Of course, I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Cheers for the vote of confidence Walter.

Epiglotis,

It was Gummy that pointed me to VDW, not vice versa. You'll be glad to hear I've an open mind about racing in general, I'm sure that a lot of VDW requires adapting as racing changes. Of the VDW posters I've read on the backthread so far I'm not the onbly one who feels like this.

Cheers

Carl

Sorry Epiglotis,

I hadn't seen your reply, I'm sincerely not trying to get any backs up, just feel the thread needs a bit of a kick.

Thanks

carlos

Hello everyone.

In my opinion, the reference to VDW in the current thread and the forum title should be removed.

The regular clamour for "VDW guru's" to post is quite amusing. If they existed, why would they be posting on what is generally a VDW-hostile board. They would certainly be elsewhere.

If the method is rubbish, why do those that consider it so continue to post here? If discussion threads concerning avenues that would enhance betting are wanted, why call it "VDW"? Won't that just continue to attract the very contributors that are clearly "not welcome" by most down here?

I have used the booklets to work out a method that worked and have pre-posted selections to prove the system to myself on the systems testing thread.

As previosly mentioned, over a roughly 5 month period, a small profit was made (£82.96 for £10 stakes). The SR Summary: Bets 38, Wins 20, SR 53%, Longest losing run 3.

I am not saying that these are wonderful results. They show a small level of profit. The SR is nowhere near the 80% mark VDW suggested may be possible. But if I, as a racing novice can obtain a profit from using the booklets, then couldn't some of you more experienced contributors use the information to even better effect?

Now just because I say that the bets were not 100% VDW, should not detract from the fact that the selections were made using the 13 factors I outlined the other day. And these factors, used in combination, not in isolation, were obtained from reading the booklets.

I put these selections and this profit down to the VDW booklets. Selections pre-race posted.

Now to conclude, I have a great deal of respect for a number of the contributors to this forum. However, when it comes to the Van der Wheil method, I'd have to say that you are wrong. Not that there aren't other means of making selections. And perhaps at better value. And perhaps more profitably. But don't tell me it doesn't work. Because it does.

I don't mind you having a different viewpoint to me. What I don't like is the way people write as though you must be mad to follow the method. I have seriously thought about not revisiting this forum a number of times. (Not Gummy's generally - love it - just this bit).

Good luck to you all with whatever method you use.

My actual favourite selection process is used extensively by Mrs. BlackCat when we do venture to the track. I call it the "I picked it because I liked the name" method.

BlackCat

I think anyone with an open mind is both welcome and an asset.

If someone wishes to demonsrtrate a winning method with vdwology I would be most fascinated.

Just as a matter of interest there is one VDW method that does work: the two year olds who had 3 or less runs without winning over 7f or more on g1 tracks and who scored a high SF in the process are definitely worth following s.a.w. as 3yos.

However the only vdwer who put up a (partial) list was Lee. I think most of the others can't afford Raceform as it their SFs that are to be used. (And there again exactly what the bench mark now is has become questionable as the composition of the figs has been altered).

I use a bastardized version of this method with the RPs TS and it is a level stakes winner, though there arent an awful lot of selections.

But I certainly dont waste my time totting up form figs or equating prizzemoney to quality of opposition and race conditions.

The other point that the guru's almost all miss is that VDW was almost certainly working from lists of horses who had marked their cards and which he was waiting to be placed to win. (Hence my insistance that the trainer is not properly addressed by his writings).

Unless he lived near Fleet St. it would have been nigh on impossible for him 'do' all these races and get his bets on before the off.

And he certainly didnt have a pc to help him 'do' it either, so he either subscribed to the black book (the famous elusive ratings?) or kept an upto date (and obviously complete) arquive of either the 'Life' or the 'Chronicle'.

Even worse for the modern day gurus is that at the time of his original writings there was no national hcp, it was run on a regional basis.

And his writings at that time take a lot of trouble to explain how to dutch in an era before the invention of the pocket calculator and before the invention of betting tax which for those of you not old enough to remeber killed dutching and short odds punting as a backers alternative.

JIB,

Agree about the 2yo thing. Also use the top class track speed figure list. I prefer using Split Second as the figures aren't weight adjusted.

I've got a piece of code to add all the figures for me so most of my analysis time is spent reading the form book. I'd agree it can be time consuming otherwise.

I think VDW definitely used lists of both horses and possibly races. Not old enough to remember the betting tax thing but I do know the history of the 5% merchants and the ew thieves. As I said, racing changes. Off out now in search of some Guiness .

Regards

Carlos

Late edit here changed Top Speed to Split Second (this was a typo, DOH!)

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

quote:

Originally posted by ectoo:
I think Carlos and Piston Broke should be likely canditates for posting selections and showing us mere mortals how it's done Walter, what do you reckon?

Not much chance of that from me, EC.
I don't have all the answers, just enough to enable a steady, regular profit.
Most forums I've been on actually stimulate discussion whereas this one just stifles it. The worst of two worlds under one thread, you have the blatant aftertimers and those like yourself who like to pontificate on subjects you know nothing about. Oh I forgot, like JIB you once read Systematic betting about 10 years ago

The crazy thing is that if the doubters didn't clutter up the thread with their provocative drivel and let the enthusiasts have their debate then they might just learn enough about the methods to make a judgement.

To be honest I'm surprised at you EC, I honestly thought you were better than this silly name calling and I'm better than you business. Your standards have slipped drastically my friend.

Adios.

Ectoo,

Back from a night out and read PB's post. I'm inclined to agree, I didn't start posting on here to get called "fing pathetic", and NO I'm not your "matey". I'm more than happy to debate sensibly with people and at least the other doubters on here seem to post "considered" replies. You seem keen to make assumptions, e.g. my previous posting history, without any facts to back it up. I think I may adopt the same practise with your posts as I do with Investor's and scroll right past, better to stick to the less dogmatic. Here's hoping you can raise your game.

Carlos (no regards)

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

Pompous Tit

"The crazy thing is that if the doubters didn't clutter up the thread with their provocative drivel and let the enthusiasts have their debate then they might just learn enough about the methods to make a judgement."

PD,

As an 'enthusiast' perhaps you might care to make the effort to teach us 'enough' about the methods. That is if you really have anything other than a bucket of bullshit to spread around. I suggest that before you come rushing on here like like a clown late for the show you take the trouble to read the whole thread even if it takes you 10 years to do so.

The fact that you cant be bothered to make that effort merely confirms that you are just another discontented loser who is unable to answer the charges against your fantasy world and your pathetic part in it.

JIB,

I'm currently reading the "squirrel" posts, I can see why you remembered it (3 years ago now). Still so much to read....

Regards,

Carlos

Carlos,

My previous post is in no way aimed at yourself.

The unfortunate PD seems to think I am unentitled to comment on vdw because I may not have read all of the literature whilst his own goodself seems to regard the previous 900 pages of this thread as quite useless in comparison to his own abilities (real or imagined).

As such he has managed to resurrect exactly that type of unhelpful approach that for so long kept this thread from addressing the real problems the punter suffers from when trying to evaluate form, either for its own sake, and/or comparatively with other aspects of horseracing.

JIB,

No offence taken, just mentioned the squirrels as it made me laugh reading it ands saw you were about. Don't know enough about PB's history to comment but am enjoying catching up.

Interestingly the 3 you chose not to tar with the squirrel brush at the time (Mtoto, Guest and Fulham) are my current pick of the VDW posters. Appreciate that you may currently not be of the same opinion of said poster but you've got 3 years on me.

Cheers

Carlos

Carlos,

At that time the 'squirrels' were a bit much for all tastes.

Guest and Fulham however refused to accept a less elitist understanding of the methods and kept to a highly orthodox interpretation that was based on an immensely time consuming study of the given examples. However to most of us it became obvious that the reasons given for a particular horse winning in the original examples was of no or little use when applied to a forthcoming race, generally missing the winner.

You will see the divisions developing from your current position.

Mtoto has always been something of the odd man out (if he will forgive the liberty of my so describing him) in that he was the first to spot the flaws in Fulhams and Guests interpretation of the Prominent King example and hence the whole class/form horse idea, but has remained faithful to their memory to this day, principally because they had both the knowledge to write in detail about the examples and the disposition to do so.

Interestingly, although Fulham no longer posts here he has admitted on other fora that the AR has now to be subjected to a 'revision'.

Hopefully in time he and the rest of the diehards will see the subtle but irreconcilable flaw in the AR, and will end up doing the same.

The other group you will always find hanging around a vdw thread like summer flies around a turd, begging for clues, tips etc are what I term the DHSS regulars who daydream about endless juicy bets to buy their canabis with.

They are easily spotted as being kneejerkingly hostile to the likes of myself who has the, to them, the nasty habit of disturbing their daydreaming. They can usually be found moaning about leaving the thread to those who believe in it and arselicking those they think possess the 'golden key'!

Jib

This thread has grown to the size it hss, basically becuase of its subject matter, VDW and his methods.
The fact there has been precious little discussion of either, in recent weeks, is due, in no small part, to the manic outbursts of one member, Ectoo, who has no interest in the subject, and no other apparent aim apart from the destruction of this forum.
Long-term he will have little effect, but in the short term he has cost us one interested member(PB, who was prepared to join in the discussion); caused another (BC, who also has taken an active part in the past) to rethink his involvement, curtailed the posts of myself, and no doubt others such as Mtoto, Investor, and Lee, all, again, who have an interest, for little purpose other than to extend his obviously fragile ego.
Is that really the only way forward?

ps If you truly believe that "The trainer is not properly addressed in his writings", then it is you that needs to do a little more study. Having built up quite a collection of racing books over a number of years, I honestly cannot think of one I have read which is so succint on the matter.

Hi JohnD

Can i ask what most say about the trainers motives or habits?

Cheers Rab

lol

what a precious group you are.

JohnD, I think you will find that people stop posting when they put losers up.

I'll just read the forum in future and let the experts get on with it, it's quite clear the subject is far too complicated for me to understand.

Too many ego's here, too many making out they are what they aren't. Thats ok by me, if people swallow it then fair play to them.

Most of what I have posted here has been to get something more positive from people rather than the "look how much I know but I'll never demonstrate it" drivel that fills up page after page here. Obviously my approach just isn't cricket and doesn't appeal much, thats fair enough.

One thing I am good at though is smelling BULLSHIT.

I'll leave you all in peace as it looks like I am an easy person to blame for others not posting.. although I am sure the more astute can easily see that the real reason is an inability for those disappearing to actually back up the large, supposed knowledge they have.

bye me hearties

Rab

Not sure I understand the question, but will answer what I think you're asking.

Many of them take little or no account of how the horse is placed, including, from memory,all those I have read by respected pro gamblers, British and American.
There is a little more depth in such as M Pipe's autobiography, and Ainslie's Complete Guide To Thoroughbred Racing, but none of them, IMO, was as revealing as the Dutchman's articles.

Jd,

The allusions to the trainer can only be seen by those that understand the term 'placed to win'. I know that is your strong point but there is a huge school of c/f preachers who just seem to ignore the trainer. Why? Because the writings are horse form based and directed. They say horse X showed improved form lto in better class, is suited by going and dist and is consistant and in the top range of the fc, but it all seems to be an accident of fate rather than a plotted up placing to win. My interpretation I know, but my evidence are the majority of vdwers who are c/f horsers.

Tis a pity
On June 8 we had the start of a good debate
The best I have seen on this thread for a while

Shame it had to deteriate

PB dont sling the towel
Sticks an stones and all that

Days

I have had some further thoughts since Epi's statistics on 'days ince last run'.

The data Epi supplied was:
"80% of races are won by horses running within 28 days, but 75% of all runners are running within 28 days".

The interpretation based on 100 runners that I put on those figures was (in a nutshell):
8 winners / 75 horses running within 28 days = 10.7%
2 winners / 25 horses running over 28 days = 08.0%

This indicated that although the winner stood a roughly 14% higher chance of coming from the 'within 28 day' camp, Epi indicated that the value would shift significantly in the direction of the over 28 day camp.

I am not sure the data is sufficient to warrant ditching the 28 day rule without further data being made available. And this is why:

A recent run is a good thing for the common sense thing I indicated before. I recall that research was done to show that horses who have won within 7 days have a better chance. So I would ask at what point is the cut off as to whether it makes no difference at all. What I mean by that is, suppose a very high percentage of the over 28 day winners were coming from runners that had run between 29 and 45 days. Or 29 and 80 days. We would then have a situation where we were on the right lines setting a days limit – we'd just picked the wrong figure.

We need to know what percentage of winners come from horses running over 45 days? Then 60 days; then 80 days; then 120 days; then 200 days; then 365 days. But again, the figures are only relevant when we know how many horses were running over 45, 60, 80, 120, 200, 365 days. Do you see what I mean? Only with that sort of full data could we hope to see whether the 28 day (or whatever number) was worthwhile – or not as the case may be.

Discarding the recent run factor for horses that have not showed they can win fresh does not seem sensible to me, (at least, without more data). And again, I suppose it depends upon what our goal is. If your over-riding goal is ˜value', then ditch it. If it is strike rate, then I am inclined to keep it.

BlackCat

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