Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #120 on Feb 2, 2009, 1:53pm »
But we know that Van der Wheil didn't back all his selections
think that should be "any" George, they were all backfitted, thats why it's taken 30 years to try and tie them all together in some way, problem is every individual that tries that comes up with a different pattern
not surprising considering they were randomly selected with no real PRE race criterion layed out bar the basic methodology...and any races where that methodology failed aren't listed
so in effect..the full picture from the past is not there...the real picture from the present was on those real time threads we had on the old board where it was clear that many were reluctant to give selections in case they lost and those that did give selections were wrong enough times to show a loss.
easiest thing in the world to chat about 30 year old races where you never have to make a decision..because its clear from reading this and the old board is that actually having the bottle to name and bet on a selection..and be confident enough to name that selection..clearly beforehand..not in some crptic way....is sadly missing from the purist VDW artillery.
you can have best method in the world but without CONFIDENCE...tis worthless
never seen a thread yet on a VDW board about the abilty to commit to a selection...maybe thats the missing link
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #123 on Feb 2, 2009, 2:18pm »
EC
I think you are being unfair to Van der Wheil. As you say, he laid out a "basic methodology", and intimated that there was more to find. The task therefore is find that "more" - he had no obligation to lay it out on a plate.
You say that "every individual that tries comes up with a different pattern", but how many have tried, and how hard? It is clear that most of those who acknowledge a debt to Van der Wheil use bits of the method, not the whole method, and either disregard essential bits (such as the ability rating) or haven't been able to work out other bits (such as the probables device).
I don't know whether I have correctly found the "more", and don't see a way of ever being sure. But I can say, hand on heart, that the "basic methodology" and the "more" as I see it, explains ALL the selections (admittedly leaving two, including the selection, in a handful of cases). I don't think any other member of the Gummy forum claimed that, and others such as Mtoto explicitly acknowledge that their understanding leaves them unable to explain some of the selections.
In a post that was re-posted earlier on this thread, Lee wrote that the combination of class and consistent form pinpoints winners with incredible accuracy. Given the strike rate commonly achieved by, for example, newspaper napsters, he was spot on.
If anyone would like to start their own thread to log their own selections and profit/loss etc, then please feel free to do so. You have a choice of a number of locations - here in VDW, or Systems or the Horse Racing board.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #125 on Feb 2, 2009, 2:34pm »
BC i would honestly love to post my selections but with work commitments & taking other things into consideration(i couldn,t tip manure out of a bucket) i think its safest if i keep my rubbish to myself
BC i would honestly love to post my selections but with work commitments & taking other things into consideration(i couldn,t tip maure out of a bucket) i think its safest if i keep my rubbish to myself
Yes, that dreaded 'W' word does get in the way. I'm supposed to be doing it now!!
I think you are being unfair to Van der Wheil. As you say, he laid out a "basic methodology", and intimated that there was more to find. The task therefore is find that "more" - he had no obligation to lay it out on a plate.
You say that "every individual that tries comes up with a different pattern", but how many have tried, and how hard? It is clear that most of those who acknowledge a debt to Van der Wheil use bits of the method, not the whole method, and either disregard essential bits (such as the ability rating) or haven't been able to work out other bits (such as the probables device).
I don't know whether I have correctly found the "more", and don't see a way of ever being sure. But I can say, hand on heart, that the "basic methodology" and the "more" as I see it, explains ALL the selections (admittedly leaving two, including the selection, in a handful of cases). I don't think any other member of the Gummy forum claimed that, and others such as Mtoto explicitly acknowledge that their understanding leaves them unable to explain some of the selections.
In a post that was re-posted earlier on this thread, Lee wrote that the combination of class and consistent form pinpoints winners with incredible accuracy. Given the strike rate commonly achieved by, for example, newspaper napsters, he was spot on.
I agree that no one should lay the whole thing on the line
the point is though that NOBODY knows what actually followed..but you get people making out only they know the way...as if there was only one way to formulate it..when in fact after the basics..its all open to whichever way someone wants to take it...you have your way..I have my way..Mtoto has his way...Lee has his way...no one's way is correct.
I think most of this VDW stuff is religious...say for exapmle someone came on here...and stated they used SOME of VDW basics to make selections...they then posted clear picks for 12 months and made a profit...I can gurantee that thread would hold less interest than one about Prominent King..basically its a hobby for some of the "followers".
yes consistent form and class pinpoint winners with incredible accuracy..but they also pinpoint lots of loses that wipes out teh profit...something VDW never mentioned..as I said...you only have to look at those live threads we had..lots of losers
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #128 on Feb 2, 2009, 2:53pm »
i'll check those out BC
I do find it disappointing that even with the threads on here re actual selections...very few ever bother to put any up
i really do think VDWers seriously lack confidence...they seem to dread the thought of putting up clear selections in case they lose..which points to the fact that its preferable to have some forum kudos based on no selections but lots of knowledge about 30 year old races..seems odd.
fair enough..some like to talk about old races..but is that the full extent of this??..to me if you spout off about a methodology for hundreds of forum pages...you surely must have some idea how to pick real selections in real time
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #129 on Feb 2, 2009, 3:23pm »
Hi EC
Re: " never seen a thread yet on a VDW board about the abilty to commit to a selection...maybe thats the missing link "
Not everyone posts on VDW boards. Its always a mistake to mention VDW as it causes more problems than not. The principles can be manipulated into other areas and the following was posted in advance of racing on the Flatstats Forum.
I posted in advance of racing to see if a high strike rate could be achieved from a method that was derived from VDW Methodolgy.
Since reading some of the work by Lee (I have never had the privilage of exchanging views with him) I feel that he is much nearer to making VDW work the way it should as oppossed to my efforts.
Lee's method will take a bit of getting used to but he has given enough clues. From what I have read from his Gummy posts, (thanks to others for sharing ), he has proved that the hard work is rewarded and has proved that by posting in advance of racing.
For those interested I have copied a couple of extracts from post on the Flatstats Forum.
Re: lINGFIELD 12/01/08 by monster » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:05 am
3.25
Its Not good that my top rated does not line up with Pippex Grid top rated (extra confidence if my top rated is also top rated by 12 or more on the Pippex Grid)
Mafeking is Top Rated by my Class/Handicap Ratings based on his last run. I have checked out the form as Evident Pride and Atlantic Story are in the race.
Mafeking ran a good neck second to Evident Pride in Novemeber and he did not exactly get the run of the race, but was eating up the ground on EP (See Attheraces Video) Mafeking should have strengthened up since then and LTO was put over 12f which I suspect was to add little more condition for today's race.
Re: lingfield 20/02/08 by monster » Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:10 am
Hi Julie
The top rated Class Ratings only highlights the class of the competion that it is competing against. In yesterday's race Wicked Daze was well clear of the second rated. If you look at the class of race that he achieved his HC rating you will notice that it is higher than the Race Class Figure of 76.5 and Wicked Daze appears to be dropping in class and his adjusted rating is also up to the Race Class. (Thanks to Kanga for pointing this out previously) Now if you do the same for the rest of the runners, they all appear to be going up in class.
The unknown factors were if WD could perform over the unknown distance of 2miles. The CMP was 11 speed and 16 Stamina and the Unblinkered Data confirmed that the horse should get the distance. Check on the Trainer/Jockey combo via Flatstats over 2miles at Lingfield in hancdicaps 2/4 Both the winners were stepped up to 2miles for the first time. WD was top on two sets of speed ratings.
The Turftrax Pace Figures from his last race were also promising (See Google Doc LINK)
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #130 on Feb 2, 2009, 4:32pm »
EC
"the point is though that NOBODY knows what actually followed..but you get people making out only they know the way...as if there was only one way to formulate it..when in fact after the basics..its all open to whichever way someone wants to take it...you have your way..I have my way..Mtoto has his way...Lee has his way...no one's way is correct."
That is quite a complex paragraph, so let's take it to bits.
1. "the point is though that NOBODY knows what actually followed [the "basic methodology"]. Unless someone has been shown the way by Van der Wheil himself, that must be true.
2. "but you get people making out only they know the way". That, I think, is also true, though most make it clear that the way they work is their interpretation.
3. "as if there was only one way to formulate it..when in fact after the basics..its all open to whichever way someone wants to take it". That is true insofar that it is of course open to anyone to build from the "basic methodology" and adapt it in whatever way they see as making sense. It is not true IF the aim is to try to piece together exactly how Van der Wheil worked.
4. "you have your way..I have my way..Mtoto has his way...Lee has his way...no one's way is correct." That may or may not be true. Yes, I have my way, Mtoto has his, Lee his, you yours, etc etc. And all may be successful, and one or more might even be more successful than Van der Wheil's. But we don't know whether any of these ways is correct in the sense of accurate explications of Van der Wheil's method. All we can say for sure is that some (however successful they are as methods) are clearly not correct in that sense because they don't use one or more of the elements of the "basic method" and/or can't explain all the relevant Van der Wheil selections. With others who have posted selections, the results achieved demonstrate that they aren't using the correct method.
There are actually only two relevant criteria for assessing whether anyone's approach MAY be correct in the sense I'm meaning - does his or her method conform to what we know Van der Wheil wrote about his main method as set out in the March 1981 article (and generate all his relevant examples not just those in that article) and does it deliver the kind of strike rate with contemporary races that Van der Wheil said his did? (IF, of course, we can believe what Van der Wheil claimed, which is another unknowable, and assuming nothing in the structure of racing that is relevant to the effectiveness of the method has changed). In the nature of things, it will often be impossible to judge, because the individual - for entirely understandable reasons - doesn't provide enough info. Lee, for example, says enough to lead me to think he is very close to having understood Van der Wheil's method, but he quite understandably doesn't spell out all his thinking. His pre-race posted selections are also consistent with the kind of strike rate Van der Wheil claimed, but he only gave about a dozen in all, and we have no way of knowing whether they reflect Lee's long term performance or were just a purple patch.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #131 on Feb 2, 2009, 4:47pm »
the fact is that the "examples" are a nonsense George, they are just backfitted winning selections
the time wasted trying to link them together..is just that..wasted time
anyone that wants to win money...rather than get on Mastermind second guessing why those particular examples were picked...would be better advised to bulid a method that wins in real time.
anyone can back fit a method..which the examples clearly are...except in the imagination of someone that has kidded themsleves on they know why
where are all the losing selections???
this forum will end up with threads just like Gummys did from what I can see...round and round we go
that is a real shame...a fresh start here could have moved things forward...instead we already have threads with lots of talk but with no progress
the reason for that is that VDW to many who post is just a hobby..witness the same people that have lots to say on this thread but are notabl;e by their absense once a future race thread appears
it would just be nice to see some progress...clearly that seems impossible
I'll leave you guys to it..I get bored reading the same stuff...if you guys like it then fair enough
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #133 on Feb 2, 2009, 5:01pm »
EC
"the fact is that the "examples" are a nonsense George, they are just backfitted winning selections"
That is your view. Another is that they were found by the method and therefore provide a valuable means of sorting out the important "more" that we agree is needed in addition to the "basic methodology".
It would have been helpful if Van der Wheil gave more losing selections, but I am accumulating quite a few from the contemporary races I'm analysing!
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #136 on Feb 2, 2009, 6:09pm »
Today at 1:30pm, Blackcat wrote:
We do seem to go 'round and round' as Les put it.
BC ........................................................................
Isn`t that because everything that could be said about the subject has been said on the net since the first vdw forum started 10 yrs ago now?.The vdw guys that know that wee bit more than the average guy dont want to talk on an open board so they go away to a private one where they can work at their level - what happens ?.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #137 on Feb 2, 2009, 6:32pm »
I'm not defending or condemning VDW but i will say it certainly gets debate going, i love my football(u wouldnt believe it as i'm a spurs supporter) but i never look at non league or womens football, i know nothing about basketball/ice hockey/gridiron but i frequently bet on them but would never comment on strategies or plays. VDW seems to evoke comment whether u love it or hate it, whether you know anything about it or not. Pro & Anti VDWers never seem to be able to just get along, it makes the israeli/palestian conflict look petty, i hope 1 day to see a resolution but i'm likely to see Spurs win a Premiership title before i see peace in the VDW world all the best Larry
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #138 on Feb 2, 2009, 6:53pm »
Larry
Pedantic perhaps, but there really aren't any "Anti VDWers" that I've noticed.
There are those who have found something they value within Van der Wheil's work (here an eclectic group including Mtoto, Johnd, Goodlife and me) , those who seem put off by the fifth term of Van der Wheil's formula (hard work), and those who find the kind of claim Van der Wheil made so fantastical that they regard the whole thing as essentially a fraud (EC, Sean, etc).
I have yet to see a post by anyone with any detailed knowledge of Van der Wheil's writings and examples who argues that he (Van der Wheil) was barking up the wrong tree, and is anti it on the evidence. And that is unsurprising because Van der Wheil's basic proposition is plainly logical - that the best horse in a race in consistent form and not handicapped by the conditions is the likely winner and should be backed when the probability of his winning is sufficiently high.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #139 on Feb 2, 2009, 7:13pm »
GJ your last sentence is surely what every horse racing enthusiast is seeking whether into VDW or not but unless we know every trainer/owners thoughts we cannot get there. the BEST horse does not always win the race, aftertiming of sorts on saturday i agreed with Johnd that imsingingtheblues was the best horse in its race, but it didnt win its race because it was the best, it won its race because it had the biggest heart, if i was the owner or trainer i would be horrified with its jockey because there is a good chance the horse is finished for the season. Anyway GJ please keep defending VDW but your last sentence as i say is not exclusive to VDW its what we all strive for all the best Larry
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #140 on Feb 2, 2009, 7:30pm »
Larry
I entirely agree - his (Van der Wheil's) premise is unexceptionable and the essence no doubt of many others. Whether one finds his way of putting that premise into practice is another matter, but one for understanding and evidence, not hostility.
Personally I have no axe to grind on Van der Wheil's behalf - but I am always on the side of reason rather than mere assertion or prejudice. Having made my best shot at sorting out what EC fairly enough refers to as the "more" (ie the bits of the method over the basics that were spelt out), I am testing whether it achieves the kind of results that Van der Wheil claimed for it. I started seriously testing in the Autumn and plan to continue for at least a year, as clearly any method of selecting bets can be successful/unsuccessful over a short period, but I think a year is a reasonable period over which to form a judgement.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #142 on Feb 2, 2009, 8:34pm »
EC
Yes, if I reach the conclusion that my understanding of the method works to the level Van der Wheil claimed, I'll certainly post a series of selections.
But even if it does work, I then post some selections, and the level of success continues, all it will prove is that I've found an interpretation that works. I can't see any way of fully satisfying myself, let alone anyone else, that the method I'm using is exactly the same as Van der Wheil's. For example, as both Johnd and Mtoto have pointed out, among the various factors to which Van der Wheil said one should have regard when assessing form is pace. Yet having studied all the examples from this angle I cannot see that it was, generally speaking, a relevant factor in the judgements Van der Wheil reached. So either it was, and I have thus far failed to see how, or it wasn't and to that extent the relevant paragraph is misleading.
For example, as both Johnd and Mtoto have pointed out, among the various factors to which Van der Wheil said one should have regard when assessing form is pace. Yet having studied all the examples from this angle I cannot see that it was, generally speaking, a relevant factor in the judgements Van der Wheil reached. So either it was, and I have thus far failed to see how, or it wasn't and to that extent the relevant paragraph is misleading.
With regard to pace, I disagreeumption is that it would only be relevant if a particular piece of winning form (for example) was run at a particularly slow pace, then the result would have to be taken with caution.
OMG
I wonder whether it is possible to switch off the automated moderator!!
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #145 on Feb 2, 2009, 8:51pm »
Blackcat
That certainly makes sense, and is consistent with my view of how Van der Wheil factored in such issues as course, going and distance - didn't trouble about them unless a horse had given reason to show there might be either a problem or a particular advantage in the race under consideration (eg Wayward Lad viewed as fine at Kempton, but would not have been a bet had the race been at Cheltenham; Pegwell Bay advantaged by 20f on good, while Jim Thorpe was at his best over 16f on soft).
Guest Member Posted December 22, 2002 01:19 PM Hide Post Pegwell Bays Mackeson evaluation as given by VDW once again holds many clues and conveniently holds the "missing link" within the form for the race as did Prominent Kings race.
As stated before though, because the race was a handicap then the form establishment is slightly different. This slight difference in the factors to weigh up should be obvious really.
Jim Thorpe had won 12 races up to the Mackeson including 2 wins at 2m 4f. Pegwell Bay had won 6 races with 4 coming at 2m 4f the latter 2 of which were in handicaps class 78 at Newbury with 11-10 and class 57 Newbury with 11-2.
Jim Thorpe had won 3 handicaps all at 2m coming in class 76 at Cheltenham with 10-0 over hurdles, class 77 at Wetherby with 11-7 again over hurdles and on his last start at wetherby with 12-1 in a chase class 29. He had run at 2m on all 3 latest runs and had run at 2m 4f 7 times winning twice class 66 and 16 both chases.
On the day Jim Thorpe carried 11-10 and Pegwell Bay 11-2. The race was class 221.
VDW said Pegwell Bay had the best form and the reason as to why this was so is held in the Mackeson itself. It's staring us in the face and when you spot it you will come to realise what a ingenius road VDW had taken compared to the majority of form students.
![[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)
86.128.236.70![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/spurs_cockerel.gif)
![[avatar]](http://www.freewebs.com/kimmypops/horseyindex1.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[image]](http://clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif)
![[image]](http://clicksmilies.com/s1106/traurig/sad-smiley-013.gif)
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/RussellGrant.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/santa.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)