Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #60 on Jan 30, 2009, 4:21pm »
Arkle55
The point is, not to miss any danger horses. In my example, a figure of 12 might rule a horse out from being one of the 3 probables, but a figure of 7 might bring it in.
In fact, just like VDW did with Gaye Chance, you might give it 2 figures; 12? 7?
I think it is clear that the phrase "to confirm what the figures say" relates to the picture that emerges from the consistency/ability dimensions presented in the table above the passage you've quoted. What one is then advised to do is study the form in the light of that picture, with several dimensions mentioned.
Not all those dimensions can be readily be expressed in numbers (hence the reference to Pegwell Bay and Wayward Lad in my previous post). But the task here is to work out what for Van der Wheil were the important dimensions (he of course told us which was the most important), and how they interact with one another. My research suggests that the numerics (especially how the horse performed in the later stages of each race) are in 95% of cases overwhelmingly the main dimensions, with the considerations which are not readily expressed numerically, such as going and distance (Pegwell Bay) and course (Wayward Lad) only rarely overturning the conclusions one reaches from the numerics.
Frankly, I think it's laughable that anyone should believe the method can be reduced to adding a few figures up. VDW exhorted us to study the form of all concerned- taking particular note of class, course, pace, going, distance won or beaten by, and how they performed in the closing stages. Each of these elements has an effect on the others, and to study them separately, or put a discrete number on them, is just plain naive, imo. It isn't something he just touched on or hinted at either, but something he reiterated again and again, in various booklets and over several years. The mind boggles!
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #62 on Jan 30, 2009, 6:42pm »
Johnd
"Each of these elements has an effect on the others, and to study them separately, or put a discrete number on them, is just plain naive, imo."
I agree that "to study them separately" would be "naive", and recommend you re-read the last phrase of the following sentence from my previous post: "But the task here is to work out what for Van der Wheil were the important dimensions (he of course told us which was the most important), and how they interact with one another." I assume you know what "interact" means.
Van der Wheil once urged us to "READ WHAT WAS THERE" (his capitalisation). I couldn't put it better myself.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #63 on Jan 30, 2009, 8:11pm »
people have said..the roushayd, method was a continuation of vdw, first methods..class/form horse...but he did not mention abilty rating in the book...why was this not included
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #64 on Jan 30, 2009, 9:19pm »
GJ
Trust me, I can read - for instance the part of your post you somehow omitted: My research suggests that the numerics are in 95% of cases overwhelmingly the main dimensions, with the considerations which are not readily expressed numerically, such as going and distance and course only rarely overturning the conclusions one reaches from the numerics.
Numerics are not the main dimensions (Either percentage wise or overwhelmingly) - the way VDW read form is, as he made clear on many occasions, and spelt out concisely in SIAO. Whether you believe that or not is academic, what the man wrote isn't.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #65 on Jan 30, 2009, 10:10pm »
Johnd
I think it clear you can't read - as your comments on the Pegwell Bay consistency aggregate situation and my post partly re-produced above make crystal.
We can at least agree that the way Van der Wheil read form was an important aspect of his method. My view is that the way Van der Wheil laid out form was in numerical terms, and the glimpses he gave us of this aspect of the method in the tables for the Roushayd and Pegwell Bay examples support that view.
For someone whose selections on both the Gummy forum and this one have been so conspicuously unsuccessful, I think it quite inappropriate for you to be dogmatic about any aspect of the method.
« Last Edit: Jan 30, 2009, 10:14pm by georgejohns »
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #68 on Jan 31, 2009, 12:28pm »
Sometimes its easier to look at the more straight forward examples.
Two bets that VDW indicated were Wing And A Prayer and Cool Gin.
He set out the Normal Platform where everything was going for these two selections and used the Sporting Life Handicap Ratings and Daily mail Ratings. Both recorded 4 stars, one in each numerical column.
The next stage he looked at the capability, class and if they were weighted to win. (Had a pull of 8lbs according to the SL handicap ratings) Not mentioned in any detail by VDW and left to the reader at that time to sort out. Can the other runners be safely eliminated to leave just one winner in the race.
The Sandown Race that VDW analysed was Race Class 43
Wing And A Prayer Ability Rating 31, Won LTO Class 38 improved form Carried 11-7 and carried 10-13 in the Sandown race.
Wing And A Prayer had already won a class 41 carrying 11-3.
Lucky Rascal Ability Rating 22 beaten 16lengths Class 53 (No Chance, lacks the form)
The Haciendros Ability Rating 22 LTO won Class 36 carried 11-7 and now carries 11-11 (Had 10lbs to find on SL Handicap ratings)
Just Alick Ability rating Won LTO Class 18 , Carried 11-10 and now carries 11-7
All were going up in class but with the exception of Lucky Rascal (Eliminated on Form) Wing And A Prayer had the best performance in a higher class race than the others. Was also carrying less weight than LTO. Also top on ability rating.
Sandown Race Class 31
Cool Gin Ability Rating 17, LTO class 20 won by 15l, carried 11-6 and now carries 11-0
Our Fun Ability Rating 14 LTO Class 18 was beaen over 22l Carried 11-5 and now carries 11.0
Gratification Ability Rating 17 LTO class 24 beaten 3.3l (Always in touch made made mistake at12th, left in lead at next,headed and pecked at last eased when beaten on the flat) Why did VDW say he had been running like a donkey?.... Class 97 then dropped to 25 (4th, beaten 19 lengths) then dropped again class 24 (3rd but only 4 finished)
Many years later he covered the areas above that I have written above in "Systematic Betting"
Before anyone jumps in and says but its only two examples. Yes it is and its only as VDW intended, it is there to be used as a possible template, nothing more. VDW did suggest making fewer bets and by adopting such stringent methods, his goal would be achieved.The reader would think twice before parting with hard earned cash. One of todays professional horseplayers has already stated that it is not about backing a certain amount of winners, but reducing the number of losing bets.
Since VDW wrote his articles there are many more concepts to help the Horseplayer. Pace Analysis is much better understood, there are more statistics at the click of a mouse. Breeding analysis has moved on with the Female tail line and Dam Sire playing at least an important part as the Sires Dosage index.
We are now able to view any race for ourselves to form an opinion via Attheraces Video Form (Free) and personally my annual £149 subscription to access the Racing Post Video Form is well worth it. There is no need to rely soley on Form Book Comments. Compared to when Wing And A Prayer was running, we have never had it better to create our own methods that can be added to the work covered by VDW.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #69 on Jan 31, 2009, 1:34pm »
Monster
You suggest that the two examples you discuss can be used as a template. I agree, and indeed Wing and A Prayer is the example I use as a template for contemporary class/form horses in his situation. For horses in the second most common situation among Van der Wheil's examples I think Canny Danny (for the race when backed, not the one for which he was left, of course) mentioned in the same article provides the best template.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #71 on Jan 31, 2009, 2:51pm »
Monster, Georgejohns, Very interesting and insightful posts from you both. I would, however, regard Cool Gin as the ultimate example of the class/form horse.
The point is, not to miss any danger horses. In my example, a figure of 12 might rule a horse out from being one of the 3 probables, but a figure of 7 might bring it in.
In fact, just like VDW did with Gaye Chance, you might give it 2 figures; 12? 7?
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #76 on Jan 31, 2009, 7:07pm »
Monster wrote Hi GL
Could you expand on why you think that Cool Gin is the ultimate example.
Perhaps I phrased my reply rather badly. The two horses ( Wing And A Prayer, Canny Danny) that were being discussed, along with Cool Gin, were the first ones I was able to study in any detail using the relevant form book. All three are excellent examples but of the three I would have chosen Cool Gin. I think, incidentally, that the first letter VDW wrote – the one concerning Prominent King – is the answer to working out the second numerical picture. I realize that I may be at odds with many people on this but after considerable research over the last six months I can reach no other conclusion. Around this time last year, after fifteen years or so in which I had been interested in VDW methodology, I ruefully concluded that I would never make any headway with it. Metaphorically speaking, I switched out the lights and left the building! My mind was changed by studying the form for the big handicaps at last year’s Glorious Goodwood meeting. I was not really thinking about VDW but while looking over the form for the Stewards Cup, almost by accident I noticed something which I instinctively realised must be highly relevant to the methodology. Reading through TGY again, I resolved to obtain as many of the relevant form books as I could. To me, introducing the “second numerical picture” and viewing weight as I think VDW intended us to brings the first numerical picture into sharper perspective. This is admirably illustrated by Cool Gin just as there were elements of the same in the form of Conquest, the winner of the Stewards Cup. I also agree with Mr Hall that there are more opportunities on the Flat. I have studied a fair few (not all) of the big races during this NH season without finding what I was looking for. As I say, this is my “take” on the second numerical picture. I am not claiming to have uncovered any missing link, just to understand VDW a great deal better than was previously the case. Best Of Luck, GL
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #77 on Jan 31, 2009, 8:15pm »
Goodlife
I agree that Cool Gin is an excellent example, but I see Wing and a Prayer as just marginally stronger as he was top rated on ability in his field and some way clear of the second rated, while Cool Gin was joint top rated and much closer to the 3rd ranked than Wing and a Prayer was to the second ranked.
That said, horses with profiles like either are money in the bank, but alas do not crop up every day, or indeed every week - at least judging by my experience over the last six months looking at, on average, two races a day.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #78 on Jan 31, 2009, 8:47pm »
Georgejohns wrote
That said, horses with profiles like either are money in the bank, but alas do not crop up every day, or indeed every week - at least judging by my experience over the last six months looking at, on average, two races a day.
I have found exactly the same myself, there is a great deal of work involved in sifting the wheat from the chaff. Part of VDW’s reply to Mr Hall about there being long waits during the NH season springs to mind
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #79 on Jan 31, 2009, 10:33pm »
Goodlife
And not just the NH season!
There is a post by Blackcat on the "reincarnation" thread that reports that on the account given on the Gummy forum Van der Wheil doesn't seem to be living in the style of a wealthy man (though also reporting Johnd's very fair comment to the effect that not all wealthy people are obviously wealthy). If it is the case that Van der Wheil didn't make his fortune from betting, my guess is that it wasn't that his method wasn't up to the job, but his temperament.
Almost every day I am leaving class/form horses which fall just short of the full requirements as I see them, and when there are long gaps between Wing and a Prayer or Canny Danny types it is very tempting to start backing them, especially when as today one that one has left wins at a very decent price. Maybe Van der Wheil found himself backing those that were not quite spot on, and especially if he actually used that crazy staking plan he put forward he could have caught a very bad cold.
« Last Edit: Jan 31, 2009, 10:35pm by georgejohns »
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #80 on Jan 31, 2009, 11:28pm »
George I am totally perplexed by the recent revelations about VDW. I understand that they come from trustworthy sources so I am not (at the moment) questioning their veracity. The problem I have with them is merely that when considering them in the light of what I now understand about VDW methodology they seem unbelievable. The reason I say this is simply that there is such a wealth of information there for interested parties. Take Roushayd,for instance, a horse about which I pondered long and hard for many years, wondering why VDW mentioned him again in “Racing In My System”. If his form is inspected properly it amounts to nothing less than a masterclass in punting technique. GL
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #82 on Feb 1, 2009, 12:44am »
Hi Arkle
Roushayd would have first been on VDW's 2yr old list (Ran twice and 2nd run was over 8f at Newbury)
VDW followed his 3yr old career and note that he won a much higher class race 12f than the Old Newton Cup 12f during his 3 yr old days.
VDW would have been following him as 4yr old to see how the trainer placed him. (remember he purchased the Old Hanidcap Book as it featured Races To Come. VDW said that he found it informative to see which race the trainer would select for a horse that he was following.
From of the posts written by Lee, he also appears to follow a similar path with regards to lists and watching how they are placed.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #83 on Feb 1, 2009, 1:08am »
Arkle wrote
GOODLIFE Can you please explain a little bit more with regards to Roushayd.
Hi Arkle, Firstly, please don’t regard anything I say as coming from someone who has fully understood VDW methods. I am not for one minute claiming to have done so although certain points about many of the horses VDW mentioned have become clearer. The July meeting at Goodwood last year, firstly with the victory of Love Galore, trained by Sir Michael Stoute and culminating with Conquest’s win in the Stewards Cup on the Saturday was the beginning of the light dawning. IMHO there were very good reasons why Roushayd was mentioned at length in both “ Systematic Betting” and “Racing In My System”. It would be hugely beneficial for anyone seeking insight to take apart Roushayd’s form, to study it in almost forensic detail. Try to put everything you’ve read about VDW out of your mind and log the facts of form down without prejudice. Ponder on what you see before you. When things really become clear I promise you’ll never look at horse-racing form the same way again. Best Of Luck, GL
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #87 on Feb 1, 2009, 9:28am »
Arkle
If I may offer a comment, there was a post by Lee on the Gummy archive thread (I suspect later than those Blackcat is able to resuscitate here) which said that, in his view, the Roushayd illustration was given to draw attention to evaluating horses dropping in class (most, but not all, of the selections in "The Golden Years" were going up in class).
Viewed from this point of view, what we have with Roushayd is (a) the best horse in the race, who (b) is the class/form horse on the usual criteria, (c) running under its favoured conditions, (d) dropping in class after a decent run in a markedly higher class race, (e) having already proved it could win a race of even higher class than the 1988 ONC. Very much like some of John in Brasil's selections on the Gummy thread and here, where he notes a horse which has run well in high class, and waits for it to be placed where it can win, and is not too worried by seemingly poor performances in between.
It is a real pity that Gummy closed his forum so abruptly, with those later Van der Wheil archive posts seemingly lost.
Lee Member Posted November 11, 2007 11:44 AM Hide Post EC,
I’m not sure that you are serious about VDW, and would suggest that the real reason is because you view the way in which it is discussed here on the net in the same/similar way that you would religion, for instance.
Added to that this form of medium often doesn’t portray the posters personality very well so we can never be sure whom we are actually dealing with. First impressions are even more pronounced on a message forum than they are in real life, for example I’ve found myself making a judgment about someone based solely on their Avatar/Name! Madness I know. But we find ourselves questioning many different things, because we know for sure that not everyone’s intentions are entirely honourable.
Fortunately (I nearly used the word unfortunately there but changed my mind) the subject of VDW requires a level of dedication that most cannot comprehend, or commit to. It is actually, in practice, extremely straightforward, basic, and completely logical.
The problem is that because the majority of us, and rightly so, question what is being said will ultimately lead us to believing some things, but not others; most of what people believe about VDW to be true is actually just opinion based on nothing more than a hunch.
For example, your suggestion that VDW’s comment about us ‘all having the same horses’ is not true is based on what? Have you really satisfied yourself that this is the case? This tells me that there will be other parts of the method that you will choose to ignore/not believe which will ultimately mean that you miss the point of the exercise.
Mtoto and others believe that the Ability Rating was some sort of red herring; to be fair to Mtoto he makes that suggestion based on his findings; but might he not have missed a point regarding the rating and its use?
The only gauge we have of knowing if we are on the right track or not, without VDW as our mentor, is the success we have with our interpretation of the method. On that basis I am pretty close to what he suggested and know that we would all end up with the same horses if I were to spend 20 minutes explaining how I do it; that is about all it would take to put across my interpretation.
Method or system? I have stated before that it is controversial; when does a method become as system? I don’t really know, it’s a complex system, that once understood is basic in execution. If I could fully understand the definition of both I might be able to be more decisive!
As well as a method for pinpointing winners VDW gave a wealth of information in his articles about the training of racehorses and preparing them to win. With regards to New Guinea yesterday there wasn’t just one point that went against him being worthy of backing there were several. Weight was an issue, however it was more to do with whom he was giving the weight to. He was dropped along way down in class last time to collect against some out of form types; the form didn’t make the pulse quicken.
VDW said, and I have backed this up, that Roushayd should have carried readers along way, and I will offer this up:
VDW detailed the last 3 races that Roushayd contested giving a précis of each. One (but not all) of the points that’s missed is that each race was won by the horse that VDW/the method pinpointed as the most likely winner. This is significant because it means that the form is unquestionable and consistent, and when balanced against the competition of the Old Newton Cup, and their previous form it is streets ahead.
What needs to be remembered is that VDW is not about saying that horses carrying top weight can’t win, or horses that are 66/1 can’t win, or that horses with 3 ducks can’t win, it is about selecting horses that have EVERYTHING going for them; when you’ve followed the method for some time you will be able to turn back your records which will help balance respective performances.
A crucial point was not deliberately pointed out regarding how these performances are gauged and the likely winner pinpointed, however with some thought those who have looked at the method in detail, and given my points about Roushayd above, should start to see a picture.
Class and Consistent form pinpoint winners with INCREDIBLE accuracy.
In view of the above and the result of the November Handicap the season end has probably come one race to soon for Sandbach, from a VDW perspective.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lee, November 11, 2007 11:49 AM Posts: 420 | Registered: February 07, 2002
.................................................................................................... Lee Member Posted March 05, 2003 12:15 PM Hide Post Hi all,
People continue to ask many questions on all aspects of VDW because presumably there are parts of the method that they don’t understand (and non of us ever will, fully)? They are asking questions but at the same time refuse to use the basic tools that he gave to assess class, which in turn leads you to the final answers on form. Particularly in handicaps OR’s cannot be used as a guide to class where VDW is concerned. The reason for this is down to VDW’s view on weight and it’s effects, which again is not conventional. The fact that he had a view on weight, which is undeniable to anyone who has read the books, means that those who chose to ignore it should concede that they will never move forward where HIS methods are concerned.
VDW’s ability rating was given to measure class, class of horse and class of race, both very important. The driving factor in racing is prize money, whether it is win or place prize money. Every race has contestants that are aiming for the win money and those that would be content with the place money. A recent example of this would be Castle Prince having earned over 5k in his last 3 runs and won none of them. No good to us though, as we are looking for winners. Yes there is a transition period with the spread of prize money, and the introduction of the showcase race etc, but it soon becomes apparent to what the form in these races amounts to with the aid of the factors that VDW gave us. He himself admitted that racing would change over the years, but he was shrewd enough also to state that his methods would carry on winning.
Surely unless the tools that VDW gave us are used it is impossible gain a full understanding of how he used them. The use of Official Ratings as a guide to class, and the decision to ignore the effects of weight may well be successful but the method devised from these views cannot be attributed to VDW. Posts: 421 | Registered: February 07, 2002
....................................................................................................... Lee Member Posted March 05, 2003 06:06 PM Hide Post Hi John,
I started my last post by implying that NO ONE will ever fully understand the methods that VDW used. Obviously some will understand more than others which will in most cases be down to the amount of research time that has been put in and most importantly experience. Other than the ability rating that VDW gave, and the OR that is the opinion of the handicapper, how else can we judge the ability of a horse? I have yet to come across one that will do the job. However, one thing that I think we all have in common on this thread is that we must be able to rate a horse’s ability in the first instance. If we do this using OR’s then weight has to be thrown out of the window, as the two are directly affected, as we all know.
Not only did VDW not mention weight in his Spells it Out article or the Roushayd example he never once annotated the weights that horses carried in any of the examples that he gave. But he mentioned it often enough for us not to pick up on. Had Prominent King been carrying level weights instead of the massive (his word not mine) 12-7 he carried close to Drumgora (in receipt of 19lbs), do you think VDW would have made PK a good thing? Not a chance.
Also Roushayd, who showed up well in the Northern Dancer Class 227, behind Billet, the most likely winner in that race (and confirmed in the result), giving him 6lbs in weight. Next time Roushayd goes down in class to 170, is top weight, but only 1lb higher in actual physical weight, though this time here are no Billets to worry about lower down in the weights. That coupled with the improved performance in the Northern Dancer VDW considered him a good thing. VDW never mention weight at all, but once a few things are spotted he shouldn’t have needed to.
I 100% appreciate that there are other ways to skin the cat and it was here that I was trying to make the point that these ways are indeed OTHER ways. If we ignore the weight issues and throw out the ability rating as a measure of class/form, then how can we possibly call it the VDW method? Posts: 421 | Registered: February 07, 2002
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #89 on Feb 1, 2009, 10:53am »
Walter
Sadly those you've posted don't include the one I to which I was referring, but particularly that of November 2007 is valuable, with the 7th para. of particular significance in my view.
I think Lee's phrase "twenty minutes" is of the essence. One can say a lot in 20 minutes and if I am on the right lines Van der Wheil's method does need some understanding and can't be reduced to half a dozen two line rules which seem to be the norm with the kind of systems Colin Davey and co. peddle (indeed, for that matter, some of Jock Bingham's).
![[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)
79.76.64.250
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/beer.gif)
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/99.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/feet2.jpg){kind=small}
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/KennethMore.jpg)
![[image]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/star.png)
2009 Tipping Challenge Winner 11,449.71 pts profit.... 10 months played. 
![[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)