I shall start a new thread on this subject.
It shall be called VDW RE-THINK
Swish

Anybody notice how good Gummy's songwriting is?

I can't say I'm greatly enlightened by anything I've read on this thread. I read it, as I read others on this website, for entertainment as well as in the hope that a worthwhile nugget will emerge. If the views of the believers upset me so much that I felt obliged to write long choleric essays, however, I would stop reading it. No-one's arm is being twisted.

Rather than bury this thread, why not deny access to Fulham and his ratpack; they should be relatively easy to identify?
Despite his protestations, he is, without doubt, the author of its recent problems, and without this thread to recruit from, his new stage will surely collapse underneath him.
That one act would dispose of much of the dissent, and maybe allow this thread to continue with its original purpose.
No need to throw out the baby, just the dirty bathwater!

Jimmy

There is no question but that VDW is a methodology not a system, and there are matters where individual judgement comes in - particularly as regards the bet/no bet decision. But there is not much room for judgement in identifying the c/f and form horses, that is almost wholly a matter of discovering and applying the right technique.

Thus two of the three recent grade B handicaps were won by the c/f. Whether one backed the c/f, ie thought him strong enough, good value etc was down to personal judgement. As it happens I only backed one of the two, which with hindsight was poor judgement on my part, But whether I'd backed one, both or neither, and whether other VDWers had reached similar or different bet/no bet decisions, does not effect the fundamental reality - that the objectively identified c/f won, as it often does,

The other race was won by a form horse, not the c/f. If you took the trouble to look at the race, even without a precise understanding of VDW's "missing link", I doubt you'd have any difficulty reducing the field of 29 to no more than four. If you couldn't sort out the likely (and in event actual) winner from those four, then you'd need to ask yourself some searching questions, such as why on earth do I think I can make money backing horses? But there again, as you've apparently all but given up backing horses, you've presumably already answered that question realistically for yourself.


JIB

When VDWers refer to races that took place twenty or more years ago, many don't see the point, and others argue (with only a little justification) that they can't study them because the Form Books are not available. So I mention the most recent high class handicaps, where the form is freely available to all - indeed I expect most relevant Posts still await their ultimate, potato-pealing wrapping, fate. But still no effort is made to explore and understand, and instead the usual lengthy and ignorant diatribes appear. Yes, I think idle and/or stupid are the right words - and after all, there is clear supporting evidence in some cases.

Why not spend at least part of the time you obviously take in preparing your airy nothings to study a race like yesterday's in the light of the method as I've set it out. Then, maybe, you'll feel able to bet to the massive Betfair minimum of two pounds, rather than fool around trying to stake a pound.


III

See what I mean by "ambiance"?


Johnd

Your envy is so palpable it must be truly painful for you to experience. Why not do yourself a favour and go back to square one, and check out the recent races as I've suggested to JIB. Then, even if your bet/no bet judgement is poor, you'll be fishing in well-stocked ponds and on a random basis should get at least a 23% strike rate (one correct selection in three from the 70% or so of races won by the form horses).

JiB
You're right. I don't bother to open the window. I wait for the smell to go.
It always does ........ unless, of course, others in the room take the view that fire is best fought with fire.
As for my search for nuggets ....... I don't mind if they fail to surface here. Is there really a method which beats reading the form book, going racing (or sitting in front of a screen) and keeping one's eyes open?

A nasal masochist.

Dr F, the smell of coffee is infinately preferably but, each to his own, or, in A1`s case, anybodyelses.

Fulham
When the Institute of Contemporary British History sits down to listen it presumably expects to hear about a fresh dig into the old ground which inevitably has to be worked over. So the paper you recently presented must have contained new material.
Perhaps you could be similarly forthcoming with this Institute of British (and Japanese and Brazilian) punters?
Rob North in his August 3, 12.29 contribution outlined his basic concept of the VDW method.
Is that all there is to it? Or can you tell us more?

Arkle

Historical papers almost always offer either a new interpretation of well-trodden ground, or a first look at something no one else (as far as the literature discloses) has looked at previously. My work falls into the latter area as I find that the more stimulating.

As regards VDW methodology, though, the matter is of a different character. He provides "answers" in the form of examples, and some clues (some explicit, some obscure) as to the methods which throw up the answers. The endeavour thus has more the character of solving a crossword puzzle than writing an historical study.

I believe the essence of VDW's main method is set out in his article of 26/1/85 to be found in "Ultimate Wheil of Fortune", ie the isolation of the class/form horse, the one in VDW's experience "most likely to win". That article assumes a certain amount of existing understanding of how VDW worked - all of which is to be found within the covers of "The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil".

In various posts, for example over the last Cheltenham Festival, I've set out as much as I am going to do about how I approach the class/form puzzle: certainly enough for anyone familiar with the articles to which I've referred to satisfy themselves, by reference to the most recent high grade handicaps, that form horses, and particularly the c/fs, win often enough to keep any competent follower of the methodology comfortably ahead of the game.

With two booklets costing perhaps £10 each, and the aid of Guest's posts on this thread (and perhaps a few of mine) anyone prepared to put in some time and effort can make real headway. But to make the full journey and understand precisely what VDW meant by "the missing link", a term he used in his article of 13/4/85, also in "Ultimate Wheil of Fortune", unless someone who knows tells you, there is no alternative to analysis of the examples VDW gave, and that means obtaining the old Form Books, etc and hours of study.

Fortunately there are few who are sufficiently capable and prepared to put in the necessary time and effort, so no worries about the geese and golden eggs syndrome.

Dr Fulham,

Is this a record? 3 hours exposure and Jessie James and his bandits haven`t shot it to bits yet. Fingers X`d

It will have to wait a bit longer as A1 wont open the window and there is a shortage of gas-masks.

III

Nothing to shoot to pieces. Just the usual model of lucidity and honesty.

Today's big handicap goes to the 2nd class/form horse, Budelli, which few would have had any difficulty preferring to the c/f, by just one point on the ability rating, Ringmoor Dawn. The two had met as recently as 24 May and today Budelli was 10lb better off with RD for a mere 1.5l beating on that occasion. Even Johnd might have been able to sort that particular "match" out: there again, perhaps not!

now now!

The end is near

Maybe so rab, i was reading through some of the earlier pages the other day and found Bensams post on page 23 of interest, take a look for yourselves you could say its only one mans opinion but if i remember correctly he was quite respected that guy.

Try to avoid spending any time in a room with Fulham. He is all wind and piss.

Johnd
Is your shirt still safely on your back,Or have the bookies had that aswell.

Hi Walt,Was this the letter on page 22
posted January 06, 2002 12:15 PM
To those capable of allowing the mind to do the work, don't be misled into thinking you need all of J Bingham's books, just get 'Be a Winner- Back Methodology.....' wherein vdw describes the rudiments of a very profitable method.

Don't also be misguided into thinking you need to do the work required for a degree. Studying the early examples upto and including Lady of Verona will introduce you to a working knowledge of how vdw assessed form. Keep referring to all the vdw letters and you will achieve at least an 80% strike rate. Those with the aforementioned mind will be sidetracked by the those who think they have something authorative to say but I hope this constructively helps those that have a mind.

Or this one on page 23

The answer to your question is I don't know as I didn't need to look it up. You don't need the form of Uther Pendragon's race either.

Just in case anyone thinks I am going to start handing out free answers, I am not. The reason for this intervention was to stop people rushing out and buying formbooks or other items that aren't necessary. You may find, as others have (although some don't know it yet), that after studying the early examples and reading the letters, the methods are not for you, in which case you would have spent alot of money for nothing. It's up to you to do the work in order to appreciate the true worth of the methods and it does take effort in finding the answers but if former experience is anything to go by, not many will.

Regards