"For sale: set of VDW booklets edited T Peach, much used, plus thirty Form Books from the late 1970s onwards, reading condition only. Any reasonable offer accepted."

Seriously, Walter, I have seen no evidence whatsover that the VDW letters could in any way be regarded as a hoax. They display a deep knowledge of racing and it is evident by pre-race selections posted on this very forum by the likes of Guest and Lee that some of those who have applied themselves to their content have benefitted greatly.

The fact that some probably use the ideas with more success than the author is wholly unremarkable. It is not uncommon in all fields for students to go on to make a more substantial mark in their chosen subject than their teachers. My experience of those that have is that they remember with gratitude the teachers who originally engaged their interest in physics, geography or whatever, and that gratitude is not negated by finding that the teachers concerned had flaws as well as strengths.

Hello

How can anyone take seriously a subject that is the word of a daydreamer, who's maths to say the least is slightly flawed.

I wonder who will be the first to inform RU and other such publications that the VDW saga is now over and he has been exposed as a charlatan by his most vociferous students.

A real shame that you did not just keep this to yourselves as you are exposed to what you are allegedly trying to protect VDW from, ridicule.

What a weird way to conduct yourselves. Baffled, but amused at the same time.

Thank You

"How can anyone take seriously a subject that is the word of a daydreamer, who's maths to say the least is slightly flawed."

By reading what was written and thus forming their own initial view of its possible value, and then by testing what they have learnt on current races.

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
VDW's real identity, once revealed, would not come as a complete surprise to an assiduous student of the subject as the name appears not long after the launch of the saga.

G.Hindle, Manchester (aka Mr. G. Hindley) 4/5
G. Hall, Lincoln 5/4

Forensis Strepitus,Herne Bay 5/1
F. Chester, St. Albans 7/1
T.A. Swann of Essex 10/1

J.P Hollis, Brighton (later London) 12/1
J. Howie, Tewkesbury 12/1

GGG, Edmonton 15/1
Le Pierre Roulontte, Sussex 15/1
Lady Backer of Greenhill 15/1

K. Spiers 18/1
A. Duncan, Leeds 20/1
Tony Peach 20/1

A. Parnell, Wirril 30/1
R. Smith, Morcambe 30/1

J. Merridith 50/1
PAS, Margate 50/1
Tonyel, Weston Super Mare 50/1
Ever Optimistic, Hastings 50/1
A. Chambers of Kent, 50/1
Win of Brighton 50/1
Alan Gregory/Methodmaker 50/1
GH, Selly Oak 50/1
HH, Cranleigh 50/1
Ronald Walker, Huddersfield 50/1

HB, Kent 100/1
J. Wright, W.Midlands 100/1
K. Simpson, Staffs 100/1
L.J. Peverell, Wembley 100/1
Hotform, Herts 100/1
John Marney, East Ham 100/1
HH, Glasgow 100/1
SP oloo Anyanga, Nairobi 100/1

I have allocated the S.P.'s having balanced the CLASS of the writer with the FORM of the letter!

When I started, I was sure that G. Hall would be the hot favourite, so started him off at 4/6. But I feel that Mr. Hindle's contribution puts him right up there!! Almost too close to call.

It's a larf isn't it.

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

So would it be fair to say then that this gentleman was on ocassion replying to his own letters under a different name?.

My, My, My

Did you just say

"My, My, My", Delilah

?

I think I can feel a song coming on.

BC

1) take the first 6 and equals in the betting forecast (5 if non handicap) and mark off the automatic consistent horses;

2) mark off the discretionary consistent horses (from both within and outside the first 6 and equals in the forecast);

3) if more than three consistent horses, reduce to three (sometimes four) probables using the approach that generated the Erin numbers;

4) eliminate from the probables the non form horses;

5) if more than one left, assess the form of each comparatively;

6) check that the class/form horse has no clearly disqualifying capability issues (Pegwell Bay would not have been backed on heavy, Wayward Lad not at Cheltenham);

7) consider whether the class/form horse has all the characteristics of a "winner in the race";

8) if he does, consider whether, at the available price, he should be backed (Little Owl would not have been backed at shorter than three to one on).

If you place a bet after step (8), there really is a very decent chance that it will win.

VDW by numbers!

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

If this lot is true
And it wouldnt surprise me

I wonder if Tony Peach was Aware

1) take the first 6 and equals in the betting;

G.Hindle, Manchester (aka Mr. G. Hindley)
G. Hall, Lincoln
Forensis Strepitus,Herne Bay
F. Chester, St. Albans
T.A. Swann of Essex
J.P Hollis, Brighton (later London)
J. Howie, Tewkesbury
***

2) work out the consistent ones;AND
3) if more than three, reduce to three (sometimes four) probables using the approach that generated the Erin numbers;

G. Hall, Lincoln
F. Chester, St. Albans
J.P Hollis, Brighton (later London)
***

4) eliminate from the probables the non form horses;

G. Hall, Lincoln
F. Chester, St. Albans
***
5) if more than one left, assess the form of each comparatively; AND
6) check that the class/form horse has no clearly disqualifying capability issues (Pegwell Bay would not have been backed on heavy, Wayward Lad not at Cheltenham);

G. Hall, Lincoln
***

7) consider whether the class/form horse has all the characteristics of a "winner in the race";

G. Hall, Lincoln
***

8) if he does, consider whether, at the available price, he should be backed (Little Owl would not have been backed at shorter than three to one on).

G. Hall, Lincoln
***

5/4 now looks like a good price!!

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
So would it be fair to say then that this gentleman was on ocassion replying to his own letters under a different name?.

Walter
The beautiful irony is that VDW is reputed to be one man writing under two names by................?
You just couldn't make this sort of shit up, could you?

BC,

Nice work but a ringer is v likely to be a non-form horse outside the first 5 or 6 in the betting.

Have you considered that your card may be incomplete?

Could it be something along the lines of P. King, Ireland?

Vincent,

Whilst I can understand your disappointment with the latest developements, would you really prefer if I lied to you?

Wanting to shoot the messenger that brings you the bad news is not going to help you re-evaluate the situation. And remember VDW never gave anyone an injunction to acquire old form books, on the contrary he was quite exhaustive about the excercise of temperament.

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
1. Nice work but a ringer is v likely to be a non-form horse outside the first 5 or 6 in the betting.

2. Have you considered that your card may be incomplete?

3. Could it be something along the lines of P. King, Ireland?

1. Surely it would go against the odds to be looking for a non form horse.

2. Yes, that is possible.

3. Very good!! How about Mr. Kildare then?

By the way, does Maria still live with him, or did he divorse her when she gave you his diaries?

As Vincent says though what is the point of disclosing this information?.
Perhaps it would have been better if the private vdw forum of 8 or 9 had kept this in school. After all, the members therein have choosen not to discuss other matters pertaining to VDW on any open forums?.

Personally, I would like to thank them for disclosing the information.

Isn't it better to know?

I think it is.

When reading the material, which clearly has so much merit, isn't it better to know that Mr. Van der Wheil wasn't infallibe? That the information, although good, is not definitive?

I would like to thank AlanB/Fulham for making his discovery known, and I applaud him for succeeding in his quest to find the writer. And to JIB and Lee for publically verifying Fulham's findings.

BC

My own view would be the same as yours.

I think the fundamental point that has now been established, and maybe most of us have harboured the hope somewhere in a small corner of our minds that there was, is that there is no "magic" in what VDW showed us - no single factor ("missing link", "key" or whatever), and no set of magic numbers (on Erin lines) - which, once discovered, guarantees wealth.

Rather, we have a series of comments and examples by a man of great insight into race analysis that we can consider, adopt or adapt as we think appropriate. If we can't make the game pay - however we interpret VDW's work or whichever bits of it we use - we have only ourselves to blame.

While part of my mind is disappointed that there is no "magic" answer, the more mature part knew that anyway, and I find it actually more helpful to view VDW as someone presenting serious views for evaluation than as the cryptic custodian of "the last word" which I was not bright enough to be able to find.

Hopefully, too, what JIB has reported and Lee confirmed will end a tendency among those who post on threads like this to assert that there is only one answer and that others who interpret the work differently are wrong. And over the years, in different places, I've probably been as guilty of that as most. Indeed, I believe that if some of VDW's examples are looked at by several of the methods he gave, different selections emerge - or at the very least different conclusions about the same selection. And if you want examples of that, try finding Prominent King by the method VDW demonstrated with Roushayd, or Direct Line (one of those in VDW's letter to Mr Spiers reproduced in "VDW: The Silver Lining) by the "Spells it all out" method.

As JIB has suggested, VDW may very well not have been as successful as he claimed, and much of what Tony Peach wrote about him may be wide of the mark. In those senses he can be viewed as a flawed hero. But he remains to me the writer of the most valuable material on race analysis I've read.

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

VDW, is the evidence conclusive? In my mind there can be absolutely no doubt.
Does it surprise me? No. I'm afraid not, for me there has always been a big question mark. I was sure Tony Peach didn't have the brains to write the articles. That doesn't mean he was clever enough to make it far more interesting though.
Does it bother me? Again no, because I'm happy the real message hasn't been lost. I can see it would bother many, the likes of JohnD who for some reason seems to believe very word (VDW says so, so it must be right). The other group who may now have some doubts are those who believe VDW used "clever" form reading to make the examples work.

Be Lucky

VDW, is the evidence conclusive? In my mind there can be absolutely no doubt.
This is what`s wrong here, i have seen no evidence thus far one way or the other to make a rational judgement,in my own mind.

The 'evidence' might be a lot more believable had it sprung from someone with a whole lot better track record for honesty and transparency; and not only been assessed by others who have joined/helped in his constant deceits.