VDW says it's simple.

JohnD,

If it is so simple why did VDW feel the need to write.............."When I first began to explain the way I do things, various aspects were singled out for readers to digest and on one occasion, because some were unable to grasp what I was saying, the following formula was presented". Followed by..........."Calculating consistent horses, ability ratings and everything else, roviding you READ WHAT WAS THERE. The last in capitals because it was all there although a vital factor, call it the missing link if you like was not deliberately pointed out. It is there for you to see and it was not covered up, but until you approach the problem in the right way the odds are it will remain obscure. Once you find it everything will be so clear that you will wonder how on earth you could miss it and you will have the same horses as myself. Does this really suggest the answers are simple?

While I accept it is just possible you may have the intellect a geniuses, the majority of us are not blessed in the same manner. The only logical way forward is for us to arm ourselves with the same information he had, and work the examples from scratch. After all VDW did say........."For now I say to you, "Don't accept a word I have written, prove it first for yourself, then and only then will you have started along that narrow road to your goal through the process of acquiring that first indispensable asset... TEMPERAMENT."

quote:

You suggest it's endlessly complicated and needs studying in the minutest detail.

ONCE the answer has been found then it ceases to be complicated. The complications are finding the answers, and to do this EVERYTHING does need to be studied in detail. Unless you are a genius of course

Johnd

Thanks. I asked because although I had seen it there Van der Wheil quite often uses phrases in more than one letter or article and had he used that phrase elsewhere the context in which he used it might have been helpful.

John if you were to tell me what `IT` is would it improve my punting?.

Paul, until some of the vdw guys begin to put up some tips - advices on here on a regular basis then you will never know if they can produce the goods or not in modern day terms.The only reason this would be relevant of course is to see if the constant study of races from over 30yrs ago has been a worthwhile exercise - as sooner or later the studying has to stop and (real time) betting has to commence - no?.

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
Paul, until some of the vdw guys begin to put up some tips - advices on here on a regular basis then you will never know if they can produce the goods or not in modern day terms.The only reason this would be relevant of course is to see if the constant study of races from over 30yrs ago has been a worthwhile exercise - as sooner or later the studying has to stop and (real time) betting has to commence - no?.

True Walter. But who really are "the vdw guys"?

From the selections posted by most of us, there's no one who's consistently posted anything like 80%, except perhaps Lee, who drifts in and out. 50% would be pushing it.

The other one to stand out in my memory is TC - 14 winners from 15 selections - on one day!! (or was it 13/14)

From "gut feel", and with no facts to back it up, the best strike rate on offer "down here" is probably your own.

Actually, I forgot to mention Jack. His SR was pretty good as I recall.

Walter

This part of the forum will always be stuck in a time-warp while ever the same old stuff is regurgitated again and again, with no attempt at evaluating current races. It's like an old peoples home really, with the majority living in the past when they could learn so much from what's happening out there in the real world.
If IT wouldn't improve your reading of form, then I'm a Dutchman!

Mtoto

"NO GENIUS in winner finding, just a consistent and methodical approach".
Everything in life is simple once it is properly understood, but the first step in any understanding begins with coming to terms with one's ignorance. I did, have you?

Strange that you should mention the old people`s home jd as i travelled around 10 miles early this morning to sit with mum for a few hours.
She`s on the decline now at 88 but still has the determination that the 2nd world war brigade seem to bring to things.
BC i do away no bad for an un-educated sort.

Id normally put this on Steve Balsamo but feck it i thought id liven you stoogies up a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O9DXxfsYtE


Viva Las Vegas.

quote:

"NO GENIUS in winner finding, just a consistent and methodical approach".

While it is quite possible VDW didn't consider himself to be a genius, he didn't need to be to understand what he was looking for. However it is very clear he didn't realise there were folk like you around, or he wouldn't have felt the need to go into anymore detail, and write SIAO. Mistakenly he wrote........From subsequent letters in Forum it was apparent that the majority of readers failed to comprehend what to my mind is elementary.

After your post saying very little VDW wrote was cryptic what is your take on the article you took that quote from? He introduces the A/R for the first time clearly stating it is usually unwise to stray from the top few, giving six examples of the top rated winning. He ends the article...........Those who have understood my
previous letters and used the methods will once again have found the winner in the difficult to assess first big handicap the Lincoln. Kings Ride 10-1. No genius in winner finding, just a positive and consistent methodical approach.

Without a little research it would be quite easy to assume Kings Ride is just another well rated horse using this method. When in fact he ranks 10th + down the list. I accept you of course would know this without having to research it, or relying on someone else doing so. Interestingly he said "Those who have understood my PREVIOUS letters and used the methods", not THIS letter. How does that work when this is the first time he has explained ability and how to find it?

FFS!

Back to the real world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KHz9E0ag6s&feature=related

Mtoto

quote:

Those who have understood my previous letters and used the methods will once again have found the winner in the difficult to assess first big handicap the Lincoln. Kings Ride 10-1. No genius in winner finding, just a positive and consistent methodical approach.

I would like to suggest that the first sentence of the quote is fair. Prior to the letter from which the quote comes (item 35 of "The Golden Years"), arguably the key Van der Wheil message was that plenty of winners are to be found by taking the three from the first five or six in the forecast with the lowest last three race placings, and then evaluating their chances.

In the case of the 1980 Lincoln, following that path (using the Life's forecast) generates Be Better, Handsome Kid and the winner, Kings Ride. Whether there is enough in the early examples to lead those who had studied them to pick Kings Ride from the three, I am not yet sure, but it seems not unlikely.

At the stage when his readers were trying to pick the Lincoln winner, I can't see how they could have known how Van der Wheil assessed ability, so I don't see that that could have been a factor.

Once again Rockoppelia for a place at evens looks good pre-race.

Finished 4th by a baw hair.

Mind these are aw bets that not much thought has gone into.

Like a fun bet so to speak.

At the stage when his readers were trying to pick the Lincoln winner, I can't see how they could have known how Van der Wheil assessed ability, so I don't see that could have been a factor.

George,

It is a fact ability and away of assessing it had been mentioned in previous letters, so it should have been apparent by this time some measure of a horses worth was important. The Erin shows the values of the form figures (C/R) isn't the important factor, and for me I can't really see just reading the form of the consistent horses in the forecast would do the trick.

Fookin about in America race 7 sara no 9.

They`re off.

No there not.