Mtoto - The weights for the Cambridgeshire were obviously very different to previous meetings between Baronet and Petronisi. As Determinded has noted, Petronisi was dropped a fair way in class when Baronet was giving that horse weight. You both noted the 2nd in the race the year before and I'm certain you noted the speed figure attained. The big point for me though is what Petronisi has acheived.

Jimmy - Yes I did say that after some pointless arguments with some, but the next day I also said I was only going to refrain from posting evaluations or arguing points I know to be correct.

MTOTO,

Hi, can you confirm that you received an email at the weekend from me. It appears that I'm having problems with the account and just want to make sure that you got it. Cheers.

Chaz

Guest,

I had noted the drop in weight for both horses, but also note they are both carrying more weight than they carried in the 72 rated race at York. I also fail to see how only one of them can be considered out of form, or not being in form for this race. Ok Petronisi only won the last race (28) on an objection. They were both taking a drop in class, and finished as expected on form. How can finishing 3rd be better than winning a 72, when they meet on the same terms for this race?

If you go back to the previous year's Cambridgeshire, doesn't this raise a question on your view of how you think VDW worked? First is the question of weight, Baronet couldn't win the race carrying 9lbs less. Why should he win it this year with the increase? The second raises a question about the ability rating, is the 78 race really a 70% better race than the year before? Worth £18053 in 78, to £10817 in 77.

Chaz

Yes, I recieved your e-mail. Will get back to you ASAP, glad to have of been of some help.

Be Lucky

GRUNDY
Sorry about the delay in replying. You appear to have read more into my post than was actually there. In total, I have read only 6 or 7 American books on racing.
Though all of these books went into greater depth than their British equivalents, they were mainly a mix of race times, trial times, track biases, pace, etc., all useful when the same horses are racing on the same tracks as they do in the states, but not easily applied to our racing.
I do believe Andrew Bayer came over here for a while, and did make it pay; but from what I have seen of him at the Breeders Cup, he has to work a lot harder at it than VDW appears to have.

MTOTO
Excellent post on weight and its effect. Thanks for that; I may have missed it, but did you give the origin?

I have only just realised what "Hard work" means.

its a full time job, and "it has to be done everyday" whether there is a bet or not

No wonder vdw said let the first few months go by.

atlantic ace looks a good bet when dropped.

Just a quick point on Baronet and the weight issue, I feel weight forms a very significant factor in evaluating form and as a consequence forms a very large part of the VDW methods, more so than many may think, just because it was not mentioned often does this mean it is not a part of the main method.
On the Baronet race and the Orchestra and PK examples there are many factors to take into account but there are the issues of weight and the fact that all three horses were going up in class after dropping each time for their last 3 runs. Contrary to what many think, weight is a major factor to take into account I believe.

Cheers Mimas

Barney,

I have records of nearly 4000 NH horses that have run in class D and above over the last 12 months. God knows how many only ever run in class E,F,G and H races.

My flat database has 3300.

It's hard work

Mtoto - Baronet, from his last 3 runs, had won a handicap at Sandown with 10-0 and finished 3rd twice also in handicaps giving 8lb to the winner at York and later 7lb to Petronisi at Ascot. As we noted this morning Petronisi was dropping in class at Ascot. The weight Baronet carried the previous year is immaterial really. The opposition on the day is more important.

Part of the equation was consistent form and Baronet was consistently in form relative to the Cambridgeshire race conditions. Petronisi was not. However, VDW did state on ocassions that common sense is needed rather then strict rules. A horse doesn't have to show form on all 3 last runs, relative to the race he is about to compete in, if he has improved significantly since the non-form run.

The point about the Cambridgeshire run the year previous and also Baronets good basic speed figure is that whilst it was a very useful indicator, this sort of indication was not present in most of VDWs selections, especially the consistency ones. I can see clearly why you have adopted this idea, in fact at one point I also went down that route having noted Prominent Kings Triumph hurdle run along with Baronet. However, I found there was much more to the class and ability ratings than first meets the eye and it is how they are used in the evaluation process that matters.

Given what I have stated about Baronets last 3 runs, try comparing with Roushayds last 3 prior to the Old Newton Cup. There is a very clear and simple idea that VDW used for form that sticks out a mile if one opens their eyes and mind to it.

Thank you all for the replies to my question about possible other winners at racing.
Especially MOM, Boozer, JIB and Mtoto.

I must ask another interesting question another time,
Cheers
Swish

1978 Cambridgeshire

I now have the formbooks for 1976 onwards so can work out the ability ratings for the 4yo`s and upwards in this race.

Would someboby be prepared to provide the ability ratings for the 5yo`s and upwards ?

Cheers,

ARROWSON,

thanks for that.

GUEST,

have you found it significant to consider the layoff between non form and form runs.

MTOTO,

Petronisi- have you read the bit where vdw and his mate watched royal bond.I read it dozens of times before I understood it.Its not just a little story....he never wrote anything for nothing.

Beacon light was also a good thing to beat sea pigeon.

guest,mtoto, fulham, johnd, lee, statajack, determined, crock, barney,all, your assessment of the roushayd method, in van der wheils other examples at haydock, park express, three tails, pipsted, vdw, stated these horses were racing certainties,?....were there factors common also in selecting these horses, if i remember park express had only won a maiden?...thanks

barney could you give any further insight to these examples, thanks ..grundy

[This message was edited by grundy on March 19, 2003 at 10:29 AM.]

Mtoto.

"The second raises a question about the ability rating, is the 78 race really a 70% better race than the year before? Worth £18053 in 78, to £10817 in 77."

The point about the 70% increase has no bearing on the form of any horse involved. It has to be asked, have the horses involved increased in ability (not AB ratings) by the "same" amount from the previous year?.

A lot of past vdw examples given in this thread can be an eye opener when considering the C/F of any horses last three runs, but these last three races are not the end of the evaluation, how can they be, in the main three races alone cannot tell us the answers that we seek, this includes Roushayd.

"r"

Barney,

With Royal Bond there is one BIG difference he had proven he was the CLASS horse in the race. Baronet hadn't, in fact there were several with higher ability ratings. As I have said if Baronet was in form so was Petronsis. There is no way you can make one in form and not the other. I'm sorry but it just isn't logical, and I do think that is one thing that can't be laid at VDW's door. He was logical! The ability rating as used by Guest says Petronsis was the better horse, he held B on form. There is only one thing the average punter had to say B was a better horse. Heaven forbid, that is the weight, and that is governed by the OR. I think Guest is saying Petronsis won a 72 race then struggled to win a 28, not progressing. Put that against beaten 3rd in a 72 wins a 38, then beaten 3rd in a 28. Is Baronet progessing?

Guest also say........

{The point about the Cambridgeshire run the year previous and also Baronets good basic speed figure is that whilst it was a very useful indicator, this sort of indication was not present in most of VDWs selections, especially the consistency ones.}

I have to disagree the speed factor is present in many of the consistency method examples. As VDW said speed by it's self isn't enough, other factors have to be used in conjunction with it. Wonder why VDW kept saying it?

To finish, I made Sea Pigeon the best horse in the race to beat Beacon Light, so no surprise there, for me. If I put a number against my ability horses why couldn't it be used in the same way many think VDW worked with the ability rating?

Be Lucky

Pipedreamer,

I'm not sure, but I think we are in fact agreeing about both aspects.

I know it is hypothetical, but if a horse had only won one race, the 77 Cambridgeshire he would have a rating of 108. Another horse wins the 78 race, again only winning the one race. It's rating is 180, and form doesn't come into it. Surely the purpose of having an ability rating is to find the best horse. Doesn't this fail, if you have to go through the runners of each race to decide which race was the best?

Your comment about the c/form horse is the main reason I think it is meant as a x check. I may be wrong, but I get the distinct impression ONLY the last 3 runs are used to find the c/form horse.

Be Lucky

Ability ratings

Calculated from class ratings but

Class of Race is not the same as class of Horse

Tis a contradiction is it not?
Or am I missing something

Boozer

Ability rating = average class of races won = class of horse(or reasonable estimate of same)

Value of race = class of race

No contradiction there

Rob

You have a point Rob

Re an earlier post

I used to use prizemoney as the indicator of class But
The method I used involved only using races where there was one horse (and only one) in the first 6 in the betting forecast that had raced for 2.5 to 3 times the amount of prizemoney than the rest Lto

That being the case I would think whether OR's were used or Prizemoney to class the race Lto the conclusion would have been near enough the same