I have received some requests in response to posts on this blog, as follows:
1) will I open the blog up for others to comment, ask questions, etc? No. My primary purpose in having the blog is to put down in detail my thinking about aspects of VDW and the analyses of particular races for my own purposes. If others find something useful in any of the blog, good, but from my point of view that is not an aim. And as is already clear, those who want to get in touch can find ways of doing so;
2) will I name the one serious bet I mentioned I have had this month (and it is, sadly, still just one) and explain why it was a bet when other class/form horses I've discussed on the blog weren't? As it happens, I am in a position to prove the bet in the sense that I posted it before the race on a members-only forum, and so will discuss it here, later today or tomorrow;
3) will I give my view on whether there was one VDW method or several, ie were such examples as those in the March 1981 article (Little Owl etc), and both earlier and later selections such as The Old Feller, Aldaniti/Saher, Roushayd, Pegwell Bay etc found by the same method or by different ones? The rest of this post is in response to that request.
The short answer is that to a large extent it is a matter of definition: at what point does a variation in a method mean there is a separate method? But perhaps a more helpful starting point is a letter VDW wrote to Tony Peach in February 1996 (some 18 years after VDW's first contribution to the Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book was published), which Mr Peach re-printed in his booklet "Systems in my racing" (page 6). The relevant sections of the letter are:
"When I first began to write for Sports Forum it was clear that to splash the whole lot in front of your readers would be a pointless exercise and only by adding bits as time went by could it be hoped a doubtful, critical and sometimes abrasive readership would eventually see the light.
I had intended to give away everything in due time, but you [Tony Peach] will recall telling me that you had decided to call a halt to discussions of my methods in your column. That was fine by me, but only a fraction had been revealed at that time.
Later I was asked to write "Systematic Betting" ... [in it] I took the cautious step of only advancing my methods slightly ....".
I take three things from this letter:
1) VDW referred to "methods" plural, not "method" singular - indeed three times in the letter, although only twice in the section I've included above;
2) his contributions over the years need to be viewed as incremental ("adding bits as time went by");
3) the totality of what VDW wrote, including "Systematic Betting", was only "a fraction" of what he knew.
There are two other texts which I also think bear on the method/methods issue. First, from an article dated 13 April 1985, reproduced in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune":
"When I first began to explain the way I do things, various aspects were singled out for readers to digest and on one occasion, because some were unable to grasp what I was saying, the following formula was presented. Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners. After some time Tony Peach asked me to put everything together and this was done.
The whole concept was explained piece by piece and it was shown how and why each element was chosen to fit into the method. Calculating consistent horses, ability ratings and everything else ..."
This again makes clear that the material was incremental, and the "this was done" most certainly refers to the March 1981 article, which was published under the subtitle "Van Der Wheil Spells It All Out".
Second, from that March 1981 article:
"There are numerous ways to approach the problem of winner-finding methodically and the one which I will demonstrate has proved highly successful and consistent for a number of years. Each element was selected after a great deal of research and when used as intended, will place the odds strongly in the backers' favour".
This makes it clear that the elements presented in the March 1981 article, all of which had been mentioned in earlier letters, were long standing, and although, because of the incremental approach VDW adopted, were not all mentioned at once, were all there in the background.
So it is clear that VDW regarded himself as having methods, plural, and in the March 1981 article was describing one of them. I think of this method as the basic or main one, and it is the one I have spent a lot of time trying to understand in operational detail and use for my analyses of current races.
The other methods? This is where the issue of definition comes in. There are at least two other methods in my view: those sometimes known as the "Handicap Hurdles" and "Best Bet/Next Best" methods, the former mentioned in VDW's article of 18 January 1986 (reprinted in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune"), the latter first mentioned in a short contribution to a booklet of Jock Bingham's entitled "Be A Winner" and somewhat developed in two later articles. I believe them to be separate methods because not all the selections mentioned as given by them can, in my view, be found by the basic method or any of the known variations of it.
Other "methods", such as that shown in relation to the selection of The Old Feller, Aldaniti/Saher, Desert Hero, Roushayd and Pegwell Bay, are in my view minor variations on, or show developments of, the basic method, but I would certainly not quarrel with anyone who viewed one or more as a separate method. As I said earlier, essentially a matter of definition.
One could, I suppose, come to VDW's work and decide to start by trying to work out, say, the Handicap Hurdles method. Personally I think that would be a mistake, for although I haven't been able satisfactorily to work it out, I am fairly sure that the Handicap Hurdles (and Best Bet/Next Best method) is in part based on the fundamentals of the basic method, which VDW summarised as "the balance between class, form and the other factors" (letter reproduced as item 36 of "The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil").
It surely makes sense to start with the basic method, and on that the March 1981 article is the key one. The main elements are identifying the consistent horses, the ability rating, and that important paragraph under the Little Owl table to which I have referred before. The key sentence of that paragraph is:
"To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and most important, how they performed in the later stages of each race."
All the letters prior to the March 1981 article should be read as focusing on elements of that article, and most later material as offering useful sidelights, additional pointers, etc. The most important are:
1) the discussion of the 1978 Erin won by Prominent King, especially in respect of the device VDW used to reduce the number of consistent horses when more than three (item 8 of "The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil");
2) the letter where VDW discusses the 1981 Spring double, which helps confirm an aspect of identifying the consistent horses (item 42 of "The Golden Years of Van Der Wheil");
3) the letter of 10 October 1981 where VDW gave us a supplementary means of assessing the ability of younger, less exposed Flat horses (item 47 of "The Golden Years of Van der Wheil");
4) the discussion of the King George won by Wayward Lad, which makes explicit the point many (including me) missed initially, that consistency and form are separate ideas, not one and the same (article of 18 January 1986 reprinted in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune");
5) the Roushayd discussion (chapter five of "Systematic Betting") which advanced our understanding of the identification of class dropping class/form horses found by the basic method;
6) the discussion of the 1988 Mackeson won by Pegwell Bay, which helps with both the identification of the consistent horses and the issue of "the balance between class, form and the other factors" (reprinted in "Betting the VDW Way").
In sum, the March 1981 article is the key one, but the six listed above need to be understood to arrive at a full understanding of it, and of course the numerous examples VDW gave need to be worked through to establish (as far as is possible) the precise operational definitions of elements such as consistent horses, probables and form.
