Someone mentioned we should continue thw VDW thread with a more appropriate name. So I have done just that (I thought it might be agood idea to call it VDW!!!!) Now I am going to throw some right cats in amongst the pigeons. Firstly from all the work I have done on my computer, plus personal experience. I am absolutely certain that speed figures in NON-HANDICAPS work far better in LOW class races than high class races. I never back in any A or B races any more. Secondly if whichever horse that is topspeed got that top figure on its last run that figure is far more valuable than normally. VDW says so really doesnt he? These horses that have top speed on last run my mate and I call "all acrossers" because their figure reads the same all across the Topspeed box. (forget this adjusted B******). I have analysed thousands of races. We call the horse that is top on the left TL1 (ie highest on the left side of topspeed box, in other words fastest on its last run compared to the rest).TL2 can be quite good but below that you are putting everything against you. So I thought i would try "all acrossers" that had dropped in class(prize money) The problem was how low can the drop be before it becomes irrelevant. Well after I had put all info in computer it "appears" to be £900 (NON-HANDICAPS), so those that got its top fig last time that has dropped from £3200 to £2200 IS a bet. However the strongest drop region "appears" to be -£2000 to £10000. It seems to deteriorate, say when a horse has dropped , say £50000 to £2000. Why on earth that should be I just do not know! Regarding HANDICAPS it "appears" that £4500 is about as low a drop you can go with no limit to the size of the drop. When I did this work I never made a note of what prize money each handicap was, just made a note how much money TL1 had dropped. (Which I had now). As I said before though I hit nasty losing runs of handicaps (lost my whole bank nearly) so I just stuck with non-handicaps,and won it all back, doubled it and trippled it (until recently) But perhaps I was doing wrong class of handicaps or O.R. wasnt high enough. Dont know really. Arent sure whether it works as well in jumps either, not yet. As you said MTOTO, and I have said the same, position last time is irrelevant, nor price, its just usually it turns out to be fav anyway (non-hcps) although I have had quite a lot of second favs a handful of 6-1's and one 33-1! Right I have done my best to say what I know,your turn next, or anyone else who knows,
Yours Swish

Swish,

you have confused me completely. Could you help me out as I don't usually use Top Speed. If you could look at the C hcp at Newcastle for tomorrow (Wednesday) and tell me which horses gained their fastest speed figure last time out.

Regards

Interesting readings!! keep it going you guys.
Tony.

Dear mtoto,
It appears that Petongski is top on its last run with 103, although with it being a 3yo I believe it gets a lb extra making it 104. Top speed has adjusted this to 91! I need help on this myself. I personally wouldn't ever consider a weight for age 20 runner handicap on heavy going! The right time to have backed this horse though may have been two races ago when it had dropped from £15000 to £9000 and won at 16-1, but i dont really know without seeing that particular card. Next best is Baby Barry which scored 102 last time and Top Speed has left it at 102. Please ask for an easier race next time,
Yours Swish

Hi Swish,
Thanks for getting back so quick. I wasn't for a minute suggesting having a bet if this race I used it to try and understand your previous post.
Unfortunately I am even more confused I make (using the top speed figures)

Petonski's last unadjusted speed figure is 81. the 103 seems to be the adjusted Postmark figure
Baby Barry last unajusted speed figure is 85. the 102 seems to be the adjusted speed figure
I can see they both recorded their fastest time last run, but can you explain the 103 and 102 if you are using unajusted figures should they not be 81 and 85.

Sorry for being thick

Thanks to Marchwood for this posting on VDW I will also put it on the VDW page on the site.
Here are some thoughts which I collected from a very much
respected VDW supporter. Maybe it should be stressed
that as VDW was not a systems man but a man of methods
many devotees use his methods and adapt them to suit their
own means thus creating their own systems!

This is what VDW is saying: Logical reasoning will lead you
to arrive at numerous sound methodical ideas and any normal
racing fan can devise his own path to success using the abundance
of data available.

Charlie Anderson who was one of the principal
contributors to the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book and
Raceform Update's Sports Forums. Here is his advice:-

ignore:
*******
2 year olds.
Fillies.
races below grade C
races for 3 year olds only.
maidens of any type.
mad hair brained systems from the pack of rogues out there,
tipsters and telephone lines, none of these people would be selling
tips etc if they had a winning method,would you?.

things to do if you are looking for success!:
*******************************
look at the highest value races of the day, Group races and grades
A, B, & C only, and try to confine your bets to the top class races
at each meeting, basing class on VDW's rating system mentioned below..

never ever back a horse that has not won at least one of its last
three races and was placed in the other two.

last three form figures must add up to no more than a total of five
we are looking for consistent horses nothing else. (see below*) e.g.
1st=1, 2nd=2, 3rd=3 up to 9th=9 and 0=10.

never back a horse that has not shown form at the distance being run
today, this applies only to its last three races any other form
cannot be judged as valid.what do I mean by showing form? I hear you
ask, showing form means being placed in the first three at the
distance in one of the horses last three races.

never back a horse that has not shown form with today's weight or
more in its last three races, again showing form means placed in the
first three.

look for horses down in class in today's race, use vdw class rating
to arrive at this figure, i.e. today's race worth 10,500 pounds class
= 105(delete last two figures) last race worth 25,000 pounds class
= 250, the horse is well down in class,also remember to rate all
runners
on a last race class basis using the same method you can then see how
your possible selection rates against the rest of the field.

*The only last three outings that Charlie Anderson is suggesting are
as
follows: 111=3; 112=4; 113=5; 121=4; 131=5; 122=5; 221=5;
212=5; 311=5.

Please note: All of the above does not conform strictly with VDW
methodology and you will see some horses in VDW examples whose
form figures do not correspond. However, it appears to be usually
accepted that this was the type of thinking that was in VDW's mind.

But this is certainly VDW methodology:
please will you all focus your minds on the job in hand and not go
down tracks which make your brains boil and confuse the issue
remember what we are trying to find is good consistent horses which
have the class, form, ability and history to win today's event.

MARCHWOOD FEELS THAT THIS IS A GREAT STARTING
POINT - ALSO REMEMBER VDW STATED IN MARCH 1979
IN REPLY TO A LETTER FROM G. HALL:-

'The method I gave produces 85% to 90% winners Flat and
jumps, year in and year out" He as usual stresses "I know in the
N.H. season there can be long waits. There are of course days
during the flat when nothing can be found and there is no point in
trying to find what is not there" Many people look upon this
statement which VDW calls 'Temperament' as the missing link
or the Key!

Marchwood

Firstly thanks for printing all that up re: VDW Gummy. So Marchwood is a right dark horse then! By the way, Gummy, did you have to type all that or did you just paste it to board? I am sorry for being naughty and calling all these things "systems" instead of methodology but I am going to so there! As quinelle said, throwing a dart at the racecard is a "system" . Methodology I take it is a "system" with flexible rules, of which I wrote a long letter about the other day, but not many replied. Any way there are obviously two if not more completely different systems here with only one thing in common, i.e drop in class. I strongly suspect that you yourself Gummy, and Marchwood have made a lot of money out of VDW "systems" and if so I am delighted and only too pleased that you are sharing this info with us all. You say Charles Anderson said:
IGNORE
******
2 YEAR OLDS
fILLIES
RACES BELOW GROUP C
RACES FOR 3 YEAR OLDS ONLY
MAIDENS OF ANY TYPE
Well yes if you want your form figures to add up to 5 or less, but on the other hand I say choose,
FIRSTLY Maidens, especially 2 year olds, secondly races C and below, ignore A and B races! I dont know about fillies,thirdly form figures dont matter a hoot (Mtoto agrees with me) Anyway back in the late seventies and eighties races were not graded A,B,C,D,E,F, SO YOU WOULD HAVE HAD A JOB ON ONLY PICKING RACES C and above. Gummy, I have proved it, by winning day in day out. So therefore there are two totally different systems that totally contradict each other each other apart from the class drop. We are all agreed on the class drop anyway, although were not sure how much that drop should be. Also speed figs were not as sophisticated in years gone by. You had stop watch and such like but you could only ever find a horses top fig not all its figs like you can now. One chap on that other board wrote that he looks at all the figs for each horse to find consistency, not a bad idea, I think, but I like to see a horse improving from say, 32, 43, 60, 71, 80, 90, then class drop. Bingo you are in! That is only an example of course. If a horse has only ever had one run (IN A MAIDEN!!!) and scored 95 in an £8000 but came 9th, but now is in a £2000 and its nearest rival is a horse that came second in a £4000 scoring say 80, believe me, you back the one that came 9th!
Yours Swish

Dear Mtoto,
I dont use unadjusted figs. By that I mean you have to adjust its last fig to 10 stone, 12 stone jumps, so if a horse scored 81 last time and has a weight of 8 stone 11 lbs (flat) today you add 17 points on, therefore making it 98. There is also a weight for age scale to use as well which in the race we were looking at I think 3 year olds are allowed a lb (in a 6furlong race) at this time of year, (much more earlier in the year),I must admit I am not certain on the weight for age scale, thats why I said I need help on this. Having said that Topspeed now adjusts them again if he feels like it to some unknown factors, I imagine to right dis and going and suchlike. This is complete b******. He is nearly always bottom of the pick a horse in every race table in the Racing Post where as once he was always top or thereabouts. It was a different man then. I shall try and explain another way: 10 stone is 140 lbs. Every initial speed rating is worked out "pretending" that that horse was carrying 140lbs. This done firstly so you can compare every horse against each other and secondly so you can see how much better off a horse is when it has less then 10 stone,(140) so when you look at its figure, that is a "pretend" figure as if it had 10 stone that day. But it has not got ten stone today so it is allowed another point for every lb it is less than 10 stone. A horse scoring 60 but today has only 7 stone (98 lbs) gets 42 points added on to its score so its speed figure is 102. Mtoto that is best I can do to explain matters for now,
Yours Swish

Morning Barney,

I believe there are around a hundred examples of VDW's examples. You must remember he used winning examples to show how it worked. I have only ever seen one losing example, Broadsword at Cheltenham one year.

The examples you mention are fairly straight forward, but in the first race, the Little Owl example. I know it's a bit far fetched, but if Wayward Lad, when it was second. What if that second had been to Arkle, the fact that he had been beaten by the best horse ever would not have changed the consistency or ability ratings. You NEVER take the ratings at face value they are used to narrow the field down. You then asses the form of the most likely candidates. In the second example he gives you the reason he discarded the top rated on ability, logical! He then examines the next 2 they have the same rating for consistency and ability. One had fallen in it's last race (he has said you use your judgement on this scenario) without hindsight would you have come to the same decision? In the last all the horse are close on ability but he didn't choose the lowest consistency rating would you have made the same choice. When you look at these races now, it is all hindsight, would your decisions have been the same as his BEFORE the race, where they that clear cut?

The ratings are not there to place them in order 1 2 3 they are there to cut the field down to size for YOU to examine. NEVER forget the rating won't always show the full picture you must look for your self. That's why the people that say if you understand the methods all the selections would be the same are wrong, the only person who could guarantee to have the same selections as VDW, IS THE MAN HIMSELF.

Best of luck

Swish.

I would like to make a couple of points.

1) Of VDW's original methods only 1 is looking for a drop in class, The Roushayd method.
2) The drop in class factor being used in his other methods are other people adapting them
3) I am not saying it is wrong, but I would like to point it out for new comers. So they understand many of the new rules are adaptations from the original thinking.

After looking at the Top Speed pages I will stick to working out my own speed figures. I started because I found to many mistakes in other peoples, Top Speed has done nothing to convince me the mistakes are being rectified.

Wishing you the best of luck, hope you can pick your way through them!

i think i know what you mean but

if it had run 2nd to arkle i'm sure the o/r and s/f would have been higher.

i'm not sure if i would have selected the horse before as i was using a different method then.

what are the other two columns? as this seems to determine the winner after the field is narrowed of course.

will you give me the name of a clear example that
has run in the last week or two then i can have a proper look at the ratings.

thanks

Hi Barney

1) It would be possible for the horse not to have an OR (novice never entered in a handicap), the speed figure, now do you know what it is? Both of these factors would not be obvious until you looked beyond the bare ratings, and a low speed figure doesn't always mean a bad race. ;-))
2) These ratings crop up in several places, but you are never told what they are, or how they are calculated. Some think they are the missing link, the *experts* say no, who knows??
3) I will give you the name, but please understand it is MY idea of a vdw winner many of the *experts* might not AGREE. I think Nayef on Saturday was a good example, for me Statton in his run before last is another. As many have said what do you know and they may be right!!

Regards

thanks for your help

and they would say that wouldnt they.

good luck

well you,ve all had a go so here,s my addition.
When I was years younger I did a lot of martial arts training with a guy who was 5,8" and 12 stone,I was 6,3" and 17 stone.Most times it was kata or chapter work but every week we did a street fight,anything goes session,everytime he turned me inside out.
I always found it was a case of,he has taught me all I know,but not all he knows!
I,m wondering if this is how vdw has attained almost guru status?
I,s ok you can be as rude as you like if you reply,it was all a long time ago,I,m totally unfit,several stone heavier and the only way I could do damage now is if I fell on you after you knocked me out!
According to many,VDW gives certain criteria so
you can narrow the field but the final selection is up to you,so,because of this the system cannot be knocked ie;it,s you who has got it wrong!it is in fact a non-system and although I,ve no idea what axe he had to grind,if any,by leaving an open ended puzzle he is bound to create and maintain interest among those that believe in an ultimate system,especially with the vital pieces missing.
My brother in law has a degree in maths and we,ve had many a long coversation about the laws of probability,several points we have agreed upon are that with so many variables involving animal/human elements it is impossible to define an ultimate system,mainly because we do not know all the relative criteria and,even if we did some are changing on an hourly basis so they are invalid input.
There,s not a lot I would add to Gummy,s super selection system and as I kid myself that I,m not a gambler but an investor I,m willing to wait for any selections it indicates and I wonder two things,If there was a valid VDW system instead of the non-system would it not be up somewhere for comparison and would it be better than Gummy,s super selection?
Bye the way my brother in law is from Guernsey,are they all brainy out there?

Both these two horses fitted my interpretation of the VDW/ROUSHAYD SYSTEM. Brilliano was TL1 (top speed last time) and topspeed over all 67/67 and had dropped £900. Magic Music was TL2 and second top speed over all 66/66 and had dropped £5000. Brilliano won at 8-1. I backed neither! If I find any tonight I shall post them up. But if you are interested dont just jump straight in because the strike rate 0f 60% in summer seems to have disappeared. Lets just watch them for now.
Yours Swish

There are two tomorrow: L'EVANGILE 5.0 BATH (dropped £19700 87/87) and SUSPENDID 2.40 LUDLOW (dropped £1600 127/127). I am not saying they will win, I am just saying that they "fit".
Yours Swish

this could be hot, very popular selection, already at 8/11

Evening.
looking at Swish's suggestions for tomorrow.
L'Evangile you would have to use violence to persuade me to risk money on this one. a 20 runner maiden, trainer out of form, dropping in class but had no business or chance in it's last race. The class of the last race most probably towed this horse to a very flattering speed figure. Not for me
Suspendid is a much better choice. Won it's last race, same grade, drop in prize money, overall a consistent horse. The only problem is the price I wouldn't take under 7/4 that's what I think a fair price would be. At the right price I would be interested.
If you back one or both I wish you all the best though.

Quinelle
I agree with some of what you said, but as we aren't talking about a system there are still some facts that can be checked.
You personally may not pick the winner but it is still possible to check the fundamentals. Basically you are reducing the field to 2/3 with a logical chance of winning, if one of these doesn't regularly win you can say the method doesn't work. If you spend an evening going through a form book looking at high class races, I think you would be surprised. Would it be possible to tell me where I can find the rules of Gummy's Super Selection system Thank you

Regards

Dear Mtoto,
You made me smile with your comments on my horsey. You are probably right! You can find gummy super system rules on home page top right
Yours Swish

I couldn’t agree more. VDW appears to have attained guru status because, human nature being what it is, people will always be looking for the secret that will bring riches with no effort. I read the first VDW letter in the Handicap Book and to be honest, I thought at the time it made sense, I then started to check the Sporting Life for the value of prizes won by every horse, divided that by the number of races run, and came up with what VDW called his ‘class factor’ checked the last three form figures etc and came up with various selections, After a few weeks of this, and very few winners I started doing what everyone has done since, I assumed there was something missing and he wasn’t telling us the full story, and started adding in Speed Plus in the Sporting Chronicle and Dick Whitford in the Sporting Life, all to no avail. Over the many years since I have come to the conclusion that the ultimate system does not exist. This does not mean I don’t check out system selections, but I do not follow them blindly. I now believe that betting on Horses is like anything else, what you get out is in direct proportion to what you put in. Van der Wheil is like Patrick Kilgallon, he points out some sensible things you should be looking at but the ultimate decision is yours.
Swish's ideas look very promising but as for L'EVANGILE there is no way this could fall into an original VDW selection, Swish is doing what countless others have done over the years and adapting, no bad thing, I hope it works but having said that I still don't believe in the ultimate system. I would love to be proved wrong but then the bookies would change the rules.

Jimmy