VDW

[Hensman]

Garston

Sorry to introduce a discordant note, but

1) your figures re position in the betting forecast (from two small samples) show variation, as one would expect, but they also show that VDW was correct when he said that the first five (non handicaps) and six (handicaps) win a high proportion of races. This can be readily checked over a huge pool of races via RSB;

2) on consistency, you have demonstrated that you have no idea what VDW meant by "consistent horses", and accordingly your figures are meaningless from this perspective.

[garstonf]

Further to my previous post here are the wins to runs for each consistency rating.

_____ 1978__________ 2007
cons
rate_ wins runs_______ wins runs
3____ 9__ 32__ 28%___ 1__ 13__ 8%
4____ 2__ 26__ 8%____ 1__ 24__ 4%
5____ 7__ 36__ 19%___ 4__ 36__ 11%
6____ 3__ 33__ 9%____ 5__ 42__ 12%
7____ 5__ 54__ 9%____ 6__ 46__ 13%
8____ 5__ 46__ 11%___ 2__ 36__ 6%
9____ 4__ 48__ 8%____ 6__ 39__ 15%
10___ 6__ 44__ 14%___ 2__ 40__ 5%
11___ 3__ 44__ 7%____ 3__ 40__ 8%
12___ 5__ 53__ 9%____ 3__ 47__ 6%
13___ 5__ 47__ 11%___ 5__ 43__ 12%
14___ 5__ 38__ 13%___ 4__ 61__ 7%
15___ 1__ 35__ 3%____ 8__ 41__ 20%
16___ 2__ 22__ 9%____ 3__ 40__ 8%
17___ 1__ 31__ 3%____ 1__ 31__ 3%
18___ 2__ 24__ 8%____ 1__ 25__ 4%
19___ 0__ 22__ 0%____ 0__ 28__ 0%
20___ 0__ 13__ 0%____ 3__ 20__ 15%
21___ 1__ 11__ 9%____ 1__ 24__ 4%
22___ 0__ 11__ 0%____ 1__ 15__ 7%
23___ 0__ 9___ 0%____ 1__ 10__ 10%
24___ 0__ 16__ 0%____ 3__ 18__ 17%
25___ 0__ 0___ 0%____ 0__ 10__ 0%
26___ 0__ 4___ 0%____ 0__ 9___ 0%
27___ 0__ 5___ 0%____ 1__ 6___ 17%
28___ 0__ 4___ 0%____ 0__ 3___ 0%
29___ 0__ 2___ 0%____ 0__ 0___ 0%
30___ 0__ 2___ 0%____ 1__ 7___ 14%

____ 66_____________ 66

First thing to note here is in 1978, during the specified period, there were 32 horses with the magical consistency rating of 3. But in 2007 there were only 13. Where have all the super-consistent horses gone?

[class tells]

looking at those figures you would be better starting of with fav,2nd fav, 3rd best ,than using consistency ratings and if you found a false fav or 2nd fav well, are you saying with those figures to start with the fav then try to dicount work from back to front find why a fav will be beaten ie red gala?

[class tells]

well it begs the question , which easily found source best mirrors the sp

[class tells]

with one of the favs 1st 2nd or 3rd discounted your chances of finding the winner are 42% by backing any one of the other 2 or both for a cut in percentage

[class tells]

do you know guys i,m going picking apples in an orchard this saturday

[The real barney]

Therein lies the problem,

1) No records commercially available will provide the data required to identify the consistent horses in the races under review.

2) No person is about to openly discuss the appropriate approach to enable one to correctly calculate the figure.

Wheldon proves the figures are incorrect(fabulous research back to 78), those in the know typically dont want to educate the missinformed.

Next we shall hear that a horses with figures 3 3 3 dont win 99% of the time

[The real barney]

class tells

That attitude (2 horses – hopefully 42%) will ensure that your attempts to solve the conundrum of VDW will end in failure.

[class tells]

ok ok i,ll try even harder and dutch the three of them

[The real barney]

Go on lad you go for it!

I wish you all the luck in the world.

[class tells]

it fu***n better not be

[class tells]

i hate dutching

[class tells]

if this is correct and i,m not doing my brains in any longer thank you all for my journey as i,ve said to someone before i,ve learned more on these boards of late than the double speak of the books and hope i can become a worthy vdw,er end of speech

[maggsy]

Garstonf from your own figures first five in the betting win 55 from 66 83% in 1978 and 51 from 66 2007 77% which allowing for a small sample as Hensmen says this stat does’nt prove anything. Again the consistancy stats you use the samples sizes are to low to prove any thing. From my own records this year the 3 probables have won 74 from 107 69%. This is with out taking any other factors in to account apart from consistant form figures which is’nt the same as consistant form.

[Hensman]

The real barney

You wrote, re consistency: "2) No person is about to openly discuss the appropriate approach to enable one to correctly calculate the figure."

Why not? It is a matter of:

1) reading two articles – those that are items 39 and 42 in my edition of "The Golden Years" – Van Der Wheil Spells It All Out" and "Market Harborough Maestro Clears Up One Or Two Points";

2) studying the examples to work out, as far as it is possible to deduce, what VDW meant by "a highly consistent horse [which] fails to show in this [front] area of the forecast";

3) studying the examples to work out when, as far as it is possible to deduce, VDW applied the kind of judgement he did when he made Gaye Chance a consistent horse.

[garstonf]

Cormack, forgive me for mentioning another website (defunct), but can anyone tell me why the VDW-collection website folded?

[Mtoto44]

Garston,

As I didn’t ever join that forum, it is only hearsay. As far as I can tell the site was withdrawn because the "owner" took unbridge that the tipster he introduced was pants. Reading between the lines the whole thing was down to selling VDW E-books and then promoting this tipster. To be fair the stick that was given out to the tips was waranted, and the introduction (unproofed) did look pretty good but in practice it was a disaster. Often three selection per race and just as often not a winner to be seen.

So in short just another person trying to make money of the back of VDW!!

Be Lucky

[Author]

Posts