There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 151 comments are related to the topic:
C Van der Wheil, the Flying Dutchman
C Van der Wheil, the Flying Dutchman
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 151
|
By:
Fine - a Forumite, elsewhere, has posted a lot of personal information about Gordon Hall and, allegedly, interviewed T P, too.
His posting style, and information, is very similar to yours, which set me thinking. --------- As for your, "family dispute," - Bobajobber says that he has NO relatives - but had married twice, later in life, to older women - both now deceased - one having been his mother's carer. The only, "family," to, "dispute," his, "documents," therefore - would, presumably, be relatives of the deceased women, with none of them being blood-relatives. Or could they be disputing the ownership of the caravan, parked on the path outside his bungalow, that was clearly visible on google Street View. |
|
By:
What does it matter whether VDW was a fraud or not.
Where else can you find any pointers with regard to assessing form and the ways that trainers work? Like the Roushayd example for instance. |
|
By:
EVERYWHERE - IF the wherewithal is within you.
All that Van der Wheil did was an attempt to numericalise BASIC FORM STUDY. Trying to put NUMBERS to the modus operandi and methodology that ALL PROPER Form Students ALREADY did, and still do. The ones who could NOT SEE that - and thought that there was some hidden mystique about VDW - where, and are, the ones who are NOT CAPABLE of PROPER FORM STUDY themselves..... and are always looking for some SHORTCUT to make up for their OWN SHORTCOMINGS. It is a simple, and straightforward, as that. |
|
By:
Amen.
 |
|
By:
onlooker,
I see. So what is form, and how do you know if one piece of form is better than another? |
|
By:
Onlooker could you direct me to where this information was posted please,there is definitely a dispute.
|
|
By:
He's not answering.
|
|
By:
This appears onlooker's source....
http://www.theukbettingforum.co.uk/XenForo/threads/tony-peach.1176/page-3 |
|
By:
I think too much is made about whether VDW was genuine or not.
Anything you get from VDW's articles is a bonus because he was a darn good read anyway. From that link concerning TP: ''But he told me that he believed that everything we needed to know was in the books and that there was no need to study the examples. I know that many people will disagree with that.'' Absolutely. Also: If TP was as mercenary as some make out then surely he would not have said that. Simply because he also sold old form books that are needed to check out the examples. |
|
By:
Not quite right - Dr Crippen
Tony Peach was, as it turns out, effectively, "mercenary," - - as it has been well documented that, despite him making a good living out of both being involved in the production of the Sporting Chronicle weekly (newspaper) Handicap Book, and personally publishing Van der Wheil material in booklets, that he put together himself - from the forwarded Van der Wheil correspondences - he was not a hardened 'racing man', and had little interest in Form himself ... - He admittedly stating on many occasions that he, personally, NEVER went to the time and trouble of checking out the Results and methodology of VDW's claims.... but just printing everything Van der Wheil sent to the Handicap Book verbatim - including spelling mistakes and errors. Surely, Tony Peach did not, "sell old form books" .... those "form books," being actually sold by Alan (Browzers, Prestwich) through whom Peach's own Van der Wheil books were primarily published and sold. As has been written elsewhere - Tony Peach was one of those lucky people who spotted an opportunity by fortunately - and conveniently, by accident of employment - 'being in the right place at the right time' - and consequently exploited it to the full. |
|
By:
Thanks onlooker.
This is not quite right either: He admittedly stating on many occasions that he, personally, NEVER went to the time and trouble of checking out the Results and methodology of VDW's claims.... but just printing everything Van der Wheil sent to the Handicap Book verbatim - including spelling mistakes and errors. At the end of item 13 in The Golden Years TP comments that he had looked through the form of many of VDW's selections. He also makes some comments in the same chapter on what he found. And there is no hearsay about that because it's there in black and white. |
|
By:
onlooker 18 Feb 15 18:47 Joined: 18 Feb 03 | Topic/replies: 20,177 | Blogger: onlooker's blog
EVERYWHERE - IF the wherewithal is within you. All that Van der Wheil did was an attempt to numericalise BASIC FORM STUDY. Trying to put NUMBERS to the modus operandi and methodology that ALL PROPER Form Students ALREADY did, and still do. The ones who could NOT SEE that - and thought that there was some hidden mystique about VDW - where, and are, the ones who are NOT CAPABLE of PROPER FORM STUDY themselves..... and are always looking for some SHORTCUT to make up for their OWN SHORTCOMINGS. It is a simple, and straightforward, as that. So onlooker are you saying that VDW was right? Its never really that simple. |
|
By:
Dr Crippen -
Fair enough - But that would be retrospectively, at a much later date, then. As - All the original, and earlier years, examples were unchecked and just published. Bear in mind - The Golden Years was published in 1993 - some 15 years after Van der Wheil first surfaced in the Handicap Book letters page. |
|
By:
zzzorro - NO - Not entirely.
What Van der Wheil was advocating was merely a small PORTION of standard FORM STUDY ... something that EVERY SERIOUS Punter HAS to do. However - he was only taking a few BASIC elements - and then - as I posted above - trying to numericalise them, into a table of merit, or order. This is immediately flawed when you look at his simplistic approach of awarding - 1 point for a Win, 2 for a 2nd, 3 for a 3rd and so on. THUS - a horse who was a fast-finishing 3rd, in a three-way Photo, in a 28 runner Royal Hunt Cup - would be awarded the SAME NUMERIC VALUE (3) as a horse who had finished 3rd of just 4 runners - and was beaten by, say, 8 length in a Conditions race...... and the above was his first FIRST port of call STARTING POINT for determining QUALIFYING SELECTIONS. There are far, far, more elements to all embracing Form Study than a few simplistic - artificially numerically created - RULES that automatically instantly ELIMINATED MANY horses that would have outstanding historical chances - given MUCH DEEPER delving. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. |
|
By:
onlooker,
It looks like you only scratched the surface of the VDW methodology. As far as the three most consistent were concerned, he said your selection should be one of these as long as all the other requirements have been met. You don't exclude all the others, you simply don't bet if one of them comes out on top, but without the required consistency. You've missed his first point altogether. |
|
By:
VDW initially stated two elements combined form a numerical picture,this was overlooked by many myself included,he also mentioned a second numerical picture.
|
|
By:
Thanks for that link top2rated,I didn't know about it.
|
|
By:
G Hall - I saw your request, late at night - so thought that I would reply the following lunchtime/early afternoon - when you would be on here.
top2rated kindly beat me to it - so there was no need to duplicate the information. Page 4 - of that thread - may interest you more. |
|
By:
The Holy Grail is unraced horses then you can get a real price
 |
|
By:
Cheers onlooker interesting stuff right enough.
|
|
By:
Ah Che Van Der Wheil,can't believe this is still causing people problems.He had many people taken in,none more so than Tony Peach. I am very familiar with his writing,it has always struck me as ODD, why he would reply to himself,but hey ho now't as **** as folk as they say.
His percentages were actually spot on the money,but not if interpreted as tons of sobs has done. Roushayd was the masterclass. Go back to the beginning. |
|
By:
can one not say q u eer on here? how bizzare
|
|
By:
Following up from reading the comments about VDW on the link that was kindly posted up,I decided to re read "the golden years" especially with regard to the VDW/G Hall letters.
That VDW was a bit of a boyo. A Chambers said VDW was talking rubbish,and lo and behold up pops G Hall to chastise A Chambers and defend VDW.Comical stuff really,VDW must have had a good laugh at the time. |
|
By:
G Hall,
There's plenty to laugh at in you the way you've put it in your last sentence as well. It's certainly misleading to say the least. What are you trying to prove? |
|
By:
To all the doubters out there and G Hall I don't know if you are a fan or critic from reading your posts on this topic,the VDW Methodology does work,and there are more than a few who make it pay.
Dr C you appear to be a disciple would you agree with me. |
|
By:
Gordon Hall or VDW as he was better known passed away in july 2017.
|
|
By:
Sorry July 2016.
|
|
By:
Golden Fleece 01 Mar 15 11:05
can one not say q u eer on here? how bizzare At that time the moderators were all over 80 years old.  |
|
By:
Is the old caravan still parked on his path?
|
|
By:
Look the guy is dead let's show some respect
|
|
By:
Was Tony Peach at the funeral? - G Hall
He certainly owed Gordon Hall an enormous debt of gratitude - given subsequent 'dealings'. If it was a Requiem Mass, then T P may well have been enticed. |
|
By:
Ttt
|