Chris

If you look at the thread carefully, you will see that I neither started it nor have made any reference to VDW's true identity. It is my view, in common with that of JIB and others, that as VDW clearly does not wish to enter into private, let alone public discussion, it is right to leave him to continue to enjoy his privacy.

re the class/form combination, in the way you pose it it is not susceptible to a meaningful yes/no answer.

Because we don't know everything, we have to make deductions. They may or may not be correct. Mine is that VDW probably regarded ALL his selections as the class/form horses in their races, and of course many such horses win. So finding the class/form horse is a necessary pre-requisite to success on VDW lines. But there is also evidence that not all VDW's class/form horses were found the same way. A line of enquiry I am particularly interested in at the moment, for example, is how he analysed chases.

The early chase examples - I'm thinking of the likes of Strombolus, Sunset Cristo, Righthand Man etc - are, to my mind, relatively straightforward, and found by the process I set out in a post to BC on this thread. And that approach continues to deliver winners - you have only to check the recent Hennessy.

But in his letter to Mr Spiers, reprinted in "VDW: The Silver Lining", VDW referred to another approach with chases, one that focuses on just two horses in each of two objectively defined races. Among the selections VDW says were thrown up by that approach were Blue Reef, Direct Line and Kumbi.

It is my view that not all of those would have been found by the approach which delivered Strombolus, Sunset Cristo, Righthand Man and others, and similarly that the "Spiers letter" approach would not deliver some of those found by what I think of as the basic method.

So, if we find horse X the class/form horse by the basic method, but know (because he said so) that VDW made horse Y the selection, what is the answer? It may of course be that what we think of as the basic method is more complex than the many examples in "The Golden Years" lead us to suggest, or it may be that VDW's sense of probabilities in relation to chases led him to a tiered approach. And no doubt there are other possibilities.

Answers, therefore, still to be found. But a rock solid class/form horse, which can be viewed on the evidence as ready to win, is a formidable betting proposition, and although I have yet myself to achieve, long term, near the 80% VDW said was possible, I don't doubt those who have said they aren't far off that level of success. And in this context I would draw your attention in particular to the selections put up here (and the one on TRF), before the races, by Lee. Yes, he has put up the odd loser - Corcoran comes to mind and he had a recent faller. But over what must be about a dozen selections there are I think nine winning ones, eight straight bets and a book in this years St Leger.

Sorry, long-winded as usual, but many questions aren't susceptible to simple yes/no answers. The reply assumes you have a serious interest in the matter, but no problem if not. It may be of interest to one or two others.

been reading this post with intrest so the real name of vdw [g-d]? will only be revealed to those who are 33% vdwers at what degree will you get the first hint how much will it cost is it for those thought worthy and by invite only is the silver lineing the da vici code will i find rosslyn chapel in market harbrough or are some masonic punters pulling everyones pudding

quote:

Originally posted by boozer:
G Hall

You dont live in a bungalow in Market Harborough do you

You have got to be JOKING if you think I am going to anser that as I am being stalked already

A posting has been pointed out to me that may be defamatory but on reading through this discussion it appears that both parties have issues to clear up so could you please hold your discussion in private via e-mail and not on this forum.
Further action will be taken if you continue to post your private arguement on this forum.

Merry Christmas

It seems far-fetched that Johnd's comments can be seriously taken as defamatory. I believe defamation of character must harm his reputation with right-thinking members of society generally. It needs to be distinguished from an untrue statement which does not harm his reputation, but does cause him harm, for example his pride/vanity. As Blackcat says, for gawds sake, we are usernames in cyberspace. But no doubt hensman/fulham/alanb who is "far from being the dumbest chap around" knows better.

And a Merry Christmas to you Gummy

Good to see you posting.

I will not put up with open arguements on the forum.
If any members have got personal issues sort them out as adults elswhere.

Hensman why have you posted that your son is a lawyer what difference does that make to your issue.


Merry Christmas Trojan.

Merry Christmas Gummy.

oh! - and the rest of you too.

tc

CBeb,

I wouldn't say that I am a ˜pig in the middle'. I have never acquired an old form book, indeed if I had been given one I would have thrown it away. I was naturally attracted to the VDW debate when it started 6 years ago because it was one of the few places where form was being discussed.

At that time the AR and CR were, in my opinion, sufficiently ill-founded for me to have doubts as to the subject of VDW and the idea of making a vast investment in time and effort in studying 20 year old races seemed a rather gullible undertaking.

Perhaps it was a surge of arrogance but I decided to do my own research on class and form, and through my efforts drew up my own philosophies, if such mongrel ideas as I have fashioned can be given such an imposing title. With the passage of time and after much thought and debate on several fora I have found that both myself and my original ˜opponents' have been on convergent courses. I now know what they are talking about as I believe they now do about me. The result can be described as mutual respect.

VDW had a magnificent conception of class and form, but when I read about ˜the boxing day six' I get the impression that his weakness was impetuosity. Nowadays I work with C2 Flat hcps, but if I put my methods to work on even a C3 I get unexpected results and lose control of the situation.

VDW's conception of class and form was second to none but I get the impression that the idea of a horse being 'placed to win' was the one he had more trouble with, though again this is only a personal view.

I think that those students of VDW who have managed to understand the class and form part of racing, and who are getting to grips with the 'placed to win' part, are the people who the least traumatized by the revelation that the originator apparently couldn't turn his invention into material gain.

However those students who have run aground on 'mysterious stars' or 'golden keys' are the ones who are having serious problems with the recent turn of events and are losing their composure. In my opinion there is no point in being resentful to myself or Fulham or VDW for that matter, the problem is in the eye of the beholder.

The VDW story will not stop at this, it will take another direction; it has to, as there is now no going back.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

Hi Gummy,

Nice to hear your voice again!

On a technical note I am having no small problem accessing the site.

I only have a problem free usage v late at night/ early morning. At other times I can't get the site to load and if I use a proxy it sometimes will load but if it does there are problems, the chief of them being that the reply box refuses to load. Any ideas?

Hello JIB,
I don't know what to do about your problem.
How long has it been happening as I do know that Infopop had an upgrade of server a few months back.

Gummy

My goodness that was quick!

A few months seems about the time it started. I suspect it may have something to do with the slow connection out here as my provider claims to work at 236.8 Kbs which in a world of 8+Mbs is pretty puny.

JIB
Hi John, hand on heart I personally would hold no resentment towards you Fulham vdw or anyone else for that matter. Why should I.

HENSMAN
Hi Hensman,I 100% agree that VDW should be left to enjoy his privacy,poor old chap of his years must be bloody traumatised at the momment, personally I don't think he should have been contacted in the first place,that's my own view and I would'nt want to comment any further other than to say you may not have started this thread but do you not feel that in some small way you loaded the gun.LOL.

Hi all

On a lighter note and I hope that JIB,Hensman,Mtoto and Lee don't mind, but I've cherry picked and pasted together some of thier comments and views from this thread.



"it is my hunch that he was a gambler who knew
first hand of the pitfalls that he warned of.VDW could be a figure from ancient tragedy.
VDW failed because he tried to make his discoveries about the nature, behaviour, and characteristics of class and form into a universal panacea. However when VDW tried he discovered that he is a mortal and fell into the trap that destroyed him.
I believe that the best attitude is to learn from VDW's mistakes.
The abundance and conviction of VDW's writings impress a generation of punters but he seeds them with innumerous lies about his success and resulting affluent lifestyle.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.
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.
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.Does it surprise me? No. I'm afraid not, for me there has always been a big question mark.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.but apparently isn't capable of making it pay".

As Lee would say

"Perfect"

All.
There seems to be a misconception by some posters that there is no "missing link", "key" or whatever.How can those posters be so sure, after all's said and done they have only taken the methods as far as their own capabilities allow them.
Ignore their comments, it's odds on, I can assure you, that they have missed many vital factors and are miles away from sliding down the rainbow.

Merry Christmas everyone, HO,HO,HO.
Chris.

Good for you Johnd for not bowing down.
Can anyone recommend a good moss-killer? Got to be cheap though.

You have to laugh, don't you.
Each member of the 'secret society' has now convinced themselves that VDW was a fraud, and now they rush into print to distance themselves from his work, and all claim individually that others got it more wrong that they did.
This is the group that has insisted all along that the VDW method is a very profound piece of work, and can only be fathomed by buying shed-loads of old form books, and studying his every selection in the minutest detail, over a great number of years,to even begin to understand it.
If VDW was a fraud - and that is still a very big if, considering only the secret society has decided this, and refuses to provide any evidence to support that stance - then no-one has actually covered themselves in glory, (With the possible exception of Boozer amongst regular posters), least of all those who have secreted themselves away to discuss old races ad nauseum.
So, whether or not VDW was a fraud, there remains only one way to show how much each has benefitted from that legacy, and it wouldn't be by telling us how well you do elswhere.
How many have the balls for it?

Well said Johnd. Some pompous oaf would be crying into his mulled wine tonight, if only he could get his head out from his arse.

Over my time here on Gummy's and elsewhere, I have been helped by numerous people. I have thanked them at the time, and it has always been pleasing to see how willing people are to give up their time to help. For me, the current climate is particularly unfortunate, as members from both sides of this debate have helped me, and what I'd really like to do – in the nicest possible way – is to bash your heads together!

But I feel that I need to concentrate on you, Johnd. You will remember about a year ago, you gave me a hint I needed – and "the penny dropped"! Now, I have not had much of a chance to try it out since. But I still recall that moment. So what I write below is written for your benefit, to give you an alternative viewpoint from someone who is grateful to YOU for that past insight!

I feel that you need to put the past behind you. Whatever went on in the past is the past. The past doesn't have to equal the future unless you want it too. Whether AlanB/Fulham is Hensman is irrelevant. You're going to say it's not because he's lied about who he is on here, he wrote about himself in the third person, he whatever, whatever... However, let me tell you why I truly believe it is irrelevant, and is a red herring in terms of this whole thread, and is therefore stopping you from moving forwards.

First – the witnesses: JIB started this thread, and the following people have all come here to give witness to the veracity of the evidence presented. JIB (an long-term anti-VDWology-er, with in-depth knowledge of the sport outside of our narrow view); Old Timer (a highly respected and knowledgeable member of the Gummy Message Board); Lee (a proven VDWer of the highest calibre); and Mtoto (who has written on numerous VDW message boards, and been very clear in both his admiration for the work, and his concerns over parts of it). Why would these witnesses state what they have unless they honestly believed it were true? It makes no sense whatsoever, except in the context that they have done so FOR OUR BENEFIT. Mine – and yours.

Second – the evidence: whatever, you personally think of Fulham, the evidence he presented to the witnesses MUST have been compelling. For instance, read again Old Timers credentials. JIB is certainly no mug either. And Mtoto and Lee are both VDWers, who, as you pointed out, have advocated looking in-depth at the old examples. Potentially, by verifying the evidence, they may end up with egg-on-face. They must actually believe it is accurate, wouldn't you say?

Third – Fulham himself. As you have pointed out, he advocated spending time with the old examples and form books to get to grips with the method. Don't you think he must realise how it would look to now be saying the writer of those letters was not being wholly truthful with us? What is his "angle" in this? He was going to write a book. As VDW won't grant an interview, he doesn't even have that avenue to look forward to. So again, I come back to the premise that the revelation has been made for our benefit, and that far from shooting the messenger, we should be grateful to him.

I would also like to comment on various comments in your post.

"Each member of the 'secret society' has now convinced themselves that VDW was a fraud, and now they rush into print to distance themselves from his work, and all claim individually that others got it more wrong that they did".

How we perceive things is an interesting topic in itself wouldn't you say. I don't recall reading any "distancing" in this thread. I may not have noticed it I suppose.

"This is the group that has insisted all along that the VDW method is a very profound piece of work, and can only be fathomed by buying shed-loads of old form books, and studying his every selection in the minutest detail, over a great number of years, to even begin to understand it".

I think Fulham, Mtoto and Lee have indicated that the above is true – and again, I don't recall seeing where they have changed that view either. On the other hand, another member of the "secret society" as you call them – namely JIB – has advocated the exact opposite.

"If VDW was a fraud"

Fraud in what sense?

Fraud as to his name and details pertaining to his life outside racing, then from what they have said on here, it would appear to be so.

Fraud that he exaggerated his lifestyle to appear affluent, then "the society" seem to be indicating that this is probably, but not so conclusively, also true.

Fraud in terms of what was written about winner finding? My recollection is that Fulham and each of the witnesses has re-stated their admiration for the work. The only exception I can recall is Mtoto, who restated his concerns about certain elements in the work. However, he had already made us aware of these concerns long before the identity revelations.

In summary of the above, I really do think you need to step back, and consider WHY these good people have put their names to this revelation. I can only find one answer to it.

And finally...

"So, whether or not VDW was a fraud, there remains only one way to show how much each has benefitted from that legacy, and it wouldn't be by telling us how well you do elsewhere".

Ah, now you're talking...  If we were to hold a competition, I would certainly join in. It's a while since I have had the time and motivation. I would also volunteer to run the league table, etc., unless anyone else would like to do it.

***

Finally, a message to G.Hall. I can lend you the bus fare back to Lincoln if you like. It must be rather cold thumbing lifts at this time of year.

Each member of the 'secret society' has now convinced themselves that VDW was a fraud, and now they rush into print to distance themselves from his work, and all claim individually that others got it more wrong that they did.

JohnD,

The above statment explains to me why you have so much trouble finding winners using the methods VDW explained. You seem to have trouble reading, and understanding the written word.

Of the people who have seen the evidence could you point the members of this forum to even one that distances himself from VDW's work? I think you will find without exception ALL have said the literature is STILL worth reading and will be of great help to anyone wishing to make money from horse racing. The only thing that has been questioned is was VDW a great/clever punter, and was he a rich Dutch business man? All have said he had a very good knowledge of horse racing that has never been in doubt.

Be Lucky

I notice Walter (A disbeliver in the revelations)
Hasnt been on since Page 4

Has he been welcomed into the band of worthy deciples

and enlightened with the actual evidence?

If so why not lay the evidence in front of a spokesperson for the rest of us that are less worthy

Then we can take the Piss

BC

I know you mean well, and I take on board some of the points you mention, but there are issues that aren't easily papered over.
First of all, the past does matter, indeed it is fundamental to the whole discussion.
Here we have a group of people, or the nucleus of it, that decided they didn't want to share their thoughts with the rest of us and, (specifically and clandestinely), formed their group almost entirely from this board's membership. Obviously this had a detrimental effect on this forum, (28 members initially, as I recall), but they showed no respect to either ethics or loyalty, and acted purely in their own selfish interests.
Since that time, their posts on this board have either been sporadic or non-existent, nor have they posted on any other open board, except to farm more members.
Given the history of that group, it should be patently obvious that they do not have the interests of this forum at heart, so it is hardly surprising that their sudden reappearance followed by their 'great revelation' was greeted with more than a little cynicism by those of us who had remained loyal.
Fair enough, their claims were backed by some who you would normally trust, but that trust is naturally tainted, by association with the above group if by nothing else. There is also the fact that not one of these worthies have given us one shred of evidence to back up their claims.
Now, if the evidence is so damning and so comprehensive, then why cannot one single person amongst them do us the common courtesy of demonstrating so?
There is no need to name names, in fact if that evidence depends entirely on the name of this mystery person, I would suggest it is questionable anyway but, if their motives are anything of the order that you suggest, then why is that evidence being so doggedly witheld from us?