VDW

[Mtoto44]

Hi,

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more than a few groans when the title of the thread was noticed. It isn’t my intention to lawd the good aspects of the methods, it is more I’m trying to judge the response of some of the more intelligent punters to VDW.

So in short the question is what do you think of VDW, and what is that answer based on?

The reason for asking the question is because Graham Wheldon has stated in the RFU VDW is nonsense. Now as this gentleman is the author of at least one book on racing, and is employed by Raceform as a journalist I suppose some would regard him as an expert. When asked to explain why he thinks as he does there has been no response. It crossed my mind it maybe interesting to ask the question on a knowledgeable forum like this one.

Be Lucky

[cormack15]

It may be very interesting!! Mr Weldon has been known to look in from time to time.

[seabird]

Welcome, Mtoto!

Would there be that many forumites on here old enough to remember VDW in its pomp?

Colin

[clivex]

I do, but nowadays i use DVDs

[Anonymous]

Would that be the same Graham Wheldon that thought it a good idea to discard the old Raceform speed figures and replace them with the present garbage?
What would he know?

[Artemis]

The VDW(Van Der Wheil) methods have been discussed at some length on the ‘Systems’ section of the forum.

While they contain some kernels of wisdom, my own feeling is that they are outdated. The wisdom is still valid, identifying horses that meet certain criteria, but the amount of information now available and the ability to process the information, have moved systemic approaches to form study to much higher levels than in VDW’s day.

No disrespect to VDW, though. If he were operating today, I’m sure he would have embraced all of the modern aids which were not available to him back in the 60’s and 70’s.

[Mtoto44]

Cormack,

Its nice to know Mr Wheldon looks in now and then. Perhaps he would care to answer the question if he does. He has had at least two opportunities in the recent past, the letter below was printed in the RFU on or around the 8/8/07 followed by one that was printed this week.

Hi,

I’m more than happy that you have decided to have a VDW "day" on the RFU forum. I do wish it had been done before as Mr Peach has just published yet another booklet. This booklet is just yet another re hash of all the old dumbed down literature that has been around for years.

As for explaining the rudiments of the "system" to the "ignorant", neither are words I would use. It is not a system, and the fact that folk have problems with it doesn’t make them ignorant. Confused maybe, but I think they are confused because the whole thing has been dumbed down. Of course I don’t know who instigated the dumbing down but it does/did make the whole thing marketable.

The method is based on narrowing the field’s of the very best races to find the most likely winner in the race.
The first filter is consistent form. This is more than just adding up form figures, as while this can point you to the consistent horses how does that help find the form element? Being consistent doesn’t show/prove a horse has the form to perform in this class, and it doesn’t prove a horse is in form.
The next piece of the equation is ability. VDW did give a way of rating ability, but he did say there was another way, and showed it in action. I seem to be in a majority of one about this, but I believe he didn’t use the dumbed down version, dividing win prize money by the wins. Whatever, it does make sense to find away of judging a horses ability based on its performances on the track. Once you have found a reliable measure of ability the next part of the equation comes into play
Capability, is the horse capable of performing well enough in these conditions to win? The elements I look at here are track, going, distance, draw, and why this race? Is it the sort of race this horse would be targeted at, or or is the trainer tilting at windmills, is it a prep for something else? This is why I think VDW said concentrate on the higher class races. Weight carried can also be a factor in this column, if you think weight plays an important part in the result of a race, I don’t.
Probability, to be honest I’m not sure what VDW was looking at when he used this column. I think here he may have had a very basic idea in mind. When finding his consistency rating he just added up the form figures 213 = 6 but 321 also = 6, do these two figures stand the same % chances of winning? VDW did show 321 had the better chance % wise, 29% plays 25%. Plus does a horse with the form figures 321 and in the lower reaches of the forecast stand a better chance of winning than one with the same figures outside the forecast, if 83% of races are won by horses in the forecast?
The final part of the equation is hard work but that goes without saying as anyone who tries to make money backing horses knows.

This is the basic method, there are others, but all are based on form and class.

When Mr Wheldon whom I’m sure some look on as a respected "expert" just says VDW is rubbish, I do think he should be asked why he thinks it. If he really thinks it he should at least explain why. Has he read the literature, has he even thought about it? I’m well aware the whole thing can be made into a system, and many have tried. There can be no automatic selections like only the highest rated for ability, lowest rated for consistency, and/or must be in the forecast, but it doesn’t work. Is GW basing his ideas on this, if so I would agree if that is the basis of his thinking, a VDW system won’t and can’t give a consistent return?

There are VDW forums where contributors do give their thoughts, and selections BEFORE the race. Mr Wheldon gets paid for his work from the paper, and by his clients from his tipping line, why does he think I and others should give our selections free?

In the latest issue of the RFU, you ask for proof VDW works, short of sending you a copy of my Betfair account I don’t really see how it can be proven. If I wanted to prove this and I don’t as I have no wish to broadcast the details of selections to the general public I could send you copies of the posts I send to a private VDW forum. What I will do is send you copies of these posts for the Royal Ascot meeting, but these are not for publication. These will allow you to see the selections from SOME the big hcps and the general thinking behind the method. You will note the date and time recorded to the left hand side of the posting.

Mtoto44

Member
Posts: 42
(20/6/07 14:23)
Reply | Edit

Re: 20 June Ascot 4:20

Vortex         1
My Paris        2
Flipando        3
Montpellier        4

Vortex old figures but gained on this straight course, on this going. Has been laid out for this, and jockey booking significant. A hold up horse who can find trouble but hopefully if the center of the track is favoured can find room for his late challenge.
My Paris handles most types of courses and going best figures on a stiff track on good. Running style could be a problem in this class, but doesn’t need to front run to win.
Flipando, improving and seems to be throwing his profile out the window. ThIs season has won on stiffer tracks and over longer distances than previously. This maybe down to maturity, but still think he will struggle to win this.
Montpellier, improving but course a major doubt. His failures on stiff tracks couldn’t always be put down the the going as it was ok. That’s more than can be said for todays going unless the rain has come down south.

Disapointed to see Pride Of A Nation running in this. I was hoping he would be saved for York. He rates well in todays race as an improver, but don’t think Ascot is the place for him.

I’m having a place bet on Vortex, plus a small win bet. Well at that price I can’t help myself

Mtoto44

Member
Posts: 44
(21/6/07 13:51)
Reply | Edit

Ascot 21/6/07 The two hcps today are restricted to 3 year olds. As we all know they are improving, some by leaps and bounds. So unless something really stands out at meetings like this caution is the word of the day.

Ascot 4:20.

Of the consistent horses Eddie Jock is the only one who qualifies as a form horse for me as he is the only one on the d/base. Course, and going look ok, distance a slight doubt. His qualifying race was on this course over 7f, but can’t see any reason to say he won’t get the mile. Jockey a plus but draw is a big ?
Dal Cais is the only other horse that registers. Again the course and going look fine, and again the doubt has to be the distance. Here the doubt is is it too short? He was tried over the mile on a stiff(ish) course, ran well but didn’t win. This is a stiffer course and they will go faster so his stamina could just play a part.
A certain Mr Johnstone has three in here. Of these I would look to Colorado Rapid to do the best. He passed his trial on the stiff Pontefract track, but on that bare form he stilll has plenty to find to beat the two mentioned. That’s not to say he can’t.

A place bet on EJ and DC is as far as I’m going with this race.

Mtoto44

Member
Posts: 44
(22/6/07 14:39)
Reply | Edit

Re: Ascot 22/06/07 Ascot 4:20

Championship Point        1
Road To Love        2
Tabadul        3
Lake Poet        4

Championship Point is top rated based on his run at the Curragh. That form on a stiff course would just about be good enough. But and it is a big but what was that last race all about? He has form at Goodwood so the course should have been no problem. He is rejected as an out of form, form horse. If fact because he is running he stops there being a serious bet in this race, as he could prove to be a nuisance to the other front runner.
Road To Love looks to be the winner in the race (for me) course, distance, and going should all be fine. Back to his correct class, coming into form after being run in a very strange fashion. Well clear on the ratings apart from the top rated’s one off good race. As said above the worry is he will be lit up by another horse going with him.
Tabadu has some good turf form, but all on very different courses to this. Very little chance of even reaching a place for me.
Lake Poet, the fact he has two Epsom wins does tend to hide the fact for me his best form is still his Ascot performance from last year. So I will have to say the course and going should be no problem, the distance maybe a little shorter than needed to be at his best. As my worry is there could be too much pace that could play into his hands.
*********************
This mistake in not believing the figures was put right yesterday.

Mtoto44

Member
Posts: 81
(31/7/07 13:37)
Reply | Edit

Re: 215G 31-07-07 Good 2:15

Championship Point        1
Collateral Damage        2
Lake Poet        3
Emirates Skyline        4

Championship Point, was top rated at R Ascot and I ignored him there, didn’t think he was in form!! It was his last Goodwood race that gave me grave doubts, and to be fair I do wonder what that race was all about. All his best form has been on right handed tracks, and the distance and going should suit. Although he is a course winner based on his last run here for me there has to be a slight doubt about the course, but as he is well clear on the ratings I’m going to push it to the back of my mind as the course is also a doubt for the dangers.
Collateral Damage, the undulations are the worry here. I think his last race was the target and the going went against him. This is a slight drop in class and I can see him running a big race if he handles the course.
Lake Poet although he is only just behind the 2nd horse on the ratings I do feel he needs a rest. His best form does seem to be at the start to middle of a season up till June. His profile confuses me as his best performace is at Ascot, not his last run, but he does handle left handed speed courses, and going doesn’t seem to bother him.
Emirates Skyline I maybe doing this horse an injustice but he didn’t look at keen last time out. My first thoughts after watching that race was flat track bully, well this isn’t a stiff track but it isn’t a flat one. I don’t think this is going to be an easy race to win and I do wonder about this horse’s will to fight.

Hi Seabird,

Would there be that many forumites on here old enough to remember VDW in its pomp?

I can’t really answer that question. However while some may not have been around, I think many have read the literature and have some even if it is a very basic idea of how it works. That is why I added the "what is it based on?" I have no idea how old Mr Wheldon is, but it didn’t stop him having a view on the subject.

[Prufrock]

I can just about remember VDW from the late-70s, when I was first getting into racing.

I was, as a teenager, anything but a sophisticated analyst but thought at the time that VDW was so crude and based on questionable logic that it had to be a wind-up.

Form figures in isolation are a hopelessly crude way of assessing the ability of horses, as is prize-money/prize-money-per-start in most cases in British racing.

You should not be trying to identify the "likeliest winner" and betting on that. You should be trying to identify the probability of each horse winning and betting where the market gives you an edge.

And Graham Wheldon is respected as a form student by Graham Wheldon, undoubtedly, but I’m not sure who else.

[carvillshill]

Tell me I’m paranoid but I always get a strange meaty smell when a new poster starts a thread like this

[Hensman]

Artemis

I partly agree with you.

It is not always realised that VDW offered an approach to winner finding and some metrics for putting that approach into operational form. As racing has changed – eg through sponsorship distorting the relationship between prize money and class that made sense in his day, and the ready availability of exact ORs – some are in my view outdated. But the approach – balancing class and form in the context of capability and probability – is as valid today as it was when VDW wrote his articles .

The challenge for those who want to be successful using VDW’s approach is twofold: working out ways of operationalising the various elements – how, for example, is class best measured?, and being able to judge when the right balance is there for a bet.

Mtoto

In my view Graham Wheldon has undoubtedly made useful contributions, for example in respect of the draw which can sometimes be an important aspect of what VDW referred to as capability. But he has plainly never looked seriously at VDW’s work and thus his comments on it are of no significance.

[robert99]

I can just about remember VDW from the late-70s, when I was first getting into racing.

I was, as a teenager, anything but a sophisticated analyst but thought at the time that VDW was so crude and based on questionable logic that it had to be a wind-up.

Form figures in isolation are a hopelessly crude way of assessing the ability of horses, as is prize-money/prize-money-per-start in most cases in British racing.

You should not be trying to identify the "likeliest winner" and betting on that. You should be trying to identify the probability of each horse winning and betting where the market gives you an edge.

And Graham Wheldon is respected as a form student by Graham Wheldon, undoubtedly, but I’m not sure who else.

To my way of thinking VDW encompassed a thoughtful methodology and practical approach that is as good today as it was in the 70/80s. There were some real insights in his writings. We certainly have more data available today and possibly an overload of data – but more useful and useable information, I doubt it. Published form and time ratings today, for example, are a poor relation to those in the past.

Pru the point is you do not look for the winner of the race – you look for a winner in the race. The latter means you look for a horse with "all" the attributes of superior winning ability. If there is not one, then the race gets discarded. If there is one, then it will invariably be a value bet and additional price calculations are not needed as the relative merits of potential contenders have all been assessed in depth.

The other point is that class assessed on prizemoney per race won is proven as the best single indicator of class. However, one factor is not and is never used in isolation, as all the factors assessed together must be complementing each other and, for a live contender, not be throwing up contradictions. Any contradictions and there is no winner in the race.

Methodmaker in his weekly articles used to look at just a single factor and not surprisingly could not make the method work. He just did not get it, and I think GW took advice from him on the "failure" of VDW.

[Mtoto44]

Thanks for the replies.

I think Prufrock comes closest (so far) when he gives his reasons for not taking VDW seriously. I agree taking form figures at face value is of no use if trying to judge the ability or for that matter anything apart from the fact a horse has been consistent. Being consistent is the first filter a starting point only. Now I have never bother to find the stats but isn’t it still a fact most "big" races are won by a consistent horse, consistent based on just the bare form figures of its last three races? VDW has never said you back a horse because it is consistent, more you DON’T back it unless it is.

I also agree penalty value has nothing to do with class. I also think VDW had begun to see this, as he did later say less money doesn’t always mean a drop in class. I do think when sponsorship became prevalent VDW would have changed his method of judging ability. He did already know the class of the race, and the class of the horse were two different things.

I also agree VDW may have looked crude when articles like Spells It All Out were read. To me that is VDW dumped down for the masses. Try making the first 10 or so examples work using it. These first examples take some working out and that is where the true VDW race analyses comes in.

Marb,

If you Google VDW I’m sure you will find plenty of information about it on the net. The selections were posted on a VDW forum. I find in the main it is better to stick with those forums as VDW does often manage to attract abuse in public forums. I’m not saying in some case the abuse isn’t warranted as some VDW fans can be very superior, often giving the impression VDW is the way, the light, the only way.

Carvillshill,

Yep, you are paraniod. If it was a cheesy smell I would suggest you put your shoes back on, but meaty? I have nothing to sell, and my only reason for joining this forum is to find out how the more intelligent punters view VDW.

Be Lucky

[Pompete]

Tell me I’m paranoid but I always get a strange meaty smell when a new poster starts a thread like this

Your paranoid ….I don’t know Motto, but I do know he/she is a regular contributor to Raceform’s letter page and the above post was published by Raceform as part of a disscussion on VDW.

Welcome to the forum Motto. If you go over to the System’s Section check out Formath’s VDW threads and his homepage where he has reproduced the original VDW letters (He don’t come over these parts often). Although I have only been here for a short period, as far as I recall, Formath’s thread is the only one to have returned a consistent profit.

[dave jay]

IMO, VDW is a good starting point for punters .. it is stated in all of the literature that it is a method and not a pure system with hard and fast rules. If there was a modern vdw system that I would hold up as an example it would be Postdata from the RP.

I would also like to say to Prufrock .. not everyone has the time between their home life and work to get into fully blown racing study. Unless you can make the money to pay yourself to do it full time then you simply can’t get that involved on a daily basis. Even with all singing, all dancing computer programs race analysis is very time consuming. Using a VDW type assessment to create an odds line gives the normal punter half a chance to get a run for his money. If you want to knock something Pru and say it’s no good what do you suggest people do instead? Or are you just saying ‘no that’s no good’ without offering an alternative pretty much the same as Wheldon.

Wheldon can say what he likes, it would be nice to hear what he would proposes punters do instead .. follow tips from him maybe ??

I would reccomend anyone who is interested in racing to give the VDW type of assessment a bash .. they might lose but they won’t lose much and that’s how your gambling can be pleasureable and not a pin sticking exercise.

[seabird]

Welcome to TRF, Hensman!

Colin

[Anonymous]

Tell me I’m paranoid but I always get a strange meaty smell when a new poster starts a thread like this

How could it be spam when he has already has posted 81 times on what is obviously a busy forum?
Perish the thought that they are desperate for subscribers!

[chipmunk]

as a newcomer on here but a follower of the RFU i attempted to use VDW but to put it bluntly i seemed to be looking for the perfect horse (to 3 decimal points) only for it to get turned over by a no hoper.i just feel you can get bogged down by stats and after spending hours studying form perheps instinct and experience are more reliable. my last attempt at VDW was a race at ascot which pointed me towards a horse that had ticks in all the right boxes only for the race to be run at a crawl and the form turned upside down……best of luck to anyone who uses VDW but its not for me,chipmunk

[Author]

Posts