I reckon that 'in general' the winner of a £10000 race is likely to turn out to be better than one that wins a £5000 race. Of course this isn't going to be the case all the time, and I wouldn't expect it. The race value is a guide SUBJECT TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

In general a horse that wins a handicap where the top rated contestant is 140 could be considered classier than one who wins a race with a top rating of 130. However it's not always the case, but it's a good guide and if it's the way an individual wishes to consider class then it is a sound basis.

I'm comfortable with using race values to judge class (or ability) and have done with a degree of success for sometime. No measure of class is going to be right every time, and anybody who claims otherwise is a fool. Each to their own method. What is important is that we're all essentially travelling in the same direction using class and form as a basis for selection as VDW did.

If a contributor said just take the top rated on Ability and back it regardless then I'd say that's daft. Using Ability data as a basis then investigating form, particularly recent form, then you are on the right track.

Rob

Whatever anybody thinks of ability ratings personally is basically immaterial. They cover a certain set of variables which make up the "ability" part of the consistency+ability+capability etc equation. ALL aspects of his equation have to be considered, if any part of the VDW equation is left out it becomes not the VDW equation but something else entirely.
More pertinently perhaps, if a certain part (comprising a certain set of variables) of any equation is left out what will happen to the final answer?
regards,

Hi all,

People continue to ask many questions on all aspects of VDW because presumably there are parts of the method that they don’t understand (and non of us ever will, fully)? They are asking questions but at the same time refuse to use the basic tools that he gave to assess class, which in turn leads you to the final answers on form. Particularly in handicaps OR’s cannot be used as a guide to class where VDW is concerned. The reason for this is down to VDW’s view on weight and it’s effects, which again is not conventional. The fact that he had a view on weight, which is undeniable to anyone who has read the books, means that those who chose to ignore it should concede that they will never move forward where HIS methods are concerned.

VDW’s ability rating was given to measure class, class of horse and class of race, both very important. The driving factor in racing is prize money, whether it is win or place prize money. Every race has contestants that are aiming for the win money and those that would be content with the place money. A recent example of this would be Castle Prince having earned over 5k in his last 3 runs and won none of them. No good to us though, as we are looking for winners. Yes there is a transition period with the spread of prize money, and the introduction of the showcase race etc, but it soon becomes apparent to what the form in these races amounts to with the aid of the factors that VDW gave us. He himself admitted that racing would change over the years, but he was shrewd enough also to state that his methods would carry on winning.

Surely unless the tools that VDW gave us are used it is impossible gain a full understanding of how he used them. The use of Official Ratings as a guide to class, and the decision to ignore the effects of weight may well be successful but the method devised from these views cannot be attributed to VDW.

J I B

Johnd did make a very valid point about the anomlies which can occur with the Ability rating. The point is that these figures are a guide, and VDW made this point clear, even if he did place a lot of weight on the ratings.

you make some good points, but do your credibility little good when making insulting plays on particular handles. Make your point by all means, but spare us the insults.

Rob

Its amusing to see that once again JIB hasnt let his lack of knowledge of a subject prevent him from having an opinion. Consistency is everything!

regards,

JIB,
Well well, at last we agree on something as I can couldnt have put your last paragraph better myself!
During our little spats you have continually shown yourself up as both a liar and a hypocrite, yet unabashed you soldier on regardless-I salute your staying power as most people with greater self awareness would have given up by now. With that in mind I have come to the conclusion that responding to someone with the personal problems that you have is becoming akin to kicking someone who is down, even if some of those problems were self-inflicted. Having finally reached a small form of agreement I feel this is a good time to end our correspondence, although I must admit I do have reservations about allowing your ramblings to go unchecked. However, I am sure that the posters to this thread (of whatever hue) will thank us for ending our exchanges.
Best of luck,

Lee,

good post that, on VDW's methods.

LEE
There is a subtle difference between 'don't understand' and 'question' and my use of Chicuelo was to illustrate that ability ratings are not the infallible guide that many see them as.
There is no doubt in my mind that Chicuelo's a/r overstates his true class, and there are a number of other, similarly, over-rated horses, running at present.
Therefore, any method that depends on a/r as a fundament, when these horses are present in the form, is also flawed.
There is a mainstream school of thought on this thread that holds that the top rated on ability (And in form) is therefore the class/form horse; with horses like C that thinking is wrong.
Looking back on this thread, there are 3 members, 2 of them major proponents of the a/r method, who have misjudged the horse this season, for that very reason.
This would also,(IMO), corrupt the form for the 2nd numerical picture, as again used by many on this thread.
I am not suggesting that VDW was wrong, just that things have changed.
I still retain an open mind on the weight issue, and would agree with your point that weight is more or less academic when a race is viewed from the O.R. angle.However, in 2 of of his most important articles, ( Spells It All Out & The Roushayd Example), VDW made no mention, at all, of weight.
I do appreciate that weight has been read into the former, by some, but I would also contend that there is a different way of reading, and understanding, that part, as there is with ability ratings.
Regards,
Johnd

Boozer

Like Johnd you have also revised your thinking, I can remember not so long ago you were saying the weights make no difference to the outcome of a race. Now you are saying the handicap has a big influence on the outcome of a handicap race.

Hi John,

I started my last post by implying that NO ONE will ever fully understand the methods that VDW used. Obviously some will understand more than others which will in most cases be down to the amount of research time that has been put in and most importantly experience. Other than the ability rating that VDW gave, and the OR that is the opinion of the handicapper, how else can we judge the ability of a horse? I have yet to come across one that will do the job. However, one thing that I think we all have in common on this thread is that we must be able to rate a horse’s ability in the first instance. If we do this using OR’s then weight has to be thrown out of the window, as the two are directly affected, as we all know.

Not only did VDW not mention weight in his Spells it Out article or the Roushayd example he never once annotated the weights that horses carried in any of the examples that he gave. But he mentioned it often enough for us not to pick up on. Had Prominent King been carrying level weights instead of the massive (his word not mine) 12-7 he carried close to Drumgora (in receipt of 19lbs), do you think VDW would have made PK a good thing? Not a chance.

Also Roushayd, who showed up well in the Northern Dancer Class 227, behind Billet, the most likely winner in that race (and confirmed in the result), giving him 6lbs in weight. Next time Roushayd goes down in class to 170, is top weight, but only 1lb higher in actual physical weight, though this time here are no Billets to worry about lower down in the weights. That coupled with the improved performance in the Northern Dancer VDW considered him a good thing. VDW never mention weight at all, but once a few things are spotted he shouldn’t have needed to.

I 100% appreciate that there are other ways to skin the cat and it was here that I was trying to make the point that these ways are indeed OTHER ways. If we ignore the weight issues and throw out the ability rating as a measure of class/form, then how can we possibly call it the VDW method?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Ed:
Boozer

Like Johnd you have also revised your thinking, I can remember not so long ago you were saying the weights make no difference to the outcome of a race. Now you are saying the handicap has a big influence on the outcome of a handicap race.

---

I have never said that weight makes no difference in a handicap
No point in having different weights for different horses if that was the case

it doesnt bother me to see a big jump from carrying 7-7 bottom weight to 10-0 top weight from Lto whatever Lto has to do with it


So no I havent revised anything
As you well know

Physical weight doesnt bother me Big rises on the OR do

If weight was important to VDW
Why did he suggest using Sf's unajusted?

And
If class of race is not the same as the class of horse against which they compete
Why use class ratings in the first place
to judge class

MR ED
2 Questions.

1/ When, exactly did I change my tune?
2/ Will you ever post anything constructive on this thread?

Hi,

Some very good posts, but as always they raise some interesting points. I can't quite see how or why the non exceptance of the ability rating stops the method working, or being a VDW approach.

I agree there has to be a way to judge ability, so why can't another way suggested by VDW be used? That way nothing is being taken away from the VDW formula, as ability is still being used. That ability being judged using a VDW method

Lee mentions some people not understanding parts of the method. I think I understand the basics, but I am worried that the way some use the ability rating it accentuates the flaw. He also says VDW thinking on weight isn't conventional, I think it is very conventional. Less weight increases a horses chance of winning. I can't see this as less weight in a handicap means a rise in class, a rise in class means running against better horses. How does that increase the chance of winning? to me it makes the job harder. Also the case for PK carrying less weight in the Erim is based ONLY on it's last run. The only thing I can see that makes the run worth anything is the use of the collateral form with Drumgora. Not a very good horse, with only one form line worth taking. That form did nothing to increase D's ability rating, why use it? Plus just because D improves, why does that mean PK will/has? The whole appeal of VDW (for me) was the judging of the horse against it's self. Is it in form, and/or the winner in the race?

Be Lucky

LEE
I remain unconvinced that weight is a vital part of VDW's method, and to avoid putting any individuals interpretation on it, I will use VDW's own words to show why.
From The Myth Of The Missing Link:
" First of all, let me repeat what I said in The Handicap Book in March 1981, when giving this method IN FULL.
April 13 1985.UWOF.
The WHOLE CONCEPT was explained piece by piece, and it was shown how and why each element had been chosen to fit into the method.
Calculating consistent horses, ability ratings, and EVERYTHING ELSE, providing you read what was there.
Once you find it, you will wonder how on earth you could miss it, and you will have the same horses as myself.

All, of course, references to Spells It All Out, in which I believe him when he says he did,but not one single reference to weight being a consideration!!!!!!!!!!
There is little doubt that he did see weight as a factor in some of his letters, but it would seem that some have attached far more importance to it than the man did himself.
Back to my opinion, and separate from the above; many have started their quest to solve VDW from the very first letter, and consequently have attached far too much importance to the weight issue. This thinking has been passed down to others, and the results are seen regularly on this thread.
Surely the more logical approach is to draw the conclusion from the end rather than the beginning.
Personally, I support Mtoto's view, that a very good case can be made for PK without his last race having much bearing on the matter.
Class, as you say, is a vital factor, but having ability ratings as outdated in no way makes class redundant, just the original measure of it.

John,

There were a few things that weren’t exactly spelt out in that article and others that he wrote. Also from the man himself,

“Weight is a great leveller, but my personal view is that there is a distinction between dead and live weight. Although I do not wish to press the issue, I feel excess lead in the saddle is more of a brake than a heavier jockey. Consider also that a trainer will leave a high weighted horse in a race to prevent another charge suffering from raised weights.

This suggests that additional weight even in proportion is something undesirable. A study of the situation will reveal that the majority of horses falter when shouldering above a certain weight even though it may be in direct handicap proportion”……..

“Horses have INDIVIDUAL weight limits beyond which THEY do not perform. If a horse is set to carry more than they have previously performed well with, it is reasonable to assume that the day will not be theirs, irrespective of other factors.” (CAPABILITY).

If YOURs and MTOTOs thinking is correct about weight then VDW must have changed his viewpoint on it within the year or so between ‘Spelling it out’ and penning the above words.

Mind you, there are some who are of the opinion that the ability rating played no part in the evaluation of his earlier examples, including Prominent King, and still choose to dismiss it even though it was one factor that was undeniably used when VDW spelt it all out. Each too their own I suppose.