- This topic has 202 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
No – I’m not suggesting it is for dummies but…
Would any of the VDW gurus like to summarise the basis of the VDW, in simple terms. I’m sure lots of us would find that useful (the main VDW thread is a bit baffling for a simple fellow such as myself).
Cormack,
You are a strange fellow.
After thinking that you had shoved the thread where the monkey hides its nuts, you now complain that its popularity is too complicated for you.
Cormack,
At it’s heart lies VDW’s often quoted formula:
Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners
As you’ll see from the other thread, there are many varied opinions as to what constitutes each of those separate elements
I suppose you could say it’s summed up by learning to spot when a horse with all the capabilties to win is really placed to win and is available at odds greater than it’s probability of winning.
That all sounds very simple and is pretty much common sense, which is why many of us become amused at those who denigrate it when in all probability it embraces the very same elements they use.
I guess what makes VDW methods somewhat unique are the methods he uses to gauge those elements. However, when you unravel certain elements (and I don’t pretend to have unravelled them all) it is all entirely logical.
Most people take great amusement at VDW’s claim of 80-90% winners but you have another poster here who very ably demonstrated on another forum that can be achieved. At that stage people will often say but that only demonstrates that person has an exceptional judgement himself and in no way validates VDW’s methods. However those who have gone to great lengths to study the methods and can spot the ‘common’ traits know different.
I know this doesn’t answer your question but if you ask people to summarise or simplify the method you’ll soon need extra bandwith to accomodate the thread and I’d wager 90% of it would be rubbish.
The simple reality is that knowledge of VDW’s methods can only be learnt with a great deal of time and patience poring over 25 year old form books and those who have undetaken that hard work and achieved success will never spell those things out on any forum, they will only point people in the right direction to study themselves.
Cormack
I doubt if anyone can summarise the approach more succinctly than VDW: indeed he did so twice:
1) "Consistent form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners",
2) "… it is the balance between class, form and the other factors which shows the good things".
While the first is more explicit, and sets out the four substantive components for which one needs to find operational solutions (VDW spelt out some more than others), the second has the benefit of making clear that the process is not linear, but a matter of weighing up the various elements (not all possible boxes need to be ticked for each selection, as VDW’s examples make clear).
I think the VDW thread has been a fine read and it’s been interesting to discover that much of my, albeit unsucessful approach to racing, seems grounded in VDW principles/methods. It’s also been very pleasing to have so many new members who are cleary engaged in and enjoying their racing.
However, I would if I may, suggest it may be helpful to those of us, such as myself, who are slow on the uptake if during any such discussion on VDW the actual words of VDW, as opposed to the words of TP or others be hightlighted in a colour or something similar.
Keep up the good work lads
Pete
Cormack.
If folk have read the VDW literature, and studied a few of his examples I think in the main it is self explanatory. I do agree there are a few anomalies, and Mr Peach (or anyone who decided to write about) should have at least tried to explain, if in deed they are even aware of them.
For me summed up the whole process with his formula Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + HardWork – Winners.
If you take the first element consistentcy, I think it is still a fact that consistent horses win a major % of races. The consistent horse that are in the front of the forecast also still hold the best chances. I do feel perhaps the form factor shouldn’t have been coupled with consistency beacuse they are two very seperate things, it would have been better to couple it with ability.
Form can be looked at in two ways and this can be a problem. Is a horse IN form or does the horse HAVE the form? A horse can be in form but still stand no chance of winning a race. So I work on does the horse have the form?
Ability however one looks at this, a measure of a horses ability/class (an accurate one) is a must if you are going to back winners.
Capability, for me this is the question can this horse perform to its best (or well enough) to win this race? Class of race, competition are two major factors, along with going, distance, course etc.
Probability this for me is a slight stubbling block. I know what I need to measure it but did VDW use the same variables. Whatever, it does make sense to put a figure against how you see the chances of your horse winning a race. Here I think your views are just as important as the market, you hopefully have used logic can that always be said about the market?
Hardwork that goes without saying.What did VDW do, he not only gave you the basics in his formula he explained in his examples how to find the factors needed to back winners. He also explained it pays to stick to the top class races. Although the procedure can be used in low class races he said we are looking for GOOD class consistent horses. Consistency is just one starting point, he then when on to show how improvement could be measured.
and used to find winners.Finally whatever VDW is it isn’t a system.
Be Lucky
If you’re serious about finding out more about the method, then you really need to read the literature. I know people hate being told that – sorry!!
"The Golden Years of Van der Wheil" by Tony Peach is the best place to start off.
Alternatively, Formath (hello Alan) gives a few extracts on this very forum in his thread "Basic Van der Wheil".
Greyhound
Good idea,this thread,Cormack as -despite the top-class discussion taking place on the main thread – newcomers to the Van Der Whiel methods could feel a little out of their depth . One of the problems for anyone wanting to study VDW’s methods in depth is, as Mtoto has already said, that the relevant form books are no longer available.How much of a hindrance this is I am not sure. I have never seen any of them myself but, after about ten years of studying the booklets I can tell you in all honesty that there have been about a half-dozen occasions this year when the Class/Form horse stood out like a Belisha beacon.The reason I have stayed with the methods for so long is that I know of no more logical way to begin studying a horse race. From all that I have observed 95% of all that VDW wrote is just as relevent today.
One of the problems for anyone wanting to study VDW’s methods in depth is, as Mtoto has already said, that the relevant form books are no longer available.
Goodlife,
The form books are still out there for anybody looking to buy them. True, it may take a little while to put a full run together but most are widely available for £6-£8 each.
I don’t want to fall foul of Cormack’s ‘advertising’ guidelines but am more than happy to PM you details of the specialist booksellers if you are interested.
Form represents a degree of achievement. That achievement, VDW stated, should be consistent and proved this with statistics that, disregarding all other factors, consistent horses win more races. ‘Consistent form’ is as simple as that; there is nothing hidden in this element of the equation, just how it is viewed.
The relative merit of form must be equated to the quality (class) in which it is achieved.
VDW gave his methods of rating class using the Ability Rating (class of horse) and the Class Rating (class of race), which were arrived at using prize money won/on offer. Remember that any rating should be used as a guide only and specifically it is necessary to use common sense when comparing certain types of race and horse, as was evident in VDW’s examples i.e. In general Pattern Class races are going to attract better horses than handicaps, whilst handicappers are going to be more experienced and able than novices and maidens.
I can now see that this measure of class was devised deliberately because it is a ‘stand-alone’ rating that is not influenced by any other important factors. By this I am referring to the much-used Official Rating. Using the OR as a measure of class will often cloud the picture because it directly affects one of the most important elements in racing, which of course is used to handicap horses; weight.
I suggest that it is because of the final ELEMENT OF THE EQUATION that people choose to ignore the Ability Rating, rather than having proved to themselves that, by using it as VDW intended it to be used, it doesn’t stack-up.
VDW touched on all the basic important factors directly and indirectly, including Distance, Going, and Course.
Obviously a horse has to be capable of winning in the class it has been entered, however many of VDW’s examples were going up in CLASS for the prize, and it is the balance between class and form, as touched on above, that will show whether they have the ABILITY to take the higher prize, if of course they are placed to capitalise on it.
“Many things were conveyed in such a way that most readers passed over them considering them of little importance although in fact they were.â€
L33
however many of VDW’s examples were going up in CLASS for the prize
Can you recall from memory how many of these, although being raised in class, were still in the highest three class last time out?
He later remarked that “It would seem the object of the exercise was lost, which is a pity and a waste of my efforts – because had it been understood it would have carried readers a long way.â€
Right – good beginning. Before we get all tangled up again let’s start here –
Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners
…and let’s start with the first element.
What do you mean by ‘consistent form’, how do you measure it and what weighting should it be given in relation to the other 3 (assuming hard work is a given). I realise there may be a variety of answers and the weighting be variable in different scenarios but i’m looking for simple generalisations to build on.
(DJ – I’ve got LOADS of systems – the last thing I need is another one. However, I remember the VDW discussions in the old Handicap Book and I think it is an interesting subject. Btw, I’ve been told at least ten times now that VDW is NOT a system!)
Right ok then, so your not after a system, thats a relief.
I would say consistent form would be a horse that ran to within +/- 5lbs of its current rating on 2 of it’s 3 last starts, only a girl could argue with that?
Girls?
Hi Mtoto
"IF that is correct why was VDW disapointed and felt he had wasted his time?"
Perhaps that could be from his conversations with Tony Peach, where Tony may have mentioned certain negative or even neutral responses to the example. My reason for saying this is that the above quote is taken from a letter from VDW to TP where he describes the readership as "doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive".
Greyhound
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.