onlooker I don't claim to be vdw just because my handle is G Hall,but vdw and G Hall were/are one and the same.

VDW was a pretty astute guy,but unfortunately he didn't have the temperament or discipline that he continually banged on about.

Good read this,the vdw saga certainly ran it's course.The cloak and dagger stuff,it was unreal.

It is a pity that vdw didn't come clean,because whether or not he made it pay,he certainly knew the racing game.The saddest part about it,was he told a lot of lies,and when the response to his initial Prominent King evaluation met with a relatively muted response,he stoked up the debate,by writing under the name of G Hall.In fact he even replied to himself!! crazy stuff.

He was spot on though in regard to form evaluation and odds and temperament,how would he have fared on betfair,if he had discipline problems in those days.There was a guy called Lee who made it pay though and a few others,so fair play to them.

Love him or loathe him VDW made a significant contribution to many folks attitude to racing.

I bought my first copy of the pocket sized Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book in May 1954.
Split Second and Reflections on Running I used as the basis of profitable betting.
With the past weeks results and race cards it was well worth the Tanner it cost.

I used to read the VDW stuff in the H'cap book. I also bought the Brimardon system when it first came out and you had to input the info yourself.
The two methods were very similar.

Iirc, the main inputting on Brimardon was recent form and class, ie how much prize money a horse had won and the basic rating which was taken from Hussey's speed figures.

Van de W was an aftertimer full stop.

^ So do I .... and he is still trying to sell it, too.

He does exist and does live in market Harborough,but not as che van der wheil,he was a punter,who lacked discipline unfortunately.His methods were very good to be fair.

^ No, he never did put up a winner in advance, he was an after-time merchant.  He didn't mis-lead anybody, but might have gave some the impression he was the inventor of a winning method.  Although lacked discipline himself for any successful betting.

G. Hall,
I pulled this out of his book Racing in my System.

''The march of time takes its toll and I have for some years been unable to physically withstand the rigours of the track , finally accepting the situation during the 1990 flat season.''

I'd be very surprised if VDW is still alive.

Yes G Hall, I agree completely with your last sentence.

Although he makes you work for the gems that you need to know before you will become proficient.
Like how did he so readily dismiss Beacon Light in one of his first examples?
I bet that one had a few scratching their heads and still has.
His gave quite a lot away in his later writings as well.

I certainly hope that anyone who has sorted out the missing link keeps it to themselves.
Like VDW said it would be a shame if it was devalued by common knowledge of it.

Hopefully that won't happen Dr as I spent a lot of time going through all the examples,and then there was a member of a vdw forum,who helped a lot,and also proofed his selections pre race.

The Prominent King example caused me some problems,and I had to revisit it,after first going through the first seven examples,that VDW elaborated on.

I believe that there is a family dispute ongoing,in regards to the great mans documents.I hope that this is not the case.

Nothing worse.

T P is still trying to.

Difficult to believe that this has reared its ugly head so many years later.

Missing link? Many figured it out years ago, although it wasn't quite the road to riches that most assumed.

The alleged "Dutchman" always proclaimed "read what I wrote" and I think people looked too deeply, totally missing the obvious, so here it is for you all (and it is quite boring,really).

Early on in his writings, he gave statistics, (not fantastically accurate, but there or thereabouts), of form figures from the last three runs and how many of those horses went on to win their subsequent races.

So there you have it. It was all about backing three or more in a race. The big priced winners sounded impressive when given in isolation, but not really that difficult to compile a shortlist of horses with a live chance.

I was very interested in the method for years, but never had much succes with it. Probably didn't guess the "missing link" correctly, despite having at least three guys on various fora telling me what it was.

My conclusion was that it must be basically a dutching system, even after going through all the rigmarole of "seeing the winner in the race".

I thought the prize money idea was good, provided the bulk of the money hadn't come from just one or a few flukey wins.

Eventually, I gave up trying with it, especially when we had some guys claiming to have " met a man with a german-like accent", or, "visited the great man's grave," etc.

Good luck to those who can make it pay. I certainly didn't with my interpretation of the method.

As a post script,nowadays,there are lots of ways to interact with faceless people,in the 1970's and 80's,this wasn't really possible, the handicap book provided an outlet for like minded people to interact,which is where it all started. I think we shouldn't be too harsh in our judgement.

tons of sobs,

This is what he actually wrote:

''If there are three horses in a race each having won their three last races, the figures indicate that it is almost certain one of them should win, 33% + 33% + 33% = 99%. Only about one chance in a hundred that the winner will come from elsewhere, so it would be going against the odds to select any other horse in the field.''

Of course it is ludicrous. And I'm sure he blushed when he realised what he'd written.

But the relevant line is  ''it would be going against the odds to select any other horse in the field.''
Which is his point, but using flawed reasoning.

And that is his theme all the way though, ''don't go against the odds.''

Onlooker it doesn't mean anything to me sorry.