Hi Chaz,

With respect, I haven't suggested that I would have expected Carved Opal to beat Beau Ranger: at the moment I am only concerned about whether or not he could reasonably have been regarded as a "form" horse.

It is, of course, a matter of record that Beau Ranger won the race before the one for which VDW made him the "class/form" horse, beating Carved Opal. It is also a matter of record that, according to the Form Book, in that race, Carved Opal, the short priced favourite, was ridden from the 14th. But it is equally a matter of record that, according to the Form Book, Carved Opal fell at the 15th, when having "every chance". Having nothing else but the Form Book to go on, the comment on Carved Opal does not suggest to me that he was beaten at the time he fell. (You'll be aware that comments on those lines are included in the Form Book when the commentator judges them appropriate.)

One possible interpretation, therefore, is that but for falling when in contention, its as likely that Carved Opal would have won as it was that Beau Ranger would have done.

And scrutiny of the horses Carved Opal beat in his previous race supports the view that he was a classy animal, not at all over-faced in contesting a class 49. As you say, he beat Kathies Lad 2.5l at levels. Whether he was a "lesser horse" as you say, is open to discussion. His previous run was 4th in the Mackeson Gold Cup, having given an indication of his ability when 3rd at Cheltenham (class 88) in March 1984. Carved Opal also beat The Tsarevich, who had previously come last of five, though only by a short head, first time out in a class 64, and had also shown ability in much higher class (118) earlier in the year. On any VDW-based analysis, Carved Opal's win on 27 November 1984, fto against two such classy horses, both of whom had had the benefit of runs, was a decent one, and a better performance than I think you are allowing.

Later results in the 1984/5 season - including the Mildmay, where The Tsarevich beat both - suggest that it was unlikely that Carved Opal could give Beau Ranger 21lb. But that's not relevant to the issue at hand. Prior to the 27/12/84 race, in my view it would not have been unreasonable to have "excused" Carved Opal that fall - as VDW did from time to time - and regard him as a "form" horse.

Frankly, I've always had concerns about the Beau Ranger race. My suspicion is that VDW analysed it retrospectively. There were just four runners, but VDW could plausibly have claimed any one of three results as evidence of the power of the class/form horse. I'm not suggesting dishonesty: only the operation of the almost universal tendency to see what one wants to see.

Regards.

Hi Fulham,

I realise that you hadn’t suggested Carved Opal was likely to beat Beau Ranger, but it is necessary to ask yourself these questions when establishing whether a horse is a form horse or not. With regards to race comments it is what a horse does from the distance that is important. Carved Opal was up there with the leader when he fell but was being ridden at the time. He wasn’t having an easy time, and failed to stand up when it mattered. Compare these comments to Beau Ranger. Carved Opal had the ability to win, but hadn’t shown any recent form to confirm this. In comparison, Beau Ranger had shown the form to win on the conditions that they met.

Hi Chaz,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both points.

In respect of the first, more general, point: do you see Mr Kildare as a "form" horse in respect of the Erin? If so, how does he stand up to your line of thinking?

Cheers.

Hi Fulham,

I’d be interested to know exactly what points that you disagree on. Assuming that one point is regards to the race comments, and in particular the remark that Carved Opal had ‘every chance’ prior to falling, it is worth noting that the same comment was made about Classified going in to the last, and indeed Kathies lad 2 out. Chaser/Hurdlers fall over in the main because they are asked for too much normally in the latter stages of a race. Beau Ranger made mistakes 3 out, but was able to stay on his feet whereas Carved Opal failed. Blundering and falling is the main reasons that a chaser will fail in a race and it is normally when they are not fully up to the job, for whatever reason. Obviously not in all cases, but in the majority.

Hi all.

epiglotis

Hi epiglotis

Top post.
Iv'e long held the view that the main part of VDW'S method is all based upon his numerical/ statistical reasoning.
He made a play that the consistent/1st five/six in the betting were the horses to concentrate on .
Then within a space of a year ( before the ability ratings were introduced ) G. Hall was having it bang off , and F. Chester was already well on the way to the " ultimate conclusion ".
Being that these two did'nt have all the data that us lucky bastards have at our fingertips you could come to the conclusion that they both had abnormally large brains in proportion to their body mass .

Of course G.Hall lets himself down by stating that he's well into doing Yankees.

Putting that to one side, in my highly regarded opinion ( sorry guys I don't do humble ) I'd have to go along with Epiglotis and say that the class/form horse is arrived at via a numerical process.

Thanks for replying to me personally. Unfortunately I'm a little busy at the moment, I will try to reply with a similar degree of spirit tomorrow.

Guest, Chaz and Fulham,

congratulations are in order for your explicit and unambiguous posts lately.

FOR anyone who is, at least, trying to understand VDW then the recent posts will help no end.

For anyone who doesnt get it yet GIVE UP!!

According to Fulham you can not reliably identify the c/f horse, never mind deciding whether or not to back it. What is the worth of your congratulations?

its worth,


is the same as yours in defending class "A" drug abuse and misuse and not appreciating its social consequences.

ie. pointless unless one has personal experience!

Nice reply. Too tired to take it further but are these the hidden factors?

Some interesting posts.

Couple of points come to mind.

Is BL out of form from Guest, and Chaz by the same criteria?

If the ability rating is one of the other ratings, how does it fit with PK having the 'edge'? I would have thought 10 against 17 was more than an edge.

I came into this arse backwards. When I first started to try to find out how to grade the horses and races, I hadn't even heard of ability rating (or consistency) I just used what was in Systematic Betting. I have asked before if they are the only way why wasn't there even a mention about them?

I was working the c/form approach before I even knew it had a name, except for me there can only be one CLASS horse in the race. That is the best horse, if it doesn't full fill all the requirement I just leave the race alone. How does anyone know when it will come back into form?

Barney I only know one dance, the jive. When I perform it can't be mistaken for any other function. Certainly not approaching a problem.

I found 3 c/form horses today, Bon Ami, Derwent, and Prior's Lodge. I couldn't back BA because of his strike rate. Anyone else agree with these horses? If not, what did you make the c/form horses in these races?


Be Lucky

Mtoto,

I agree PL had the class and form to win this race.

Clearly a race which confirms top class h`cap form is not the same as Listed / Group 3 form.

Those with higher ability ratings from the 1st 4 in the f/c namely Smirk (238) Surprise Encounter (183) had recent good form in a competitive and valuable h`cap but does that compare to

a) PL last `class` run when 3rd to a rapidly improving Nayyir and a consistent group horse in Redback

b)PL capabilities already in the form book.

*** I didn`t bet in the race but that doesn`t take away the fact that PL was as Mtoto states the class / form horse.

Wasn`t he ?

Cheers,

Mtoto/Determined

Appreciate your thoughts on Priors Lodge, but my very major worry was that he'd never won over 8f and thus I discounted him as a 7f horse. Had the race been over 7f I would have had no doubts.

Oldtimer

Hi Chaz,

I'll be glad to explore both issues.

Starting with the more general one, I have suggested a way in which that can be explored - via Mr Kildare, on which I'd be interested in your comment.

As to the race prior to the 27/12/84 one, it is indeed a matter of interpreting the Form Book comment. Had Carved Opal fallen at the first (or indeed been brought down), I take it that we'd agree that, in assessing his "informness", we'd "excuse" the race? Had Carved Opal fallen later in the race, when clearly beaten, I'd neither "excuse" the race nor hold my current opinion on the issue of "informness". But with the Form Book comment as it stands, I take the view that, on balance, its safer to take the conservative option, and give Carved Opal the benefit of the doubt.

This is primarily because I'm even more interested in avoiding losers than finding winners - a matter of personal temperament - and therefore don't easily dismiss potential winners. Also, I try hard to cultivate a critical attitude to VDW's examples. Usually - I still have difficulties with one or two examples - its easy enough to see a clear line of reasoning to support a VDW example, and as a result to think, "ah, I understand". But transferring that level of understanding to current racing tends to lead to confident but sometimes unsuccessful selections: I've been there, and I observe the same in pre race selections posted here - even among the palpably most knowledgeable contributors.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I am in no doubt that what I see as the essence of VDW - his focus on the class/form nexus and the methods he gave us to assess both - is the key to successful winner selection. But I perhaps see more ambiguities and scope for individual judgement in applying that nexus than you.

I suspect, however, that Guest, you and I would not be far apart in identifying "class/form" horses. For example, Mtoto had a successful day yesterday, and congratulations to him. But Bon Ami, Derwent and Prior's Lodge didn't feature as my first "class/form" horses for the races concerned: did any of them match yours?

Regards.

Lack of time has meant Ive been unable to even look at racing lately but I have still been following the thread and epiglotis has touched upon the importance of the numerical picture which I find interesting in relation to time or rather the lack of it.
In VDWs day there was only the sporting Life, which gave the last 3 runs of each runner and a few details of races where previous meetings between horses contesting any particular race took place. To study a race or races on any given day with all the cross checks neccessary would involve a considerable amount of time thumbing through back issues of Raceform Handicap book or even past season's formbooks, all with the possibility of no selection at the end of a few hours study or running out of time.
The initial numerical picture was always used to narrow the field. This is to avoid wasting time on runners with no chance and it is interesting during the PK example (the first one he gave) that he uses that picture to arrive at 3 possibles, one of which is top of both ratings. It has a theory of mine that this numerical picture was also used to decide whether it was worth continuing to study a race or to give up and turn to another race if that initial picture did not throw up a horse with a possible advantage on the figures. Various other examples seem to bear this out also, particularly the Gaye Chance one.
It seems strange that someone so thorough would not have a means to avoid wasting time on races where conflict occured and which could then possibly be unplayable. Part of the equation refers to "hard work" but unnecessary hard work?
regards,

Carved Opal/Beau Ranger - The main points to note about this race is that the top rated on ability was not a form horse according to VDW and also that the race was a handicap.

On the form front, Carved Opal was favourite at Cheltenham but was noted as ridden at the 14th fence, after making his move at the previous fence, and fell. Beau Ranger had led from the 8th making a mistake 3 out but then ran on well to win by 4 lengths. The second horse Classified was held up making steady headway at the 14th, every chance at the last but no impression. This paints a picture to me that Classified appeared to be travelling better than Carved Opal at the 14th, yet even he didn't peg back the winner.

On the handicap front it is interesting to note that at the time, Carved Opal hadn't won a handicap of any description where as Beau Ranger was mopping them up.

Yes, the fact that CO was fav at Cheltenham had to be respected, but if you study his form, he hadn't achieved as much as Beau Ranger under those sort of conditions. Again, this all takes time to compile the info, even on a 4 runner race. But it is the very reason that the ability or class ratings are not taken at face value in isolation. If the figures continue to confirm findings though it is a different matter.

Hi Fulham,

I’m short on time today and so I can’t give you the response I wanted to at the moment. Guest has outlined a little bit more on the Carved Opal front and pretty much concurs with my view on the race comments. Carved Opal was being asked to carry and give weight in class that he’d failed to do before, indeed as Guest has already pointed out, he was yet to even win a handicap. On the other hand we have Beau Ranger who’s form shows that he proved himself in the class, at the weight.

I’ll talk about Mr Kildare when I have a bit more time.

Hi Guest,

"This paints a picture to me ..." My point entirely.

I imagine you'll be betting today.

i personally considered SYSTEMATIC a1/3 chance would anybody agree,i personally managed 8/15 which i considered value,any comments welcome

Fulham - Yes, but how else could the comments for all three horses (CO,BR,Cl) have been interpretated ? The main point is though, as Chaz said, most horses fall through being overstretched. Sometimes it is just a clumsy mistake when well clear, but nonetheless in the main if it falls its because it couldn't pick it's feet up.

Investor - Systematic was a good thing alright, but quite how the RP forecaster imagined he would be even money is beyond me. Just wishful thinking maybe ?