C Van der Wheil, the Flying Dutchman

If G. Hall. was van der wheil as worked out, i believe he was just seeking more atention because no one took the bait at his first attempts at deceving folk. Also as stated above, its was a great pity this was not nipped in the bud by Tony Peach within the first year, or he requested some sort of proof from this person because of his such extravagant claims.

Ok he knew a little about form, but it was all very contrary most of the time, horses going further in some examples, also some transending well up in the weights after their last runs, seemed more like someone knowing very little to me.

Also it seems a great pity Jack Bingham took his life, i allways thought at the time this sort of thing could happen, he seems like a condescending cult figure to me, not really interested in helping people really, was just a pretence, also he seemed very devious and conniving and very full of himself in his manner.

It was in Tony Peach's own interest to keep the Van der Wheil letters, et al, going - rather than it be, "nipped in the bud within the first year," -  for two reasons.

One, apparent at the time - with Peach being the Deputy Editor, I think, of the Handicap Book - so any extra, or continued, sales were welcome.

Secondly, and a more recent manifestation - Tony Peach is still, to this day, offering books about Van der Wheil, and intimating the 'Holy Grail' is there within, through a third party.

90% winners is less likely than 90% success rate curing cancer.

Yep Onlooker i suppose that was true! still it all happened many moons ago now, and i know i was only young at the time, and i did try it for a while, till i began to learn more about form, and see obvious flaws in many of the examples he gave, so i say mayb its best to let sleeping dogs lie as they say.

the family that owned the handicap book at the time had the initials VDW as well I believe, which seems a coincidence or not!!

can't think of the original owners something like van de wessom or suchlike

peachy used to say,vdw sometimes became reticent or taciturn if the questions were direct,and that he would sometimes hang up on him,lol you couldn't make it up,vdw must have laughed his socks off,but fair play to him,he went over 30 years without being rumbled,I don't know who it reflected best on vdw or peachy for his incompetence.

"it was the end of an era today with the Weekender now incorporating the Raceform Update"

Got an old copy in front of me when it was the end of an era under the
Sporting Chronicle banner.  It was July 30th 1983 (price .70p) No.1 edition of the new
Raceform Handicap Book.

Alan Smethurst was Editor.  Chris Judge Deputy Ed.  Ken Hussey as Split Second.

They had a new policy at the start 'no tipsters or system sellers allowed to advertise'
Hoever, they soon backed down on that one, huge amount of advertising revenue that way.
At one time the Sporting Life had the same policy but they also changed it.

Re Van der Wheil, I was never totally convinced about those articles at all.
There was a Sports Forum on the back page and a few clever d1cks on there,
and this dutchman or whoever he was (?) appeared to be a bit smarter than most.

But the way he wrote his articles always with this missing link, I didn't buy.
May be totally wrong of course and he may have been completely genuine,
but I don't think so.  And someone got a lot of mileage out of that.

G Hall -

re: your 21:43 post

Raceform, and it's Titles, including Raceform Handicap Book - carrying that title following on from the demise of the Sporting Chronicle, in the early 1980s - were published by the de Wesselow family.

The publisher at the time being Ian de Wesselow.

James de Wesselow is now the Managing Director of Racing Post Books & Raceform Ltd.

There was a predecessor Ivan de Wesselow
---------------------------------------

Van der Wheil first appeared in the Handicap Book in February 1978.

Raceform had joined forces with the Sporting Chronicle in publishing the Annual Form Books in 1970

Raceform published a book - purported to have been written by Vander Wheil - in 1990.

Recently got hold of VDW book for no other reason than to bring back old memories of the days when i used to make oney at this game.

*money

^ before that book, Tony Peach collated all correspondence from Van Der Wheil
and was selling photostats for £1.50 in 1983.
As I said before, got a lot of mileage out of that.

I didn't buy it.  And all this missing link stuff.  Did Tony Peach ever have absolute proof
that he was really making money from backing horses. My opinion - and could be wrong here -
just another clever d1ck because he would never submit the vital ingredient,
and of course you wouldn't expect him to, but don't think he had it anyway !

Tony Peach is still flogging his books.

Where were you last night Onlooker, You'd have liked my quiz, sent a few of em scratching heads for a while

Apologies for my absence, zilzal - and no 'letter from my mum' either.

I had a prior appointment with a pint glass.

The one who really got it right flogging books was Clive Holt. 

He was selling his systems years ago  in the old Sporting Chronicle Book.
Someone gave him the idea of doing it as a book and it was a stroke of genius.
Very clever man and knew exactly what he was doing, full-page adverts for years
in the sporting press. And he must have made a million selling that book.
He was probably the first tipster/system seller to become a millionaire out of it.
Very clever guy. RIP.

Thanks onlooker couldn't remember the name

Ffs. I remember this rubbish when it started.
The letters page of the old Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book was more or less moribund. Peach invented the whole thing to keep it going.
And the "system" was purposely unintelligible. How some people still fall for it is beyond me.

TELL DEL -

The opening 'rule' of Van der Wheil was very similar to Clive Holt's basic Fineform Formula.

- and 'BASIC' that was, too!

Clive was a decent man, but cute with it - which he probably got from his father -
Clive's parents being a really lovely couple, who were lifelong friends of my parents - and even went on my parents honeymoon with them, a motor-bike weekend to Blackpool.

As Clive, quite openly, said to me one day at Haydock -

"You could write the Fineform Formula on the back of a postage stamp" ... before adding, with a shrug of his shoulders, and a smile ...

"But there will always be punters."

vdw was a clever man,replied to his own letters on the peach page to stimulate discussion and then kept it going for 30 odd years.

His introduction of the three probables baffled many but like everything he wrote there was a lot of logic behind it.

ttt

For those of you who still need your Van der Wheil fix. Updated every day of gthe week,


http://vanderwheil.com/

knock him all you want but van der wheil advocated sticking to the better class of races,ie good prize money,in the event of just todays racing alone,I think he was spot on.

"There came into Egypt a Pharaoh who did not know." ......the rich being doing it to the poor for years. That's all these Fineform/VDW scribes are.

Just thought I would resurrect this again,I am putting up a selection today Hamilton 4.10 Border Reiva.

Give it a rest G Hall.

They buried that b*gger decades ago.

lol onlooker,can't mate,i'm obsessed you say you knew clive holt,i bought his original book,about finding winners,i was young and it helped me a lot at the time.

There seems to be a never ending string of people wanting to help punters, why don't they just help themselves ?

You claim to be VdW on the other thread.

- and that was intimated earlier on here.

I was always of the opinion that VdW was a fictional creation of Tony Peach.

I spoke with Peach a couple of years ago - He appeared to be disinterested in the game - and more far obsessed with his Catholicism.

That says it all, really. ... He must have voted for Tony Blair, aswell.

Mind you - I was always also of ther opinion that he was never entirely 'with the game', either.

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.

Is Brian Cottam still going? He used edit the letters page after Peach i think.

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.

Not much interest in this topic any more?

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 suppose the internet killed off all those publications,they were better days in mvho.

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.

Were they,brimardon just inputs data i think,vdw was more methodical,also one had to equate class with form,and understand the odds.

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.

As the flat begins to get into full swing,has there been any updates on C Van Der Wheil,is he still alive and well.There used to be a lot of activity on various forums,but I think it has all dried up.

Van de W was an aftertimer full stop.

I believe VDW was a creation by Mr. Peach. Good system though...

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

There was always a lot of interest in the Sports Forum on the back page of the old Sporting Chronicle Handicap Book.  If VDW was a creation or not I don't know, but yes, he was an aftertimer.  Tried to convince us he had some special ingredient to finding winners.

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.

I dont believe he ever put up a winner in advance which says it all.

^ 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.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about VDW.

He gave an awful lot away. Nevertheless many people rubbish his teachings instead of learning from them. 
His basic approach showed how to narrow the field in certain races, where his class ratings could be used with other factors to show winners that stood out.
The game has changed since he was about, like multiple handicap winners.
So his winner in three most consistent although sound, might let you down more often than in his day.

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.

An update for anyone who is interested.The legendary Che Van Der Wheil is still alive,but alas is poorly and is currently residing in a nursing home.The man from Market Harborough in Leicestershire,would be better known in his home town as Gordon Hall.

I wish him well,although a full recovery is not expected.His expertise and knowledge of racing was unsurpassed in my humble opinion.

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.

Beacon light was a big clue in how he approached ''form'', Roushayd the ultimate!!

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.

Beacon Light cost me once when about 10 lengths clear and falling at the last

or 2nd last

Nothing worse.

G Hall
17 Feb 15 11:27
Joined:
26 Feb 06
| Topic/replies: 5,967 | Blogger: G Hall's blog
An update for anyone who is interested.The legendary Che Van Der Wheil is still alive,but alas is poorly and is currently residing in a nursing home.The man from Market Harborough in Leicestershire,would be better known in his home town as Gordon Hall.

Any relation by any chance?

Someone made a good few bob out of the after-timer

T P is still trying to.

Possibly here in our midst.

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.

Always preferred the Dawson System myself. Still showing huge profits after all this time.

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.

VDW wrote his letters, articles etc, at a time when the internet,and mobile communication didn't exist. I am sure he never envisaged the scenario that would have led to his name being bandied about globally if you like.

In fairness to Gordon/VDW as far as I am aware,he never sought any financial gain from what he wrote,although he may have received a modest fee for writing Systematic Betting,which by the way remains the best book I have ever read on how to analyse form.

I think what started out as a bit of fun,spiralled out of control,yet everything he wrote was of immense value, to the serious punter. I can only thank him,for imparting some of his knowledge.

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.

Came out with the immortal....

111=33%
111=33%
111=33%

leaving only a 1% chance the winner will come from elsewhere.

                                                   

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.''

G Hall - Would 'Bobajobber' be very, very, close to you ?

Onlooker it doesn't mean anything to me sorry.

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.

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.

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.

Amen.

onlooker,

I see.

So what is form, and how do you know if one piece of form is better than another?

Onlooker could you direct me to where this information was posted please,there is definitely a dispute.

He's not answering.

This appears onlooker's source....

http://www.theukbettingforum.co.uk/XenForo/threads/tony-peach.1176/page-3

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

VDW initially stated two elements combined form a numerical picture,this was overlooked by many myself included,he also mentioned a second numerical picture.

Thanks for that link top2rated,I didn't know about it.

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.

The Holy Grail is unraced horses then you can get a real price

Cheers onlooker interesting stuff right enough.

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.

can one not say q u eer on here? how bizzare

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.

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?

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.

Gordon Hall or VDW as he was better known passed away in july 2017.

Sorry July 2016.

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.

Is the old caravan still parked on his path?

Look the guy is dead let's show some respect

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.

Ttt