Thanks for the informative reply.

Jimmy

You say that "if it [VDW's work] was fully understood there would be less disagreement", and I absolutely agree with you. But the point you make MAY be even deeper than you intended.

For the central fact about VDW's published work is that it cannot be FULLY understood, because it is not a system with objective rules but an approach (or as some think of it, a number of methods) each relying on a good deal of subjectivity. All one can do is to interpret the approach from the published work, and interpretations, being personal, will necessarily differ. There is no ultimate arbiter of what is, or what is not, "the VDW approach". However, that is not to say that all interpretations are equally valid: those that do not take account of some of the evidence are likely to be inferior to those which do.

It follows from the above that no one knows FOR SURE what horses VDW would be selecting - and backing - today: that, too, is a matter of speculation, not fact, but again some speculations are more "educated" than others.

Among regular contributors to this thread who are interested in applying VDW's work, in my view three categories may be discerned:

(1) those who focus on what VDW referred to as "class/form" horses and know how to isolate them. They may disagree as to what constitutes the class/form horse in a given race for, as VDW himself wrote, "to isolate the "class/form" horse can often prove a tricky problem", and he never gave a complete and explicit statement as to how he judged "form". Perhaps more often, they will disagree as to whether a "class/form" horse constitutes a worthwhile bet, and this is not surprising as its a matter of judgement as to whether the available price represents value in the specific circumstances of a given race. But essentially those in this category recognise themselves as trying to follow VDW's approach and having made some considerable progress in so doing;

(2) those who aspire to be counted among those referred to above but who are at an earlier stage in the learning process, which in particular means they have yet to discover the essence of how VDW judged whether a horse was "in form" or not. They will make their own judgements about this matter, and will often be right, but sometimes not and therefore there will be differences of selection between those in this category and those in the former one;

(3) those who have consciously chosen to modify one or more aspects of VDW's approach because they believe that, with all the information available these days, improvements can be made.

Whether those who fall into the third category can properly be said to be followers of VDW is sometimes raised as an issue, but seems to me to be a rather sterile debate, reminiscent of the discussions within the psychoanalytic world as to whether Kleinians were or were not appropriately regarded as following Freud's approach.

Given that there are contributors in all three categories it is unsurprising that there will be differences of view.

I also agree with you on two other matters. First, cryptic comments such as "good thing in the 2.15C" are not very helpful: what is useful is detailed discussions of a race, preferably before the "off" but also useful afterwards, where people share their reasoning. Second, I see no value whatseoever, indeed the contrary, with posts on the lines of "backed X, won 4/1, in the last at Y". Such posts lack credibility and their likely effect is to generate feelings of envy among those gullible enough to believe them.

In case you are worried about the extent of agreement thus far, there is one issue where we don't agree. You say "someone like Guest who says he understands it [VDW's approach] would have published the results and everything would be in the public domain". But think about it. Those who have (often by years of hard work) got themselves into the first category (and I would speculate that that is a very small number of individuals) know they have found a way of making racing pay which is enduring. Why, therefore, would they wish to put everything in the public domain and thus run the risk of spoiling their future prospects? Although its not a perfect analogy, if you had found a system which worked year in year out, and was not the product of some meretrious back-fitting over a carefully selected period, would you sell it?

And its this issue of NOT wanting to put everything in the public domain that inevitably means that on an essentially public forum there are limits to how explicit contributors in my first category will be prepared to be. Some might deplore this as being selfish, others clearly see it as prudent.

[This message was edited by Fulham on August 06, 2002 at 09:15 AM.]

[This message was edited by Fulham on August 06, 2002 at 09:17 AM.]

JIB

An interesting question to which I have only a tentative and no doubt inadequate answer.

Various VDW "methods" are sometimes referred to - eg the "consistency", "winner in the race", "Roushayd", and "2yos to back at 3" methods.

There is a lot I don't know about VDW's thinking - I've not, for example, begun seriously to address the example of Rivage Bleu. And in his writings VDW does refer to "methods, plural.

That said, I am not yet convinced about the issue of plurality, and suspect that the crux of most, if not all, of these seemingly separate methods is identification of the class/form horse, and assessing whether it (or perhaps the 2nd or 3rd c/f) stands up to careful scrutiny (in ways VDW intimated) sufficiently well to be worth backing. That is, I am currently focusing on a basic consideration - the class/form nexus - and thinking of the separate "methods" as perhaps different presentations of that nexus.

Turning specifically to the Roushayd example, I spent some years looking for situations where a horse had recorded successively higher sfs in races of successively higher class and was then dropped in class, believing that was the essence of the approach. (And, I may say, finding a few good winners in the process - though plenty of losers, too.) I now think of the example in very different terms.

For the time being, therefore, I would stay with my three categories, simplistic though it no doubt is. I would include those who understand what I believe to be the essence of the Roushayd example in category 1, and those who work from what might be thought of as its other features in category 2. But this is a tentative, personal view. I would expect others to disagree, and would not be at all surprised if, as I learn more about VDW, I see the need to change my view.

Determined,
Good post on the Wayward lad and BHL example.
I do find it hard to ascertain when a horse such as BHL has had a hard time of it carrying 12-07 in a race 12-14 days before, would it have made it hard on him, do not some trainers do this then drop the horse in weight or class or distance and go onto win ??
How does one know when a horse has had a hard time of it, Prominent King carried a massive weight before his win.
I fully agree with you on the race comments though "kept on from next no impression" does not sound inspiring does it, especially when you consider what it does in it's last 2 furlongs.
And we have WL as "caught near finish" a better comment admitted.
I think it could all be down to the question of form and consistency, VDW only outlined the basic framework and maybe he should have gone deeper with the more controversial selections such as this one, as it's a hard one to figure, shame he did not go as in-depth with this as some of his other selections, and maybe some of the selections do not receive as much attention as we should give them !
Another question arises though why would he not have wagered on WL if he ran at Cheltenham ????
Is there a clue in here ?
Cheers Mimas


:

Determined/Mimas,

I don't have the form books to check on the WL/BHL race. Two things stand out too me, WL is a speed horse BHL is a stayer. Forget about ability ratings, class/form etc. Common sense says WL has the advantage at Kempton. Does vdw say he would not have taken WL at Cheltenham? I know he does say c/form or no, if the horses cant act on the track forget it. That means take the horse that is best suited by the track. Determined, go back to BL. I don't agree he was out of form, but if he is read Guest's posts again (re the Erin).

JIB.

I think Fulham has answered your question. I would like to add I think all the methods are a variation on a theme. They all revolve around the class/form horse the only difference is the filters, i.e take out consistency, and replace it with improving.

Jimmy.

If by hours of work you have found a way of making money from anything Stocks, backing horses, anything. I would hope you would consider passing help on to others. I would be pleased if you gave general help by suggesting where to look. I would not except you to give out the finer details. Many on this thread have tried, you and others have shown no inclination to get involved with any of the discussions. I'm not talking about selected OLD races, how about the recent races? the form, weight, speed, consistency. All of these subjects have been raised.

Old-timer.

I can see little wrong with the way you operate, it all makes sense. I used to fall into the trap of having a bet because I had worked on the race. I now don't even look at the poor class races, throw them out, and have a day off. There are more than enough good races to concentrate on. How many winners do you want in a week/month? It's the losers that do the damage. I work to win a set amount, before you back, ask yourself is this bet worth the stake to win £50/100/200? if not put the money back in your pocket

Be Lucky

Hi Mtoto,
VDW did say on page 25 of tUWoF under the heading ought to know better
"I should mention that if the KG VI had been run at Cheltenham I would not have wagered on Wayward Lad. I am aware ......."
He had run at this track before but a while back and over different distance.
Cheers Mimas.

determined and mimas,

the way you two are going at it you will soon be understanding fluent cryptic.

You wont get many straight answers here on in boys.

Believe it or not I still after approx` 8 months on this thread have NOT seriously studied any of the old VDW examples in any great detail therefore Mimas` and Mtoto`s latest reference to Prominent King / Beacon Light and Burrough Hill Lad / Wayward Lad are somewhat lost on me.

That said, I have at last through personal and very recent contact with a couple of fellow posters decided to get my act together and get on with the task in hand.

The 1985 King George Chase has been the starting point hence the recent reference to the said race.

What have I been doing for the past 8 months ?

Reading this thread time and time again and forgetting everything this brilliant thread should have taught me.

Sadly because I haven`t got the discipline to stop betting I`ve been trying to combine my basic methods with what I think I`ve picked up on here. The end result being total confusion and frustration.

Enough of my self pity.

Back to Wayward Lad. I was only a kid when WL and BHL were the top chasers around but from memory what I do remember is that WL was NOT a Cheltenham horse.

Question of which I`ve no doubt the answer wil be found once I`ve studied some of the eg`s;

when identifying the class/form horse is a horse`s ability to act on a certain course a factor in the process ?

Cheers,

Determined
Being able to act on the course is i think
one of the factors that has to be checked
before a bet is struck.
If you remember the formula Consistantform+
Ability+Capability+Probability+Hard Work=
winners.
i think all these have to line up or there`s
no bet.
Capability is being able to act on the course
awell as being able to act on the going and
not having a bad draw etc.
You say you have not been able to stop betting.
Have you been in profit this season ?
If you have then why stop.
Temperament is one of the most important factors
with the VDW methods.Or selfcontrol if you like.
Without this i think it will be impossible
tomake the VDW methods work.
Or though there are more than one way to skin
a cat.



Maggsy

Jimmy - I can only echo much of Fulhams detailed reply to your post. If you had a very successful method or strategy that anyone could implement, given the training, would you teach and tell everyone about it?

It is a strange fact in life, in my opinion, that one has to generally go against the crowd to be successful in most areas. That is why I practically ignore most tv/newspaper racing pundits along with jockeys opinions where racing is concerned. Riding or talking about horses is very different to working out the form book and if some basic truths were laid out in front of the public then many eyebrows would be raised.

Anyone who makes a regular income from selecting winners will be careful to guard their knowledge where it differs markedly from the crowd. I know some "pros" who do eek out a living backing horses, but a large proportion of their winnings come from subscribers to their services. If they had a better strike rate and profit on turnover then they would keep it to themselves.

Yes it's true that nobody knows for certain if VDW would agree with all selections made today, but he did emphasise that given the full story, users of his methods would find the same horses as he did. I see no reason that would have changed, because I use the method in the same way I used it to check all of VDWs bets and little has changed. Certainly the major factor that was missed by so many still rules the formbook today and will continue to do so long after we have passed on.

JIB - The class/form horse is always the same horse no matter which method of VDWs you use. Mtoto has it right when he says that the initial filtering process is different. Roushayd didn't have to be one of the consistent horses to be the class/form horse.

Wayward Lad/BHL - The course preference was just part of the reasons WL was selected. The first and most important fact was that he was the class/form horse. BHL was not a form horse and VDW spelt this out in capital letters to avoid confusion on this point. He then listed the form horses and told us who had the highest ability rating amongst them. It couldn't be much simplier on that point. But beware because there is a big difference between conditions and handicap races. Weight is a great leveller as Wayward Lad had found out close home at the hands of Earls Brig on a stiffer course.

wellcome back maggsy where have you been lately,

making lots of money i bet.

Maggsy, in your formula what exactly do you mean by probability? JIB

Nice to hear from you.

I guess the reason we don`t hear much from you is because you are doing what I have failed to do, ie - concentrate on the hard work aspect in researching the old examples.

Funnily enough temperament has never been a problem for me until this year. What I should be doing is investing on selections `my way` and leaving the rest alone for now.


Profit - for the 1st time in along time I am losing money this flat season to date which is a surprise and very frustrating.

Just as an example, last flat season I had a 28% strike rate `my way` with the average winning price of 7/1.

This year with the exception of one 9/1 winner the biggest priced winner has been 9/2 because I am trying to concentrate on the 1st 3 in the f/c.

There have been several very near misses which would have turned me into profit but `nearly` isn`t good enough.

Course suitibility - I think it was Chaz who recently pointed out that this factor determines whether the class/form horse should be backed and is NOT part of identifying the c/f horse so thanks for reiterating it.

It will sink in eventually.

***** the word IMPROVING seems to be coming to the fore *****

Funnily enough, every season I list what I call sequence/momentum horse plus `multiple` winners and believe me every year there are many and the majority are certainly `IMPROVING`

Very interesting. perhaps I have been looking in the right area all along without realising it !

Cheers,

Determined


I would be very surprised if the position in which you find yourself is unfamiliar to those who now make racing pay through their understanding of VDW's approach.

Indeed, VDW himself recognised this situation and (as in much else) offered valuable advice - especially perhaps in the first six paragraphs of his article of 18 January 1986.

I would respectfully suggest that it would be paradoxical for someone like yourself, seemingly keen to understand VDW's approach to making racing pay, to disregard his advice in respect of the first step to achieving that.

JIB

Its a perfectly arguable case, and may for all I know be right.

However, IF one takes the view that the class/form issue lies at the heart of VDW's work (which I think a reading of all his writings points towards) then specifics - such as the 1978 Erin example, the four in the "Spells it all out" article and the Roushayd example - all take on a different aspect. That is, they can be thought of as helpful "secondary lessons" - pointers to when backing a class/form horse is a realistic enterprise.

As I've said before, its a matter of interpretation, and I certainly don't insist that mine is right. But things that look one way from a narrow perspective (in this case, Chapters 5 and 6 of "Systematic Betting") can look quite different when viewed in a wider context (in this case, VDW's work as a whole).

Hi John,

It is my opinion that what VDW wrote in the form of the Roushayd example was the most in-depth and telling example he gave. But like all of his more detailed writings he left a fair amount out with the intention that the reader would have to do some work before a full understanding, of what was being put across, was actually gained. There are several hints to back this up, which like most things become a lot clearer with hindsight. He didn’t make mention of a fair few factors that he had done in previous examples when going over Roushayd (Most notably the ability rating). The most telling difference about Roushayd though was the format in which he set it out. Something he’d never done previously and for those who are interested it is well worth looking in to why it had been done this way.

VDW remarked blatantly on the use of improving speed figures followed by a drop in class within the Roushayd example, but later found it necessary to remark that ‘It would seem that 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’. Surely, if he’d written out the example in order to put across such a basic concept then there would have been no reason to make the comment to Tony Peach, because everyone who has read the article should have grasped these fundamentals.

The different methods/crosschecks can be likened to the arms and legs of the human body, and just like the human body there is only one heart that sustains them. Take away the heart, and the body will cease to work, as will the methods, when worked, as I have learnt and understood them.

JIB,

Systematic Betting is the first, and for a long time the only book I read (from vdw). When I read it the first thing I thought was, even if the horse is improving, is it good enough to win this race? I later found out he called it the class form horse, I just called it the best in the race.

After joining a forum I learnt about the other methods. I am glad it was this way round, if I had read the other methods first, I don't think I would have bothered. After looking at a few of the examples, not being able to make head or tail of it, but wishing to understand. I tried working them using the same formula I had used for the Roushayd method. I have found in MOST cases it worked. Every element of the original formula was taken from SB, all vdw ideas.

I do wonder if he was disappointed about people not understanding what he was trying to say. Was because they had read the other articles first, and couldn't see passed them.

So for me they are all variations on a theme.

Mtoto, in 1978 were sfs always available to the average punter, ie published in the racing press? If yes, then do you know when they became so, it might offer an explanation to this subject if VDW developed his ideas when sfs were not universally available. JIB