JennyK
I don't know how involved you intend to be in looking at Lee's selections and posts, but thought you should be aware of this (which I forgot I had in my archive) as I feel it may add some useful context for you.
I have it titled as "Lee's Final Post - don't know which message board it was on (might even have been his final posting on this message board, but I'm not sure).
I'm not for one minute trying to put you off looking at his examples - as far as I'm concerned he has walked the walk in posting a succession of winning selections at decent prices, so when he says there is something in the VDW method that works for him, I believe that to be true and he has more than satisfactorily evidenced this.
Anyway, this is what he had to say........
"With some of the recent happenings that have gone on I now feel that the time has arrived to draw a conclusion to my involvement within the group.
Before I do finally depart however I would like to set a few things straight. This will ease my conscience as much as anything else, and will hopefully bring into disrepute some of the suggestions I have made in the past regarding VDW, and set a few people on the right track. This is because I havent been 100% honest, 100% of the time. However, in my defence this was only because I was trying to stimulate some discussion in the right areas by way of counter-conversation. But unfortunately this, in hindsight, was a poor tactic and the discussion from others, where it mattered, was not forthcoming.
This though was probably a blessing in disguise, as you can always rely on someone to spoil the party.
I got involved with trying to crack VDW about 10 years ago; I was a desperate gambler at the time when someone who I greatly respected told me that there might be something in it if I looked hard enough. It took around 4 years but I finally solved the riddle and can now smile every time I think back to the frustration that it needlessly caused.
One member of the EZ/Gummy board, who has become a friend, now has the benefit of the knowledge that this is the case. He is the only person that Ive ever confided in which was as much for my sanity as their gain. I have shared with them nearly every selection that Ive made over the last year or so, and they are able to verify what follows.
The first fact that has to be pointed out is that anyone, including G Hall, is able to spot the key, as he phrased it, with the information that VDW had written at the time. And this I hope will confirm to all that his statement (once you find it every-thing will be so clear that you will wonder how on earth you missed it and youll have the same horses as myself.) was true.
However, the final part of the solution came and tied it all together in Systematic Betting and the Roushayd example and, as intended, it should carry the reader a long way. Notwithstanding that, just the first SEVEN examples that Van Der Wheil ELABORATED on, along with Prominent King, still reveal the main crux of the method.
VDW gave his readers SEVEN combined consistency figure percentages in his reply to Methodmaker, and re-iterated that SUBJECT TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS the numerical picture can be very illuminating. Some confusion has existed about his percentages, but there never really were any mistakes.
When mentioning SUBJECT TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS he was referring to the way in which he rated Prominent King and later stated that there are numerous methods of rating and it is simple to devise one yourself, but first a sound basis is required. Note that it is at this point that VDW introduced the ability rating.
His examples brought along their own apparent problems to solve; Love From Verona, with the likes of Dyscole and Persian Crown, and the 1985 King George/Wayward Lad had people puzzled by his comments on the short priced FAVOURITE Burrough Hill Lad.
These seemingly probable dangers were all well out of it subject to the other considerations.
Read and re-read every missing link article and letter, and note everything that is said there are certain phrases and words that he refers to more than once.
Within his Pegwell Bay example, for instance, there is a big hint, but the eye manages to glance right across it.
Remember that the VDW approach is a method, not a system, which produces a numerical evaluation of the ODDS based on relevant factors thereby creating a picture from which it is possible to determine if there is a winner IN the race not OF the race.
It is no good stopping half way through the project or thinking a part fare takes you the full journey. A little was left for you to complete, but all relevant factors were there to set up a second numerical picture, providing you read what was said.
At this point I feel it necessary to remind anyone whos interested:
Once you find it everything will be so clear that you will wonder how on earth you missed it and youll have the same horses as myself.
If you feel that your interpretation of the method is in any way complicated, then it most certainly is, for sure.
I have recently made some posts elsewhere with the decision to depart already made, and hopefully they will have given an insight to what really is possible.
The posts are on a semi-public forum that we are all aware of. From myself nothing is now hidden. However, I can relax knowing that whoever it is with ulterior motives probably doesnt have the knowledge to capitalise! For anyone who has missed these selections/opinions they were as follows:
On the 8 Jul 04, I warned that Imtiyaz wasnt the full ticket, and that Fruhlingssturm was likely to cause him a problem.
On the 17 Jul 04, Lets Roll, Pastoral Pursuits were both backed, with Frank Sonata not quite fitting the bill, using the method.
On the 18 Jul 04, Quija Board and Tropical Lady were both good things but not backed at the prices.
On the 19 Jul 04, Top Dirham was backed, and whilst kalaman was a good thing, he was left, again due to the price.
On the 20 Jul 04 Peter Paul Rubens was a good thing but left, he rated well in front of the rest of the field.
Yesterday I noted that Stretton was out of it and that Adaikali was likely but shouldnt be backed, and to finish off I suggested that Double Vodka should be backed, in more traditional VDW style. A horse that was without a winning class rating, but all the same the trainer really told you it was out to win.
The above isnt an exhaustive list of the horses that should have been backed and left during this period; instead they were mainly in response to other postings that were made.
That is about all I have to say, other than, stick with it".
As I say, I thought it might be helpful for you to know that he confessed to not always 100% telling the truth at times - which is worth bearing in mind when looking at his posts or possibly even some of his selections.
