Perhaps that is your problem; seeing problems where there aren't any?
If VDW intended to confuse, (As many would have it), there would have been no better way than to entitle a piece ' The Myth Of The Missing Link' and then go ahead and say there was one.
He didn't intend to confuse, this thread proves he didn't need to.

JIB
Thanks for that, some of has have learned something today from this thread.

Johnd

In the end, it's a matter of interpretation (and experience) on which we are clearly not going to agree. But I will venture two more comments:

a) the title of the second article to which I referred was almost certainly (like all the others, including "Van Der Wheil Spells It All Out") the editor's (Tony Peach). As his own publications (and his "Peach-Notes") indicate, TP has little grasp of VDW's approach - and I have had two telephone conversations with him in the last few weeks which I assure you confirm that indication. In other words, I think you would do well to assume that the titles have nothing to do with VDW personally, and are the creation of a well-meaning journalist to whom we all have reason to be grateful, but one with no very firm grasp of the content of VDW's writings;

b) I can't recall anyone arguing that VDW INTENDED to confuse, but that he DID confuse is evident from the responses to his letters reprinted in "The Golden Years" (eg from Messrs Swan and Marney, and "Hotform"); various of VDW's own later comments (eg the second para. of "Introduction to VDW Update" reprinted in "Betting the VDW Way"); some of what has been published about VDW (eg in "The Silver Lining") and some of the contributions to this thread.

Fulham,

Sorry for being a little dim. If you keep the examples in date order the horses I am looking for are from the 26/12 86 Desert Orchid, not counting Nomadic Way, and
Pegwell Bay.


Investor.

No, Warssan wasn't a bet for me today. I had him as second best in the race to Albanova. She unfortunately was a bet.

Swish,

As I only keep records of my bets I can't answer your question about how the shorter priced horses do. There were 2 winners today that went unbacked because of the price. The main reason I won't back short priced horses is, I aim at 2 winners a week and cover to win a certain amount. I never have fun bets, every bet is to make the wages. It only takes a few losers and the stakes can get too high. I do know from experience it is better to cut out the shorter prices. That is not to say there are not days like today when a shorter priced one would have been welcome. When Yesterday went to 4/1 I played, making 2 losers today. I had been backing her ante post from before the Guineas, she would have been my bonus for good behaviour. Then when she went to 4/1 she came into play for the wages. Guess it will be bread and jam next week unless I can find a few tomorrow.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Thanks. I'll get back to you on them in the next couple of days.

You are correct in saying we will not agree on our interpretations of VDW's method. However,the points you raise need an answer, mainly so that other may come to their own conclusions, rather than follow the misguided path set out by you and your predecessors.

VDW only once openly disagreed with Tony Peach on the titles of his work. That was on 'Systematic Betting', the first word being the anathema which he opposed frequently as being methodical rather than systematic.
Not only did he not oppose the title of 'The Myth Of The Missing Link, he actually went into some depth of discussion of it in the article that accompanied it.
In the paragraph beginning " A variety of excuses" he shows quite clearly that the missing link is an invention of those who misunderstood his method.
None of the above relys on supposition, it is all there in black and white.
I will say again, he didn't confuse, or attenpt to confuse, the only confusion was amongst those who didn't understand his message. That that is still the case today is entirely down to those who will not believe he spoke the truth, and as a consequence have to invent their own interpretation, something which this thread has turned into an art form.
The message is there, the answer is where he said it was, but it will never be understood by those who only believe the parts that are convenient to their own understanding. For the few others, there may still be some hope.

Johnd
That is 2 things you have said lately that have been rather odd,The first one being about Fayr jag dropping in class,i really am beginning to wonder about you,Have you actually read the missing link i feel sure you have but are you saying this paragraph is made up

It came as no suprise when the publication of the above brought a vicious attack from a brighton reader in which he displayed all the attributes of a bigotted loser.Complete lack of temperement and absolutely no idea what constitues form or else he would have seen that in every repeat every illustration the winner was the class/form horse ,These were little owl 4/5 Sunset Christo 5/1 gaye chance 11/1 and kenlis 11/4.

These were the five races which the text indicated for application of the method as i use it and you see everything is true when you find the MISSING LINK.

Fulham,

Good morning to you and anyone else looking in at present.

I`d be very interested in how you view JAZZ MESSENGER in the first at Epsom today.

Down in both class ( value ) and grade having produced a clear cut win last time.Clearly an improving colt who should improve again over today`s distance.

But carries 20 lbs more off a 12 higher mark and is unproven with todays weight of 9-04.

Not a form horse ???

I know its a very busy day but any feedback would be of interest.

Cheers,

Johnd

We are at least agreed that VDW did not intend to confuse.

You say "it is all there in black and white", which is on a par with the oft-said "the facts speak for themselves". Both seem clear and straightforward but in fact are neither. Facts NEVER speak for themselves, but "speak" only in the interpretation of whoever is commenting. VDW's words exist in black and white, but as you and I are clearly demonstrating, are capable of various interpretations. But that does not of course mean that all interpretations are equally valid. Taking the texts as a whole, including the section to which Investor has kindly drawn attention, PLUS (what I think, by your own admission, you lack) the experience of working through VDW's examples, I'm comfortable with mine.

A final point. You say that VDW only once openly disagreed with Tony Peach about the titles of his work, in relation to "Systematic Betting". There you may have the advantage over me as I have never discussed that issue with TP and don't know whether VDW was consulted about, and therefore had the opportunity to discuss, the titles and sub-titles TP put to his "Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book" contributions. But I do know that, although he contributed the "Foreword", that was all TP had to do with "Systematic Betting", which was commissioned and produced under the oversight of someone else at Raceform (the current MD's brother), who was responsible for the title.


Determined

Just off to buy the Post. I'll comment later.

1.40 Epsom update,

Jazz Messenger - a Roushayd type ????

They've obviously given you someone elses' medicine this morning.

Determined

There is one issue of order about which I am not yet clear: does one take weight into account when establishing in-formness, or afterwards as part of the in depth check on form in the context of capability? For a long time I took the latter view, but changed to the former some months ago in the light of one of Guest's posts: hence my response to you a few days ago re Crow Wood. Since then it has been put to me that I may have been wrong to make the switch and that the right procedure (at least in some circumstances) is to establish in-formness first and then consider weight at a later stage. The evidence from VDW's examples, at least as I've examined it so far, seems inconclusive on the point, but hopefully further research will yield a definitive answer.

All that by way of saying I'm in two minds re the issue, which is well exemplified by Jazz Messenger. Earlier in the week I would have been unequivocal: not a form horse in the context of today's race, despite the fact that the form is clearly progressive and indeed he has achieved success in a higher class race than today's. Today I'm less sure, and maybe we should treat him as a form horse and address the weight issue later in the analysis.

Will I be backing him? Yes. But NOT as a VDW selection. I will be backing him solely as part of my normal, "blind" arbing of Pricewise selections.

From a VDW perspective, I'll be leaving the race alone.

Johnd,

Good morning. Thanks again for giving me a copy of the 82/83 Chaseform annual.

Turning your recent posts and the comments within. I`ve no interest in getting drawn on such but I am keen to hear what you have to say with regards todays and any other days racing.

There`s plenty to get our teeth into today so lets here some of your thoughts.

I`ll set the ball rolling.

At this very EARLY stage I am interested in several horses today all with VDW in mind, ie -

1.40 Epsom Anani, Jazz Messenger & Logsdail

3.10 Epsom Bishop`s Court & Rudi`s Pet

4.00 Epsom Refuse To Bend, Alamshar & Brian Boru

5.20 Epsom Halmahera

1.50 Donny Frizzante & Effervesce

2.50 Donny Ekraar

*** not looked at Haydock yet but I`m suspecting a bet will be found from those listed above but again it is very early stages ***

[This message was edited by Determined on June 07, 2003 at 08:51 AM.]

[This message was edited by Determined on June 07, 2003 at 08:52 AM.]

Fulham,

Wasn`t aware of your last posting as I was busy posting mine but your comments are greeted with joy as I was finding it really hard to accept this weight issue.

2 recent eg`s where I really thought a horse would win namely Dubaian Gift (Lingfield) and Crow Wood saw me leave well alone because of this weight issue.

With regards the 1.40 Epsom I really do believe the winner will come from my shortlist so good luck.

Hi Fulham and Determined,
Re the 1.40 at Epsom I too had Jazz Messanger as C/f both on ability and speed but taking the weight under capability think its too much of an ask.For interest I went on to look at the others and like the chances of Anani and Tiber but will not be playing as I am still getting to grips with the methodology and picking these difficult races to practice on.
In the Diomed I have Smirk and Gateman as class/form horses. Again I am more comfortable with handicaps but thought I would have a crack at this one.If I had to choose it would have to be the latter on capability grounds.
If you have had a look at this one I would be interested in your comments.

All the best for today.

Graham

Determined

re the weight issue, and subject to re-checking, from my lists of VDW's handicap selections (over fifty), in only one case is there what I would regard as a weight problem, and that of course needs close attention. In other words, the overwhelming majority of VDW's handicap selections had shown (on my understanding of how he factored in weight) that they could carry the weights allocated in the races for which VDW considered them.

As you say, there are cases where horses with good, progressive form like Crow Wood win with markedly higher weights than they have shown they could manage, and I hope Jazz Messenger is another today. But what is more important: screening out losers or failing to back a few winners that show a capacity to carry weight hitherto unproven?

Fulham,

Thanks.


Graham,

I have the 2.40 Epsom down as a tricky contest with many questions and will not be giving it a great deal of attention.

Good luck if you play,

Fulham

I have discussed the issue you mention with Tony Peach, I can tell you that he sub-edited all of VDW's material, and it was TP who was responsible for the sub-headings as well as the book titles. In fact he discussed the title of one of the books with me, and adopted my suggestion for the title. Johnd is correct that VDW did not like the word system, and did not approve of the title Systamatic Betting. Finally perhaps I can quote from a book written by Tony peach:-
"Now in his eighties I asked Mr. VDW was there indeed a missing link?
This is what he told me:
"It's true, not all my secrets were revealed, indeed far from it, but there is certainly enough in what I have written to enable anyone with a reasonable amount of grey matter to consistently find winners.

Graham

re the 2.40 Epsom, I agree with you c/f-wise. Not quite so sure I'd opt for Gateway in preference to Smirk on capability, but the latter having failed to win on all four attempts over today's trip and the former having won on the course I can see clear evidence in support of your view.


Mister Ed

Thanks. That confirms what I supposed about the titles and sub-titles in the SCHB and the Peach compilations. But TP recently told me Mr de Wesselow's brother (I think, certainly a relation) had handled "Systematic Betting" on Raceform's behalf.

I think the key words in your quote are "a reasonable amount of grey matter". From what we can fairly assume about VDW from the quality of his thinking, what he regarded as a "reasonable amount of grey matter" probably excludes quite a few!

Hi all,

I’m a bit puzzled by Guests selection of Alamshar for the Derby.

Last year when he selected High Chaparral I thought , from memory, its main rivals had stamina doubts but I don’t get that same impression this year. Couple that with Alamshar being all out to gain a short margin victory last time out and it just seems too risky to me.

Hats off to Guest if he picks the winner 2 years on the trot but personally I’ll be leaving this one alone.

Cheers.

Guest,

I see you are looking in so firstly the very best of luck with Alamshar.

Personally, I cannot split the 3 main Irish contenders although I do very much like the well Alamshar gallops.

From memory, I`m pretty sure the very good Gerald Delamere has a close link with John Oxx and I note he selects Alamshar as he did Sinndar.

May be worth taking note.