• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

I did it my way

In the same post you talk about, he ironically precedes line with" Several times I have expressed the view that ratings should be looked upon as a guide only and not the ultimate means of selection."
As far as I know, you are using them as this, you use the speed ratings to select your probables.

First I don't use s/f when working out the probables. I have said I think the probables are just a ranking of the consistent horses plain and simple. Also when I'm being told I have it wrong about the way I think VDW measured ability. I'm told but some selections don't even have a s/f this is quite correct but when these horses are looked at in detail most also fail on the usual ability rating. This for me then begs the question did these horses get into the equation using some other method. Also when these horses are looked at I find all but one fall into the idea I used to find the Erin numbers.
I'm at a loose to understand why you think I use the ratings differently to the way VDW suggested, he said start highest rating.

Another post about compiling lists, which was touch upon later in more detail,no suggestion at all that it is an ability rating

Again I can only agree there is no mention of an ability rating, but you surely have to agree when VDW says ..."The important thing is to establish proven ability and here a previous speed figure of 80 plus, should give a reasonable base" he is using speed as a measurement of ability. If that measurement is accurate enough when compiling a list why would if fail when not used in a list?

his quip about which was the better rating Redcar or Epsom tells us this

When I read the above I took it to mean there is no way of knowing which is the stronger performance without an in death study of the form and/or class of race.

I remember reading a post between yourself and one of the prolific posters,he is clearly telling you that it was the way that VDW eliminated horses without giving the game away, I am not sure you understand the pain and effort that has been put in,in order to understand VDW,spending hours unravelling it, frustration a plenty, just freely offering up on a forum just undoes all the effort that others would not have to go through.

I hesitate to answer this as I can't understand why you can't see that while you may agree with the explanation offered it fails for me; I also have a problem with how would it give the game away, that is IF VDW did explain it as plainly and simply as you suggest.
I'm also having a bit of a problem with your last sentence in the above. Why do you think I haven't put in as much time and thought as the others? Why do you think talking in more detail would blow the whole thing wide open? Most wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about, very few have the form books, forecast.etc to keep up even if they wanted to.

Hedgehog,

First are you the original Hedgehog from Gummy's and other forums, if so Hi.

For me a recent VDW selection would be Sire Collonges at Cheltenham on 19/10/12. For me he had it all except perhaps price. He was top rated on ability, best/ strongest probable. Another that I wouldn't even consider backing at the price was Excelebration.
My last bet was Stagecoach Pearl place only on Saturday

Hazee,

Not sure where you get your ideas from. I can't speak for Boba but the only time I talk or think about the old races is when talking about VDW. It then seems logical as there is the a level playing fiel that we can refer back to as VDW had discussed those races!! Apart from that al my time is spent on present day racing of course using all I have learnt from the past and VDW

Be Lucky
 
How about discussing this in the present tense. Pick a race for tomorrow and dissect it. That way other people could contribute towards the theory. Nothing better than a working example! As far as I can see many of VDW's examples were after time ones. Or can't this be done?
 
Dicko14:

How about discussing this in the present tense. Pick a race for tomorrow and dissect it. That way other people could contribute towards the theory. Nothing better than a working example! As far as I can see many of VDW's examples were after time ones. Or can't this be done?
Click to expand...
I`m with you on this dicko14, but from what I have seen over the years from vdw`ers its not going to happen, even though that is what this forum is all about, learning from each other, sharing thoughts. They have been studying for years so why should they share with us who havent done the hard work, it is exactly like that in my opinion, there is an elitism about it, a them and us attitude, I am sure the mods will find lots of PMing going on to keep the info safe.
 
The majority of the books were offered up in the inner sanctum for those who wanted to pay an active interest in VDW if they so wished.

There is nothing elitist in it at all, if so I would be dismissing every selection that is placed up on the forum for one reason or another.
I appreciate others have there own way of selecting horses and would not question their reasoning behind this.

When reading the books anybody could apply this to the races that happen everyday, if you really want to understand VDW, it is imperative to look at several of the horses that he offered up, but you have to look at every piece of the form in order to gain a true understanding.

By just reading the books, you are skimming the surface.
Like I have already said. I have helped many people by giving a leg up, in other words, I have told them something that you will not find by skimming the surface, the ball is then in their court to decide if they want to push forward or not, nobody is forced to do it, they have to have the enthusiasm and patience to succeed, because many wrong turnings can happen.

And just for a point, I have offered up a foot in the door with my previous posts which appears to be completely ignored.

Maybe later on, I will offer more, but to be honest, I do not like how the thread is going, so may not bother anymore with it, I would rather get the other half nagging my ear, than get in involved at present.
 
Hopes it not my post Bobba. All I was trying to do was get a whole new perspective for the members who haven't read the books. I just felt a working example of how the basics are used would whet the appetite and open up the thread a bit more.
Apologies if I have overstepped the mark. It wasn't my intention to do so.
:'(
 
Not at all Dicko,no need to apologise,

The problem with VDW is there several levels of knowledge as you go forward your opinion changes either for the good or the bad.
The other problem then is it starts getting out of hand,you get those with little or no knowledge throwing aspersions against those who have spent years looking at it.
Got no problem with opinion if it is valid but then if it is not valid whats the point.
 
I was far to busy with family and business interests and missed the VDW articles when they originally appeared,but was introduced to them about 12 years ago by a very successful pro punter and phoneline tipster(now retired).
Over a period of time,in person,and by phonr(no charge :)) he gave me his own take(with great insight) on the work of VDW,also his own approach to punting,none of which I can discuss here of course as part of my 'what comes to me,stays with me' routine which has been very difficult at times,but has proved itself to be the best policy for me,sharing is one thing,breaking a confidence,another.
I fully appreciate the stance of Boba regarding sharing 'light bulb' moments through his own work or during discussions with others, and is certainly not being elitist.
My own view of the work of VDW,is that he has given hope and a structured logical approach to many punters that have been faffing about for years clutching at straws,but,and I may be the odd man out here,especially on this thread :),I don't think he could walk on water,which seems to be the belief held by many of his top devotees,one of whom even went to the extent of 'stalking' him,finding out his true identity and visting his home...
I believe we are very fortunate to have Boba on this forum,he has shared many things,including much of the work of VDW,and as a Brucie Bonus,hasn't got his head stuck up his own arse,has got a sense of humour,would not brighten up any room just by leaving it,is always helpful,never posts in a condescending manner,and is a top man imo...Cheers.
The real h
 
goodpost_zps4d407be6.gif
 
Scar:
Dicko14:
How about discussing this in the present tense. Pick a race for tomorrow and dissect it. That way other people could contribute towards the theory. Nothing better than a working example! As far as I can see many of VDW's examples were after time ones. Or can't this be done?
Click to expand...
I`m with you on this dicko14, but from what I have seen over the years from vdw`ers its not going to happen, even though that is what this forum is all about, learning from each other, sharing thoughts. They have been studying for years so why should they share with us who havent done the hard work, it is exactly like that in my opinion, there is an elitism about it, a them and us attitude, I am sure the mods will find lots of PMing going on to keep the info safe.
Click to expand...
If its not Dickos post it must be mine, if so please accept my apologies, it was not my intention to upset you. I still dont understand though why its not possible for those of you who are more familiar with vdw than the others here to discuss your findings pre race, even if there is disagreement about which is the true selection at least it would narrow the field for the rest of us, and as dicko says,(All I was trying to do was get a whole new perspective for the members who haven't read the books. I just felt a working example of how the basics are used would whet the appetite and open up the thread a bit more. ) So please dont stop posting, I may look in from time to time but wont post.
I`m out. :-X
 
Scar,

Dont worry about it,there is more in life to worry about.

As soon as I had seen the thread started,I knew there was going to be trouble.
horseFlog_zps1b44426f.gif


Taffman once refered to it like marmite, he is absolutely correct, you will always have a split field.

I think the thread needs to grow and any information will grow with it.

We have been down the offer up pre-race post up, but it rarely works and there are several reason for that.

Hayzee, thanks for your kind words, just for the record, I have also written and received a letter from VDW, I bought a letter from EBAY that was sent to Tony Peach about him receiving 6 copies of 'Systematic Betting', signed C Van Der Wheil and at the top it had his address....doh!!, so I wrote him and he was kind enough to reply me,it was extremely short and very frail writing.
But glad of the reply. ;D
 
Hi,

I suppose I should be happy new folk are asking about VDW and downloading some of his literature. Here I must say I think Bobba is doing a great job, and I do have a copy of The Silver Lining I'm more than happy to share (if I knew how). A PM would be the easiest way for me, but if anyone else know a quicker easier way just shout!

What I would like to see is someone else raise a few of the questions I have asked in the past, and I would dearly like to see some answers that really hold up. I will ask these questions again and hopefully someone will see why I ask them and agree they need answering, and even better come up with answers I can follow the logic and change my stance. I have to say it does get a little frustrating when the answers just come back as a quote from the literature.

I don't expect anyone to give an answer that spells it all out, but have to say I'm more than happy to answer any question because I don't think that can/will happen.

The first and most important question for me is why do people think VDW would have used a different measurement to gauge ability for a list to follow? If it is accurate enough for a list of horses to follow and then used for older horses including NH horses would it be logical not to use it instead of using as VDW said a quick easy method? Something that can't be found just by reading the literature for me at least casts doubt about the use of the Sporting Life and therefor the use of the prize money based ability rating early on. We then also have the problem of VDW saying when the ability rating was introduced it was said it would be unwise to stray from the top few. In a cross check he does say the top three consistent horse are also ok, but when the examples are studied there are enough selections that make me doubt he (VDW) didn't follow his own rules or guide lines. Either that, or he was using a different measurement of ability.

Then we have the probables problem or as some know them the Erin numbers. The first question is are they important to the BASIC method? I think so as I think they are the 2nd numerical picture VDW talked about. When we look at SIAO VDW mentions the probables but he say they are marked with an asterisk, but in the first example there are four horses marked which are the 3 probables? Then there is the question of how, and when are theses probables found? This is why Beacon Light is important to me, most say he wasn't the selection because he was out of form or a none form horse, if this is so then surely it is logical to think the probables are found before form is looked at or he would have been eliminated there and then. I don't make him an out of form horse, I have him as a horse that didn't have the form/ability so a probable but well out of it when form is studied, saying probables are found BEFORE other factors are looked at. As said I have serious problems making BL out of form, when I look at the reasons others ofter to explain why it raise questions about other selections.

While I doubt VDW was/is as clever as Fulham thinks I do think he was logical in his thinking, so the methods are not as complicated as some would have us believe. So why is it so hard for the majority to get a better working idea of how it works? Why have so many given up or just decry it. I have never met the man but I'm convinced Mr Peach went out of his way to muddy the waters to make the whole thing marketable. Why didn't he ask the question when VDW claimed 80%winners ( that is if it was a claim VDW actually made), who do you know in horse racing that would just accept such a claim without some proof?

Be Lucky
 
Excellent post Mtoto,

I will try and respond to it later.

I have just offered up Silver lining, it was in a two fold condition, so I sorted into single pages
 
might be useful to start with vdw first letter if we can discuss this thanks,

Wiko,

The floor is yours away you go. What are your thoughts and or questions?

Be Lucky
 
Wiko:

hi mtoto,

obvious ones how did vdw find his probables.... form horses non form horses he did not put any ability ratings in his first letter...so they cannot be part of this puzzle imho.. vdw later gave some hints at his ratings he may have used do you think haig ratings alongside his speed figures to balance the horses chances
Click to expand...
 
Wiko,

I think I have seen your name on other forums and judging by your question about Haig ratings you know something about VDW.

First I don't think Haig's ratings played any major part in the methods. To be honest I have never seen those ratings, but as VDW said BL was well out of it on the ratings I don't think they were used. In fact I still haven't seen any set of commercial rating that made BL well out of it, be they based on speed or form.

Agreed the ability rating had not been mentioned but do you really think someone as serious as VDW would even try to work a race without using a measurement of ability? VDW said he used two set of rating to confirm the basic figures. In the Erin example he said he used TWO methods of rating, I think one of those methods was/is the ability rating he used. The other was the probable ranking.

You ask how did he find the probables. As I have said before I think the probables are the 2nd picture, and are based on statistics. So where did VDW show the work he had done with statistics? Here you have to remember VDW didn't have computers and/or web sites he had to do the work the hard way. Why would he bother with all that work if it wasn't an important part of the basic method?

Be Lucky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top