Switch the bloody lights out! It`s to bright in here. And while you`re at it, throw another shovel of $hit on the mushrooms.

that quote has always puzzled me a bit

does it mean that a 20 grand ability / class horse
could be running in a 20 grand race against a bunch of say 10 grand ability horses or 30 grand ability horses

providing the horse was in form it could be a bet
up against the 10 grand horses and not the 30 grand ones ?

Mtoto

Thanks for responding, but regrettably I'm still confused and therefore clearly not fully understanding you.

My records may be incomplete, because I go back no further than 1975/6. But from the data I've got, the best performances, in terms of class of race and sfs, seem to be - in order:

Monksfield's sf of 124 in the 1977 Champion Hurdle (class 181 on VDW's way of looking at things);

Prominent King's 112 in the 1976 Triumph Hurdle (class 96) - where, interestingly, Monksfield beat him and returned a sf of 113;

Meladon's 103 in the 1977 Triumph Hurdle (class 105);

Beacon Light's 103 in the 1977 William Hill Christmas Hurdle (class 85) or, if you prefer, his 100 in the 1977 Champion Hurdle (class 181);

Decent Fellow's 101 in the 1977 Triumph (class 105),

while Master Monday cannot be rated as no sfs were returned for his victories in the 1976 Sweeps Hurdle (class 125) and 1977 Erin (class 89), and nor can Drumgora in respect of his 3rd in the 1977 Sweeps Hurdle (class 117).

Leaving aside the question of Master Monday and Drumgora, surely on the basis of sfs in high class races Monksfield was the best horse in the race, and one could only get to Prominent King by taking the (in my view realistic) view that PK was in better current form than Monksfield?


Amp

Welcome to the discussion. My understanding of the quote to which you refer is that the class of a race and the class of the horses contesting it can differ markedly, depending on how one conceptualises class. Thus, on the face of it a race for horses rated 0-105 is a higher class one that a race for horses rated 0-95. But if the latter includes a whole bunch of horses with ORs in the 90s including 95, while the highest rated horse on ORs in the former has an OR of 86, it could be argued that the real class of the races are best thought of as a 0-86 and a 0-95 respectively, ie the apparently lower class race was in fact higher class because of the horses which actually contested the two.

Similarly, if one uses VDW's ratings, one can get a race with win prize money of say £20,000, and therefore in VDW's terms a class 200, with lower class horses (in terms of ORs or a VDW-based rating) than one with prize money of say £12,000, or in VDW's terms a class 120.

On this line of thinking, if one only uses the VDW ability rating for a horse it may be misleading, being based in part on winning a high value race containing relatively low class horses, whilst a horse with a somewhat lower ability rating might have won less valuable races but beaten higher quality opposition.

Guest.

Sorry I'm going to answer you with a question. Why does it matter who beat the horse? What ever it was it's ability rating goes up, whereas the horse that was beaten inches doesn't. Seems a flaw there to me. An even bigger flaw is if that was the horses 1st win after say 10 starts it now stands at 200. If it was its 2 win in 5 starts, and the first win was worth £7,000 the ability rating is less 135.

Back to BL, I must have missed it when you gave another reason why he was out of form. You did hint he hadn't performed as expected, the question is expected by whom? You pointed out he was ridden differently, I have already suggested that was because the connections knew the only way they could beat SP was to get a good lead before the speed kicked in. It failed, if they had been joint favourites or even change places in the betting, there was only half a point between them. Would he still been out of form? I have looked, and can't find where vdw gave this race as an example. As I've said I think SP was the class/form horse, and it was a very good run. I can't remember who but one of the contributors said he agreed that BL had blow his top, isn't that a conclusion that can only be made after the race? Can't see a top trainer like Turnell taking a horse to Ireland if he thought the horse was over the top. I can't see the price for PK would have been much shorter on the strength of a poor win.

Fulham.

Looking at your presentation of the race, and reading my previous post I cant see why you are confused. I will say from memory both Monksfield and BL had recorded higher s/f than the ones you quoted. BL scored 120+ in a handicap in 78, Monksfield 130+ at Liverpool the year before. Master Monday ran in the 77 Champion and was beaten not recording a s/f. Drumgrora was well held by PK and Decent fellow

Be Lucky

Mtoto - With all due respect to yourself, I have to say I disagree with virtually every point you make in your last post regarding P Kings race/races. This idea that VDW wrote out in full every thing involved is well wide of the mark, though he did give many hints or starting points for us to work on ourselves. The races he detailed in his main letters or articles such as P King, Little Owl , Sunset Cristo or Roushayd were carefully chosen because they highlight so many of the important factors especially regarding form evaluation.

You say you place little faith in his class and ability ratings, yet they highlight why Beacon Light at peak form should have been able to beat Sea Pigeon on that day and at that time. The fact that he didn't shows a downturn to VDWs way of thinking. Who cares what Mr Turnell thought, is he proficient in predicting the outcome of horseraces ? No, because as a trainer he is only concerned with his runners and we only need to know his intentions for his horses judged via the way he places them. Like all trainers he will get it wrong more times than right, but when his intentions tie up with VDWs way of balancing form and class, the horse in question rarely gets beaten. When they do, the reason must be sought and mostly it means a black mark for that runner in the near future.

To be honest, it matters little what happens after events. We should judge form on how the principles went into the race on that day and at that time.

I'm not going to go back and underline the other reasons I gave for Beacon Lights dismisal because I've made them as clear as I dare. I am surprised though upon re reading my recent posts that the penny hasn't dropped for anyone yet, and I have to confess I have probably been over cautious in thinking too many will see what is actully being imparted. Many proclaim racing to be all about opinions. I would venture it is anything but. It is facts that provide winners and VDW discovered a quite superb way of sorting these facts out into a framework that will consistently throw up virtual racing certainties given certain conditions.

Mtoto,

I'm still confused, and here is why.

In an earlier post you explained your way of assessing which horses were the best by the use of sfs, saying that "I am working on the best a horse has ever achieved, and in the relevant class", which I interpreted as meaning that you worked from the best sfs put up by the horses concerned in races of comparable (or higher) class than the one under consideration. Hence my listing.

It is, as you say, quite correct that Beacon Light had recorded higher sfs than the two to which I referred: in order, he recorded a 127 in a class 23 on 24/2/77, a 122 in a class 43 on 21/10/77, a 109 in a class 44 on 2/1/78, a 107 in a class 30 on 27/11/77, and a 106 in a class 39 on 4/2/78 (the race with Sea Pigeon). Neither of the sfs in the 120s were in handicaps.

I had assumed you would disregard these sfs because of the much lower class races (compared to the Erin) in which they had been achieved.

Taking all a horse's sfs in to account produces a different ranking to that in my previous post. Assuming you are right about Monksfield having returned a sf in the 130s, he would still be, on highest ever sf achieved, the best horse in the race, but now Beacon Light would move into second position, on account of his 127, but otherwise the rankings would remain as they were, with Prominent King now ranked below Beacon Light.

Whichever way round, its still far from clear that Prominent King can emerge as the best horse in the race on the basis of sfs (whether taken overall or only in relation to races of comparable class to the Erin), or indeed on class as viewed on its own. On this latter point, it surely cannot be disputed that Monksfield's second in the 1977 Champion Hurdle was a more substantial achievement than anything put up by either Beacon Light or Prominent King up to the time of the 1978 Erin.

Guest
people see what they want to see , like people hear what they want to hear.

Even to an impartial observer of this thread though there seemed to be a big clue.

Mtoto

gibby in handicapping (reaceform book) uses a similar class barrier theory (unless youre one and the same of course)

Mtoto,
Yes, there are obvious flaws in the ability rating but as you are clever enough to spot them you will also be clever enough to factor them into your evaluations. There are also flaws in every other method that has been thought of to try and measure class, VDW's may even be worse than some of them but it fits in with the rest of the equation he gave and as such it is inseperable from that equation.
On your other point, inches are what horse racing is all about. We can all think of horses which have been narrowly beaten but also then fail when dropped in class. I would have thought that ability to fight to the line and get the nose in front is what really matters. Before backing the gallant 2nd on its next run I would want to know it is actually capable of winning based on past wins in whatever class it is running in. I believe VDW makes reference to this ability to battle and get the nose in front when its needed when he talks about Royal Bond's position approaching the last fence and why he wasnt unduly worried about its chance in the example in Golden Years. Conversely, what would happen if the situation was reversed and Royal Dipper had won?
regards,

Crikey so many questions, but there we go. This is what a forum should be all about!!

Guest.

You say you won't go any further with your explanations. Ok, explain why I am wrong, that can't give away to much. You say vdw DIDN'T explain everything, surely the bits that weren't explained are then down to personal interpretation. Who then says who is right or wrong? The only yardstick that can then be used, is how do your finding match up with the examples. I would say the less juggling that takes part the closer you are.

Fulham.

You are bouncing all round it. You are obviously an intelligent man. and far more articulate than me. I do wonder if you have read the articles I pointed out, form and class, and speed. I just don't know how to explain it any better, without putting it on the proverbial plate.

Statajack.

Why use a formula that needs to be adjusted to get a reliable result? I do agree with your point about the will to win being an important attribute when assessing class. It's another reason I am not happy with the ability rating. That is why I use more than one marker as a cross reference. I haven't the form book with the race you mentioned, but I would be happy guess vdw's class horse had a higher OR than the runner up. I may be wrong, but I thought it was you that pointed out the value of the other ratings. These are the ratings vdw used to eliminate the runners in the first example before an ability rating was ever mentioned. Would you consider a horse with a rating of 19 a good bet to beat other horses with far higher ratings in a race rated 90+ (race value) If that was the best the horse could do a prayer, and a set of wings would be in order. If you don't eliminate the so called class form horses as being out of form.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,
There is more to VDW's class ratings than you have yet to fathom out and, with all due respect, it is you that is bouncing around the answers. It is true VDW did not spell it out in easily understood terms but, instead, he chose to cleverly conceal the more detailed way he made use of his own ratings. A further clue is what he said regarding form, namely, what is form if not that one performance is better than another.

All,
In my opinion (which has changed), the methods are sufficiently difficult and require alot of work to implement them correctly. This itself prevents the majority from arriving at the same selections and when the few do, the selections are usually odds on - big deal! Also, the facts, as they stand, require individual interpretation to balance them correctly and reach the same conclusion. Afterall, we were implicitly told it is a method, not a system involving a set of unequivocal rules. For example, if ''distances won or beaten by'' is not open to personal evaluation and interpretation, then I don't know what is.

You've a ****in' weird use of the language. I cant avoid comparing you self proclaimed VDW adept's inability to function at the normal level with your entire encompassing of the head wanking scope. Guest's words are full of meaning, you? go shit on my grave.

Mtoto - I am assuming you are using life achievements of speed as your benchmark. Fair enough, I agree there are good ways to utulise a lifetime best speed figure as another measure of ability, but "speed is no use without form" as a certain Dutchman once stated. Class is also no good without form and it all comes back to the question of form. Whilst VDW did not spell out the point, given his other examples and ample research it becomes clear that VDW was very much viewing Beacon Light as out of form based on it's last run. Every other example VDW gave fits the consistent form profile and the form for the selection was strong relative to the others concerned. He probably didn't come out and say in that first letter that Beacon Light was not a form horse because as he stated many years later, his intention was to add bits of his method slowly piece by piece. He did say that Burrough Hill Lad was not a form horse in the 85 KG Chase, but never ventured why. Could it be that to go into detail on that horse (or Beacon Light) would have revealed the extra considerations that need to be made ?

I've done the research and served my apprenticeship over many years where VDWs methods are concerned. I don't claim to know it all, no one does, but the points I make I am very clear about because they are proven time and again and fit all of VDWs examples.

It will be interesting though to hear what others may have gleaned from recent debates.

To quote a very great man.

"Hear! Hear!
Or is it Here! Here!?
Whichever it is I agree."

Dear Recent Critics,

The methods have proved sufficiently difficult for you (alas) to understand. It is therefore no surprise that you cannot understand or take anything of benefit from my post.

As a special mention for Jib (as I have ignored him alot recently), it is my opinion that latin is only useful to dinosaurs or space cadets that like to pontificate.

Ta Ta for now.

Bensam

I'm interested in your comment to the effect that when those who understand VDW's approach agree on a selection, its usually odds on.

VDW said that if we understood his approach we'd have the same bets as he, which implies that, despite his approach being a methodological one rather than a system, it was sufficiently objective to mean that those who understood it would get the same results. And judging by those he gave us by way of example, these included winners at all prices.

Having explored races pre the "off" with colleagues over many weeks (usually competitive handicaps), I have been struck by the wide variety of views expressed on some races.

Partly this can be understood in terms of different levels of experience, and partly in terms of the explicitly different approaches some have developed within what they see as the broad church of VDW's thinking. (An example of a member of this board who has developed an idiosyncratic approach is Mtoto, who clearly prefers his alternatives to VDW's ability rating.)

But even among colleagues who seem broadly comparable in understanding and experience, differences often remain, mainly revolving around the issue of how well the class/form horse stands up under scrutiny/whether it warrants a bet given the price available.

If we take the Gaye Chance example as an illustration, VDW wrote "with experience it is not difficult to sort out the example", and he's surely right. A c/f with a lot going for it, forecast at 8/1. But he then goes on to acknowledge that there was "conflict", eg another horse had a higher ability rating, and advised that it be left alone.

But was VDW's advice something he himself acted upon, or (consistent with the whole tenor of the article) given because he was writing for those in the early stages of coming to grips with his approach? In my view, he named other horses as "good things" or stronger with more "conflict", or as I would see it, risk, than Gaye Chance.

The question I'd value views on is whether differences in view among those who have some serious understanding of VDW are to be expected because there is no objective way of weighing up the uncertainties, even with a class/form horse that passes a great deal of muster (which I think is what you are implying), or whether such differences suggest that those concerned still have much to learn about VDW's approach. More specifically, would anyone view backing VDW's example Gaye Chance as having been a clearly wrong judgement from the methodological perspective?

Fulham

I know you make selections in a more private forum - but i wondered in your experience when studying vdw have you managed to come up with large priced selections on occasions that a lot of people wouldnt automatically select from another method. Ie in vdws examples although he nominated some very short priced selections - he came up with some very nice priced selections which made one take notice and would be different from the "norm" becauise they have been selected with a different emphasis on selection criteria ie a selection that you think bloody hell how did he get that one

bensam,

i agree that one performance must be measured as better than another.

thats why pk was better than bl. one performance is obviously better than the other.

Barney in tenerife.

Hi Pro,

An impossible question to answer, really.

The first part is easy enough: those who follow VDW's approach certainly find some decent priced winners. I won't mention my own bets, because they've not been proofed in any public way and to do so would, quite understandably, only irritate some. But Mtoto, for example, has to my certain knowledge (and that of plenty of others) found, among others, Got One Too (won 10/1, 12/1/02), Hors La Loi III (won 10/1, 12/3/02) and Vintage Premium (won 20/1, 13/7/02). These were decent prices by anyone's standard. (You will, of course, be aware that Mtoto has his own approach to aspects of VDW, and by no means all those who follow VDW's approach would have found the three: I certainly didn't.)

Its the second part of your question that is virtually impossible to answer. Would selections such as Mtoto's three mentioned above have been found in other ways? The answer in respect of Vintage Premium is clearly yes, as I think you'll find that that was found by others who post here, using entirely different approaches. As to the other two, and more generally, I just don't know.

Fulham

thanks for the reply - although as you say Mtoto seems to have a different but very protiable slant on vdw - and interesting that hors la loi was a different horse to that of Guest's selection in the same race

thanks