mr ed?

You`re a good man Investor.

BORING

You missed the prefix "I`m"

Barney you can now find the winner of the 740 on the quick results of the RP.

certainly gave classic milleniums form a boost though .

my oh my what a tangled web

Mtoto - Chazs last post states broadly why the whole VDW episode often gets misunderstood. It's like the game show quote "it's easy when you know the answer" and so it is with VDW. Explaining it without telling all is actually pretty tricky to do.

Often though you have suggested an idea or point of view that would provide the answers on the class/form front, but you seem to discard it for some reason.

The prizemoney alone is not enough as it could be a race where the class of oposition is weak or particularly strong. However, that is why VDW often suggested the idea of crosschecks and his 2 ways of viewing class can actually throw up a complex picture, if you think about how best to use them. Then the crosschecks eradicate the scenario of a valuable hcap appearing to be classier than a group race. Of course the same cross check can also show the reverse, but either way it is down to balancing class and form which always goes beyond the obvious.

Having chatted to Chaz recently, I'm pretty sure he has discovered the crosschecks which, given the right circumstances, throw up many good things as with Feet So Fast last Saturday. Even Barrys Bismarck couldn't stop that one.

I have to take my hat off to you Guest. Dispite all, you`re living proof of the 80/20 principal at the very least.

I know it`s not in your nature to reply but that`s OK.

111
.

Thanks for the replies.

One thing you both say is. (if I'm reading this right) penalty value is NOT the only way to judge class. You both also suggest the use of cross checks, as these x checks sort the wheat from the chaff. Why not do away with the rating? I ask because vdw appears to have found PK without the use of the ability rating. HE said PK was TOP on one and JOINT on the other, none of this could apply to the ability rating. If it did, could you please explain.

Chaz says prize money is only a consideration, but isn't the ability rating BASED on it? Along with the formula for the c/form horse. I also ask again why is only winning form used to judge the ability of a horse? I know Guest says it is the test of the will of a horse to win, I thought my A.B. example the other day exposed the flaw in that.

Barney.

Donkeys.

You state Vouchsafe only beat donkeys. Three of those donkeys where in the Epsom race, they finished in front of Roushayd. VDW highlighted Vouchsafe had improved, and he was proved right. I don't use collateral form and I was happy Roushayd was still the class form horse. Vouchsafe was also a form horse, with only a few runs with potential to improve again, why weren't you worried. You say he was bouncing up in class. What is the difference between him, and Celtic Pleasure? he (CP) was going back up in class after a DEFEAT. Why do you want to be as good as me? I have a lot of improving to do before I'm happy. I think the main difference between us is, I am always open to new ideas. These ideas must make sense, and be logical. Just because someone says it is right is not enough, I need to be able to prove it to myself beyond all doubt. I could be wrong, but it comes across vdw says so, so it must be right.

Be Lucky

HI Mtoto,

form is a complex thing, have you looked at the runners in the Vouchsafe race? could they(the horses that beat him) reasonably be expected to perform in THAT race, none of the first three had any real class. That nailed vouchsafes hat on for vdw,and showed his real ability, SO FAR.

I am glad to see that in your penultimate post you have stopped dancing all round it but you now state it and ignore it!

I think that if you want to understand how VDW did things YOU should open your mind a bit, some people have been trying to tell you for months. If you then decide to ignore it because your way is better then so be it, but you havn't tried VDW's way yet.

stavourdale did well in that race and then went on to win a good un, look closely at the difference between his first race and Vouchsafe's then relatively to the runners in each.That will show why it was capable of more.In the end he beat ala hounack.ITs a small world.

[This message was edited by Barney on August 15, 2002 at 07:01 AM.]

from betting the vdw way!

"interested punters should try to understand the whole concept."

"it is no good stopping half way through a project or thinking that a part fare takes you the full journey."

"a little was left for you to complete but all relevant factors were there to set up a second numerical picture."

ITS A LITTLE BIT CRYPTIC I KNOW BUT THEY ARE VDW'S WORDS NOT MINE.

what about a third numerical picture or a fourth?

In a fairly recent post Fulham gave an approximate break down of time spent making VDW selections. Class was decided by the "ability rating" method, then form was decided by a VDW method that took about 30 minutes. After this, if there seemed to be a promising candidate the form was gone into in detail. The initial form assesment I take to be what's often called the missing link, that it can be decided quickly and in a manner that leaves no room for interpretation suggests to me that it must be purely numerical. Remembering a bee from Guest's bonnet I venture to suggest that the VDW method of deciding whether or not a horse is in form is simply to look at it's last run and compare it's market position with it's finishing position.
(Fulham I cant find your post to check the details so my apologies if you feel I've mis-represented you.)

Hi Epiglotis,

I can't find the post either, though I remember writing one on the lines you recall!

I draw your attention to the following sentence from para. 8 of VDW's article of 26/1/85, "The Class/Form Horse: One Most Likely to Win":

"To isolate the "class/form" horse can often prove a tricky problem, but some stick out like a sore thumb and it is these which should have support."

As so often, there is more than one idea in this short VDW sentence.

Some "form" horses take no finding. Most horses which have won lto are "form" horses, for example, but not all, as VDW's examples make clear.

Market position is relevant, but not decisive, as the Burrough Hill Lad example shows.

Some horses are "form" horses even though they finished way down the field lto, or indeed didn't finish at all, as the Gaye Chance and Beat the Retreat examples show. But others aren't, for example Carved Opal.

Sorting out ability ratings is largely unproblematic but, unless one has records in the right format or a computer program to do it automatically, can take five to ten minutes, depending on field size and whether one wants to rate the whole field or just the first five or six.

Sorting out "informness" can be as quick, but as suggested from the above illustrations, can be quite complicated and take a while. (Though nowadays I don't think it ever takes me as long as half an hour.)

Then there are the VDW cross checks, and one's own examination of the form of all concerned. That's where, for me, the real time goes: as Guest's pre "off" examples showed, backing even the properly identified "class/form" horses blind doesn't show a profit. There is a need to discriminate between "class/form" horses that "stand up" to rigorous scrutiny and those that don't, and then a need to judge whether those that do are "value" at the prices available. Not forgetting the need to be prepared to conclude that sometimes the second or third "class/form" horse is a worthwhile bet to beat the "class/form" horse - Guest's example of Edredon Bleu/Flagship Uberalles, for instance.

Unless one sticks to the standouts, such as Scotts View the other day in a small field, an analysis does take time, and although it involves "formulas" (eg assessing the ability rating") it is not formulaic, and (despite numerous efforts by, inter alia, Jock Bingham and Colin Davey) has not been successfully reduced to a system. Nor, in my view, is there the remotest possibility that it will - other than, perhaps, to identify the real hotpots, where even an 80% strike rate yields little profit to level stakes.


Hi Mtoto

As to VDW's ability rating, like much else VDW presented it very modestly, without suggesting that it was infallible, or very useful in isolation. When introducing it, he said: "A simple way to rate the field on ability is to relate the prize money won to the number of races won ... For obvious reasons this is not foolproof, but at least it enables a better judgement to be made and usually it is unwise to stray from the top few".

For me, the rating is founded on two appealing and logical bases:

1) as a general rule, the more valuable the race, the better the horses in it and the more competitive the race will be;

2) it focuses on what, for punters, is the key - horses which win. Eventually, almost all horses with ability win something, as Rooster Booster proved early this year. But some seem not to win as often as their apparent ability suggests they should. This may be due to poor placing (some trainers are no doubt more adept than others) or it may be due to some lack on the horse's part. How, for example, do we assess Bon Ami? Not without ability, one would say, but seemingly an exception to the oft-repeated (by TV pundits ate least) comment that seasoned sprinters win once or twice a year in their turn. VDW's ability rating addresses this.

So, its a device founded in considerable logic. Provided the modesty with which it was introduced to us is understood and respected, and it is genuinely regarded as "a guide [to be used] in conjunction with other factors", it has the advantage of being useful.

This is not, of course, to say that other ways of assessing ability are neither logical nor useful: yours are clearly both, and may even be "better" (though the criteria for "better" would need some reflection). But in the absence of some serious comparative testing of the alternatives (unlikely, for practical reasons), it is unsurprising that "traditionalist" VDW followers stick with what is, from their point of view, the tried and trusted.

Finally, a comment on the matter of the Prominent King example and the ability rating. The PK example was published on 6 April 1978, and I think I'm right in saying that VDW introduced his ability rating in 1980 in the letter published under the title "A Method not Rules Needed".

One possibility is that VDW developed his ability rating between those dates, and found PK entirely without its aid.

Another, and to my mind much more plausible possibility, is that VDW was using the ability rating at the time of the PK example, but did not explicitly set it out then. In the PK letter, VDW said that he used two methods of rating the first five horses named in the betting forecast he used, and PK "had the edge by one method and was level using the other".

It has, I think, been assumed by some that the two rating methods VDW referred to were those he referred to, and provided the actual ratings for, in the four examples set out in the 1981 "Spells it all out" article. But there is no clear evidence that they were the same. And one of the two used in the PK example (the one showing PK to have the edge) may well have been the ability rating.

Among the five horses he named, there were two sub-categories: "form" horses and "out of form" horses, and its reasonable to assume that VDW focused on the former. Among them, on the ability rating PK did indeed have "the edge" over the other "form" horse, Mr Kildare.

This is, of course, mere speculation, but I think it squares with the words VDW used in the letter. He wrote, for example, that "both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it". If one was the ability rating, applied to "in form" horses, then BL was "well out of it" as he was in the category of "out of form" horses, and thus well out of it compared with "form" horses, albeit ones with lower ability ratings.

I'm not saying that this is conclusive. But I hope I've said enough to suggest that it would be wrong to assume that VDW had not developed the ability rating at the time he gave the PK example, and to assume that he didn't use it in reaching his selection.

Regards.

Thanks for the reply. I think there's some confusion between the concepts of form, fitness and ability. If ability represents what the horse is capable of we want to know if it will be up to it's best on the day. This sounds to me like fitness, to me form is the details (confimation or refutation) of apparent ability. A very simple way to judge fitness is by the trainer's choice of jockey.

Hi Epiglotis,


I agree that there is a distinction between "form" and "fitness". Although he never said so explicitly, there is ground for belief that VDW regarded Rifle Brigade as the "class/form" horse in the race for which he was given as an example. Yet in that race the horse was having its first run of his 3yo career.

This just reinforces the point that there is more to finding successful betting propositions than isolating the VDW "class/form" horse, though that is a very useful starting point.

Cheers.

Mtoto - VDW said "Using two different methods of rating all five horses, I found that the three starred horses came out best. Both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it and his last race had been a hard one against Sea Pigeon so I was left with prominent King and Mr Kildare. Prominent King had the edge by one method and was level using the other."

And VDW later said "..if some discussion took place on the subject of rating and ratings. Two different matters. May I again suggest that ratings are a guide and should be used in conjunction with other factors and in this light, perhaps JP Hollis is looking in the wrong direction. There are numerous methods of rating and it is simple to devise one yourself, but first a sound basis is required. A significant factor with regard to racing that is apparently not known or completely ignored by the vast majority of punters is that of class."

The ways of rating class that VDW suggested only work when viewed as a whole relative to the race under examination. For instance, any horse winning one of those valuable auction races will invariably have only beaten moderate class, based on their known class/form at the time. So when that winner goes into another race with a high ability rating, the cross check of checking all contenders in the same manner will show if he is likely to prevail again. He may be taking on other who have been running in better class races or against better opposition. Please don't ignore VDWs largely misunderstood quote that "the class of race in which a horse competes is not the same as the class of horse it competes against." Many disagree with that observation, but it is this very idea that ultimately provides the strong selections.

Fulham - I agree it is most unlikely that at that time in VDWs racing career he would suddenly produce a new idea to upset his successful approach. He later said he only offered his approach piece by piece in order to allow those interested to understand why each factor was chosen. Whilst he did give many cryptic clues in that first letter concerning his selection method, he left much to complete also. As you know, I very much view Beacon Light out of form which was established using the above mentioned criteria. It often proves controversial though and many times I have been asked an opinion on a race and my reply has been met with disbelief. Far too many punters believe every favourite is a worthy favourite and are afraid to go against it. No doubt many plunged in on Dadeland last week in the race Muwassi won. The crosschecks showed the fav to be more like the outsider than a true even money chance.

Surely given that it takes much time and hard work to isolate winners using VDW must mean that the form study is subject to opinion and interpretation? Wrong. The class/form aspects of the method are concrete factors that once understood should be viewed wholly objectively. Experience obviously plays a big part, which is why there will always be slight differences of opinion, but on the whole there is little room for judgement or subjectivity where the class/form aspects are concerned.

Anyone that has followed the method in it’s simplest form will know that to follow the ability rating blind is the quickest way to the poor house. Anyone that has looked at the examples that VDW gave will know that he didn’t always back the top rated horse. So on the whole it appears that the rating is just like all the rest, nothing special, and certainly should only be used as a guide. And it is at this point where most people put the books in the cupboard and move on to a system far less taxing, or look for ways to improve on it’s supposed shortcomings. I’m sure now that like myself, Guest didn’t do that. Class is exactly what VDW said it was, and he gave us a way to measure it in the form of the ability rating. Run it alongside the Prominent King/Beacon Light race and it should become clear why the latter was out of form.

Hi Chaz,

I agree that what you say is generally the case, but I would suggest that sometimes there is scope for more than slight disagreement on the class/form issue. For example, are you sure that you would have regarded Carved Opal as "out of form"?

Regards.

Hi Fulham,

Carved Opal was NOT a form horse in relation to the opposition he faced and the terms on which he faced them, when competing at Kempton. He was ridden out to win his debut run that year in class 36, at LEVEL weights. It was an ok performance being his seasonal debut beating Kathies Lad, but it was nothing to write home about. Kathies Lad was a lesser horse,who had previously ran in class 115 finishing one paced some way behind.

He was then sent up in class and fell when ridden as the going got tough, and lost out to Beau Ranger. Beau Ranger enhanced his form on this occasion beating Classified, and also Kathies Lad.

When they went on to meet at Kempton had Carved Opal shown form enough to beat Beau Ranger? Surely not, if he was ridden out to beat Kathies Lad at level weights, albeit on his seasonal debut, in low class, how on earth could you expect him to beat Beau Ranger whilst giving away 21 lbs, who had proven his metal in the previous race, and both were now set to meet each other on exactly the same terms? Relitively speaking Beau Ranger was the only horse in it.

[This message was edited by Chaz on August 15, 2002 at 07:38 PM.]

[This message was edited by Chaz on August 15, 2002 at 07:39 PM.]

The VDW exponents say the c/f horse is not open to personal interpretation.
Barney says you're dancing all around something.
Barney also envys your success.
Why not strike a deal?