At least I'm prepared to admit it.

Mickeddy
You suggested looking at some races from 1988, as far as I can see the Post only goes back to 1993. Am I missing something?

Epi

If you search the Racing Post site for trhe name of the winner of the race it's possible to go back beyond 1993. I think most of the form is there back to 1987.
Pegwell Bay's oft mentioned race can be accessed this way.

Rob

Rob
Thanks, I'll try that.

What little discussion there is seems to have migrated to the '80%' thread.

I was always sceptical of this 80% winners tag for VDW and I can't help thinking that it detracts from the main theme.

There have been many posts from people rubbishing VDW. There seems to be little in the way of 'better' methods of analysis coming from these sources.

Take a look at a few the basic tenets of form as discussed by Van Der Wheil. They're in the approximate order that they were dealt with in correspondence.

1) 'The first 5 in the betting forecast in non-handicaps and the first six in handicaps, produce a high percentage of winners.'

This is true and can be proven by running RSB software. It's backedup by statistics over a long period of time. It's also the area where the bookmakers have the least advantage.

2) 'If we add the last three placings of the respective horses in the betting forecast together, we have a numerical picture. This can be illuminating and show, subject to other considerations, the good betting propositions. A high percentage of winners come from the lowest figures.'

Once again this can be proven by running an historical database. It's not saying that horses don't win with poor form figures, but what it does say is that those with good figures are more likely to win than those with poor figures. I'd be more trusting of a horse with 121, 111, 211 as it's figures than 458, 634 or 625, 'subject to other considerations'.

3) 'Mr Swann may care to give thought not to a race as a whole, but to the respective horses' performances over the last two furlongs of each of their previous three outings. What a horse does, or does not do, at this stage will provide the answers.'

A horse's ability to get competitive and to 'put it in' at the business must be considered a key part of form evaluation.

4) The next point is the Ability rating.
'A simple way to rate the field on ability is to relate the prize money won to the number of races won.....For obvious reasons this is not foolproof, but at least it enables a better judgement to be made and usually it unwise to stray from the top few.'

Fairly simple this idea may be, and there are cases where it does give a false picture, but in general the higher the value of the race the better the race is. VDW acknowledged that it isn't always straightforward and qualified his remarks regarding Ability rating by stating 'I must again stress ratings are a guide and should be used in conjunction with other factors'.

Those are four very solid planks on which the VDW writings are based. The ideas were expanded upon over a number of years, but the basic ideas remained the same. Now to me these seem to be very useful tools to narrow down the field to the most likely winners.

Other publications have been mentioned. Clive Holt of Fineform uses a fairly similar approach, Peter Braddock's books also use similar form factors in his selection process. I'm sure there are others, but the fact that other sources may use a similar approach surely can't be said to invalidate the VDW method.

Too much is made of the smokescreen of '80% winners' which I believe is nigh on impossible to attain. The 80% thread shows just how tough it is, even for people who seem to have a better grasp of the methodology than many. Racing is now more competitive now than 20 years ago. However with careful study and use of data then it's possible to make a good profit from analysing races ina similar way to VDW.

There may or may not have been someone called Che Van Der Wheil. If he existed all well and good, if not then there have been plenty of works written under pen-names, but that doesn't invalidate them

It's simply ridiculous to dismiss VDW's methods out of hand, they are based on sound form principals. If others consider that they have more effective ways of studying form then fine, let's hear them or let them go away and make their money. I wish no one ill-luck in their betting. Rubbishing an idea because you don't agree with it achieves nothing unless you can prove that it is wrong or you can provide a better alternative.

Rob

jib
Take a hike then.

JIB

The Commonwealth was, of course, followed by the Restoration, and 343 years (to date) of monarchy. Something to reflect on there, surely?

But it was a monarchy in an entirely different form. The old ideas had been swept away. If the so called experts on VDW were prepared to update their ideas there is a good chance something would come of it. But as long as pricks like you and your friend investor remain you put sensible people off.

JIB/Jimmy

Sadly, your knowledge of history is as lacking as your knowledge of VDW.

Jimmy
you have been a thorn in my side ever since i came onto this board,So i also consider you a prick.

Thanks for the compliment investor.

Fulham

I see your knowledge of history is as good as your knowledge of VDW. Not very good in either.

Jimmy

You'll be interested to know that, sadly, my VDW bet lost today. I "booked" the c/f and 2nd c/f in the Bunbury Cup, the former wasn't sighted and the latter couldn't quite get there and finished a very close 2nd.

But every cloud ... If you have a look at the "Pricewise 9/7/03" thread on the "General Horse Racing Discussion" forum you'll appreciate that it was still a "good day in the office". (And that was posted some hours before the races concerned.)

It may have been posted before the race but you don't say you backed them. It's what I expect from you fulham. Typical cop out, you quote a few prices name a few horses and then if they win you claim you bet them and if they lose you can claim "I only named them, I did not say I was backing them". Like I say you're full of shit.
Nice to know though that you realise your limitations and rely on Pricewise for your selections as you know you can't pick them yourself.

Jimmy

Here is a free lesson as you seem not to understand the "Pricewise" postings.

Arbing = backing at the available early price, and laying off at lower odds on Betfair to recover stake placed on the initial bet. The difference in odds, be it half a point or ten points, times the initial stake, is the entirely risk-free profit.

Arbing Pricewise is virtually always possible, because those who can't "pick their own" (horses, Jimmy, not noses - use a handkerchief, please) back his selections like lemmings, so the early price almost always contracts. Naturally, Pricewise gets a proportion right (fortunately a bigger proportion than Johnd), and when he does ...

A useful supplement for the gaps between VDW selections, and sometimes helpful on days like yesterday when a VDW bet doesn't come off (after all, even he had a margin of losers).

I trust that was simple enough.

You're still full of shit. Where in that post you put up yesterday does it say you were backing them? It's fairly obvious, to all who know you, that had they been beaten you would have come up with some story about not being able to get them on.

Jimmy

Those who really know me - a good few of the VDWers - know I systematically arb. Pricewise.

If I had only layed the Pricewise's yesterday, I'd have been well down and, on your reckoning, would surely not have mentioned it.

If I had only backed Pricewise's yesterday, I'd have made a lot of money.

As it was, I arbed., made enough to cover the VDW bet and a little besides.

You are as daft as Epiglotis. He harbours suspicions that I back all sorts of horses just to put myself in a position that, once, I was able to face down Johnd's disbelief that a decent priced VDW winner had been backed (a common enough occurrence) by offering proof in the form of a Tote statement.

By your own admission, you have not read other than the very early VDW material, and explicitly not what I regard as the core work. Do yourself a favour. Learn how it really works, then you won't find the regular (albeit not daily) finding of big priced winners surprising.

Until then, try keeping that envy under better control, and do what even the thickest can do - make a few pounds arbing Pricewise.

I didn't say that I believe you did that, I pointed out that it was a possibility. The fact is I neither believe or disbelieve, I dont know and as such anything that you say about your betting after the race is meaningless, only you know the truth. You cant go into the bookie and expect to be paid if you planned to back a horse but were delayed on your way to the shop can you? Try telling the bookie it was a VDW selection, explain where it was in the c/f hierarchy until your eyes squeak, they still wont accept your bet. Unless you post definite clearly intended selections before the off there is no point discussing such horses in betting terms. If you want to discuss theoretical aspects thrown up by the results that's a different matter.