Opinion Converted to Odds VDW aka G Hall from my opinion in 2016.
If you are at a loose end like myself and fancy a read and not put off by the VDW tag, read on:-
The whole VDW saga was 'manipulated' by several parties with vested interests, although that does not imply that the core methodology was poor.
First, C. Van der Wheil was an alias of G. Hall who wrote in praise of the VDW, SCHB correspondence and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by Dr Alan Bacon, whom I am aquainted with. I have no idea why this misconception was done. It was G Hall that endorsed the ‘key', which caused the initial furore, and I was carried along myself by the impetus.
SCHB and Raceform were keen to promote an idea that was boosting circulation.
Tony Peach, Sports Forum editor and journalist, used the popularity to publish the VDW booklets through Browsers, where he was a sleeping partner. The downside for Tony was that he was not good on the gambling side and often put the wrong interpretation on VDW data, particularly in 'specials' such as Raceform VDW Update booklet. Tony is a friend of mine and having dinner with him one evening, hoping for inside information, I inquired about the most important factor for him in betting, and he replied 'luck', this from a man who worked alongside Ken Hussey, Split Second, also Form Plus, Methodmaker and many others. He also told me that at a certain point the VDW letters became articles paid for at £50 each, where the content to be discussed was proposed by Tony, possibly starting from SCHB, March 13, 1980, 'Flying Dutchman Believes in Consistency'.
What has this got to do with your queries?
In my opinion something that began simply evolved over quite some time into a more complex approach. As evidence I would cite the letter I have been quoting from date 25 Aug 1979, some 16 months along the timeline where to date there is no mention of class/ability ratings or employing commercial hcap/form ratings as part of the 'methodology'. Although at the start of that letter VDW wrote,"although ratings have a value they are not the 'be-all-and-end-all' but should be treated as a guide."
As indicated VDW wrote about rating and ratings and with rating he meant form assessment.
"Another of the many ways to reduce the field, which can be used in conjunction with the previous method I gave is as follows. The combination of the two usually isolates the probables.
Stage 1. - From the last two placings of each horse mark all those with form figures 1 to 4.
Stage 2. - Select in days the the five most recent runs (include any joint equal).
Stage 3. - Select from above the three most consistent by adding together the last three placings of the respective horses (that is the last three placings where the horse finished)."
(In the example given - Newmarket Aug 4, Cobnut Selling Handicap 3yo, 16 runners - two set of handicap ratings were also included just to illustrate the impact that ratings may have on prices and I included this info in my version of this second 'platform' at the time).
"In March 1981 I suggested,' To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned taking particular note of the class in which they ran, the courses 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."
(and now today this is where we came in when I suggested in my original post on the thread where I opined most commercial form ratings are adjusted OR where the great majority of the field will come out as odds of one less than the true mathematical odds for the race and therefore not a lot of use for punting generally. Also I don’t employ VDW procedures as they don’t give a numerical form rating, which I require to convert to fair odds for a race. However, making a modification to produce rating figures you can go on “ to confirm what the figures say” with odds to compare with the market).