Mtoto

With so much uncertainty about the origin and nature of VDW's letters and articles, and a fair degree of ambiguity in some of them, it is to be expected that there will be different interpretations.

In his article of 26/1/1985, VDW wrote "Frequently I have spoken of "class" and "form" also the importance of getting the balance between the two correct. Also I have consistently said that "the class/form" horse is the one most likely to win and that to bet against it pushes the odds away from you."

And if one considers the earlier material, I think VDW's comment is accurate, eg paragraph six of his article of 17/1/81; the first paragraph under the sub-heading "Form Can Mislead" in the "Spells it all out" article of 28/3/81; and paragraph 2 of his reply to SGH of Selly Oak (in item 45 of "The Golden Years", page 55 of the edition I have).

The response to SGH starts with the phrase "It is my view that class and form are the dominant factors", and this surely suggests that they were central to his approach. Thus I would respectfully suggest that it is perverse to take the view that the "class/form method" as you describe it, is merely a cross check.

VDW's method of assessing class was, of course, spelt out operationally at quite an early stage (his letter of 29 May 1980). VDW himself recognised that "it is the question of form that causes some who have tried to follow my methods the most problems" (first paragraph under the sub-heading "A Question of Form" in the 18/1/1986 article). His approach to assessing in-formness or otherwise was never set out in the same easy way as was his approach to class. He alluded to it (eg in the third paragraph of the "Form Can Mislead" sub-heading of the "Spells it all out article), but he left it to readers to dig it out for themselves and most, I suspect, confused (and continue to confuse), form and consistency.

On this interpretation, a question that may arise is why, if VDW really did regard class and form as central, didn't he refer to them even earlier than in the letters to which I've referred above. The answer is that he did, both directly (eg in his letter of 24/5/1979) and indirectly (eg his reference to Love from Verona in his letter of 8/3/79). He didn't spell the matters out as fully as in some of the later articles, but it is clear from the totality of his work that VDW never intended to spell everything out, but to give enough clues for those sufficiently persistent to get there. (And, if one thinks about it, far from being mean, that was remarkably generous. After all, if any of us had, independently, found a consistently winning approach founded in the logic of the essence of racing, would we make it freely available to all, at the likely cost of reducing our future income stream?)

Finally, I think the acid test is the one referred to by Crock in a post to Johnd some weeks ago: what explains the examples VDW gave us? Leaving aside the six Handicap Hurdles examples and six late examples beginning with Rivage Bleu (both of which VDW said were on different lines to what he had shown us previously), I have yet to find (and I've not many more to check) ANY VDW example not explicable in terms of his class/form approach. The two factors for narrowing the field do not explain ALL the examples, any more than your sf-based approach to ability, though naturally there is likely to be some coincidence between VDW's example and any moderately logical selection process.

As I've said before, there may well be better methods than VDW's. You've pre-"off" posted some decent winners, and for all I know Barney, Swish and Johnd may all have found something better. Good luck to one and all. But for anyone who wishes to understand the core of VDW's approach - class/form - in order to be able to apply it to current races, there is no realistic alternative to digging it out for themselves by study of his letters etc, but principally by study of his examples.

on a literal interpretation desert hero was out of form as was beacon light, however placed in the race concerned, the imperial cup, vdw's methods of rating put him right back in the picture as with prominent king.

"IMPOSSIBLE"

not as VDW points under that heading para 5

"all these were achieved with the aid of nothing more than can be found each day in the sporting chronicle"

I put it to you that city link express,brooks law and spotsylvania certainly did not figure in that isssue of the sporting chronical.

Barney

I don't know what you mean by a "literal interpretation". VDW said Desert Hero was the class/form horse for the 1983 Imperial Cup. That he was a form horse for the race is clear when one has properly sussed how VDW made such judgements, and is independent of consistency rating and the particular method through which this horse was "shortlisted". The fact that VDW saw him as the CLASS/form horse (my capitals) adds to one's understanding of the method.

I'm sorry but I'm not quite understanding the second half of your post.

If I may, a direct question.
Are you saying that, had the ground been soft, the ratings alone would have shown Pegwell Bay not to be be a good bet?

Hi Fulham,

Another well written and thought out post. However one I feel I must reply to. There is so much that is mentioned in it I'm not sure were to start.

I agree class and form are the bed rock of ALL the methods, it's the use of the c/form method to explain so many I query. You have to admit using it can cover a multitude of sins without having to give logical reasons. The highest on ability (with form) isn't the selected horse. this horse is then classified as being out of form, or form not strong enough. Then it is also easy, that when someone doesn't agree, or challenges the thinking. You don't understand the way VDW thought about form. My question is, is this the way VDW really thought, or the way others think he thought to make sense of the methods? I have to say I can't find any logical reason why some of the horse with higher ability ratings can be classified as out of form in some/many of the examples. This is not based on my ideas, but on the selection of many VDW selections. The most obvious example being PK, what has being in form in a 6* handicap got to do with being good enough to win a 90* race. There has to be better reasons for the trainer to even consider entering him. The last run only proved the horse was alive with a leg in each corner. I know about Drumgora finishing 3rd in a 117* race last time out, but we know nothing about how he ran in either race. The form for the 117* race had hardly worked out that well, with only one winner next time out. I still think the key to PK was in the ratings, not c/form.

VDW used s/f for many of his methods, horses to follow HN and flat. He used the words s/f of over 80 shows it has a good level of ability, longer before the ability rating was introduced. He also named it as A way to judge improvement with the Roushayd method. He used it a lot. All I am doing is following his lead, I'm not taking it at face value because that is what HE said. Obviously I can't prove anything, but I'm convinced it is a major part of one of his other method of rating. If none of the main contenders hasn't a relevant s/f it reflects in that rating, they would all be poor. So the whole race would revolve around the other rating/method, I think that is why I can't solve all the examples with speed.

All of this is not to say I'm not learning valuable lessons. After studying the examples in depth I wouldn't now have backed Bilboa at Aintree. It is even possible I would have selected the 9/1 winner.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I understand your point re form, and had earlier argued similarly with Guest, among others. However, it is as VDW says: when one eventually gets a reasonable understanding of how HE assessed form, the examples all drop into place. Your comment on Prominent King is far from unreasonable, but GIVEN how (in my view) the evidence suggests VDW assessed in-formness, there is no doubt that PK was a form horse, and Beacon Light wasn't.

At the end of the day, the issue is whether one thinks VDW's approach to assessing in-formness makes sense, and that seems to me to turn on whether it (a) seems logical and (b) works sufficiently often in practice. Personally, I'm convinced on both counts, but can understand others having reservations about (a), particularly until they have a firmish grip on the approach and have explored the examples with its benefit.

As to speed figures, there is no doubt whatsoever that VDW used them, in various ways, and I disagree with Barney's view that they are useless. But, equally, it is clear that VDW saw them as having substantial limitations - eg as expressed in his 10/10/81 article "A Word about Evaluation". In the light of his comments I think it is impossible to believe that sfs were central to his NH selections, or indeed Flat selections when dealing with older horses.

Epiglotis,
Yes. At first glance people would assume that vdw is refering to rating the race for the top 5 in the f/c and consistency but this is not so. "Using two methods of rating all 5 horses" - this implies that he has already narrowed the field via the betting forecast (16 runners remember) so if he then rates for consistency where is the other rating? This shows to me he applied 2 sets of ratings to those 5 horses and it was coincidence that the top 3 rated were also the top 3 for consistency.
Guest and others argue that vdw used the ability ratings for this race but simply hadnt told us about them yet. This is patently rubbish! VDW states "both methods showed Beacon Light well out of it." As Beacon Light was top rated on ability how on earth could both methods show him well out of it if one of them was the ability rating? Likewise BL was jt top rated on consistency. Therefore VDW used 2 methods of rating, a point he makes numerous references to throughout his writings. He uses them to confirm what the form tells him, here is a person who wants to leave as little to chance as possible-what better than 2 differently compiled rating methods, using logic and without any emotion to get in the way?
If you look at it in this way, then you see why what type of ratings used is unimportant.

Guest,
Following on from the above, all the examples with the initial picture when he said "bet" had the horse in the top 2 and some of the other examples didnt perhaps as you say, but firstly, how do you know that this is the case if you dont know what ratings vdw used? Secondly, he said they dont have to be top rated, so what difference does a few points make if one has correctly ascertained the class factors? Not a lot but more than 5 or 6 points behind the top rated would set the alarm bells ringing would it not?
What about the 5/6 most consistent from the 1st 5/6 in the ratings cross check? What about VDW's answer (letter 20) to F. Chester's question in letter 18? What about the favourite method-why insist on the 2 shortest priced favourites? because the fact that the horses in question are favs confirms that if the process has been applied correctly and you still arrive at the fav you have a mighty strong bet. Note also that Delboy's Van der Mail system is doing well without him applying any of the process at all, its because the more people agree about something via independent means, the more likely that something is to be correct.
The proof is in the pudding, why not try it? The worst that can happen is that your strike rate will improve, I thought that a high strike rate was what attracted us to VDW from all the other methods of winner finding?

Last but not least: "Study of the FORM AND RATINGS can show a consistent horse to be out of its depth, as for instance Billbroker as for instance Billbroker in the St Ledger ans equally Son of Love was a good thing in the same race."
I rest my case.
regards,

Okay, I see what you're getting at, thanks for pointing that out.

Hi Fulham,

Of the members of this board you are one of the very few I don't worry about. I think you are well capable of making VDW pay. The ones I worry about are the ones that take everything written about VDW as gospel. They will think this is the way, and I think there is far more to it. Even I am asking why is BL out of form, and Soaf not. They have very similar profiles no matter which method one uses to find the c/form horse. Anyway we are just going round in circles, so I will stop raising my doubts.

I will however just ask how you come to the idea s/f are not an important part of VDW thinking. I will state my case with copies of VDW quotes, followed by my thoughts on them.

Look Before You Leap (A method of finding NH horse to follow)

{The important thing is to establish proven ability and here a previous speed figure of 80 plus, should give a reasonable base.}


{Because I usually take an extended holiday in spring or early summer I do not make a list for the Flat}

Would VDW recommend a method that he thought had obvious flaws? The second sentence gives a reason why he doesn't do it for the flat, he is not saying he doesn't think it would work.

A WORD ABOUT EVALUATION

{Nothing is infallible and the use of time can APPEAR to have many disadvantages}


{What the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation}.


(Other ages as well, but for the moment confine attention to this group.)

The first sentence is included because of the word 'appear' the capitals are mine. Doesn't this show he doesn't completely agree with what is written about s/f? The second, says it all, but not to just take s/f at face value. Something he has said right through his articles. The third, shows he is not averse to using the method for any age horse.

As has been said many times it's all there if you want to find it. This is why I think s/f are an integral part of all his methods.

Be Lucky

Statajack

If I may pick up one point from your post to Epiglotis, namely the reference to whether VDW applied the ability rating to the Prominent King race, which you dismiss as "patently rubbish".

You are, I think, in danger of confusing two things: the two methods of rating to which VDW referred in the relevant article, and how VDW "found" Prominent King.

It may have been suggested that one of the two methods of rating was the ability rating, but not, I think, by Guest, because I remember a relatively recent post of his which said that he (like me) assumed the two methods were those for which he gave the actual figures in the four examples detailed in the "Spells it all out" article. We don't know for sure whether that is right, but it is a reasonable assumption, and for the reason you have stated it is clear that, whatever the rating methods were, one of them was not the basic ability rating.

But that is not to say that the basic ability rating did not figure in the way VDW derived Prominent King as a betting proposition. It could, of course, have been the case that VDW got there in just the way he said in the relevant article, ie essentially in three stages:

* identifying the three most consistent horses from the first five in the betting forecast he used;

* applying his own two methods of rating to the five and noting that the three most consistent came out best, with PK and Mr Kildare clear of Beacon Light on the ratings;

* assessing the form of the two emerging as probables - PK and Mr Kildare, and opting for the former.

IF that is how VDW got there - and indeed found his other winners - we are all in difficulty as (I think) no one claims to have discovered the two rating methods VDW used, and there is little chance that some of his selections (including Prominent King) were highlighted by free or commercially available ratings.

But there is another, and to me more probable, explanation - that PK was found via what he later told us were his two mainstays, form and class. Because, coincidentally or otherwise, Prominent King was the class/form horse in the race as were, arguably, all the other examples of bets VDW ever gave (with the possible exception of those found by the Handicap Hurdles and "Best/Next Best" methods).

If indeed VDW did find his probables through his notions of class and form, the two methods of rating become, like other devices VDW mentions explicitly or alludes to, cross checks of the kind that, for example, made Stray Shot and Zamandra bets, but not Castle Warden, Bonny Gold, River Rhein and Kevinsport.

We may never know for sure, but I would suggest that it is far from "patently rubbish" to suggest that the ability rating, although undisclosed to his readers at the time, figured in the selection of Prominent King. To me, it is more than probable.

I would be very interested in what ratings you would expect to find

Son of love 20/1
billbroker 33/1

rated in the top couple.

for info (fav) niniski 12, had just won a g2

surely this would put him at the head of many ratings.

Mtoto

I have no difficulty with the proposition that sfs were an integral part of VDW's approach and, as I made clear in my earlier post on the subject, here I am markedly at variance with Barney.

As far as I can see, VDW used sfs in three ways:

* as a reasonable basis for compiling lists of horses with potential, to keep a particular eye on;

* as an alternative to, or check on, the basic ability rating when assessing 2yos (sadly, we only have the one example), and early season 3yos, where there are grounds for thinking the basic ability rating may be hit and miss;

* as a means of noting improvement from one run to another (eg with Roushayd and Desert Orchid).

In other words, a useful part of the armoury, but (apart from with 2yos and early season 3yos) not central to most selections.

the method of finding out the winner was only brought into play after the three probables( which by vdws own figures stated the winner was 96% certain to come)


vdw then applied HIS rating's and found Bl had no chance


I think there are at least five people on this board who know what they are. Four of whome are still hanging around/posting.

for that matter why did billbroker even get a mention?

why exactly do you think he was out of his depth?

could it be that vdw only evaluated the relative performances, after the initial numerical picture and then only after HIS methods of rating had reduced the race to two from the three probables.

same as pk mk?

Barney,

It was a wonderful break away. Not long enough though.

Fulham,

Specific to Handicap Hurdles.

Statajack,

I use ratings, compiled along different lines, just as VDW suggested. They are certainly not useless. VDW did say however that RATING and RATINGS were “two different matters”, and that all ratings should be used as a guide. Anyone using the Ability Rating at face value will indeed see that Beacon Light came out on top. But the Ability Rating is a “rating” and is therefore just a guide. When used as intended though, it is a very powerful one. As with a lot of VDW’s examples the ability rating actually pointed out where the cracks were in the form. The Erin is no different.

JohnD,

I agree with you that VDWs RATINGS wouldn’t have taken in to account things such as ground conditions. Form matters such as that don’t require numbers in order to help make a decision. Joley Bay was a good example of this today.

May I now ask you a couple questions regarding the same example? Why do you think VDW decide to leave out ability ratings for some of the horses in the Mackeson? And what was it, in your opinion, that made VDW state that the result makes it appear Pegwell Bay is capable of winning again before long? A statement that would have been made without the aid of Press RATINGS.

Lee

Cheers. I shall have a proper look at that method in due course.

Thanks for the reply, it does seem to support my contention that the final decision comes down to the reading of form.
Regarding the missing ability ratings, the only one missing from the 3 most consistent and the first 6 in the betting is that of Smart Tar, which is rather surprising, considering it would have put him in with the principals. He could easily be dismissed on this going, are you suggesting that VDW left him out, knowing this,before he compiled his ratings?
In my opinion, he said that Pegwell Bay was capable of winning again because he had shown improved form,in this higher class,and was therefore still improving; although he improved his ability rating in this race, one would reach the same conclusion by the reading of the form.

you mentioned you use two rating based on differant lines,on the subject of using speed figures van der wheil stated using one set from the current season,and one from the best performance ;when you find both best performance and also present seasons figures put a horse in front regard the animal with great respect;does this comply with your thinking,lee./all/
GUEST many thaks for the reply i will further evaluate these horses,could i ask you another question, how far back in a horses career would you consider checking for form evaluation many thanks, excellant posts keep up the good work

john duncan

John D,

Indeed, Smart Tar had ability; VDW told us this in his notes when looking at the rest of the field. It can also be seen that he was consistent. Enough was said to plant the seed but he left a few blanks for us to fill in. The same goes for his comment "appears that PB is capable of winning again before long".

I agree with you again that it is the reading of form that our final decision should be based on. But the way VDW read form is different to the majority. Yes, a decision has to be made whether or not a particular course, distance, and going will suite a horse, however, it is the level at which the horse can perform at under the conditions that is most important, and it all has to be relative to the race that it is running in against the races that it has run.

Grundy,

Speed figures in the way that you are describing were used by VDW for a further gauge of ability of the younger unexposed horses; 2 and 3yo’s. The ratings based on different lines should be one of Form and one of Speed.

Fulham,
What I am saying is not whether or not VDW used the ability ratings (and all that stems from them) in his evaluation of the PK race but whether it was one of the 2 methods he employed to rate the horses therein that he mentions in the PK letter. It was patently not one of them however.
Lee,
I agree. When have I said all else should be abandoned and only ratings (press or otherwise) used? Never. So following on, why have/mention them at all?
Barney,
The quotes were VDW's not mine. If he were around, he would be the person to question-not me. But yes, I do think along the lines of the 3rd paragraph of your last post.

Look, I am not saying that using 2 ratings substitutes for using class as the initial base/mainstay of all vdw analyses. What I am saying is that they are there to be used to give either the green or red light before the final transaction is made. Move away from whether the ratings include TS, PM or SS or RHU, it doesnt matter. They will all give top rated long priced winners every so often because their respective journals always tell you when they do. It is missing the point entirely.
G. Hall and F. Chester somehow even managed without using class in the ability sense of the word at all and were commended for doing so by the man himself. No, Im not saying we forget claas/ability/classform horse etc but...as it is VDW methodolgy we are discussing, personally I value VDW's words more than anyone else's. regards,