To be or not to be - Hamlet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JevudGMPhyY&feature=related

Thanks for that Garston that`s an awfy lot of methods tae be slaverin tom kite about eh?.

GARSTONF

Which booklet is the number 9 method, only i seemed to have missed that one.

quote:

No one is suggesting you believed everything vdw wrote mtoto, just which parts of his work you are now prepared to believe / disbelieve given that he has been exposed as a fraud by the private vdw forum?.

Walter,

The short answer is the revelations about VDW made NO difference to which articles I trust.

I don't consider the fact that SOMEONE made his lifestyle more interesting makes him a fraud. As I said for me the literature stands up in as much as the early examples are explained by SB. The one thing I do have problems with is any/everything that suggests the A/R was the rating that was always used. Although to be fair I can't find were VDW ever said it was. I also have to look, and think very carefully about the articles Mr Peach says he paid VDW to write. Although as with the use of s/f (Mr Peach says he suggested VDW wrote about them) VDW said he used them in an earlier letter, and had been using them for 15 or so years before he wrote to the SCHB.



Garston,

While I agree VDW gave some/ many different starting points, I think they all involved the same method of final evaluation (form and class). So apart from possibly the hurdle method do you think they can be classified as different methods?

Be Lucky

Walter,

The short answer is the revelations about VDW made NO difference to which articles I trust.

I don't consider the fact that SOMEONE made his lifestyle more interesting makes him a fraud. As I said for me the literature stands up in as much as the early examples are explained by SB.



Fair enough mtoto, think at least 90% of us like to give our mind a wee treat back and forward, however when it comes down to it only a few can get it done.



Garston,

While I agree VDW gave some/ many different starting points, I think they all involved the same method of final evaluation (form and class). So apart from possibly the hurdle method do you think they can be classified as different methods?[/quote]


Did vdw not state that the Rivage Bleu example was different from anything that he had shown in the past?.

Mtoto

So the SIAO article he wrote in early 1981 is "VDW For Dummies" because he was paid for it, but Systematic Betting, not published until 9 years later, (And no doubt gratis? ), is the real McCoy?
How very convenient for your special kind of logic???

Garstonf

VDW showed a number of ways to approach his method - as there are a number of ways to approach any equation - but the one constant, right from the early days to the very end, was his formula of CONSISTENT FORM + ABILITY + CAPABILITY + PROBABILITY. So much so that he was moved to highlight it similarly in one of his very last letters, at the same time as informing us that the Roushayd example would carry us a long way in how to look at a racecard, and showing us a selection (Rivage Bleu) that fitted barely any of the various guidelines he had illustrated previously, yet still remained true to that formula.

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

So the SIAO article he wrote in early 1981 is "VDW For Dummies" because he was paid for it,

JohnD,

Its not so much he was paid for it, more who asked for it to be written, and what it said when it was written. You will have noticed by this time the formula had been mentioned twice, and still no explaination of how ability was measured. I have tried to explain why I think SIAO should have been called VDW For Dummies, but incase you have forgotten I will do so again. Because of that article many became interested, and tried to turn the method into a simple system. I don't really see how anyone could blame them as it gave fixed rules...Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk. The fact that these rules didn't find many of the early selections seems to be ignored (or excused by the likes of yourself). When this ability rating was introduced it quite clearly says...For obvious
reasons this is not foolproof, but at least it enables a better judgement to be made and usually it is unwise to stray from the top few. So are PK and Baronet really in the top few, being 7th and 6th best receptively? PK also fails to be one of the lowest three for consistency in the forecast so he fails on two accounts. No matter how you look at it a set of rules that bare little reflection to the early examples/selections, at least 12 out of the 33 selections failing. Some on more than one reason.

Years later VDW writes SB for Raceform (Yes he was paid). A few years after that he says he fears the object of the exercise was missed, and if it hadn't it would have taken the readers a long way forward. When I read SB I thought it was clear and concise explaining everything in a straight forward manner. So what could have been missed? The only thing I can see is the persistent use of the ability rating by many when working the examples shown. He would have been able to pick that up by reading the RFU forum page.

Now I have explained my thinking, would you like to do the same? What use is SIAO, apart from showing how wonderful the A/R is? Why do so many early selections (made before the payments started) not fit the clear critera set out in it? What do you think was missed by many with the R example?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I'm afraid I don't follow your line of thinking about the March 1981 article offering a system. Yes, it lists a series of steps one can take, but nowhere as far as I can see is there that classic feature which defines a system, a statement on the lines "and the horse which is left after steps 1-6 is the selection". In fact, quite clearly the opposite. Van der Wheil makes it clear that the kind of table one gets following those steps, as shown for four races, is a "working platform" from which we are told "do not make any automatic assumptions". He then summarised in two paragraphs immediately under the forecast for the race where Little Owl was the selection the very considerable work to be done before a decision about betting is made.

It is surely clear that the March 1981 was commissioned to bring together and maybe advance material that had been published in spasmodically over the previous three years and which had obviously caused some interest among Sporting Chronicle readers. Van der Wheil himself wrote to that effect a few years later.

As far as I can see, the March 1981 article covers everything that was included in the previous letters, with two exceptions. I can see no reference to:

1) how to identify probables as in the discussion of the Erin Foods Hurdle, or

2) the five most recent runs criterion as used in the discussion of the Cobnut Selling Hurdle.

I am not sure what to make of these omissions, but those apart the March article is surely a valuable bringing together of what went before.

Mtoto

What use is SIAO, apart from showing how wonderful the A/R is?

Because it tells us how VDW read form, something he rarely discussed, but clearly stated was the key to his method, again and again in his later writings.

Why do so many early selections (made before the payments started) not fit the clear critera set out in it?

They aren't clear criteria they are guidelines. He showed us his ratings and how they were arrived at, but they remain as he he said, a guide. The real meat of the SIAO article is where VDW always said it was.

What do you think was missed by many with the R example?

I never mentioned that , but seeing as you ask:

The clear relationship between SIAO and the Roushayd example, which when read correctly clears much of the fog regarding PK, Baronet, Rivage Bleu and every other selection I have looked at.
For JIB's benefit, it also answers many of the queries about how horses are trained and placed, and exposes the supposition that Roushayd was really out to win the Northern Dancer for the hooey it really is.



ps When quoting from other posts, would you kindly use italics, speech marks, brackets or some such, to differentiate, as it is often difficult to separate which are your words and which are someone else's?

Jd,

Its significant you don't substantiate your claim about what you hope may prove to be 'hooey'. I would like not to think that you can't, but the world of real racing shows us the significant error of your position.

As an aftertimed selection Roushayd may look great to those whose relationship to horseracing is carried on at third hand, (and thus unduly influenced by other third hand opinion), but the reality of racing demonstrates that improving 4yos are NOT dropped to collect.

The connections of improving younger horses are naturally looking up for a peak to plant their flag upon, not searching for a ledge to hold onto as they slip down an abyss.

An improving 4yo is only dropped to collect when its original objective has been frustrated, and understanding that their animal is inferior to what they originally believed connections opt for an obtainable consolation.

Improving 4yos are trained at their stables. They are not run willynilly until they find a prize because that results in their marks getting raised, and as their ability is exposed for little or no reward their most potent advantage ends up erroded.

Roushayd was let loose at Epsom, it was the best performance of his career but it wasn't good enough. The Aga Khan must have been relieved when he managed to scrabble his win in the ONC, a performance significantly inferior to the Epsom run, but still the best he was ever to subsequently achieve.

HI GUYS
Does anybody have an opinion on how to equate SPEED FIGURE'S WITH CLASS.


Thank you
Paul

quote:

It is surely clear that the March 1981 was commissioned to bring together and maybe advance material that had been published in spasmodically over the previous three years and which had obviously caused some interest among Sporting Chronicle readers. Van der Wheil himself wrote to that effect a few years later.

George/JohnD,

While I supose it could be argued that was the intention, did it do it? I still can't see how it explained, or cleared up the early examples. Nowhere does it show how PK and others became selections, and it is easy to argue the "rules" are guidelines. There are no explanations of how to deal with horses that fall out side these guide lines. In SIAO the ONLY horses that are discussed are the ones marked with an asterisk. Thus giving the impression they are the only ones worth considering. PK wouldn't have warranted an * for either guide line, B would have had * because he was in the lowest three in the forecast, but nothing for ability. As said before if it was only a few selections that failed to be highlighted it MAY just about be acceptable, but 30%?

There is also the problem of the suggestion ANY other set of ratings could do the job, but as BL proves that isn't the case. So while it is being said SIAO helps show how VDW looked at form (apart from that little word pace I can't really see how it does) I think it gave many a false impression. They have to find reasons to get rid of BL or he would have been the selection the way they work. To do this they make him out of form, or a none form horse the same also happens with Petronisi. Their findings to achieve this are then used as one of the ways VDW looked at form. The fact that VDW said BL was well out of it on the "other" ratings and no mention of being out of form or a none form horse are ignored. I think PK and B were top rated of the consistent horses in both races. That makes VDW suggestion in SIAO that ANY set of ratings does the job nonsense.

JohnD,

I have never seen you say how you deal with BL, do you think he was a none form horse?

George,

It is of course your choice, but I would suggest you put a line through SIAO. It only muddies the waters and apart from one word (pace) is as much use as a chocolate ashtray fireguard.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I can't answer all your points because I am not not far enough into the story, but I think you may be doing the March 1981 article a dis-service.

What it seems to me to do is emphasise the initial importance Van der Wheil gave to both ability and consistency, more specifically the two ratings he had developed for the two ideas. And as you say in the four tabled examples he discusses horses which are flagged on the ability rating (except for The Engineer which he mentions to point up that, although a consistent horse, he doesn't have the necessary ability).

But the article "gives" a little on consistency, as he allows Gaye Chance through, despite on its actual figures not being one of the horses with one of the three lowest rates (indicating that not everything should always be taken at face value) AND he makes it clear earlier in the text that he is also, exceptionally, prepared to consider as consistent horses runners from outside the first five in the forecast.

I can't see any "give" on ability, though it is clear from Park Express and the example, Pegwell Bay, you kindly drew to my attention, that Van der Wheil did in practice not limit himself solely to horses with one of the top four rates. It would have been helpful if he had said that, but both Park Express and Pegwell Bay were some years later so maybe he allowed more leaway in the light of experience.

It seems to me, therefore, that Johnd is right to suggest that the "four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast" are guidelines rather than rules, and it then surely follows that part of our task is to sus. out how relaxed one can be with them. (And in passing I have been surprised at how relaxed members here are when making selections in current races.)

quote:

There is also the problem of the suggestion ANY other set of ratings could do the job, but as BL proves that isn't the case.

As I read it, the purpose of the two sets of unspecific ratings (final two columns in the four tables) is to provide a check on what Van der Wheil's ability and consistency ratings seem to show. Van der Wheil seems quite relaxed about these - whether one uses one or two, and what they are - and that relaxed attitude is carried through into item 46 of "The Golden Years", with mention of Split Second, Dick Whitford and several commercial ratings. While I still hope to work out how Van der Wheil generated those he showed in the four March 1981 examples, they seem secondary rather than primary, and I doubt they were definitive in the selection of Prominent King/rejection of Beacon Light.

Having been away from this forum for quite a few weeks, I, too, would like to say how enjoyable and interesting this thread has become!

Thanks to all.

Just a couple of disagreements to begin:

Someone said that Ascot is as much an uphill finish as Cheltenham. I have to disagree.
That said, I must admit that a walk up the road from Ascot village parallel to the finishing straight is uphill, but I don't think the actual course is as steep, and, in fact, I'd say Sandown is stiffer. Cheltenham is way steeper, of course.

Then, johnd says somewhere that (paraphrased)" the horse tells the trainer where he should run".
I'm afraid I can't have this at all. How could we possibly explain success on the first run at a course?
I feel trainers get an inkling of a horse's preferences and strongpoints from the gallops, and then experiment with both distance and course. Also many haven't a clue about what would be best. I suppose though, that it could be argued that they should listen more to what the horse is telling them.

Finally, to end on a positive note, I think George Johns' research will pay dividends. I'd expect a close link between vdw and the Mail.

Although I'm a lover of neither vdw or Mail, I do know several punters who do very well through their use - especially the DM.
I'd be surprised if 75% of vdw fans ( from the contemporary days) weren't Mail readers. They have much in common, I'd say.

Although the Sun has pushed into poll position over the last thirty years, I still see a lot of old guys ( my age and even older ) use the Mail.

Anyway, may all find what they seek! Keep up the good work.

ps

re the question about speed figures: the different opinions about course configuration illustrate a major stumbling block, imo. We are not measuring in laboratory conditions, imo.

quote:

they seem secondary rather than primary, and I doubt they were definitive in the selection of Prominent King/rejection of Beacon Light.

George,

Thats the main difference between our thinking. I think those ratings are one of the most if not the most important aspect of the VDW saga. The class and form is measured by THOSE ratings, but as VDW said they are just a guide the rest of the formula has to be applied. No matter how often I read/look at the Erin example the fact that VDW says BL is well out of it on his ratings is the one thing that stands out loud and clear. The fact that most of the next examples follow the same profile (ratings wise) only goes to confirm it for me.

This is why I think VDW is/was years ahead of his time as even how I still haven't read/seen anyone else use this type of rating in this way. It worked in the Erin and it worked last Saturday. It works in most of the examples given by VDW, I say most as there are a few it doesn't seem to work for. That is what I'm working on now trying to find out how he made those selections where that rating didn't have the selection in the top few.

I can only wish you luck if you persist with SIAO, but its not for me. I agree with JohnD that the class and form aspect runs through all the examples except I think the class measure has been changed in SIAO leaving form without/needing a measurement.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I'm getting confused, and maybe it is the word ratings that is the cause of the confusion.

In the March 1981 tables, even though only the final two columns are headed "ratings" all four of the columns to the right of the horses names are ratings, the first two being Van der Wheil's ability and consistency ratings. In those four, the third and fourth are also Van der Wheil's and seemingly no one who has posted recently has sussed how he compiled those. But surely the sentences above the six steps suggest that they (the ratings in the third and fourth columns) are crosschecks and therefore primary?

It seems to me that the letter re Prominent King raises several questions that are not (at least by me) readily answered. I now know that Van der Wheil used the Mail (or a paper with exactly the same forecast as the Mail, certainly not the Sporting Life) for this letter, and the three most consistent horses from the first five in the forecast (the horses named in the letter) were Mr Kildare, Beacon Light and Decent Fellow. So the first question is how does Prominent King come in? Presumably it was one of those Van der Wheil regarded as consistent that was not in the three lowest of the first five of the forecast.

Assuming, therefore, that adding Prominent King to the three basic consistent horses gave him four, were there any others? There seem to be four other horses outside the first five in the Mail forecast with lower consistency ratings than Prominent King (Drumgora, Banswara, Beparoejoe and Bugle Beads). We know from the March 1981 article that Van der Wheil was prepared to consider these - but on what criterion? Clearly not lowness of consistency rating, otherwise Beparoejoe would obviously qualify.

Then, from among the at least four consistent horses Van der Wheil identifies three as probables, not on any obvious basis (ie three lowest consistency aggregates or three highest ability ratings) but clearly by a numeric method of rating which generated the figures in the table.

Finally, Van der Wheil tells us that, over and above how he selected the three probables from the four consistent horses, looking at all five from the front of the forecast the three probables come out best. Again it is clear that these two methods of rating are not ability or consistency. They may be ratings like those in the third and fourth columns of the tables in the March 1981 article (though there seems to have been no Mail ratings for the race), or something else again. But whatever they were, he says they put Prominent King and Mr Kildare ahead of Beacon Light, and in saying that he again confirmed they were not the ability or consistency ratings. So, there are potentially three different ratings to discover - the one Van der Wheil used to identify the three probables and the two he used thereafter. One or both of the last two may well be the same as the two in the third and fourth columns of the March 1981 tables!

If we look at the race from the March 1981 article perspective, and accept that Prominent King was regarded as a consistent horse, we would have a table as follows (just horse names and ability and consistency):


Master Monday 39* 21
Decent Fellow 38* 7*
Beacon Light 46* 4*
Monksfield 23 12
Ballymountain Girl 14 27
Banswara 7 6
Cooch Behar 22 16
Drumgora 13 6
Multiple 16 18
Prominent King 18 8*
Troyswood 14 13
Mr Kildare 11 3*
Silvine 5 9
Beparoejoe 5 4
Bugle Beads 0 7

It seems to me that only four of these were of any conceivable interest - those with the * in the consistency column.

Decent Fellow we are told disappears because of the probables rating.

Beacon Light we are told disappears because he is "well out of it" on the two methods of rating Van der Wheil employed, and because he had a hard race last time out. These ratings could also generate numbers, but the wording is interesting - "methods of rating". Could that indicate a pass/fail test, when of course if Prominent King and Mr Kildare passed and Beacon Light failed, the last-named would be "well out of it"? But that idea doesn't sit well with the statement that, when applied, the two rating methods left Beacon Light, Prominent King and Mr Kildare clear of Decent Fellow and Monksfield. A pass/fail method would not satisfy both statements. What would, of course, would be rating methods which allowed three answers, where Decent Fellow and Monksfield got the least favourable answer on both, Beacon Light the middle answer on both, and Prominent King and Mr Kildare the most favourable answer on both. I find myself wondering whether these two rating methods might link to the various considerations mentioned in the March 1981 article below the Little Owl table - form, course, pace and going, etc. and invite three answers: yes/maybe/no. It seems more likely than that they were the number-generating ratings in columns 3 and 4 of the tables in the March 1981 article, because of the fairly casual way he discussed those there and in item 45 of "The Golden Years". But which of the considerations do they relate to, and what were the criteria for yes/maybe/no answers? Such a lot to try to unravel.

George,

The whole of your last post assumes VDW used something he didn't mention at the time the A/R. Forget about that rating for a moment and re read the article. Remembering using the other ratings as a x check wasn't mentioned until after the A/R was introduced.

I also think saying Mr Kildare was the 2nd rated is another assumption, VDW didn't say that. He said he was left with him, perhaps that had something to do with this was a top class flat horse.Who while doing nothing wrong over the sticks hadn't gained a NH rating. Could such a horse just be ignored? Bl could still have been the 2nd best but well out of it on the figures.

quote:

I find myself wondering whether these two rating methods might link to the various considerations mentioned in the March 1981 article below the Little Owl table - form, course, pace and going, etc.

If you add in the most important aspect of the form analysis CLASS (it is mentioned in that article), I think you are starting to wonder along the right lines. But it has nothing to do with yes no answers.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

quote:

The whole of your last post assumes VDW used something he didn't mention at the time the A/R. Forget about that rating for a moment and re read the article. Remembering using the other ratings as a x check wasn't mentioned until after the A/R was introduced.

That's not quite right. I certainly assume that the ability rating MAY have been used, though clearly not on its own either to sort out the probables from the consistent horses or as one of the "two methods of rating".

Surely it is clear that Mr Kildare was second rated. Beacon Light, Mr Kildare and Prominent King "came out best", ie were better than Monksfield and Decent Fellow, which makes the three the best three of the five, Then, clearly referring to the three, Beacon Light was "well out of it" on both rating "methods", thus leaving Prominent King and Mr Kildare. When discussing the two, Van der Wheil writes "Prominent King had the edge by one method and was level using the other", making Prominent King the best of the five on the two rating methods, a bit better than Mr Kildare.

More generally, I have noticed an interesting couple of sentences in the March 1981 article which seem relevant here:

"There are numerous ways to approach the problem of winner-finding methodically and the one which I will demonstrate has proved highly successful and consistent for a considerable number of years. each element was selected after a great deal of research and when used as intended will place the odds strongly in the backers' favour".

"Considerable number of years", when written in 1981, surely covers 1978, and makes me think that all the elements in the March 1981 article were probably used in the Erin race example, though I'm not clear how. I'm more concerned about the significance of the two elements not mentioned in the March 1981 article - probables and recent runs. I haven't yet tried to work out the probables rating (we are still struggling with the two final column ratings in the four March 1981 tables, despite the ideas offered by Les), but I have tried the five most recent runs filter on Van der Wheil's bets and not all comply, eg Sunset Cristo (everything in the field had run more recently than him).

Seems that VDW was fairly quick on the uptake re-horses that were gone for the season or worse still gone for good.His statement that "Soba was one to leave alone next season" has always fascinated - and again with Gratification - Cool Gin has nothing to fear from Gratification which, as expected, has been running like a donkey this term (how is he so sure)?.Im wondering if he has had his fingers burned on a few of these horses when everything was set tight then decided they were gone?.Dont know what happened with Beacon Light whether vdw would have been on him at Sandown prior to the Erin but although top rated by the press etc vdw has him well out of it on his two ratings?.

george you have got me thinking about these ratings am on night shift reading and re-reading golden years heres something from page 60readers who elect to use speed figures for ajusted ratings may care to adopt the procedure of making two sets.one based on best performance4th column and the other using present season figures3rd column and always lower i take it the third column is split secounds this seasons ratings and 4th column best ever when both are out in front regard the animal with great respect