- This topic has 202 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mtoto –
The point of the thread, from my perspective anyhow, was to try to understand a bit more about the basic VDW methods and identify if there was a clear objective (I keep using that bl**dy word) systematic approach rather than disparate, subjective methods which vary from individual to individual depending on their interpretations.
In so-doing I’ve tried to keep it basic and light-hearted. Not meant to be mocking, sorry if you’ve felt that way.
Anyway – “This is what VDW is all about and it doesn’t work”
Flippin heck – are we wasting our time here then?
Mtoto
The point is that the part of the letter I quoted summarises what VDW actually did – showed more and more of his approach over time. The March 1981 article was, in my view, a major stage in describing the approach, and it included reference to all the elements. But it was not the end of his disclosures, and much of importance, elaborating both consistency and form, came later.
If one expects to find all VDW’s selections (and a high percentage of winners) merely by slavishly following the four illustrations given in the March 1981 article, one will be disappointed, as probably many have been. But if one uses it was the basis of the first numerical picture, albeit modified to take full account of what he said about consistency earlier in the article and took further in the next one) one is moving in very much the right direction. Consideration of VDW’s comments about the status of the four horses he mentioned in regard to the 1984 Welsh National and the four mentioned re the 1985 King George should help.
Who was VDW and what is his story? Is he still around? Was he a professional bettor?
Cormack
According to what he told Tony Peach, VDW was a Dutchman who came to England after the War in poor health, having been for a while in a German POW camp, recovered and stayed, living in Market Harborough. The suggestion seems to be that he was a successful businessman who also backed horses, rather than being a professional backer. He (VDW) also claimed frequent lengthy and exotic holidays (Caribbean, for example), though there is also a suggestion that these trips may also have been to receive medical treatment. Peach ends his account of VDW in a booklet entitled "Systems in My Racing" which leaves us, late in 1998/early 1999, with the picture of an elderly and perhaps demented individual.
In Tony Peach’s latest booklet he reprints an article by one of his former SCHB colleagues, "Methodmaker", from 2003 in which "Methodmaker" said VDW was no longer with us.
Mtoto,
I think Hensman has summed it up very well.
I will explain why your comments are foolish.
If someone was to forward you prior to racing win single selections that achieve a guaranteed 80%+ strike rate at an average price greater than 6/4 would it not be foolish to back them?
Lee.
L33 if you can achieve 80%+ strike rate why would they have to be 6/4 or better. You could back them at 1/3 on or better at that strike rate.
I thhink that this thread is doing a good job of introducing VDW methods to anyone interested. Several of the people on here seem to be well down the road to understanding what he was trying to put across and I, for one, would like to express my thanks for their helpful contributions.
The idea of achieving a high winning percentage when making horse-race selections will ensure that VDW and his methods will always be discussed, both on this forum and elsewhere.But what we will all have to realise is that there can be no way around the fact that to properly get to grips with the methods many hours of research will be required. The booklets will have to be read and re-read in tandem with study of those "thirty-year old races".
As I said in a previous post, if one is patient and disciplined there are occasions when the class/form horse is so obvious it would be impossible to miss for anyone with even a passing acquaintance with VDW’s methods. If one can restrict wagers to these occasions I am sure a very high strike-rate could be obtained. What is needed is the discipline to leave well alone unless the horse "sticks out like a sore thumb".Goodlife
I agree with you: if folk had the patience to wait for the Little Owl equivalents they would do very well. The highest ability-rated horse in the race, a consistent form horse, and with (as far as I can see) everything going for him in terms of capability and probability considerations. If one of those comes unstuck, one can consider oneself unlucky – but VDW never promised 100% success.
But most of us want to go further than back just the Little Owl types, and at the very least find the Sunset Cristo equivalents. That requires being able to dispose of higher or equal ability-rated horses with confidence – and VDW’s comments re Fair View and Tragus help – but also being able to recognise a dangerous lower ability-rated horse. When one is confident with these, maybe one starts wanting to find the Gaye Chance types, where even more judgement has to be exercised. Etc etc.
The ideal is not to try to run before one can walk – though that is probably honoured more in name than practice. But if one does, and I for one plead guilty, one shouldn’t be surprised if one’s strike rate drops. Actually, it is worth it, of course, because of the education one gets, both through successes and failures. And education never comes free.
Smashing thread,
Temperment as he said, plays a massive role for vdwers,
Fish where he told us to fish, dont try to manufacture bets they will come
and when they do be positive.
Sticking to Stakes races give an exeptional strike rate.
He also said (You can only take out what you put in) also he wrote( You may think the age of miraclesis over, but look around and you will find it is’nt. What’s more, you can make them happen, If you are positive enough.)From a happy vdwer.
good job Pro has not surfaced yet, also the thread seems to be missing a few faces!! Mimas, Mike, KEEAF, Oldtimer, david ect.Hensman
But most of us want to go further than back just the Little Owl types, and at the very least find the Sunset Cristo equivalents. That requires being able to dispose of higher or equal ability-rated horses with confidence – and VDW’s comments re Fair View and Tragus help – but also being able to recognise a dangerous lower ability-rated horse. When one is confident with these, maybe one starts wanting to find the Gaye Chance types, where even more judgement has to be exercised. Etc etc.
Point taken, and this is what we all aspire to.I am sure that I am far from being alone in having been caught out by "a dangerous lower-ability horse".
When reading through the article in which VDW selected Little Owl and Sunset Cristo as " racing certainties", what comes over is the utter conviction in the mind of the writer that he was correct. In his letter to "Win" of Brighton he stated (regarding Little Owl) that "in that race and on that day Wayward Lad had no chance whatsoever of beating Little Owl."
The sort of positive thinking to which johnboyirish refers. JBI has also raised the subject of temperament, discussion of which should be mandatory in any thread introducing VDW ideas to newcomers.VDW stated time and again that without this indispensable asset all else – ability ratings, form study,etc – would be worthless.Temperament is defined as the ability to "make judgements on real evidence", "to evaluate with cold unemotional logic".
Thoughts,Anyone?The point is that the part of the letter I quoted summarises what VDW actually did – showed more and more of his approach over time.
Hensman,
I’m in no doubt VDW did go on and explain more of his methods in time, I just don’t think SIAO was where this happened. I think Systematic Betting was. I think SIAO was to pacify the general Public, and Mr Peach, and show the "new" ability rating in action.
For me the worrying fact isn’t just that the new instructions (top four for ability) missed so many of the early winners it is more the actual ranking using this rating. 6th 7th and down to 9th somewhere VDW said any rating worth its salt should have the winners near the top. Here we have top rated Beacon Light 48 plays PK 7th best at 17. He also said keep to the top four when using ratings.
As Prominent King was only 7th rated for ability I have seen some weird and wonderful arguments used to make him the selection. BL out of form/non form horse, etc. All of this seems to ignore VDW said PK was just top rated on one method of rating and joint top on the other. It does beg the question if BL was out of form why did VDW have him starred as a probable? When it is pointed out BL had just run a very good race if not one of his best the argument then turns to VDW looked at form in a very different way than most. While this maybe true I can’t find any other incidences that confirm that. Everything else seems to be backed up with cold logic. This for me includes the 1985 King George you mention.
This may read I don’t believe in VDW, but I think there are two different methods being used as the basic method. The first being the examples before the introduction of the ability rating and then the examples being used after it. That isn’t to say some of the selections can be found using both methods.
Why the two? I think VDW wrote to the SCHB forum page to help by giving a few tips on how to narrow the field. When the whole thing took he realised it didn’t make sense without explaining his other ratings (the true ability rating) so something had to be introduced to use to measure ability. I’m not saying that something is useless, and I do think it may have started as one of his cross checks. I’m 100% convinced it wasn’t used in the early examples.
Far fetched, hard to believe? For me it is easier to believe than BL being a non form horse for the Erin. I have found a rating that says PK was better than BL for that race. That rating is based on VDW thinking and examples given by him, coincidence? I don’t think so.
If someone was to forward you prior to racing win single selections that achieve a guaranteed 80%+ strike rate at an average price greater than 6/4 would it not be foolish to back them?
L33,
Two problems first, no one has ever presented me with the above, well not with a guarantee.
The second being why would a risk my money when I know I can obtain a 75% return at usually better than 6/4 using the same method(s) without needing the win?Be Lucky
Mtoto
I agree that some of the material in "Systematic Betting" adds to what VDW had shown hitherto, especially the Roushayd discussion. But we’ll have to agree to differ on the rest.
Temperament —————–Thoughts,Anyone?
said goodlife
If his famous quote of having 29 winning bets from 32 covered just the first two months of the flat season, then VDW was only having roughly 4 bets a week, according to my sums, thats about one every 2 days.
Maggsy,
The figures I quoted above are not comparable to what happens in my betting, and I’m not about to share with anyone that kind of information – I have shown in real-time what is achievable, and am willing to do the same again. I got the ball rolling a week or so ago, however none of the other self-proclaimed experts, only John Gringo, have joined in. All they have to do is post the odd selection; it would be interesting to hear from them WHY?
Mtoto,
IF you are happy with the way you work, and believe my understanding to be incorrect, why are you still seeking answers and not posting selections?
Mtoto
A final go to convince you, by drawing attention to two quotes from VDW:
The first comes from that March 1981 article:
"Form, even though consistent, can mislead if taken alone when the horse is running against others of greater ability. Class, which in my view is a major factor, can throw you off course if the horse is out of form, so to establish a reliable measure a combination of elements must be used to achieve consistent results.
To find elements which can be combined and used methodically requires considerable thought and each must be logical. There are numerous ways to approach the problem of winner-finding methodically and the one I will demonstrate has proved highly successful and consistent for a considerable number of years. Each element was selected after a great deal of research and when used as intended will place the odds strongly in the backers’ favour."
Two points to note here:
(1) "great deal of research" – strongly suggests the approach had been a long time being developed;
(2) "has proved highly successful and consistent for a considerable number of years" – surely implies pre 1978, only three years before the words were written;
The second quote comes from the 13 April 1985 article included in "Ultimate Wheil of Fortune":
"When I first began to explain the way I do things, various aspects were singled out for readers to digest … After some time Tony Peach asked me to put everything together and this was done.
The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element was chosen to fit into the method ….It came as no surprise when publication of the above brought about a vicious attack .. in every, repeat every illustration the winner was the class/form horse. These were Little Owl, 4/5, Sunset Christo 5/1, Gay Chance 11/1, and Kenlis 11/4."
There are four points to note in this second quoted section (numbering sequential to the two from the first quote).
(3) "… the way I do things" – "way" singular, not plural;
(4) "When I first began to explain things" – surely a reference to his first substantive letter;
(5) "Tony Peach asked me to put everything together and this was done" – ie a summary/amplification was produced;
(6) "It came as no surprise when publication of the above brought about a vicious attack .. in every, repeat every illustration the winner was the class/form horse. These were Little Owl, 4/5, Sunset Christo 5/1, Gay Chance 11/1, and Kenlis 11/4." – makes it clear that that summary/amplification was the March 1981 article.
Taking all six points I’ve highlighted into account, surely what they strongly suggest is that here was an approach developed over a considerable period of time and then proven in use over a further considerable period of time, which was made public piece by piece initially and then summarised in the March 1981 article? I can’t see how this evidence would be consistent with your alternative interpretation.
I can see that you find it difficult to accept that some of the selections given prior to the March 1981 article were found by the approach summarised in that article. But others (including, I assume L33) have no such difficulty. It may therefore be that the problem here is that you’ve yet to come to terms with aspects of the method which would help you with the 14 examples you’ve listed.
IF you are happy with the way you work, and believe my understanding to be incorrect, why are you still seeking answers and not posting selections?
L33,
I’m not looking for answers as you put it. If I was I would be pushing you harder to answer the question I did ask. You know, I answered the one you asked, then you side-stepped as did Hensman to a certain extent about the use of SIAO. I gave my reasons for starting the first thread, on this one all I’ve tried to do is join in. I thought the idea was to give the a good general idea of what VDW was/is about, basically I don’t think that is what is happening so I had my say. I have to say I find it very strange you and others didn’t have more to say on the form aspect. VDW clearly said form and class are two different factors, he went as far as to say form is what they did class is where they did it. If they are the same why have a class/form horse why not just the class horse?
[delted]
The question must then be WHY don’t you have any difficulty, or are you happy to accept that consistent horses with higher a/rating are all out of form? VDW said at the back of Systematic Betting don’t take my word for anything ask yourself WHY.To be exact he wrote "Don’t accept a word I have written, prove it first for yourself, then and only then will you have started along that narrow road to your goal through the process of acquiring that first indispensable asset… TEMPERAMENT." I did and some of these horses that are being dismissed as non form horses to make the ratings work show IF the same procedures as set out in the Erin work, they are passed over because the selection had better form and/or class.
As said I think the only difference was how VDW worked the ability element. That being so he didn’t even have to change his formula.
Be Lucky
Mtoto
"some of these horses that are being dismissed as non form horses to make the ratings work"
Perhaps they are being dismissed for a quite different reason, namely because, like Lucky Vane and Burrough Hill Lad in the two races to which I referred earlier, they were not form horses in VDW’s sense. And those last three words are the important ones – it was his method and therefore it is what HE meant by "form horse" that we have to discover.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.