Maybe the reason you have been succesful with maidens is simply your use of speed figures. TOPSPEED has a good record in this in that last year his SR was 34% and so far this year 33% if you compare this with Group Races, last year 12% and this year 25%. The only thing I can think of to explain this is that in Group Races tactics play a large part. Whether the drop in class is so important I'm not so sure, please keep the information flowing so we can try figure it out.

Jimmy

Dear Jimmy,
Firstly I either did get 60% winners through the summer or I am making it up. One of those things is true. One isn't. You may or may not have gathered through this board that I know what I am talking about. In the only booklet i have by VDW he says"I TRUST READERS HAVE GRASPED WHAT HAS BEEN PORTRAYED, A COMBINATION OF CLASS, SPEED FIGURE AND IMPROVED PERFORMANCE. ALL OF THESE HORSES SHOWED IMPROVEMENT IN HIGHER CLASS WHICH WAS NOTED BY THEIR SPEED FIGURE, BEFORE VISITING THE WINNERS ENCLOSURE WHEN NEXT DROPPED IN CLASS"
Therefore L'EVANGILE fits perfectly. It has its best ever speed figure on its last run, and is now dropped nearly £20000. So how the heck can you mean it could never be a VDW selection??? Look at Saturday naps table to see if I am right or wrong, even though I realise there have not been many bets yet. All were picked via same method. I realise above horse may well not win but it does fit VDW advice. I know you dont mean any harm or insult with what you have written, but what I say is true. the only reason I have disclosed what i know regarding this "system" is because i have been doing badly lately, and I hoped someone out there could tell me why. I shall try and paste some results to this board if it will let me.
ALL ACROSS
SPEED RATING ££ RESULT PRICE +/- profit
85 -1200 W 3.00 £3.00 3.00
59 -39 3 4.50 -£1.00 £2.00
115 -11 W 0.44 £0.44 £2.44
118 -5 W 1.10 £1.10 £3.54
93 -90 W 0.57 £0.57 £4.12
96 -7 2 1.25 -£1.00 £3.12
91 -30 W 2.50 £2.50 £5.62
111 -10 W 0.44 £0.44 £6.06
98 -40 L 2.00 -£1.00 £5.06
76 -9 W 0.73 £0.73 £5.79
97 -12 W 0.80 £0.80 £6.59
92 -9 W 0.73 £0.73 £7.31
99 -317 W 0.73 £0.73 £8.04
103 -300 L 5.00 -£1.00 £7.04
102 -17 2 2.75 -£1.00 £6.04
87 -420 L 0.73 -£1.00 £5.04
86 -8 2 0.50 -£1.00 £4.04
82 -9 W 4.50 £4.50 £8.54
89 -68 W 1.88 £1.88 £10.42
97 -258 W 2.00 £2.00 £12.42
85 -40 W 2.75 £2.75 £15.17
97 -30 2 0.50 -£1.00 £14.17
89 -14 W 0.73 £0.73 £14.89
105 -16 W 2.00 £2.00 £16.89
83 -29 3 6.00 -£1.00 £15.89
93 -14 L 4.00 -£1.00 £14.89
101 -60 W 2.00 £2.00 £16.89
124 -170 W 2.50 £2.50 £19.39
93 -16 2 3.00 -£1.00 £18.39
97 -130 L 2.50 -£1.00 £17.39
108 -11 W 3.00 £3.00 £20.39
100 -63 W 1.10 £1.10 £21.49
90 -11 W 1.00 £1.00 £22.49
98 -77 W 1.50 £1.50 £23.99
89 -11 W 0.57 £0.57 £24.57
95 -75 W 1.38 £1.38 £25.94
76 -12 W 2.00 £2.00 £27.94
71 -65 W 0.25 £0.25 £28.19
119 -230 W 1.25 £1.25 £29.44
120 -180 W 1.25 £1.25 £30.69
108 -19 2 0.62 -£1.00 £29.69
82 -8 W 3.00 £3.00 £32.69
106 -120 W 1.10 £1.10 £33.79
75 -35 W 1.25 £1.25 £35.04
92 -9 W 2.25 £2.25 £37.29
78 -12 W 0.67 £0.67 £37.96
91 -10 2 2.00 -£1.00 £36.96
92 -60 W -1.00 -£1.00 £35.96
114 -100 L 11.00 -£1.00 £34.96
106 -130 L 1.75 -£1.00 £33.96
89 -16 2 1.88 -£1.00 £32.96
104 -110 W 1.88 £1.88 £34.83
87 -17 W 6.00 £6.00 £40.83
92 -19 W 0.20 £0.20 £41.03
80 -200 W 3.00 £3.00 £44.03
129 -25 W 1.63 £1.63 £45.66
95 -140 W 0.62 £0.62 £46.27
101 -1700 W 0.73 £0.73 £47.00
137 -230 W 0.57 £0.57 £47.57
92 -24 W 4.50 £4.50 £52.07
80 -40 L 8.00 -£1.00 £51.07
90 -10 W 1.75 £1.75 £52.82
Again it wont paste to a mesage board in a correct way but its there to look at any how. I shall do it again tomorrow including names of the horses so you can back check them if you wish.

Jimmy.
I noticed your posting last night. I didn't reply straight away because I felt sure Swish would want to explain it to you. I think he has done a fair job of it.
I must admit to being very surprised that you felt you weren't compatible with VDW. I would have thought that your attributes would have been of great help. The work ethos, analytical mind, and discipline (I use discipline instead of temperament) Reading your post I did notice (may have be misprint) you divided the winning prize money by runs not wins. I don't think VDW would object to the adaptations as long as they are logical. He was trying to explain things to the general betting public of the times, and we have all moved on since then. Just look at the amount of information available to anyone at the click of a mouse. The main factors will never change, and the other factor he was trying to get a cross he would still hold with. Never back unless there is a logical reason, and in the end because the systems says so! is not logical.
You mentioned Gummy's System, and it was all that I expected logically thought out, and based loosely on some of the VDW ideas. I am sure that it works, but is it really a system, today it narrowed the field down to two runners. Then it left you to make the choice, pick one or back them both.
I have been looking at Swish's figures and think I may be able to help. As he has put plenty of work into it I don't want to discuss it in public before talking to him. Is it ok to contact you direct?

Regards

Yes e-mail with pleasure
Yours Swish

Dear Jimmy,
When I first discovered that speed figures were more powerful if obtained on last run, firstly i backed any. Then only if it was the same distance in todays run, then only if it had got it within 30 days and lots of other combinations. Most people think high class races are the right races to back in and so did I. And so I went on for years, changing, altering ideas etc etc. Then two things happened (I had virtually packed in betting by this stage). I went to college and learned computing (not thinking about racehorses) and when I was sorting my shelves out I came across VDW booklet. So I thought, "lets find out once and for all". I fed all the info in that I thought was relevant. I discovered that when "all across" speed horses have dropped,say, only £300 0r worse still, gone up , say, £500 the strike rate dropped dramatically. (non-hcps) I found this extraordinary! But coupled with that, I read somewhere else, and my bookie pal, confirmed it, having known trainers himself, that sometimes the owners want to have a day out with friends and family and see their horse win so the trainer says "0k" well go for less money and you can all have a bet on it, but wait till we've proved the horse can run fast enough first! I'll say this though Jimmy I only ever did one years past results flat and jumps. What happened in other years I have no idea. I dont have many results for Heavy going which is why I shied off Brillano but it won by 3 1/2 lengths though didnt it? I realise one result doesnt prove anything. Just annoyed I didnt have bottle to do it,
Yours Swish

Thanks to Marchwood for this posting sent by e-mail
As it seems there is a lot of interest in our VDW
pages; can I suggest that some people are put off
the methodology due to that fact that the term
'much hard work is needed' crops up on a
regular basis. I am not suggesting it is due to
laziness but nearly always due to just not having
the time. This has always been my problem but
I have tried to keep an interest by studying what
is provided by my National Daily and occasionally
the Raceform Update rather spending hours on
form study.

My own ideas using vdw as a base really comes
from the VDW letter to Rfu of the 23rd August
1979 the outline of which is a follows:

Concentrate on better-class races with GOOD consistent horses.
Consider performance over the last two furlongs in each of the three previous outings. Horses that improve noticeably at this stage to make a race of it without winning can be looked on as potential candidates in the near future and note should be made of how the trainer places them.

Coupled with the further method to reduce the field: -
1. Mark all those horses with form figures 1 -4 in either of their last two outings.
2. Select in days the five most recent runs from those marked.
3. Select from the above the three most consistent by adding together the last three placings.

Use a combination of both elementary and mechanical procedures to narrow the field. The two processes which he describes as elementary and mechanical are clear for all to see.

I completed my own selections by using my own last threeoutings chart (which was sent to Methodmaker), the OR rating and best SF figure from the Rfu added together to give a total and then using the ability figure as vdw procedure as a checking device.

In my previous posting I gave a set of last three placings figures which added up, using VDW methodology, to no more than 5 but suggested that this was not always the case. This is the method above I was referring to because the last TWO outings could add up to 8 but furthermore he says 'in the race example none has a second
place, so mark those with a 5th place'again leading to a much higher total than 5 if we were looking at three races.

The point I am making here is also that it does seem on many occasions, his methodology was not hard and fast but formed a base which was/could be altered to suit the circumstances. I am
sure that many of you could find many instances of this in his methods.

I might also suggest it is this sort of action that gives the doubters support that maybe the methodology is concocted after the race to suit the results. Nevertheless the more you read I am still convinced the more you will learn. This 'backfitting' as it is now called was
also what Jock Bingham was accused of but for my own part I can say that his interpretation of the VDW methodology taught many people including me more about VDW than initially did VDW!

Marchwood

To clear up Mtoto’s point first, yes I meant wins not runs. And Swish you’re too touchy, nowhere have I doubted that you picked 60% winners using you’re method, what I was commenting on that this was not ORIGINAL VDW. Let me try and clarify my thinking. When his first letter appeared in the Handicap Book the average betting shop punter, and I include myself in this, had no idea what class was other than the comments they read in, for example the Sporting Life, like “As expected the class horse won”, I wouldn’t have recognised a class horse if I had found one in my soup. Then along came VDW and showed one way of quantifying class as a set of ratings which, when combined with form figures and the betting market could be used to find winners. The only problem was that what he was really saying was, “Class Horses Win Class Races”, and these races are few and far between. It was O.K. for the professional, betting in the thousands, to wait for everything to be right to have a bet, maybe every few weeks, but the average punter wanted a bet every day. So, it started to grow, you could use his method to check most races and not just the top class races, you could add this in and that in, and all the time the Handicap Book was quite happy to print this until finally they started to pay him. By now of course the original simplicity was swamped in detail. As pointed out elsewhere VDW advocated avoiding maidens, this alone excludes L’EVANGILE never mind the lack of class factors. What really amazes me Swish is that you feel insulted, if you read what I wrote again, it was basically that you seem to have found a method, after a lot of hard work, using Topspeed and drop in class, that has some merit. Where is the insult in this, take credit for your own work. And by the way if you had rated the same race using the Fineform Rating Method you would have got the same selection in less than 5 seconds.

Jimmy

Dear Jimmy,
You are right, I do get too touchy at times. I think its partly to do with that all my life i have met punters, (both friends and otherwise) who were not the slightest bit interested in talking about racing systems etc. You know what I mean, "theres only one winner", "you never see a poor bookie" etc, that sort of mentality. I have one mate who loses lots of money week in week out backing 4x 20-1,s in a yankee hoping for that massive touch, he also will back all day in the bookies on anything over 12-1 and when he loses it is always the jockeys fault , he got it boxed in etc. So I wrote these "rules" of my system down for him. I also printed a lot of systems I found on the net that might not make much money, if any, but I thought at least he can have some fun if he must bet in every race and at the very least he would not be losing hand over fist like he does now. They all went in the cupboard. So the enjoyment, since I have had internet, which is not long, is absolutely immense to me to be able to talk to all you lot who are all interested as much as me . I think its great. The trouble it is not like we are sitting with each other and can see our facial expressions etc . It is not always easy for any one to express exactly what they mean in writing, but we all try our best. So lets not worry Jimmy and all keep posting up our ideas etc. By the way have you seen how some of them talk to each other on "that other board"!
All the best
Swish

2.05 Don Sting Like a Bee is dropped £1000 and is 90/90. Its also Gummys nap! Who knows?!
Yours Swish

when formulating speed figures, from the published speed ratings, is the fact that the rating was not recorded at the race distance, or on the same going relevant?? or are there adjustments that can be made??

are these two raings the same
83 gf straight 7F flat course with a downhill finish

83 gs round course undulating uphill finish

please help

you have got some bottle you

have those selections above come from races where the runners have the same form.

they are impressive so something must be right.

Dear Barney,
Firstly thankyou for kind remark above, and I shall put names of said horses up when I get chance. Regarding your queries on how the figs are worked out. The truth is I dont know how to work them out (except weight adjustment) and can't help you with uphill finishes etc. I feel sure you are making a good point though, it does seem to make sense that figs obtained at one track would not be as valid at another
Yours Swish

First congratulations to Barney
The horse you selected had proved it was consistent and had the class (and guts) to beat the other horses that where in the race with a real chance.
Jimmy also showed by his analysis the horse was in with a good chance. He also was right to put a price on the horse. I was a little surprised the price he put on him was so high, I thought 7/2 was a fair price.
Jimmy mention Fine form but what he doesn't say is Clive Holt wrote many chapters explaining he does not take the ratings at face value. He will back against the top rated, and doesn't back unless he can get a fair price. He has also adapted his rating to give horses in the betting forecast more points.
The extra points for D and C&D winners doesn't make sense unless the wins where gained in races of the same class or better. Does a C&D win at Ascot in a handicap, carry much weight in a group 1(at the same course)? I think much the same can be said for speed figures, against who, and where they where gained is very important.

Regards

Speed Figures
To answer your question above, theoretically it should be irrelevant that the ratings were achieved at different course. The ratings are based on a comparison to standard times and adusted to take account of course, going, weather etc. There is quiet a good little article on the Sporting Life site entitled "Speed Ratings Explained" that is worth reading.

Jimmy

The only reason I mentioned Fineform was that the three of the selections I have seen put up here under the VDW banner, (L'EVANGILE, RAPSCALLION AND STING LIKE A BEE), could all have been found in seconds using Fineform, I'm not advocating Fineform as a wonderful method, but I still think people tend to read too much into VDW. The man obviously had some excellent ideas but that is all. His ideas on class rating for example I have always thought to have some, if limited, use. I noticed that the class horses in Rapscallion's race came third and fourth, both beating the favourite.
Somthing to think about?

Jimmy

Dear Jimmy,
What is the formula that (FINEFORM), that picked those same three horses?

You will find in systems on Gummy's home page.

Jimmy

There is only one saturday dropped £12000 148/148
Yours Swish

Forgot to say what it was. KRABLOONIK, 2.30 kEMPTON

Hello everybody;

I thought you might be interested in this which concerns a titled email friend of mine.

He, as VDW, looks at the last three outings of a horse to get his consistency rating but if for instance a horses last SIX outings were as follows: 112102 instead of rating it as normally and give 13 as the rating he would give it FIVE.
His reasoning was that here is a very top class consistent horse which for some reason or other blotted his copybook on its last but one outing.
Where such consistency is beyond doubt he drops the poor race and he believes this to be pure VDW and he gets many long price, up to 12/1 winners.
I should also say that he is also a Multiple Betting man (more than 1 horse in each race where it is suitable) which is another method that I think VDW used almost all the time.

I have another posting waiting for Gummy to put up
which I hope will also add a little more fuel to the fire!

regards
Marchwood