- This topic has 39 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 22 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Is there any interest in discussions of the controversial Van Der Wheil (VDW) method that was introduced in the 1980s and many have attempted to make successful?
Gummy Racing Forum (who?) are now charging £50 a year to access their private forum which includes the VDW thread.
Robert<br>:cool:
I think it is a rip off charging £50 to access a forum. Yet another website trying to milk those interested in racing for every penny they can get.<br>Most people of a certain age such as myself are aware of the VDW method. There used to be regular letters in the Raceform Update on the subject.<br>VDW uses ability ratings. These he defines as prize money won to date divided by number of races won.<br>He also looks at the last three race placings as a measure of how consistent a horse is. The only problem I see with VDW is that if you want to use ability readings then you have to buy a Racing Paper for the information. If you buy a Racing Paper you may as well study the form in more depth than look at a simplistic<br>view of ability ratings.:)
John,
I agree with the basic method you have described. VDW stated that the numbers part of the method were basically to identify 3 possibles which would put the odds in your favour. The hard part for most is then applying racing knowledge to see if any of the 3 is worth a bet in the race conditions on the day. You will still need a proper racing paper, own records, or website to do that and I am sure that there are few worthwhile methods these days where you can just use an ordinary newspaper to have any chance of success. One newsaper method that consistently gets 60% winners in the top two is the Fineform Formula. Logically, VDW method should be more succesful than that, but many have found difficulty, whilst others make it work. That was the reason in asking if any wanted a topic opened to discuss the method.
Robert<br>:cool:
Sorry boys,<br>But I think that’s a bit unfair slagging off Gummy racing.The one forum is still free to existing members and the other forum is free to all-Plenty of high quality information on the site if you’re prepared to look around.<br>Personally, I’ve always found them very useful and have never paid a penny.<br>Garvee
I am not slagging off gummy racing. I think they do a reasonable job. What I am against is forums charging £50 or more for access. If everyone on the net charged substantial sums of money to access a few pages eventually no one would be able to afford it. If we make all knowledge private and charge for access to small amounts of this, we will all eventually end up ignorant.<br>The Universities already operate a kind of closed shop where only a few have access to much of the knowledge they possess, and this is at a price many cannot afford. How many Universities freely put their knowledge on the net? I don’t know. Should information be packaged in small bundles and then a high price charged for access to it? Again I don’t know? But I suspect as usual greed and eliteism will prevail in British society.
Not sure that the site mentioned has ever asked for £50 from anyone they certainly didnt ask near that as far as i know the last figure i heard gummy was asking for was £10 for access to the whole private forum , not just the vdw one & that was wavered in the case of those who posted regularly if i remember correctly although the regulars were only too happy to pay as its a good site & well worth it, not that i agree with charging as a concept.<br>                                   JB.<br>                          ÂÂÂ
(Edited by Jim Baxter at 4:33 pm on July 26, 2002)<br>
(Edited by Jim Baxter at 4:35 pm on July 26, 2002)
Robert in reply to your question, V.D.W. as he is fondly referred to by Tony Peach latterly the letters editor of the Raceform Handicap Book is still causing slight controversy and not to say confusion amongst the ranks of his followers and critics.
An old friend of mine who was more than an expert on mathematical probability (but coudn’t pick a winner if he tried) reckoned that a lot of his calculations in regard to chances of winning were way out.
Just last year in the Raceform letters pages there was still a great debate in motion as to whether V.D.W. existed or not, mainly because he was once challenged by a letter writer to proof his findings to the old Handicap book (dont forget that this was in 1978/79) and consequently this did not occur.
My own view is that wheteher he existed or not his name and the debate trundle on.
I would suggest Robert that you contact Tony Peach or The current letters editor of Raceform because they do publish a lot of very useful pamphlets and books.
Mark,
I agree that some of the probabilties were misused – they did not add up to 1 or 100%. The topic is interesting IMHO, not because of the mystery man VDW but that the methods seem to work well up to a point and many cannot get past this point and into regular profit.<br>I have seen several of the Raceform articles, but thanks for being so helpful. I started this topic to see if there were any others investigating or developing the VDW methods so we could share views and perhaps analyse races to come.
Robert<br>:cool:
I’m interested in learning more about VDW.  I only got interested in racing about a year ago through a "gentleman" called Colin Davey.  I joined the syndicate, realised after about three weeks what was going on and left at the end of the second month.  Buts that’s another story….
I found out about the Colin Davey method, found a copy of it on a site and in that it mentioned VDW and then found what purports to be the VDW method.  It all makes very logical sense even if the maths is flawed in one or two places.  Is there a definitive version?  Following on from that I suppose it is how you need to adapt it or does it still stand the test of time?
Last year I also found a VDW methodology group on Yahoo, tried to join and was refused after about two months; it appeared that they didn’t want learners.  If you couldn’t bring anything to the party then you weren’t welcome.
Wait to hear from somebody.
Ian
Ian,
Sorry you got dragged into that experience. There are a few good guys out there but most, to be polite, are just con-men, thieves, liars and cheats.
The booklets on VDW are mostly by Raceform, Tony Peach and the late Jock Bingham. Gambler’s Bookshop have several available. These are regarded as defining the method/s.
I agree with you that there are some mathematical errors in the probability area and there are minor inconsistencies as the writing developed. Basically it remains a sound method to form a short list of the most likely winners of high class races. The final selection, if any, needs a developed understanding of horse racing and this is where the system followers usually come to grief – and seek the excuse of a " missing link" (this is assumed to mean a final rule that VDW did not divulge).<br>VDW repeatedly said this was not a system but a method, as above – but it fell on deaf ears.
Happy to discuss any aspect.
Regards,<br>Robert<br>:cool:
I have heard of Van der Wheil where it was suggested that he had something to say on staking systems. The material already on this Thread seems to suggest that a good exposition of and discussion on the (Dutch?) gentleman’s methods might ensue. I for one would like to learn so hope the experts will continue this Thread. Many thanks to them in advance.
I used to subscribe to the Raceform Update and can remember a lot of the letters discussing the VDW "method" being published.
There did develop a search for a "missing link", but I think this came about from the systemites looking for a hard and fast set of rules to follow rather than anything said by VDW. I do remember VDW keeping back some elements of his thinking, particularly the final part, but I always felt this was a combination of indicators only and his own skill.
With regard to the posting of his selections prior to racing, this was suggested by a fellow Update reader. However, rather than avoid the challenge, my recollection is that VDW didn’t run away but rather challenged the individual involved to a head to head contest with real money being laid down (an early betting exchange perhaps?). As I recall nothing was heard from the original challenger.
I have a booklet and a series of letters detailing the method but cannot lay my hands on them at the moment. If I find them I will let the forum know. I did try to apply the method to a simple spreadsheet system but didn’t get far due to the lack of the right type of historical data (my recurring problem) on which to test it.
Hoping the above adds to the debate.
I dont think I can add anything eye opening to this debate, but being of a ‘certain age’ as JAR politely puts it I have obviously come across VDW discussions before.
I was led to believe that he was a strong believer in looking for " better quality races" I know thats a bit vague but presumably prize money would be the guide.
Someone else has mentioned last 3 placings and I too was told that this was a mainstay of his method.
A short precis of what I was told re VDW:-
1) Select the better races on the day.<br>2) Look for horses that were placed 1st – 4th in either of their last TWO runs (current season)<br>3) From these look at the No of days since last run, pick the most recent 6 runners ( only if qualified under 2) above)<br>From these 6 add together placings for last THREE runs (current season AND previous if necessary) n.b. unplaced counts as 10<br>4) Concentrate on those with the smallest score.
Robert is absolutely right it is at this point that your own analytical work has to take over.
Does the above look like anybody elses understanding of what VDW was about?
Interesting thread Robert.
For what its worth you will find some info on VDW on my old website, I dont update it much these days but the links to VDW still work, once you enter the site the link is on the left under Van Der Wheil
Hope this may help someone.
Scotia,
Many thanks for the link.<br>Did you ever use the VDW methods much?
Regards,<br>Robert<br>:cool:
Quick answer is I did spend time months ago on VDW and it is good but dont have the time nowadays to follow it up. It often left me with 3 selections which i backed in a staking plan it worked out well.<br>
Robert,
Further to Scotia’s message, copies of the Raceform Handicap Book articles on VDW have been published in little booklets, they can be obtained from Browzers in Manchester, I think their web site is http://www.browzers.co.uk<br>They do a VDW package of booklets for about £35.<br>They make interesting reading, (I have no doubt he did exist, also one of the booklets contains an interview by Tony Peach). I was v.interested in VDW methodology about a year ago and found Scotia’s site v.helpful. But sadly I didn’t find the "system" that helpful in finding winners (in my hands), but it would be interesting if someone in the forum applied his methods p;rospectively, although I suspect that selections may differ.<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.