUNNERS
STAGE ONE STAGE TWO STAGE THREE RATING RATING
766 Tucson 28
2R14* Secret Express 3* 7* 32 84
58-0 What A Treasure 110
305* Easter Girl 9* 18 29 84
0-74* Laki Lady 68
275* Mohock 7* 14* 2nd 15/2 35 85
40-9 Carol Seymour 61
0-35* Hosts Delight 11* 18 28 89
0L0 Sky Grove 61
044* Game Sheila 7* 18 29 89
093* Baby Flo 10* 22 18 75
08L Blue Paper 64
781* The Old Fellow 10* 16* Won 12/1 40 91
084* Royal Inheritance 25 22 (40) (90) For Info
064* Desert Prince 18 20 3rd 16/1 31 89
0660 The Mo 19

It is interesting to speculate by what criterion weight of money could force Royal Inheritance to a 5/2 favourite from a forecast of 10/1. Ratings alone? If readers care to subject the next race on the card ( won by Soaf) to the same two methods the point arises again. By what criterion could Another Signcentre be not only forecast favourite but actual 2/1 favourite. The combination of both methods isolates Soaf, Daikoku, Rubber Duck and Art Bidder. As will be noticed, the first three places were filled from these four.

C. Van der Wheil, Market Harborough August 23rd 1979

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fat Jockey,

Bleeding Obvious - ain't it !

The High Priests tho' - will no doubt tell you what you have clearly missed !!

They are obsessed with finding - "The Winner" - in the race !!!

tc

SE/TC

Although VDW did write about multiple betting, and did, very occasionally, bet in this way, it is wrong to think that that is the basis of his method. (IMO, the same method all the time, despite him showing various approaches)

The 'High Priests' have, as you say, got it wrong, and are, on current evidence, still doing so.
All other considerations aside, the method is based on finding the winner in the race, a clear, unequivocal, and undeniable selection that is so far in front of its opposition that VDW was moved to append them as 'Good Thing', 'Outstanding Bet', or 'Racing Certainty'.
That, in certain races, he was able to do this, I have absolutely no doubt!
Those that think they know, then proceed to give 4 horses in a race, argue about a 3 or 4lb weight difference, won't back a horse unless it is above a certain price, or unless it has consistent form figures, must then be missing something which was elementary to VDW.
No matter how cleverly, (Or otherwise, in some cases, ), they profess to have this knowledge, they are, very obviously, not in possesion of even a basic understanding of the method.
It isn't guesswork!

JohnD
Either you are blagging your way through this forum,Or you really do know jack s..t about these methods.Again you are giving advice on the methodology and yet i believe you have posted 2 winners in over 30 bets.I mean come on,You are only kidding yourself.I have been told i should be in a loony bin,I think it is you who has a problem with your mental health when you keep pretending to know something you quite clearly don't which is reflected in your winners to runners ratio.Get a grip man and stop kidding yourself.

I always though it was a simple approach rather than the complicated affair others would have you believe

But does it work??
Nobody can demonstrate that it does (before the race) to an extent better than your average clued up punter.

Would VDW have said "I assumed people were more conversant with form than appears to be the case" if comparing form was as complicated as in the Erin example above?


The paragraphs below Have to be right
Anybody like to comment on the solid reasons?
I have some but lets see if we all think alike

Mr. Swann states he had found good reasons to back the horses mentioned and I suggest he examines this aspect in depth. With the obvious effort he has put in, this will give him the answers he seeks.

The placing of an investment must be backed by solid reasons and not by compulsion to gamble.

Lastly

Why was Little Owl a Racing certainty
but
Sunset Christo only NEARLY a racing Certainty

Nothing complicated is it

I'd like to thank SE for putting up that post because I found it interesting and, possibly, very useful.

I'm a believer in the multiple bets in a race myself, but I don't use them half enough, in practice.

Grading the value of previous runs so that the latest is given the most weight/value would be a good policy in general, I feel.
However, a decent horse, that runs first, first, last, but still comes out within a couple of weeks for a valuable race, probably should not be discounted. There may have been a reasonable excuse for the flop - " hampered or bumped" being the obvious one.

Anyway, it's got me thinking along new lines, so I'm happy!

quote:

Originally posted by boozer:
I always though it was a simple approach rather than the complicated affair others would have you believe

I agree it is a simple approach, VDW's own words support that view.
The same straightforward application that sorts out Roushayd also finds Prominent King; although there are differing aspects to their form, both can be solved on the same basis, without recourse to the form of every runner in every race they ever ran in.
It is over-complicated by those who take the view that, because they cannot see a relatively simple solution, it becomes an intellectual challenge that can only be fathomed by copious study of every nuance of every example.
That this flies in the face of VDW's own words is ignored, possibly for the same reason that every punter strikes a bet in the first place, because they think they know better than others.
VDW, IMO, was a genius in horse-racing terms, not because he spent a lifetime examining the minutae of every aspect of the subject, rather that he understood a couple of basic concepts that have eluded, and still do, so many others.
It isn't rocket science!

JohnD,

I agree PK and R can be found using the same basic method. I have said many times how I do it, by using speed. I maybe wrong but you seemed to be disagreeing with this. Would you like to take this opportunity to explain how you do it if you don't think speed is the link. The one thing i don't agree with is PK can be found just using his last three runs. I do agree the form books wouldn't be needed to find R but if the a/rating does play a part in the Roushayd method how would one check on them without them?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I will try to answer some of your points as openly as possible, but I am not about to reveal my understanding of the basic concepts behind the method.
Some would have it that I don't understand at all , all I will say is that I understand enough to recognise many of the misconceptions, ranging, as they do on most fora, from misguided thinking to downright fraud.
As I said previously, both PK and R can be solved by the same straightforward process, and without the use of s/f.
In the case of the former, I am unaware of any s/f, apart from those occasionally mentioned on this board, and certainly did not use them to draw the conclusions I have.
In the case of the latter, I used to believe that they were an intrinsic part of the solution, I now recognise that a much better case can be established without any dependence on them.
None of the above is intended to devalue s/f, but it is my firm belief, that, as with ability ratings, they are nothing more than a guide, and neither is essential in the solution to the above two.
The true answers lay, IMO, in two specific areas, form and trainers, and again, IMO, one misunderstood and the other virtually ignored.
Others may disagree with that, if they didn't, then we wouldn't have a forum .