Carlos,

The literature recommends using the two most valable races at the principal meeting and the most valuable race elsewhere, which weather allowing is 3 races a day. As far as I am aware there were no restrictios about 3yo fillies races.

I'm not a fanatic so I'd be more than happy for someone to find just one race a day to apply the methods to. What is more I dont expect anything like 80%, just getting the same as Gummys maiden/novice system, ie 50% would be satisfactory.

I fear the real reason that no VDWer wants to commit himself about Corcoran is that experience has shown him that he should be shit scared of anything Sir Michael decides to run.

But feel free to have a go in the way that best suits your interpretation of the method and I honestly wish you good luck with it. If nothing else it should help to distinguish those paers of the methodology that are either superanuated, unreal, or mendacious.

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
The literature recommends using the two most valable races at the principal meeting and the most valuable race elsewhere, which weather allowing is 3 races a day.

JIB,

I don't think VDW ever recommended what you suggest above. In the SIAO article he recommended looking at the 2 most valuable at the principle meeting and the most valuable from EACH of the other cards, which will usually give more than 3 races, there would be 7 on a 6 meeting day.

Then again some of VDW's selections fell outside those parameters so we know he didn't stick to that religously.

Finally you say:

quote:

fear the real reason that no VDWer wants to commit himself about Corcoran is that experience has shown him that he should be shit scared of anything Sir Michael decides to run.

I suspect it might be more a case of them being shit scared of Favourita who can't be backed tonight but might be a real danger if (and a big if) she decides to put her best foot forward.

PB,

Well if there are even more races to use everyday all the more reason why one a day shouldnt be too onerous a demand.

For me its Stoute , for you its Favorita, but either way its QED.

BC,

I hope I am repeating myself, but let me firstly congratulate you in turning around your betting.

However reading your post I get the feeling that you are awarding the laurels for this achievement to the wrong factor.

Whilst VDWology has some reasonably sound reasoning in its amorphous midst the real reason you are now in profit, as you freely admit is because you have exercised temperament. But what is this temperament in this case? It is the decision not to bet on the majority of vdw selections!

Temperament has become the fad word amongst vdwers because it is the siren that draws the punter away from the serious flaws the methods contain. Obviously every so often a selection appears who is so far ahead of his rivals that its merits outweigh the dangers of applying the methodology and thus the vdwer has a bet.

There is nothing wrong with this, I think it is excellent but it is hardly a victory for vdwology. The real credit should go to temperament, a subject taught in self-help books since the Victorian age.

Currently you enjoy a SR and average SP similar to Gummys Novice/Maiden systems. Can you imagine how these systems would improve if Gummy was, in his own turn, to exercise temperament and instead of selecting the novice/maiden with the biggest rating difference to the 2nd rated irrespective of the difference size, he was to wait until the difference was at least 5 points?

Vdwology pays scant homage to the trainer and the sire. To me these omissions are serious enough to confine the subject to the second or third division of racing strategies and it is because of them (amongst others) that vdwers have had to re-invent temperament.

Jib,

It may not be too onerous for VDW himself to get a fairly decent number of bets (although I doubt even he could find one a day) but I don't think it's as easy for his disciples After all, surely VDW himself was far more proficient with his own methods

On a serious note though, I think what you (together with Epiglotis and Blackcat) are saying is highly relevant. At what point do you say the methods are worthwhile? I get the impression that Epiglotis (and others) think that if you can't get 80% winners from a fairly high number of selections (as VDW suggested he did) then there is no point and eveything is flawed. Blackcat seems to take a view that if it can turn a losing punter into a winning one at whatever level then there must be something of value in the methods.

I incline towards Blackcat's views and think far too many people get bogged down with this whole strike rate thing. If a person could find 79 winners from a 100 bets during a season at average 8/1 SP, Is he/she a lesser punter than somebody who gets 4 winners out of 5 in a season at average 8/11 SP. After all the 2nd has the higher strike rate

Personally, I think the only acid test is after studying the methods and applying the priciples, is your betting more or less profitable than before. If it's more profitable then surely it's been some benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
Vdwology pays scant homage to the trainer.

JIB,
Judging by that comment then I can only assume that either a)you are criticising something you patently know nothing about and have never even bothered to read the booklets or b)you are just on a pisstake.

Which one is it

JIB,

I know where you're coming from with the races you recommend to look at. To tell the truth I've taken a week off from evaluation anyway, before the Lord Mayor's show syndrome for me. I'm at Royal York for 3 days next week and am off work all week. I'd be surprised if there's not at least a couple of good bets then. I know there might be potential bets I'll miss, as I've hinted I'm a very patient punter. I've got my own rules and very rarely bet in races worth less than 10K and think long and hard about races worth less than 15K. Truth is there's no way I'll manage one a day, my longest "dry spell" recently was nearly 3 weeks.

BTW would you be willing to give me Enforcer as my "starter for ten". For my part I'll promise not to pull any post race "it was left to run" bo***cks. If I post it's a selection UNLESS I change my mind before the off, AND post to say so. I do reckon I can get close to the SR you mention (50%) with only a VERY rare odds on shot (if any, can't remember the last time I backed odds on on a single horse). I'll also refrain from "dutching", just single selections in the 6/4 - 10/1 range.

As I've said my aim here isn't to bolster my ego. I really believe there's something in VDW and I'm hoping the exercise will prove constructive and stimulate debate. There's enough posters who've laid down the gauntlet, I just think it's about time someone who professes to be a VDWer was prepared to take it up.

Let's hope we all learn something.

Regards

Carlos

JIB,

Not sure about your comments regarding trainers, for me this is fundamental to VDW's approach, particularly in handicaps. The subject of sires and breeding was certainly touched upon (he was a big fan of Northern Dancer). I personally pay close attention to the breeding of unexposed horses on the flat, once they've shown what they can do on the track I stick to the facts.

One other point, VDW did indeed point out that particular care should be taken with both fillies and 3yos. An examination of the examples also shows he rarely (if ever) gave a selection that had run less than three times.

Regards

Carlos

PB,

The opposite of scant is abundant.

Perhaps you will take this opportunity to share some of VDWs abundance on the importance of the horse trainer and how he places his charge to win.

Carlos,

Feel free to demonstrate as you think to your best advantage.

My only consideration will be to ponder on how many vdw qualifying races will infact be overlooked in proportion to each selection chosen.

JIB,

Sorry, but I just had to compliment you on your vocabulary, I had to look up both superannuated and mendacious. I agree there may be elements of both in VDW's work.

Regards

Carlos

quote:

But what is this temperament in this case? It is the decision not to bet on the majority of vdw selections!

Hi Piston Broke

I don't think John is on a piss-take. (Although it HAS been known ) He is a very worthwhile contributor and has posted help and selections both on Gummy's and elsewhere.


Hi John

Agreed - temperament is the main thing. But it is the 13 principles that select the horse, and they were derived from the booklets. And the reason they don't always reflect a true VDW selection is because I chose to omit the 'best race' principle (a 14th principle if you like) to see how far that affected the 'system'.

A couple of other reasons it doesn't always select 'pure' VDW selections is because I systemized it, to ensure a clear selection based on a QUICK evaluation. I don't use the a-rating with it. This is due to time. But ratings do feature. Which again going back to another point make the selection more likely to be a fancied selection.

And finally. The principles and the process of temperament may well be available elsewhere. But I got them from the booklets.

I have never said that VDW was the only way. You have your methods, as does Ectoo, Trojan, Rab, Ftse100, Gummy etc., which all seem to work well for them. But all I am saying is that the writings of Mr. Van der Wheil have helped me to improve what I do. So for that, I am grateful to him.

BlackCat

Carlos,

The trainer is indeed fundamental to winner finding, but he is not found in the AR or CR.

Passing refences, like doffing your hat to a passing hearse, doesnt constitute a proper examination of this subject which others, over the years, have felt worthy of writing whole books about.

References to fillies when up against colts or geldings are commonplace to most racing literature, but where did VDW advise caution when it is fillies x fillies?

I believe the Roushayd example was given as an approach when form was thin on the ground. V few 3yos, especially in the better classes, are exposed which begs the question why this encyclopedia of racing didnt get to work on sibling similarity as passed on by the sire.

JIB,

I apologise, I didn't realise that if something wasn't 100% true then it's polar opposite must be by definition and there is no middle ground. The opposite of dark is light, so is dusk dark or light? The opposite of left is right, is centre left or right?

Before we commence the exercise, perhaps you could define the parameters. How many trainer references would you consider necessary in his writings to be classed as 'abundant' (presumably one less than this number would be classed as 'scant').

Go on JIB, you can tell us, have you really read all the booklets or not?

"JIB,
Judging by that comment then I can only assume that either a)you are criticising something you patently know nothing about and have never even bothered to read the booklets or b)you are just on a pisstake."

PB,

It is your own vehemence against the word 'scant' that lends itself to the case that the 'truth' is very much to the opposite.

If you now wish to backpaddle, feel free to do so, but it is unbecoming to try and use myself as an oar when its is your own rashness that has led you so far up a treacherous creek.

JIB,

Once again you are running away from the issues

Please answer the questions, they are really quite simple.

1) Have you read all the booklets. Yes or No.

2) How many references to the trainer do you consider I would have to produce before you would concede that he didn't pay 'scant' attention to it. If you want me to perform the exercise then set the parameters.

JIB,

I agree that the role of the trainer is not brought to the fore by the two ratings you mention but I don't see what that proves, there is undeniably far more to VDW than these figures alone.

Once again I'd concede that the "passing reference" criticism could be applied to a lot of what VDW wrote. Given that he allegedly produced articles for 10 years+ his legacy could hardly be described as a substantial body of work. I don't really think that he went into great detail on many subjects, it's more a case of providing the necessary tools with indications / examples indicating how to utilise them. I can't pretend I've extensively researched the examples, I attended the "do it wrong until I do it right" school of VDW. Which ever approach is used, and there are some serious students of the examples, there is an unavoidable amount of hard work involved, something made clear in VDW's (in)famous, but rather enigmatic, formula.

With regard to fillies, VDW certainly made at least one reference to avoiding the backing fillies until "experienced" withno mention of the opposition. I rarely back fillies but this is a guideline, not an absolute.

I would, however, disagree with your observations about the Roushayd example, would you care to elaborate regarding "form was thin on the ground". It's certainly true that going into the Old Newton Cup Roushayd was a 4yo and in no way unexposed but I'm not sure that the second sentence of the paragraph was meant to apply to Roushayd or the ONC. As I said in my last post VDW made specific reference to sires & breeding but left the research / hard work to the reader.

Regards

Carlos

PB,

Please post a list of all VDWs writings so I may tick off those that I have read as I have no idea of the quantity of, nor the nomenclature of his bibliography.

(However you must remember that one can read 'Mein Kampf' without being a nazi and neither do you need to indulge in experimental sodomy to realize you are not a homosexual.)

However I will repeat that in my opinion and of my knowledge of his writings VDW gives scant attention to the trainer and the sire and I invite you once more to demonstrate my error.

Carlos,

I fear I did not make myself clear when mentioning the Roushayd example. I should have said that if the method was of use when form was scarce in that a horse has not yet shown its true potential then surely vdw should have developed methods that took in a horses breeding for use in similar situations.

Black Cat:
A lot of VDW theory is vulgar cliche, of your 13 isolated factors could you post those that you consider definitive to VDW, please.

JIB,

I think I see where you're coming from now. I'd agree (again) that VDW gave no solid information with regard to the application of breeding analysis within his methodology. That was a horrid sentence, apologies.

I think a very real problem with VDW's writings is the manner in which he often makes the complicated appear deceptively simple. I'd go as far as to say that this presents very real dangers for relative newcomers to racing. On the surface it appears that rudimentary arithmetic coupled with a little patience is the key to riches when in fact it's a route to bankruptcy.

Reading back on what I've written I don't come across as a VDW fan at all when nothing could be further from the truth but I'm certainly not uncritical of his work. I'm also skeptical about its origins and pragmatic in my application of it. However, when all's said and done it does work for me.

Won't be online again until later this evening, but have enjoyed the debate.

Regards

Carlos

JIB,

There are of course many booklets containing VDW articles that have been written by others. Jock Bingham & Philip Close come to mind, as well as compilations like 'The Silver Lining'. Whilst interesting, I would deem these somewhat superfluous as they push the theories of others rather than VDW himself.

The booklets I would consider required reading for those studying VDW are:

The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil
The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune
Systematic Betting
Betting The VDW Way
Racing in my system
Systems in my Racing

There are other such as Tony Peach's 'Make Racing Pay' series that contain VDW articles but by and large they are reprinted elsewhere, most notably in 'Betting The VDW way'.

It may appear that I'm trying to be pedantic here but I assure you this is not the case. I genuinely don't see how anybody who has read the booklets can make the suggestion that VDW paid scant attention to trainers. It's not as though this is a case off differing understanding or interpretation. The sheer amount of references to the trainer or 'bus driver' would surely demonstrate exactly the opposite.