I can't understand this system but I'm glad someone pointed out what VDW means because I hadn't a clue.
Nothing worse than someone firing up initials and expecting everyone else to know waht they mean'''''''''''''Like FOAD stronger letter to follow
Van Der Wheil, or the Flying Dutchman as he was also called? He first made his impact on the British betting scene in the letters page of the old Handicap Book in 1980. His letters continued all through the 80's - informative, challenging, and also provoking a great deal of heated discussion.
VDW was a great believer in consistent form; nothing very startling in that. He looked for his winners from the first four or five horses quoted in a reliable betting forecast. Again not the most revolutionary idea in the betting world. But then he introduced his method for assessing a horse's ability. As far as I am aware, he was the first to do so - previously the notion of ability was a matter of personal opinion, but the Dutchman changed all that.
He was able to give ability a numerical value, based on facts not opinions, and in the intervening years a whole anthology of systems has been spawned using the VDW factor for ability as the main source of inspiration. And what was this ability rating? For anyone who may still be in doubt, here is the VDW secret.
He added up the amount of money a horse had won for winning races (not for being placed), divided this by the number of races won and then knocked off the final two figures. The resulting number is the horse's ability rating. So, if a horse has won £50,000 in five races, then it has an ability rating of 100, or if another has won £88,000 in eight races, its rating would be 110, that is ten points superior to the first one. Fortunately, all the figures required for working out the ratings are supplied in a convenient way in the Racing Post.
The only races VDW used with his method were high-value ones with medium sized fields.
Regarding consistent form, taken over a horse's last three runs, VDW simply added the form figures together, so that 111 gave a rating of 3, the most consistent, and 000 a rating of 30, the least. Therefore, taking the first five horses in the betting forecast, he would work out the three most consistent and if one of these had the highest ability rating, then that was a possible bet. But there was more to it than that. There was always talk of a 'missing link' which caused endless discussion and argument in the Handicap Book's correspondence page. What the link was I have never been able to work out. Perhaps there wasn't one, unless it might be the individual temperament of each punter. VDW once gave his complete formula, as follows: - Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Profitability + Hard Work = Winners.
Yours pipped mine by a nk. Aquilonius 2nd @ 6/1.
