- This topic has 581 replies, 56 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What’s the latest on VDW himself – the old rogue?
Is it true that someone tracked him down last year (Henman perhaps) and found him living a rather modest lifestyle, having turned his back on the racing game?
Nagwa
No matter at what point one first reads something by VDW, if it arouses interest one is almost bound to start asking questions such as "do all his selections come from the first 5/6 in the betting forecast" or "do they have one of the three lowest consistency aggregates within the first 5/6 in the forecast", etc etc. From a research point of view these are hypotheses and can only be tested by checking them out against all the relevant examples. (I add "relevant" because as VDW made clear not all the examples he gave related to the same method. The main method, as outlined in the well known March 1981 article, cannot, for example, necessarily be expected to find the six selections claimed for the "handicap hurdles" method he touched on later.)
Hi George
You have not answered if you have gone under the name of Fulham, Hensman Or Alan B on other Forums.
The reason I ask is becuase last year Fulham and George Johns were posting on different forums during the same period of time.
Good Luck
Monster
On the 11 th Septmeber 2008
On one Forum, Fulham suggests Dijeer (Pre Race) as being a solid Class/Form Horse
Later after racing on another forum George Johns is of the Opinion that Atlantic Sport was the Class/Form horse.
Monster
If permissible by forum rules I’d be interested in a link to George Johns’ view on the D/AS race, as having checked my own records I am in agreement with Fulham’s view – I too had D as the class/form horse.
AS had a nice profile from the VDW perspective, and the better lto form of the two horses, which is always a consideration in deciding whether to back a c/f opposed by such a horse if also a probable with form. But on the rule that runs through the relevant VDW examples I can’t at present see a reason why AS would take the c/f status from D. Maybe George Johns’ post will enlighten me.
GeorgeJ,
Please contact "Monster" through the "messaging" service for the information you require
Regards – Matron
GEORGE
Why did you give up on the other site after all the hard work you had put in, good to see you back George.Mr Kildare
Interesting post, and a very nice memory to have.
Actually Prominent King was not a strong selection by VDW (too far down the ability rating ranking for that), merely a "good prospect" in a race with no strong VDW bet (strong here meaning a bet having an 80+% chance of winning). He (PK) just edged out your father’s horse in the analysis, so perhaps due to the mischance of a split shoe, VDW got the first two in the correct order. As Actuary says, VDW didn’t post that, or any other selection, prior to the races concerned but as the selection method is objective and anyone who fully understands it will arrive at the same horses, whether they look at the relevant facts before or after the race, that is of no significance.
VDW (who is still alive and most certainly not Tony Peach) generated a method which still regularly "delivers the goods". But he was not so obliging as to spell it all out and left much to be worked out by those interested. And that takes a great deal of trouble and no little expense (assembling the necessary material for the literally dozens of selections he gave over a period of more than 10 years), time (exploring that material and testing the numerous hypotheses that emerge), and capability. As Actuary has found, putting in time alone gives no guarantee of success in working it all out, but some have.
Just so we are not confusing an already clouded issue.He did not say prospect he said proposition.Its these half truths that keep people from finding the answer.Kind of makes you wonder if people are trying to "cloud" the picture on purpose.
As a new member to this forum I was shocked that discussion was still going on regarding VDW. I still have all the books ‘Golden Years’ ‘Racing In My System’ & Betting The VDW Way’
After exhausting every avenue to arrive at what became known as ‘the missing link’ (the last two ratings) I gave up after spending years on it.
The biggest surprise to me has always been that for a method so well documented no two people arrived at the same conclusion for a race as they all introduced their own interpretation to the method which was1) Take the first 5 (6 in handicaps) in the betting
2) Add the last 3 form figures together (0 = 10) of those selected
3) For the whole field average total winnings by number of wins.After carrying out these three disciplines. If no horse has ticks in all three boxes forget the race. Else introduce your choice of 2 ratings to confirm selection.
There seems to be little room for poetic licence!!
My best guess would be that Tony Peach was VDW and was simply
doing his bit in promoting The Raceform. Remember no selection were ever given prior to racing always after!The reason you failed to find the "key" is because you were looking for something VDW told you himself was not available(HIS ratings).
Most probable two questions to come next are ;
Do you know the key?
and
Can you divulge it?- Total Posts 55
When I refer to the missing link I am using the terminology being used at the time.
What I was looking for at the time were two ratings that would compliment the first three disciplines. I can remember having some success but never achieved the 90% strike rate boasted by Che Van Der Wheil himself.
I am suprised to find he is still alive as I can remember comments by Tony Peach regarding the frail old man he found when visiting him at his Market Harborough home some 20 years ago.
As a passionate ‘Speed Handicapper’ myself I am aware of the amount of changes racing has gone through for me. Anyone who uses the VDW methology today would have also needed to make sound judgements along the way to keep it relevant causing a drift away from the original VDW method of selection.
Sorry if my post came over wrong.I was just "hinting" that the "key" as G.Hall called it,was not anything regarding ratings.The ratings you mention were never released,although on occassion he did use Formcast.He did actually mention in at least one letter that the ratings were not " the be all and end all".
For something that many think has long past its sell by date, I’m quite surprised at the number of hits this thread has achieved.
Actuary,
Anyone who uses the VDW mythology today would have also needed to make sound judgements along the way to keep it relevant causing a drift away from the original VDW method of selection.
Have to say I don’t think one has to "drift" away from the original VDW method, it works as well today as it always has. That is once it is understood it is a method and not a system. Although I’m still far from convinced 80%+ is possible with straight win bets (unless one is happy with mainly short priced selections).
I wouldn’t call myself a "speed handicapper" but I do use speed when making my selections. Like you I don’t adjust for weight in fact it isn’t used in any of my calculations. However unlike you I mainly steer well clear of the A/W, over the last few years the bets I have had on that surface could be counted on one hand.
Are you still in touch with Annabell? She joined one of the first VDW forums, but dropped out.
C the S,
I’m not sure I agree with you about the VDW ratings not being key to the methods. Agreed, he said ratings are not be and end all, but I have yet still to find any set of ratings that would have made Beacon Light well out of it in that race. So key or not they are worth their weight in gold.
Be Lucky
- Total Posts 55
AW is one of those factors. I would be interested to know when creating your form line rating whether you factor in all weather form.
One of the flaws I can recall was with horses winning a high prize money race as a 2yo. Years later they keep appearing as potential bets but have not won since.I have to mention that when I typed the word ‘flaws’ I question who the bloody hell am I to question VDW such is his reverence even today!
To be honest I can not remeber an Annabell but that is hardly suprising as I am of the age that remembering my own name has become difficult.
AW is one of those factors. I would be interested to know when creating your form line rating whether you factor in all weather form.
Actuary,
The short answer to that is no, I don’t use A/W form when looking at turf races. By the same token I don’t use turf form for the A/W
One of the flaws I can recall was with horses winning a high prize money race as a 2yo. Years later they keep appearing as potential bets but have not won since.
This is just one of the reasons it is a method not a system. Just because a horse is consistent and in the forecast it isn’t an automatic selection. There are NO automatic selections, being top rated for ability, or anything else for that matter isn’t enough.
I have to mention that when I typed the word ‘flaws’ I question who the bloody hell am I to question VDW such is his reverence even today!
VDW said himself don’t take my word check it out for yourself and then decide. So you have as much right as anyone else to "question" his ideas. While I think VDW was light years ahead of his time I don’t agree with all of his ideas. Some of his selections I couldn’t back with any/much confidence.
To be honest I can not remember an Annabell
I’m not sure but I think her real name may have been Karen. She gave the impression she worked/helped with you on your racing ideas. She also pointed me to an article you had written and posted on a forum. I thought is was very good and kept it for a long time. In it you used RPR and Top Speed ratings and as I have little or no faith in them I didn’t use the ideas, as much as I liked them. It was also interesting to get another mind set (a women’s) on racing.
Be Lucky
- Total Posts 55
Not that I want to labour the point but for clarity.
Speedy Filly has had six outings and the form line reads
1
3
4
1
2
0
For a turf race your calculation would be 14
For an AWT race your calculation would be 7Is this correct?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.