VDW - reincarnated « Thread Started on Jan 23, 2009, 11:01pm »
I hope some of the old VDW forumites will remember me both on the old Racing-Systems .co.uk site and more recently on the Gummy board.
For my part I understood that the whole VDW matter had been put to bed as an almighty scam Which is how I took a private letter I received from Dr Alan Bacon following his investigations and susbequent pestering (?) of the man he believed was VDW. I will have to find this letter, if I can, and see whether maybe I did not read it properly or understand what was being said.
I am sure I am not the only person with these type of views.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #1 on Jan 23, 2009, 11:28pm »
Hi Marchwood, Yes, most of us have heard about Alan's findings, which were confirmed here by JIB, Mtoto and Lee. (Here being the previous, original Gummy forum), Does that make the whole thing a scam though? The method does appear to me to be a logical arrangement of ideas for finding winners.
Anyway, welcome to the forum. Have fun.
BC
PS Would you like me to change your "name" in your profile to Marchwood?
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #2 on Jan 24, 2009, 12:08am »
I am not suggesting for one moment that I share this view. I personally got some great fun and maybe even a small profit from what I had learnt. What upset me, was that the Dutchman from Market Harborough was being pestered without justification and did not deserve any of this at his age in life. Whether he was a scam or not, he provided much food for thought and how many of his ideas are still used many years on, his ability ratings as one example.
I was one of the original correspondents with letters to the old Racing Forum and really thought he had found the Missing Link. At one stage, when many people had jumped on the bandwagon, I must admit to having my doubts but never made these views public, unlike many others.
I also objected when the private forum was formed by Gummy who I find spoilt the overall VDW saga I suggest for his own means and his immediate friends, instead of for the benefit of all.
I'm interested in your use of the word "pestered". What was happening - were people turning up on VDW's doorstep, or bugging his 'phone?
GJ Maybe you ought to explain why you are interested?
Marchwood
Welcome to the forum, I remember some of your stuff from way back on Gummy's. I agree with much of what you say, and there was much disquiet on the old forum about the way this 'evidence' was suppressed, which no one has ever given a satisfactory answer for. You might also be a little unfair on Gummy too, as although he may have had some financial motivation, as I recall the forum went 'private' at the behest of some of its more vociferous members rather than at Pete's personal instigation. It was a big mistake on his part - moreso when he did it a second time - and who knows, had he not done that it might still be up there as one of the best forums on the net. Maybe this forum will grow one day to replace it; let's hope so. In the meanwhile I'd advise circumspection in what you say as, until the forum settles down, none of us has any idea of who is behind what user name, original user names excepted, of course.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #5 on Jan 24, 2009, 7:45am »
Johnd
Simple. Gdubsuk's post suggests a familiarity with Van der Wheil that could indicate a greater knowledge of his method than is available to those of us who only have the body of his published work to go from. Although that work answers a lot of questions, I have some that remain unanswered and doubt I am unique in that. The only realistic way I see of getting answers to those questions is from those who know more than is in the published material.
Simple. Gdubsuk's post suggests a familiarity with Van der Wheil that could indicate a greater knowledge of his method than is available to those of us who only have the body of his published work to go from. Although that work answers a lot of questions, I have some that remain unanswered and doubt I am unique in that. The only realistic way I see of getting answers to those questions is from those who know more than is in the published material.
That's fine GJ, but it isn't an answer to my question! Whether "people were turning up on his doorstep or bugging his phone" has no relevance at all to his method, and the answer would do nothing to further your understanding of it, so why do you ask? Of all the questions you could have asked Marchwood, who has been around VDW for longer than most of us, why would you specifically highlight the word 'pestered'; it suggests rather more interest than you're being open with him about?
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #7 on Jan 24, 2009, 11:05am »
Johnd
Gdubsuk used several phrases to refer to Van der Wheil that any of us who have read the booklets might use - "Dutchman", "Market Harborough" and "at his age in life".
But "pestered" seems to draw on knowledge from outside the booklets and is suggestive of knowing Van der Wheil's feelings. Obviously I am interested in finding anyone who knows or knew Van der Wheil as they may well have the answers to the unresolved questions about the method that I have.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #8 on Jan 24, 2009, 11:30am »
Hello GJ and others
I am not sure what you are about, from my point of view pestered can mean as you described or writing letters to the poor chap and more or less forcing him into a face to face meeting which I believe was the case.
Tony Peach of course claims to have met him and ghosted the books that are almost in his name, mostly I believe still available from Browzers Bookshop in Manchester. At one stage many people believed that Tony Peach was in fact VDW and possibly still do until this day. Tony, was at one stage the editor of the Letters page in the Sporting Chronicle Handicap book where the whole VDW story started as far as I know.
If GJ has not heard of him, another source of information is the man Sad Ken who has written a series of books on how he uses the CDW ideas. I believe that this are also still available.
I hope that clears the air and now we can get down to discussing the works of VDW.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #9 on Jan 24, 2009, 12:17pm »
I take a slightly different view in that I do not believe any such Dutchman as this vdw pen-name ever existed. My opinion is based only on what I have read and on research carried out in Leicestershire. Nobody had ever heard of vdw, let alone met him. Total journalistic invention, imo.
As to the methodology, my view is that it WAS a reasonable, structured, approach, when it was first cobbled together, but, in this day and age of unlicensed laying on the Exchanges, the thing is way past its sell-by date. Much like myself!
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #10 on Jan 24, 2009, 12:52pm »
Sean Rua
Whose wonderful idea was it then because it certainly has been, IMO, the most talked about and possibly successful betting system of all time. Arriving as it did with the the computer.
More books have been written, by whom I ask, letters printed and possibly money gambled than on any other subject.
As I have said many times before, it certainly had something going for it and has kept many people very happy and a few sad.
I do have a letter from Tony Peach that says it was not a figment of his imagination or doing. So there we are, back to square one or Market Harborough!
One other thought at this stage, I would also like to suggest. although I know that it was not his original plan, he was also a Dutchman who dutched a great deal.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #12 on Jan 24, 2009, 1:08pm »
Gdubsuk,
The fact that 'VDW' has been proven to be a liar is undisputable. Lying in public is always a serious matter. 'VDW' also practised a seriously misleading deception when drawing attention to his letters, the details of this deception have been kept undisclosed by Fulham exactly to prevent an pestering they might lead to because by its nature it leads to the man's true identity.
Upon discovering VDWs true identity Fulham wrote to the fellow asking to meet him to discuss his methods in more detail. I do not regard anything unusual in approaching a person who originaly drew attention to himself for exactly those self same purposes. However 'VDW' denied the authorship and refused to meet, a decision that Fulham immediately accepted and abided with.
Since that correspondence between them Fulham sent 'VDW' a Christmas card and got a chatty reply about 'VDW's latest holiday in the USA. I find it hard to equate this civilized intercourse with the accusation of 'pestering'.
There are plenty of people who will, after a huge investment in old form books and time, feel that 'VDW' should be much more closely questioned about how many more falsehoods and deceptions are contained in his letters. And to these disgruntled sycophants it may seem Fulham has shown far too much courtesy and acted far too gently.
When you consider that 'VDW' was aided and abetted throughout by Tony Peach, and depending on what one may suspect is the severity of the disinformation, one may feel inclined to use the word 'conspiracy' in connection these publications. Most people feel that having bought the booklets they are now entitled to an explanation. To my mind if 'VDW' is now ashamed of what he took part in he should say so. Tony Peach is apparently qualmless about it all and is still trying to find a buyer for the boxes of old pamphlets that are cluttering his livingroom.
A few people, who have made a point of allying themselves with 'VDWology' over the years, are quite annoyed at Fulham's discoveries for what they reveal make these 'gurus' look foolish and are an unflattering comment on their gullability.
The wisest of these characters have chosen not to draw attention to themselves.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #13 on Jan 24, 2009, 2:02pm »
Hello John
That is the most informative reply that I have received and I must say does put a different complexion on the matter. The secrecy of Fulham (Dr.AB) is maybe understandable but I must suggest the cloak and dagger business of his secret society maybe brought this all about.
How do you personally feel about the whole VDW business - rubbish or still worth studying? I feel plenty of people and we seem to have got together many on this forum, would appreciate your answer.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #14 on Jan 24, 2009, 2:49pm »
Gdubsuk,
A small question but a complicated answer!
The situation needs to be understood in terms of the 'man' and 'the method'. It is complicated further by the omnipresent Mr Peach. All (in)famous double acts from Burke and Hare to Laurel and Hardy are successful becuse the partners are a perfect compliment to each other. In this case mr Peach became the cypher to the phoney message
Fulham has v kindly shown me all the information he has gathered and it is quite clear from it that the VDW of yesteryear and his true personna today is a fantasist of remark. Fantasy is only harmful to its creator if he confines it to himself. However when he socializes his fantasies others become involved with little chance of benefit for their experience.
Tony Peach made 'VDW' into a public figure. Tony Peach socialized the fantasy and has sustained it for 30 years. It is impossible to believe that in these 30 years he never knew with whom he was dealing. Initially 'VDW' was a more than willing partner, though by the time of Systematic Betting I think he realized that he had lost control of his fantasy, which was now owned by Mr Peach, and backpedalled out of it.
A person who lives out fantasies does so because reality is difficult and the lazy way to success is to invent it. 'VDW' knew about horseracing, that fits in perfectly with his fantasizing, but fantasy definitely doesn't fit with someone who thought, thought, and thought about the reasons for a horse winning a race. That would be too much hard work in reality, something that we know he runs away from.
I am convinced that VDW methodolgy was born from backfitting. Thats why there are inconsistancies and why it is so inaccurate.
The people who I know that make a success of it; Fulham, Mtoto, and Sadken do themselves the injustice of awarding the merit to VDW. Their methods are all different, so by definition two of them have to be wrong if VDW was true. Their methods have been found purely by their own merit and owe nothing to anyone. However this also tells us something as they all started from the same origin, the original forum letters.
I believe that when 'VDW' started his backfitting he made the happy decision to incorporate 'class' as his major guideline. Whether by accident or by design he hit on what is the crux of horseracing. 'VDW' is either a genius or a lucky loser, you can take your pick, it matters little if you start with the 'class' idea but treat the methods he describes with caution.
In my opinion, if a person learns the importance of 'class' from the 'VDW' writings he has learned something vital. When he has learned the vitality of 'class' he will not need the methods that are described as he will understand that 'class', like the poets muse, cannot be enslaved. And it is only individually that we charm her into appearing.
« Last Edit: Jan 24, 2009, 2:59pm by johninbrasil »
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #15 on Jan 24, 2009, 3:09pm »
Gdubsuk
Sorry, I have made my not infrequent mistake of assuming that others use language as precisely as I try to do (not of course always succeeding). "Pestered" interested me because that is necessarily an individual's response to his or her situation and not in any way an objective description. I had thought you might have heard from Van der Wheil that he had been pestered, in which case you could well have more understanding of his method than the published material provides, but I was clearly wrong.
From what I have read on the now sadly unavailable Gummy forum, Sean is technically correct - there was no such person as Che Van der Wheil. But that is not important. An individual certainly wrote the letters and articles that we refer to as the Van der Wheil material, and the ideas seem to me to be very helpful. Whether all the claims about the level of success that individual achieved are true, who knows. But he wouldn't be the first punter to exaggerate his success and he won't have been the last.
« Last Edit: Jan 24, 2009, 3:10pm by georgejohns »
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #19 on Jan 25, 2009, 12:01am »
I certainly would not be so foolish as to judge the merits or demerits of VDW's character from postings on an internet forum and without the chance for VDW making a reply. To my mind VDW used a pseudonym which was deriguer at the time. His letters were clearly intended to help readers, not deceive, in an era when the level of racing analysis was absolutely diabolical. Basic weight rating and speed ratings were hardly understood by the racing masses or even professionals at the time. The VDW work directly followed from Pittsburgh Phil, Robert Dowst and others - he packaged it all into his own formula plus several complementary methods. That others have wanted to make the basic help into some divine revelation is more their problem than VDWs. Did he backfit or use the answer as an example to illustrate , not prove, the method? He made only one claim about his success but whether, as likely, that was from dutching several contenders he did not say.
Judging those times and motives today is even more absurd as can be seen by reading the tripe and downright fantasising that passes for today's typical racing forum postings. Every one is winning or just about breaking even when their words show that they have not the slightest clue about racing.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #21 on Jan 25, 2009, 8:40am »
There are several points that VDW fans should consider: 1) VDW wasn't just a pen-name, it came with a fabricated biography that was presented as true. Yet, in the creation of this biography, VDW did not have enough nous to choose a genuine Dutch name. In short, he wasn't just dishonest, he was also sloppy regarding important details. 2) in his initial letter VDW did not award himself any exceptional abilities, he was interested in exchanging ideas. So, even from his own pen we have no reason to suspect that he enjoyed spectacular success. 3) as JiB pointed out, all the results were after the event, nobody trusts the tall tales of punters in the local bookie, so why anyone would even consider trusting VDW on this, is a mystery to me. 4) as further pointed out by JiB, VDW did not present any clear or coherent selection method, and this is best explained by the fact that the horses were selected by result, in other words there was no method. This is a serious problem as it's in the nature of some classes of problem that they are easy to understand from their solutions but there is no algorithm that can generate those solutions. Horse racing is at least as difficult as this class of problems.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #23 on Jan 25, 2009, 9:59am »
Robert/Epiglotis
I have sympathy with both your positions, but you are both in error in at least one respect which might make you more sympathetic to each other's:
* Robert: "he made only one claim about his success". If you read all the Van der Wheil material you will find he made several claims about the level of success he achieved and, as John in Brasil and Epiglotis have said, he never proved any of them. (Not that that inevitably means they were untrue, but given the evidence about fabrications in other areas it should make one very wary.);
* Epiglotis: "in other words there was no method". The basic elements of the method and some unelaborated intimations were set out in a lengthy article in March 1981.
Van der Wheil wrote later that everything was there in that article, "providing you READ WHAT WAS THERE". That capitalised phrase is, in my view, extremely misleading, as it suggests one or more important ideas are tucked away and likely to be overlooked and if one reads the article more carefully one will find them (like those newspaper puzzles where the requirement is to spot whole words embedded in a block of lettters). It would have been much more accurate if he had written "provided you read what was there and spend quite a bit of time discovering what it means in practice by examining all the examples I've given you, both in the article and earlier".
Leaving aside those relatively few selections Van der Wheil gave that he made clear were found by different methods, all the selections he gave both before and after the March 1981 article were found by the March 1981 method. Almost always the selection is the only horse remaining after the various procedural stages have been worked through, but in a small number of cases (for example his selection of Connaught Bridge at Goodwood 1979), two are left at this stage and I can't see why he chose horse A rather than horse B, or indeed as Robert rather suggests, both. Van der Wheil may have dutched when he was left with two at this stage, or there may be a final procedural stage I can't yet spot. (Hence my interest in Gdudsuk's post into which I mistakenly read some familiarity with Van der Wheil.) But there is most certainly a tightly defined method here which, despite Van der Wheil's protestations, comes close to being a system, and usually ends up with one horse uneliminated (the selection) but occasionally two (including the selection).
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #24 on Jan 25, 2009, 10:01am »
I still find it hard to believe (nay- impossible) that, from a purported 200 items of evidence, none can be produced that doesn't involve revealing the identity of this 'other person'?
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #25 on Jan 25, 2009, 12:27pm »
If we are to accept the previous explanations, then surely the method (VDW's word, not mine) must have contained the best possible attempt at providing helpful information as it was all after the event. Nothing could be better than that? Then it was up to you!
I certainly would not be so foolish as to judge the merits or demerits of VDW's character from postings on an internet forum and without the chance for VDW making a reply. To my mind VDW used a pseudonym which was deriguer at the time. His letters were clearly intended to help readers, not deceive, in an era when the level of racing analysis was absolutely diabolical. Basic weight rating and speed ratings were hardly understood by the racing masses or even professionals at the time. The VDW work directly followed from Pittsburgh Phil, Robert Dowst and others - he packaged it all into his own formula plus several complementary methods. That others have wanted to make the basic help into some divine revelation is more their problem than VDWs. Did he backfit or use the answer as an example to illustrate , not prove, the method? He made only one claim about his success but whether, as likely, that was from dutching several contenders he did not say.
Judging those times and motives today is even more absurd as can be seen by reading the tripe and downright fantasising that passes for today's typical racing forum postings. Every one is winning or just about breaking even when their words show that they have not the slightest clue about racing.
HI ROBERT 99 You mention above Robert Dowst. Would this be the same Robert S Dowst who wrote Win Place And Show. If so any idea where this book can be bought.
Re: VDW - reincarnated « Reply #27 on Jan 25, 2009, 2:15pm »
Excellent replies from JIB, to which I can add nothing. If, when I say that I don't believe in ghosts, I do not attempt to answer the believer's question: " well, what did I see then?".
It is impossible, and, nothing would change, in any case.
Horseracing is difficult enough without getting side-tracked by other folk's fetishes and mumbo jumbo. I come to these places with two, transparent motives only:
a) to learn about methodology, which is something I enjoy
and
b) to try to save gullible folk time and money by warning them to be beware of false prophets, scammers, and plausible rogues, who would tell a man any nonsense, provided the mark would be willing to pay.
Finally, and belatedly, thank you for the welcome, BC! It's good that people have made such an effort. And don't be worried: I won't rock the boat.
I certainly would not be so foolish as to judge the merits or demerits of VDW's character from postings on an internet forum and without the chance for VDW making a reply. To my mind VDW used a pseudonym which was deriguer at the time. His letters were clearly intended to help readers, not deceive, in an era when the level of racing analysis was absolutely diabolical. Basic weight rating and speed ratings were hardly understood by the racing masses or even professionals at the time. The VDW work directly followed from Pittsburgh Phil, Robert Dowst and others - he packaged it all into his own formula plus several complementary methods. That others have wanted to make the basic help into some divine revelation is more their problem than VDWs. Did he backfit or use the answer as an example to illustrate , not prove, the method? He made only one claim about his success but whether, as likely, that was from dutching several contenders he did not say.
Judging those times and motives today is even more absurd as can be seen by reading the tripe and downright fantasising that passes for today's typical racing forum postings. Every one is winning or just about breaking even when their words show that they have not the slightest clue about racing.
HI ROBERT 99 You mention above Robert Dowst. Would this be the same Robert S Dowst who wrote Win Place And Show. If so any idea where this book can be bought.
Thank you Paul
Hi Paul
You can read the Robert Dowst Book on-line at the following.
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Members]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/members.gif)
![[Admin]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/admin.gif)
![[Profile]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/profile.gif)
![[Logout]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/logout.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Add Bookmark]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/bookmark.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[send pm]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/message_sm.gif)
![[Quote]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
![[Modify]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/modify.gif)
![[Delete]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/delete.gif)
89.243.175.125
![[avatar]](http://www.freewebs.com/kimmypops/horseyindex1.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/feet2.jpg){kind=small}
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/99.jpg)
![[Move Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/movetopic.gif)
![[Remove Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/removetopic.gif)
![[Unlock Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/unlock.gif)
![[Sticky Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sticky.gif)
![[Make Announcement]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/makeannouncement.gif)
![[Bump Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/bump.gif)