The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune - "From Start to Finish", "Entering the Straight"
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
JennyK
Gelding
Cheers,
Pitmatic . My forecast is clearly the SL's, so unless DH was in the first six of the SC's, a winner from outside VDW's normal territory.
And I think it would be surprising to regard a 3/1/3 as "highly consistent". If DH qualified so would any number from outside the first six in numerous other VDW examples. A different matter had he been 1/1/1.
Pitmatic . My forecast is clearly the SL's, so unless DH was in the first six of the SC's, a winner from outside VDW's normal territory.And I think it would be surprising to regard a 3/1/3 as "highly consistent". If DH qualified so would any number from outside the first six in numerous other VDW examples. A different matter had he been 1/1/1.
OnTheNod
Mare
Yes it was when he introduced a different take on his methods, pity Chesham is not about he could explain better it was with using data from the old sporting chronicle, i wonder if it was like with the booklets an opportunity to push copies of the paper as well.Cheers,
And I think it would be surprising to regard a 3/1/3 as "highly consistent". If DH qualified so would any number from outside the first six in numerous other VDW examples. A different matter had he been 1/1/1.
Pitmatic
Colt
JennyK I Found this in my archive - I hope you find it of some use!!!Posted on a different forum, a number of years ago, by Fulham......
"I've now had the chance of checking the Sporting Chronicle for the day in question, and can confirm that what VDW said in his article of 18/1/1986 is correct, insofar as DH was one of the three most popular selections.
Going down that route, one would in fact have been looking at five horses, as follows:
The Thatcher - selected by four tipsters.
Pearlstone - selected by three.
Cocaine, Desert Hero and King's Parade - each selected by two.
Interestingly, of the five, only three would figure if one started with the first six and equals in the forecast, whether one chose the Life or the Chronicle.
Both papers gave the same forecast first and second favs. - King's Parade and Patrick's Fair, and had two others, Claude Monet and Pearlstone in common. But the Chronicle had Carved Opal and Cocaine, while the Life had Prince Bless, The Thatcher and Great Light.
Now all we have to do is understand how VDW by-passed horses with much higher ability ratings than Desert Hero, and seemingly "in form", such as Pearlstone, to make DH the class/form horse".
Pitmatic
Colt
Also found this post by Lee in my archive.......
"Weight and Desert Hero
People continue to ask many questions on all aspects of VDW because presumably there are parts of the method that they don’t understand (and none of us ever will, fully)? They are asking questions but at the same time refuse to use the basic tools that he gave to assess class, which in turn leads you to the final answers on form. Particularly in handicaps OR’s cannot be used as a guide to class where VDW is concerned. The reason for this is down to VDW’s view on weight and its effects, which again is not conventional. The fact that he had a view on weight, which is undeniable to anyone who has read the books, means that those who chose to ignore it should concede that they will never move forward where HIS methods are concerned.
VDW’s ability rating was given to measure class, class of horse and class of race, both very important. The driving factor in racing is prize money, whether it is win or place prize money.
First of all the method that selected Desert Hero, Gaye Brief etc. was different to other methods that he used. It is similar to the Chase method, and like Guest pointed out with that one, the emphasis is on form, and it is here where the similarities are. Class, as always was important but not the driving factor. There was other criteria also; one of the 3 most consistent, and one of the top 3 on Split Second’s ratings were two of them.
In short, Desert hero had the best form going into the Imperial Cup – VDW wise, and met the other required criteria. His close 3rd whilst giving away such amounts of weight was a good performance when viewed relative to the rest of the field given the conditions that he now faced.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a long way from being as successful as VDW appeared to be with such priced horses as Desert Hero, but if there is one thing that I’m 100% positive about, it is that weight was a factor to consider where VDW was concerned, he said so many times, and more importantly it is evident in a great number of his examples.
For anyone who cares, a good example that springs to mind is Wing And a Prayer. Coming off the back of 2 wins against horses of his own age and winning with a penalty, he was then sent to contest a race against older horses. A look over the form shows that he had the measure of them class/form wise and so with his weight for age allowance he was all the way a winner. With the other factors that went his way it would have been a major surprise if he blotted the formbook, as VDW stated.
Similar types of bet occur fairly frequently and in these circumstances the strike rate, which VDW suggested was available overall, rises well in to the 90’s".
Seems that I was wrong earlier, when I said that consistency wasn't one of the most important factors in this method!!!
"Weight and Desert Hero
People continue to ask many questions on all aspects of VDW because presumably there are parts of the method that they don’t understand (and none of us ever will, fully)? They are asking questions but at the same time refuse to use the basic tools that he gave to assess class, which in turn leads you to the final answers on form. Particularly in handicaps OR’s cannot be used as a guide to class where VDW is concerned. The reason for this is down to VDW’s view on weight and its effects, which again is not conventional. The fact that he had a view on weight, which is undeniable to anyone who has read the books, means that those who chose to ignore it should concede that they will never move forward where HIS methods are concerned.
VDW’s ability rating was given to measure class, class of horse and class of race, both very important. The driving factor in racing is prize money, whether it is win or place prize money.
First of all the method that selected Desert Hero, Gaye Brief etc. was different to other methods that he used. It is similar to the Chase method, and like Guest pointed out with that one, the emphasis is on form, and it is here where the similarities are. Class, as always was important but not the driving factor. There was other criteria also; one of the 3 most consistent, and one of the top 3 on Split Second’s ratings were two of them.
In short, Desert hero had the best form going into the Imperial Cup – VDW wise, and met the other required criteria. His close 3rd whilst giving away such amounts of weight was a good performance when viewed relative to the rest of the field given the conditions that he now faced.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a long way from being as successful as VDW appeared to be with such priced horses as Desert Hero, but if there is one thing that I’m 100% positive about, it is that weight was a factor to consider where VDW was concerned, he said so many times, and more importantly it is evident in a great number of his examples.
For anyone who cares, a good example that springs to mind is Wing And a Prayer. Coming off the back of 2 wins against horses of his own age and winning with a penalty, he was then sent to contest a race against older horses. A look over the form shows that he had the measure of them class/form wise and so with his weight for age allowance he was all the way a winner. With the other factors that went his way it would have been a major surprise if he blotted the formbook, as VDW stated.
Similar types of bet occur fairly frequently and in these circumstances the strike rate, which VDW suggested was available overall, rises well in to the 90’s".
Seems that I was wrong earlier, when I said that consistency wasn't one of the most important factors in this method!!!
JennyK
Gelding
PitmaticInteresting. I have seen in the Gummy material that Lee gave quite a few pre-race selections and most if not all won. He thus has a lot more credibility than VDW to be claiming a strike rate rising "well into the 90s", though and not wishing to be thought crabby, I would be really surprised if he achieved that strike rate long term even with Wing And A Prayer types, given that falls, unseateds and pullings up after making a mess of a fence or hurdle seem intrinsic to the NH. With sprints all I have to worry about is a selection blowing the start!
At different points in his writings VDW emphasises different aspects of his approach and different techniques, but I am sure class and consistent form were always up there in his thinking. Lee is right in saying that class is not "the driving factor". That sentence I've quoted before from item 36 of "The Golden Years ... "talks of "the balance between class, form and the other factors" and I think the word "balance" was intended.
I certainly agree with Lee that "The driving factor in racing is prize money", though I suppose for a few it could be betting, which is why I continue to use VDW's win prize money measure to assess the class of a race. I also agree with him that weight is important; VDW's comment, in item 49 of "The Golden Years ..." "that horses have INDIVIDUAL weight limits beyond which THEY do not perform" (VDW's capitalisation) being very much to the point.
Consistency is an important factor in all VDW's examples, but not necessarily in the simplistic last three placings total relative to other runners. If we take the DH example, I cannot see any substantive difference between the three lowest three race totals, 6, 7, 7, and the next two, 8 and 9. One can't assess consistency properly just on numbers - the circumstances in which they were achieved is more important. And that is why I think
mick's Friday winner, Final Watch, is from a VDW point of view, so instructive. Take his last three placings and one gets a very ordinary score of 14. And whether that is one of the three or four lowest, whether from within the first six in the betting or the field, seems to me irrelevant. FW had consistent form, but not reflected in the 14. Rather, in the series of wins and seconds from runs in races of appropriate class on appropriate conditions. An 8th place in a much higher class race is neither here nor there, provided of course, as was the case on Friday, one is considering a race of broadly similar class and conditions to those where good consistent form had been demonstrated. I don't know how much time Lee or others have put into trying to understand the VDW examples; I've certainly put in plenty and I don't regard it as time wasted. Quite the contrary. But I found there came a time when I was learning more from my successes, and sadly the many more failures, analysing current races.
Last edited:
Bream
Yearling
Just a quick question, not only to Pitmatic but to anyone really.. At what point in time was "the chase method " either established or discussed? I do not remember ever reading that term before. I only remember the original selections ( which all seemed to have similar traits) , the "Spell's it all out" selections ( where the, currently contested, Ability rating ), was introduced but still with similar traits. The Desert Hero method ( probably not in it's right chronological order), and then "the Roushayd method". There was a Pegwell Bay example that followed. There was a "Handicap Hurdle method " mentioned by VDW. I have never heard about "the chase method" before.
formtheory
Stallion
Dear Mr Spiers,
Please excuse me for not answering your letter but regret that I have been ill for over a year and am often unable to attend business at all so would ask your understanding on this matter.
Regarding your letter to Mr Peach requesting information concerning a method I mentioned in an article published in S.C.H.B 2/4/83 which gave Desert Hero 20/1, Gaye Brief 7/1 Badsworth Boy 2/7 and Bregawn 100-30. I regret it is not possible to use Sporting Life as a substitute.
You will recall that the S.C.H.B. carried a 'Summary of Selections' in a small block for each meeting which represented the views of about 20 tipsters.
If you care to observe the races with the highest penalty value you will note that the winners are usually from the three market leaders, or put in a different way, horses which . . . for those who know the game, are fancied. For that particular method it was the three most fancied from the 'Summary' and not the betting fcast otherwise you were well on the way to solving the problem. As I recall Desert Hero, which was amongst the three was top rated on time and I believe 'Split Seconds' nap, but as you say it did not feature in the F'cast.
There is always another mode of action when working from a logical basis and you may care to give some attention to the following in the light of what I said above and in the knowledge of articles I have written to S.C.H.B. First of all delete EVERY hurdle race from the cards (This is ALL cards for the day).
From the chases delete all handicaps EXCEPT the one with the highest penalty value. Do the same with the non-handicaps so that you are left with the day's two best races (as far as this method is concerned). Note that it is not always the principal meeting that provides the races for consideration. Observation will show you that the first two in the frcst and especially the favourite are prime candidates for the winner's enclosure. Please do not look upon this as a SYSTEM because it isn 't, what it will do is focus attention upon just four horses from the many and push the scales well in your favour. There are three factors which govern success in racing, knowing what to look for, knowing where to find it, and the most important TEMPERAMENT. Anyone can be shown the first two, but the last is down to the individual and only mastery of that will bring about backing more winners than losers.
People can talk about value bets and all the rest of it but it still boils down to backing more winners than losers. I see no point or satisfaction in backing a 6/1 shot because it is value if it finishes down the field.
I have enclosed Saturday's 'cards' from the Daily Mail (not Towcester as it was not relevant). You will note that at Ascot Canny Danny was the class horse and had a pull of three pounds on handicap. This, with other factors easy to see made Fitzgerald's horse a very fine bet indeed. On the other hand Townley Stone at Doncaster (which was called off) was a hefty 7lbs out on handicap and although his class could and probably would, enable him to score it wasn 't a wager I would want to take.
The previous day Direct Line and Zamandra were the candidates but if you care to observe all the factors you will understand why only Direct Line carried my money. You will note that again the same Malton trainer is involved. Also last week Kumbi, Blue Reef etc were all sound wagers. Once you have grasped the essentials you will quickly see how to adapt for Flat racing. You may also care to observe the race with the least number of runners at the Principal Meeting.
Hoping these few words will be of help may I wish you the season's greetings and a fruitful 1985 on the race track.
Kind regards
C.Van der Wheil
Please excuse me for not answering your letter but regret that I have been ill for over a year and am often unable to attend business at all so would ask your understanding on this matter.
Regarding your letter to Mr Peach requesting information concerning a method I mentioned in an article published in S.C.H.B 2/4/83 which gave Desert Hero 20/1, Gaye Brief 7/1 Badsworth Boy 2/7 and Bregawn 100-30. I regret it is not possible to use Sporting Life as a substitute.
You will recall that the S.C.H.B. carried a 'Summary of Selections' in a small block for each meeting which represented the views of about 20 tipsters.
If you care to observe the races with the highest penalty value you will note that the winners are usually from the three market leaders, or put in a different way, horses which . . . for those who know the game, are fancied. For that particular method it was the three most fancied from the 'Summary' and not the betting fcast otherwise you were well on the way to solving the problem. As I recall Desert Hero, which was amongst the three was top rated on time and I believe 'Split Seconds' nap, but as you say it did not feature in the F'cast.
There is always another mode of action when working from a logical basis and you may care to give some attention to the following in the light of what I said above and in the knowledge of articles I have written to S.C.H.B. First of all delete EVERY hurdle race from the cards (This is ALL cards for the day).
From the chases delete all handicaps EXCEPT the one with the highest penalty value. Do the same with the non-handicaps so that you are left with the day's two best races (as far as this method is concerned). Note that it is not always the principal meeting that provides the races for consideration. Observation will show you that the first two in the frcst and especially the favourite are prime candidates for the winner's enclosure. Please do not look upon this as a SYSTEM because it isn 't, what it will do is focus attention upon just four horses from the many and push the scales well in your favour. There are three factors which govern success in racing, knowing what to look for, knowing where to find it, and the most important TEMPERAMENT. Anyone can be shown the first two, but the last is down to the individual and only mastery of that will bring about backing more winners than losers.
People can talk about value bets and all the rest of it but it still boils down to backing more winners than losers. I see no point or satisfaction in backing a 6/1 shot because it is value if it finishes down the field.
I have enclosed Saturday's 'cards' from the Daily Mail (not Towcester as it was not relevant). You will note that at Ascot Canny Danny was the class horse and had a pull of three pounds on handicap. This, with other factors easy to see made Fitzgerald's horse a very fine bet indeed. On the other hand Townley Stone at Doncaster (which was called off) was a hefty 7lbs out on handicap and although his class could and probably would, enable him to score it wasn 't a wager I would want to take.
The previous day Direct Line and Zamandra were the candidates but if you care to observe all the factors you will understand why only Direct Line carried my money. You will note that again the same Malton trainer is involved. Also last week Kumbi, Blue Reef etc were all sound wagers. Once you have grasped the essentials you will quickly see how to adapt for Flat racing. You may also care to observe the race with the least number of runners at the Principal Meeting.
Hoping these few words will be of help may I wish you the season's greetings and a fruitful 1985 on the race track.
Kind regards
C.Van der Wheil
mick
Sire
" TEMPERAMENT. Anyone can be shown the first two, but the last is down to the individual and only mastery of that will bring about backing more winners than losers. People can talk about value bets and all the rest of it but it still boils down to backing more winners than losers. I see no point or satisfaction in backing a 6/1 shot because it is value if it finishes down the field. "
It appears to myself that VDW uses the above to justify a method which will be producing short priced selections. Nothing wrong with this providing the user can turn a worthwhile profit from same but playing devils advocate the race type recommended would be an area where the market is very accurate Re the 1st and 2nd Fav which greatly reduces the value aspect.
I would replace his TEMPERAMENT with DISAPLINE and using his above 6/1 example i would be backing the horse firstly because i felt it was the one with the best chance of winning and only secondly because i felt the 6/1 was also better than chance, and without both then no bet. The bottom line for us all being long term profit then i would suggest that backing horses which you feel are poor value prices just because you think they will win is not going to prove helpful to your profit line.
The selections produced by VDW above would be the type which Bookmakers are most happy to lay with the exception being those customers who do emulate VDWs claimed strike rate but i am guessing these would be very rare. ?
It appears to myself that VDW uses the above to justify a method which will be producing short priced selections. Nothing wrong with this providing the user can turn a worthwhile profit from same but playing devils advocate the race type recommended would be an area where the market is very accurate Re the 1st and 2nd Fav which greatly reduces the value aspect.
I would replace his TEMPERAMENT with DISAPLINE and using his above 6/1 example i would be backing the horse firstly because i felt it was the one with the best chance of winning and only secondly because i felt the 6/1 was also better than chance, and without both then no bet. The bottom line for us all being long term profit then i would suggest that backing horses which you feel are poor value prices just because you think they will win is not going to prove helpful to your profit line.
The selections produced by VDW above would be the type which Bookmakers are most happy to lay with the exception being those customers who do emulate VDWs claimed strike rate but i am guessing these would be very rare. ?
arkle55
Sire
I hardly think it's a driving factor.
Since the days of VDW, which has gone up the most the average prize money or the average trainers fee.
Arkle
Pitmatic
Colt
Playing devil's advocate here
mick ....
I'm not for one minute advocating this method, as I believe that the Desert Hero method and this Chase method were written purely for editorial content for the SCHB and Tony Peach.
I think the point he was making is that it's no good to just pick one of the two from the narrowed down field - any selection must have what he is looking for within its profile and that you still would need to check the other runners for spanners in the works etc. I think his point about the odds and value / temperament was once again about feeling that the odds reflected the perceived negatives encountered in the majority of profiles (as in his good bet, outstanding bet gradings) - and not just betting because one of the first two in the forecast was fett to have the beating of the other one.
To me, this is just another variation of narrowing the field by using the betting forecast, only for specific race type this time.
Would he not also (by virtue of him using the two highest penalty value races of the day) be looking at some of the same races as his first method indicated - and therefore would be narrowing those fields down even further from six to two, purely by the betting forecast?
How many different methods was VDW keeping an eye on, on a daily basis if they were all "serious" methods?
I think he would have been pleased when the Sporting Chronicle closed down - it would have reduced his vast daily workload!!!!
mick ....I'm not for one minute advocating this method, as I believe that the Desert Hero method and this Chase method were written purely for editorial content for the SCHB and Tony Peach.
I think the point he was making is that it's no good to just pick one of the two from the narrowed down field - any selection must have what he is looking for within its profile and that you still would need to check the other runners for spanners in the works etc. I think his point about the odds and value / temperament was once again about feeling that the odds reflected the perceived negatives encountered in the majority of profiles (as in his good bet, outstanding bet gradings) - and not just betting because one of the first two in the forecast was fett to have the beating of the other one.
To me, this is just another variation of narrowing the field by using the betting forecast, only for specific race type this time.
Would he not also (by virtue of him using the two highest penalty value races of the day) be looking at some of the same races as his first method indicated - and therefore would be narrowing those fields down even further from six to two, purely by the betting forecast?
How many different methods was VDW keeping an eye on, on a daily basis if they were all "serious" methods?
I think he would have been pleased when the Sporting Chronicle closed down - it would have reduced his vast daily workload!!!!
Last edited:
mick
Sire
I do not know but one aspect which has not changed is 8/1 still pays the same wherever it is found.
These days i would imagine that only a few top stables can make any profit from training fees, so the alternatives are prize money or punting. ?
mick
Sire
Hi
Pitmatic i agree your above but your asking questions which only VDW could answer with my recollections being he mostly chose not to via ways which followers could understand and investigate. Hence the declining interest which necessitated his creation of false identities used to post praising himself. Look how active and successful this thread is proving and imo one of the reasons being there is no hinting or double dutch involved.
Pitmatic i agree your above but your asking questions which only VDW could answer with my recollections being he mostly chose not to via ways which followers could understand and investigate. Hence the declining interest which necessitated his creation of false identities used to post praising himself. Look how active and successful this thread is proving and imo one of the reasons being there is no hinting or double dutch involved. 
DuckandDive
Mare
Reading between the lines, it could also imply his willingness to dutch two or more qualifiers in a race, irrespective of the price(s). I understand Mark Coton, towards the end, took the same view, a winner is a winner at any price.
Not having a dig. It can be frustrating putting the work in and finding the market has already accounted for it and in some cases, over valued its' chances. That's where the ole disclipline should kick in, but it's tempting to get involved. The biggest edge we all have, when betting, is to choose when to bet and when not to bet, something quite a few seem to have mastered on this forum.
JennyK
Gelding
BreamThere is so much that we will probably never know, but I have a theory based in part on knowledge and in part on my imagination sparked when I first read the letter VDW wrote to Tony Peach in February 1996 and partly reprinted on page 6 of Mr Peach's "Systems in My Racing":
"Later I was asked to write "Systematic Betting" a title I didn't like, but never argued over."
Given that VDW had, helpfully, gone out of his way several times to distinguish a system from what he claimed to use, a methodical approach, since I first read that sentence it has always jarred with me.
I think "Systematic Betting" was published around 1990, some twelve years after the first "VDW" letter was published in the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book. And VDW would have us believe that in 1978 he was achieving a high strike rate which no one, as far as I know, has claimed to be able to emulate, except Lee in the very limited field of Wing And A Prayer types. IF the claim by VDW was true, by 1990 he would have been quite a rich man, to put it mildly, even if he had only found the golden touch, or perhaps one might call it the key, in 1978.
We know VDW was paid for his Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book articles, because Tony Peach has said so. He was obviously paid for "Systematic Betting." Yet, he didn't challenge the proposed title. I find it difficult to believe that Raceform would have rejected an alternative that better reflected VDW's approach, such as "Methodical Betting" . Also, some of the content of "Systematic Betting" really doesn't ring true to me from VDW's previous writings. Chapter Six, "Speed figures", especially as VDW had been reasonably dismissive of them previously.
For what is is worth, probably not very much, my take is this.
1) VDW's strike rate claims were phoney, included to do exactly what they did in my case and I am sure others, attract interest.
2) VDW was never at any time what could reasonably be called rich. Yes, he did go on cruises, including round-the-world ones; I've seen the evidence for that. But as has been posted earlier on this thread, one doesn't have to be rich per se to go on cruises. Obviously going on extensive ones, such as round-the-world, does require significant money, and VDW had that from time to time. But not from betting. He has what at the time was a significant inheritance when his mother died and to put it politely he exercised control of the wealth of his third wife. Those are facts (and his daughter-in-law's effort to recover her mother's money was the subject of litigation and a negotiated settlement). What is speculation is that, while in ordinary employment and then retired, and long before his third marriage, VDW found the payments via Mr Peach, modest though they would have been, and whatever Raceform paid him for "Systematic Betting", not insignificant additions to his earnings and later his old age pension. If he really was achieving the kind of strike rate he claimed, such payments would have been neither here nor there to him.
3) if one takes the above line of thinking as likely, it then follows that in his later writing VDW was responding to demand - from Tony Peach for articles for the SCHB and later from Raceform for the book - and glad to have the opportunity to make a few pounds in doing so. He therefore came up with variations on his basic theme - which I think was and is right - that class, ability and conditions are the essential elements in finding winners, and back-fitted examples that "proved" his point for a new "method". And, and this is speculation based in part on something I was told, I think by Tony Peach but I am not sure, that VDW included bits in "Systematic Betting" at Raceform's request, especially the Speed figures chapter, given that the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book, later Raceform Update, made quite a feature of them, with Split Second etc. (Indeed, in my fantasy, VDW didn't write chapter Six, but that some bright young person at Raceform noticed that Roushayd worked with speed figures and put together the Desert Orchid material for him. When I wrote to Raceform about "Systematic Betting", I got a very polite but totally unhelpful response.) I further suspect that VDW didn't challenge "Systematic Betting" as a title because, far from being the prized author in the box seat whom Raceform would have been more than happy to accommodate, he was glad to write for them for the fee offered and did not want to rock the boat).
From this broad position, I think it is probably pointless to try to re-construct VDW's several methods, and better to work on the assumption that he was right about finding winners being a matter of balancing class, form and conditions but that the individual methods were essentially simply back-fitted examples labelled in different ways to meet the requests for new material. I am not saying that VDW's letters and aticles are without merit; far from it. But with due deference to Lee, the strike rates VDW claimed are so far beyond what seems probable, and so inconsistent with the known facts of VDW's wealth and his generally very modest living situation, as to invite incredulity.
Last edited: