I have noticed that the ‘Systems Forum’ on this site, the BEST site might I add, start off well and then fizzle out just when they appear to be getting interesting. This one for example about VDW has less than twenty posts to cover such a massive subject.
Not having a go, just saying.
Anyway, I came across VDW when it first came out and have used it with varying degrees of sucess ever since. I don’t think that whether he existed or not is of any relevance, I have my own reasons for this.
IMO<br>VDW in context. <br>When VDW first came into being nobody had a computer and video recorders were the size of a large suitcase. Like most people at that time I was taken in by the ‘Mysterious Dutchman’ and it was the first time that I had heard of an analytical approach to racing, adding numbers up and dividing them by themselves and all the rest of it. Alot of people jumped on the VDW band wagon in the usual half-arsed way that people do and soon found out that this wasn’t the Golden Chalice after all. (I think that this is where the general assumption that systems don’t work originates from.) When the Punters cried foul the VDW people came back with ‘AAhh, missing link’. The Punters than said, ‘Well, what’s the link?’. Booklets, Interviews and more of the same came the reply.
Since VDW to Present Day.<br>Well the only thing that has changed since then is the Punters perception of racing, in particular people who use analytical elimination processes to arrive at their daily selections (us, systemites). Racing itself hasn’t changed much, doping, cheating and race fixing is not so common place, contrary to common belief. Computer generated Form, Handicap and Speed figures are freely available. Apart from that it’s the same as it ever was.
What is VDW all about?<br>VDW is a methodology and not a system, as such, in it’s own right. I believe that the majority of things written about VDW are misleading and subsequently or should I say not suprisingly so do the people who try to build systems using VDW methods. The VDW method goes something like this;<br>Find two or more constants which have a high probability of happening in each race say 85% of the time the outcome of a race will be determined from these criteria or these probabilities.<br>So the chance of this happening is 85% x 85% = 72%.<br>So 72% of the time the winners of each given race will come from the group of horses that meet this criteria.<br>And that is the general thrust of this methodology!
So why doesn’t it work?<br>I believe that statements like this one can mislead ‘Taking all races other figures show that 83% of winners come from the first five quotes in the betting forecast. This also shows that selecting a horse which does not appear in this range is tantamount to going against the odds’ unquote.
What this statement should read is don’t back outsiders. What’s an outsider? well that depends on the number of runners surely and not the first five in the betting.
Making it work<br>Do not bet in races with 5 runners or less.<br>Runners     Odds greater than <br>6           4/1<br>7           5/1<br>8           6/1<br>9           7/1<br>10          7/1<br>11          8/1<br>12          9/1<br>13          9/1<br>14          10/1<br>15          11/1<br>16          11/1<br>17          12/1<br>18           12/1<br>19           13/1<br>20          13/1<br>Any horses priced higher than the above are in the outsider zone. (This also shows why a reliable betting forecast is required). So the number of horses to be considered in the first place are not the first five but the number of horses from the favourite to the outsider zone, which will be different for each race, obviously.
And that is a good start!
Much respect to anyone who manages to read all of that and I’ll post up more at a later date if anyone is interested.
Please feel free to ask any questions and I will see if I can come up with an answer.
<br>