Hello again

After looking at my friends previous mails on the
subject of consistency, I find I may have slightly mislead you. The reason being is that he
considers dropping any poor place rather than just a zero. In other words he would look again at such figures as 112-271 or 213-291 or 121351 and drop the poor one or better put where any of a horses last three outings contains a placing which would not normally be found in a horses recent consistency record he would normally ignore it!

The poor placing does of course often lead to better prices!

Sorry about that - the medication is overtaking what little of the brain is left.

regards again

Marchwood

Hello,

Busy day yesterday, so no time to contribute. One thing that crossed my mind, if there where 800+ viewing. There must be other people out there with ideas (for or against) Why don't you express some of them?

Swish and Marchwood are doing their bit, I am happy to answer any questions although I don't profess to be an expert, if I don't know an answer, I may know a man that does. I was going to join in The Saturday Nap but my race was abandoned so will have to wait until next week

Talking is the best way to learn

Regards

I think you need to divide the number of views by the number of posts to get an idea of the readership as I presume most people want to read all new posts. Even if this number is doubled 40 readers seems about par for a busy thread. While it makes interesting reading the concept itself goes against my ideas of selection so I'm not likely to contribute anything relevent. The reason for prefering a system to a method is that the system makes the choice, with a method the choice has to be made in the end everytime and every case is somewhat different. Personally I dont like the stress involved in this decision making so I prefer to think about systems or betting strategies. Nevertheless thanks for the interesting ideas to all those who have posted messages in this thread.

Eqiglois.

I understand what you are saying, but what is the other important difference between a method and a system?
To me there are 2 kinds of system.
1) And most usual, the system that has very few rules, and none of them very logical. i. e the favourite has won this race for the last 10 years, back the unnamed fav. It could just as easily be trainer, jockey, top weight, horse number 4. All it needs is 2 more rules. The jockey must drive a green car and/or is wearing pink socks!
2) A well thought out system (and there are some) that only fail (for me) because they are trying to set preconceived rules, in a set order. Every race is different and what works for 1 may not be right for another. If you aren't careful you can throw the baby out with the water. I.E you are looking for a horse that has won a certain grade race, there are two in the race that have, both horses form is fairly old. In this race there is a horse that is improving but has won races of just under this standard do you ignore this horse. In fact, if you are just following a set rules, do you even know this horse is in the race, you have to look at every runner.
If you are following a logical system I wish you all the best, but there can never be a way of applying pre set rules to trap winners of races that are unique in their make up.

Regards

Thanks for the reply.
In the early 90s I used to make my selections by reading up the form in the Post for all the runners. I dont remember what size of field I restricted myself to but in any case it took me several hours and was very boring. It also soon becomes confusing reading very similar but slightly differing material over and over, my brain has a low saturation point for that kind of thing and I stop taking the information in. Certainly I found some good priced winners but the choosing of such horses that go against all the newspaper tipsters, on the strength of them running on and now carrying less wieght, for example, I found too nerve racking for the effort and rewards involved. Thinking about systems is much more fun and creative work in my opinion. I agree with you that when the system throws up a selection the horse should not be backed unless it's rivals can also be eliminated as candidates. As has often been said the backer's main advantage is not having to bet so unless the selection can be re-confirmed dont bet, if you bet semi-blind the system is likely to hit otherwise inexplicable losing runs.

Epiglotis

A couple of points.
I think most people suffer with a same problem, my brain gets saturated more easily than most. I think possibly VDW knew this, so he gave us pools to fish in.
1 The first 5/6 in the betting forecast, still holds good today high % of winners in this one
2 Consistent horses, same again, high % of winners won their last race or finish within 4/5 lengths of the winner
3 Ability, once again high % of winners won in the same class or higher.
He does say check the consistent horse that are not in the forecast and check all horses for ability. So in most cases half if not more can be dismissed after a cursory check that can be applied in a few minutes.
I must admit I never find making money boring. I expect finding a winner that the scribes have missed is an ego trip. Why are the obvious horses being tipped, the journalist HAVE to give a horse in every race. There is too much racing to study every race in detail, so to save time they pick the obvious. With the prestigious races they wrote the hype, so find it hard to contradict themselves. The problem is not as bad with the Naps except they still have too select one every day even if they are not that comfortable with their choice.
To finish I think perhaps you are not a true system player, because you don't allow the system to make the final decision. If it's not logical, you abstain, and don't allow the system to work you.

Regards

i think vdw was trying to tell everyone that they could pick winners consistently.

the strike rates would be very high if the single threat races are waited for.

if you want to invest more frequently, selecting two or more horses will put the odds in your favour.

the amount of time 'studying' form is time well spent as over the years will result in more winners being highlighted.

to add into his selection methods form from other factors ie jocky trainer combinations,c+d only goes to prove that you understand the detail required and that is what he was trying to instruct us in THE METHOD OF STUDY NOT SELECTION.

if he was selecting horses now with computer records and data base search techniques what systems would he be using???

Marchwood.

I have just read your last posting again. While I agree vdw did say check an uncharacteristic bad run, but to ignore it without first checking the reason is very dangerous. The example vdw gave showed as horse that had been substantially raised in class failed and then dropped to a class where it had proved it's self. Without checking, the failure could have very easily been in the same class as today's race. If it failed once because of a raise in class, it could easily do it again. I don't think vdw would advocate any thing like just ignoring a run. I have mentioned this not to be augmentative, but to warn new comers that may be thinking of trying vdw.

On another subject, has Gummy put your last article up? if so where?

Regards

This shows the blurred distinction between systems and methodologies. A simple system can produce sufficient results but avoiding long losing runs requires greater discretion.

Hello Mtoto

Who said you were being augmentative, never suggested it for a minute. These are all nice well mannered people on this board.

However, I have had another recent mailing from my friend and you will like what he has found, I hope! Watch this space!

regards
Marchwood

Thanks for this posting received by e-mail from Marchwood the chart mentioned will be on the systems page tomorrow.
My titled Email friend has been in touch with me again recently and claims to have solved the mysteries of The Flying Dutchman. Here is what he said:-

Subject: read what is there

Having puzzled over vdw for the last twenty years or so in frustration, i decided that enough was enough, this is like trying to find blackbeards treasure, however something that a fellow vdw said ie read what is there struck a chord, so i decided more in hope than having any real chance to have another go andhaving wiped out any preconceptions i got my friend who knows nothing about horseracing on the promises of a couple of pints to read THE GOLDEN YEARS and then he
would instruct me as a student to work out races as HE saw the problem rather than me with my preconceived ideas.
FRIDAY OCTOBER 26TH 2001 FOUR RICHEST RACES:
2.40 NEWBURY, 3.10 NEWBURY, 3.40 NEWBURY 3.15
DONCASTER
my friend having read the book believes that letter 24 ,letter 13,letter 8,letter 20 hold the key.
2.40 newbury
five most recent runs.....RANVILLE,XELLANCE,SPY
KNOLL,FOLLOW LAMMTARRA,ARGAMIA. in first five or six in betting forecast: RANVILLE, FOLLOW LAMMTARA
most consistent RANVILLE 3* FOLLOW LAMMTARRA 18*
RESULT: RANVILLE wins 2/1,FOLLOW LAMMTARRA 2nd
XELLANCE 3RD.
3.10 newbury
five most recent runs....ADVANCE PARTY,LASCOMBES,PIETER BRUEGHEL,RAPSCALLION,SAMHARI in first five or six betting forecast PIETER BRUEGHEL,RAPSCALLION,SAMHAN most consistent pieter brueghel 11*, rapscallion 3*, samhari 15*
RESULT: RAPSCALLION wins 7/2....look at the full
result
3.40 newbury
five most recent runs...BOUNCING BOWDLER, NOW LOOK
HERE,TEDBURROW,ANDREYEV,SEVEN NO TRUMPS
in first five or six betting forecast SEVEN NO TRUMPS,TEDBURROW,ANDREYEV most consistent seven no trumps 15*, teddburrow 24*, andreyev 26*
RESULT: SEVEN NO TRUMPS wins 11/2
3.15 doncaster my friend thinks "there isnt a winnerto be found" I would like to add after picking myself up off the ground that if you look at the speed figures either in the d.mail, or the times for theses races and look atthe result of where the rest of the horses were placed after the race and if you read the race comments about
the winners it becomes blindingly apparent that these winners were staring us in the face.my friend thinks that reading the letters its obvious, perhaps its a case of not seeing the woods for the trees!
Comments please.


This really supports some correspondence with our
friend Alan Coldrick (Acceleratorform) who quoted
me, in a private correspondence, exactly the same
letters, from The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil,
but added the one on the 8/3/79 which deals mainly
with National Hunt Racing which was of course a
favourite with VDW.

Maybe, like my titled email friend some of you found
REGAL SONG 7/1 yesterday!

This approach to the VDW methodology is not new to me.
Many years ago I found many winners just by using
a consistency chart for last three outings for all the runners in the race, then narrowing this down using the first four, five or six in the betting depending type of race
and number of runners, then adding points for C(1), D(3)and C&D (5) to arrive at a rating. I will ask Gummy to
post the chart to the systems page for you all to look at.
I then got more ambitious - VDW might say lack of
temperament- and added to this rating figure the SF and form rating both from the RfU to obtain a total.

I can say that in the majority of cases the horse indicated by the overall rating was the same one as my own consistency/C,D,C&D rating.

There will always be those people that prefer to look much deeper (looking for a key or missing link thatis not there) than is necessary into any form of problem.
However, I would suggest that my friends' approach entails little work, other than maybe an accuracy with figures, no unnecessary expense on overpriced racing papers and a easily understood basic method that spells it all out for one and all. Three winners in an afternoon should also
satisfy those that crave for more betting opportunities.

What is wrong with this or are we all candidates forthe weakest link!

Marchwood

Marchwood

I would like to thank you for your titled friends contribution. I would also like to mention while it is a better than average system people must be a little wary of the flaws. Little or no consideration to prove ability being the main one. I think it may work better at the class meeting and the better class races. I may be wrong as days since a run don't warrant logging for me and I would have to spend time going through my records adding days since a run. Which I am happy to do if that is requested. Although there where 3 winners on Friday I can't find any for Sat, one good priced winner yesterday not sure on the losers. Today I made it 1 low priced winner and three losers again if I am operating it wrong I apologise to all concerned. It will net a few of vdw's true selections, like it did on Friday, Rapscallion (in my opinion) was one. With this system as it stands I would be very worried about the losing runs with up to 4 bets a day, unless something is built in to gauge the ability, and the class factor on run of the mill days. It may be me, but I do hate lending the bookie's my money, I will do anything to keep a losing run down to the minimum. Losing runs are the scourge of the of the betting classes! and must be avoided at all costs.

Hope this doesn't make me the weakest link!!
You lost me with the speed figures in the Daily mail part
Regards

Hello Mtoto

I have mailed my friend to ask him what happened
on Saturday as I feel that the situation was different to what you suggest.

At the moment I am short of the prices but would
suggest you should look at INDABA, SMART PREDATOR
and possibly ARMATURK.

As far as yesterday and today are concerned you are way ahead of me and my friend, but I will respond!

AS VDW stressed these are methods and not systems
and this is I feel exactly what he is putting forward. All interpretations are welcome until we
arrive at the winning post together!

regards
Marchwood

What reference to the Daily Mail are you referring to - never touch - it price just gone up again

Marchwood.

I hope your titled friend didn't play today using his system. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind as I followed his instructions last night as I sorted the races for today.
If people use different papers the forecasts may well be different especially with the last 5/6 in the betting.
Even more worrying a couple of horse with no chance, that are running again quickly could well stop a horse with a good chance from qualifying. I know it is advisable to have fit horses on your side but to restrict the fitness factor to the most recent runs. you could be the fittest horse in the race but if you have no chance on form or ability, fitness won't help much.
The consistency factor backed up with the betting forecast are the most important elements in this system. As long as your horse is fit does it matter if other horses have run more recently.
I still think the lack of some ability rating is a major defect, and if your friend had decided to try out his method on Sat, Tue, or today he wouldn't have bothered to contact you with his revelations.
I am not trying to make a complicated puzzle more complicated, and I am not looking for the missing link. I am just saying you get out what to put in and there is NO easy way and you can't cut corners, and expect to win consistently.

Regards

Mtoto

My friend is I believe a real friend and we have corresponded through an interest in vdw for many months.

As always, the majority of people are looking to do the job, with less effort. I do believe that what my friend is saying and was backed up by
someone that had written a book 'The Pros and Cons
of VDW' is worthy of attention. As always, whether you adopt the methods or not is entirely a decision for you.

On ability, I should add that the five VDW letters mentioned, do not mention ability ratings! I will read the books again and try and discover when the matter of ability, in the vdw form, was first was mentioned.

We still believe that the basic methodology was based around the numerical picture; most of which is, if my memory is correct, covered in the first letter.

I do agree about betting forecasts but tend to feel that, as has been said many times, they all even out in the long run- so stick with one. In this years Derby for instance Galileo was not in the first five in the Daily Express. I rest your case!

regards
Marchwood

Marchwood.

I apologise if I have miss read the instructions I thought it said the 4 richest races. The horses you mention ran in the 5th,6th,8th, richest races. Unless I am misunderstanding some of the other rules that made it 8 bets in a day. Why was there only the three on Friday or is there a level you don't go under say £6000 penalty value but if that is right there was a loser on Friday.

At this point I would like to point out I am not a vdw purist, and I have made adaptations where I felt necessary. I could never see the logic of only taking the richest 2 races at a meeting and going to races of less class at another meeting. I also use a different ability rating to the one vow suggested. In fact the purists would think I am way out of line, and had to join a vow group through a friend. That put cat among the pigeons on several occasions, when the wrong questions were asked.

Regards

When considering a horses ability must we only look at ability in the same type of race.

particularily in the nh season, we come across animals that have been consistent at a given level ie. hurdles which then starts to chase in these cases, of which there are many, should we consider the entire career of the animal or just form that is relative to the race under consideration.

hope there is some kind sole who can clarify.

Hi Barney.

I can only give you my thoughts on this and who is to say I'm right but for what their worth here goes

How many times have you seem a good flat horse try hurdles and fail? The same with hurdles who go chasing, turf form fail on the dirt. the list is endless. In saying that there is the exception to every rule.
I would say ignore what has gone before and wait until the horse proves it's self at this particular art. What's the hurry, if you don't wait, you are only guessing.
I would say that, I'm the one that doesn't take a C, or D, as worth anything unless it is in the same class or better than the race being contested on the day.

In reply to our friends on the other thread, I would like to say while the experts may not agree on the final selections. Very few if any, could disagree that having good consistent horses with proven ability, improve your chances of finding a winner

Regards

i,m only a novice at this vdw so at the moment i,ve more questions than answers, so any help is appreciated and received with thanks,

on the matter of handicaps are there any other measures to apply??

one thing i have learned IF IN DOUBT WHAT IT BEAT WILL SORT IT OUT.

am i being to narrow in my view, to only consider races where the same weight was carried for class???

Hi again Barney.

Before your questions can be answered in detail you have to say which method your going to use.
The two main methods although both are very good the approach to races is very different. In saying this, I will say if you find one that combines both methods you have a very strong bet. If your selection is consistent, in the 5/6 in the betting forecast, has proved it has the ability in win the race. Plus is improving on speed figure and dropped in class that must be a winner in the race.
To your last question weight for class, I would say the results pretty good if the horse is carrying more weight it is no bad thing. People get hung up on weight, if it is carrying more weight in a handicap, it has usually has been dropped in class. That can be a big help, and improve the chances of winning.

Regards