Boozer/Investor/Johnd

The points you all make are clear, cogent and, from a conventional point of view, reasonably convincing. But please remember that my aim is continually to try to understand VDW's approach more fully, and that in important respects goes against conventional thinking. (Indeed, it would have to IF the level of success VDW intimated as possible is indeed, as I increasingly believe, realistic.)

I think that, for VDW, the basics would have been as follows:

* on 22 Feb. Parasol beat Adiemus 2.5l, getting 9lb;

* three weeks later, on the same track and over the same distance, but 9lb worse off, Parasol confirmed placings by a neck.

Bearing in mind a number of examples in which, in my view, VDW illustrated how he balanced weight and distance, I think that in this case he would have concluded that Adiemus should have done better.

If indeed that would have been VDW's conclusion, it inexorably follows that Adiemus's performance lto was a downturn in form. In the context of yesterday's race, (though not, of course, in all conceivable circumstances), that would mean Adiemus was not a form horse.

Despite the obvious differences in particulars, to my mind this is reminiscent of the Beacon Light's situation prior to the 1978 Erin. On a conventional basis, BL's 1l defeat by the almost certainly higher rated (in ORs) Sea Pigeon, when giving 4lb, was a good performance. However, there is reason to believe that, from his way of assessing in-formness, VDW regarded that performance as indicating a downturn in form, rendering BL not a form horse for the Erin.

I am not certain that I am right, and I am therefore not saying you are wrong. But I think I'm right, and for the moment at least we'll have to agree to differ.

Vdw Said

"To confirm what the figures say (the numerical picture), it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of THE CLASS IN WHICH THEY RAN . . . etc., etc."

Perhaps I am guilty of assuming most were more conversant with form than appears to be the case.End Quote

from His last paragraph you would assume that there was nothing unorthodox

How could anyone assume that (Most) could be conversant with something that is unorthodox?

Boozer

I understand the passage you quote rather differently.

VDW's reading of form WAS orthodox to him - it was simply how he did it. When he found that so many were unable fully to understand his approach he realised that he was taking too much for granted and that others read form differently. Arguably, this is why he gave greater hints on the matter through the evaluations in the later publications.

Interesting to read the comments on yesterdays Lincoln along with with what various people believe VDW was or wasn't saying.

All I can say personally is that I never just took VDWs word for it that his approach worked. I did what he urged anyone interested to do and that was prove it for ourselves via study and research. This involved looking for the facts that VDW obviously saw as important in the make up of class and form.

It constantly amazes me that so many do exactly what VDW told us not to do, namely pick and chose the various elements he set out. That approach only leads to a part fare. VDW set his methods out over a very long period of time and was never allowed to complete his tuitional exercise despite his intention to reveal all his thinking on class and form. However, some seem to think that because certain elements were not pinpointed until later VDW was not using them in his earlier examples.

For me, a fact is an undisputable component. Yesterdays Lincoln was worth 65,000 to the winner. This is a fact. The highest rated on VDWs ability rating was Norton on 215. Now whilst some may disagree with the merit of this rating or indeed how it is compiled, the fact is that based on past winning acheivements the average winning class rating was 215.

But how can we tell if Norton was a form horse?
For me, form VDWs way is established via the combination of facts in the horses past races. The facts include the value of the races, the distance of the races, the weights it carried, the starting prices, the courses run on, the dates it ran on, how long it had between races,etc,etc all easily viewable facts.

Then there are the elements that are arrived at via some individual or collective opinion. These include the official/unofficial going reports, ratings based on handicapping or speed analysis. The latter is very much based on the opnion and judgement of the compiler in how they equate the going allowance and how THEY view class of horses. One of the other elements based on opinion is the racereaders in running comments. Anyone checking various form books will notice some alarming differences of opinion between racereaders and so the conclusion is to treat this and all the other opinion based elements as a guide and not factual. Some seem to think the answers lie in some of these opinion based elements, but they don't. Don't get me wrong, most racereaders are very astute but the term "quickened" means different things to each. The visual elements of a horse race finish are very deceiptive. Just try following visual evidence, as most punters do, to see where most favourites come from.

So, to establish form the way I believe VDW did, you have to take all the facts into account with the opinion based elements in toe but in their correct order of play. This is time consuming especially when you consider another point VDW made - "Please bear in mind that in practice, each horse receives the same attention."

Not many have taken that comment on board or the one about following the method for some time and keeping records. The truth is that the process has to be undertaken for every race that comes under the spotlight. This is the only logical way to establish the true class and form levels for races run.

Just to go back to the Lincoln, I made a two horse book with Adiemus and Pablo. Pablo has now been part of three successful books for me, though only winning two of the races. Adiemus, who was the class/form both last year and this year never got his head in front against Parasol both times, though only just failed to do so last time on level weights. Interesting to note that both Parasol and Adiemus currently have ability ratings of 161.

Guest,

{This is the only logical way to establish the true class and form levels for races run}.

Sorry, but this is not a fact, it is only your interpretation of how VDW worked. He as far as I know never said this, or implied it.

Penalty value is only one way to judge class, of a horse, or a race. I happen to think it is flawed, and could give MANY examples of it. It is an easy rough guide, that was easy to understand for the punter of the times.

You talk about facts and then appear to ignore them. VDW said consistent horse win races. Fulham has pointed out some of the selections had a higher c/rating than 14, but the question must be were they in the lowest three ratings? I except some were not in the lowest three, but there was little doubt they were consistent. As I said before 14th of 18 beaten 20 lengths, and there were other horses with lower ratings.

You also talk about keeping records, I keep records, I also consider every horse in the race. Are your records recording the right thing? I think it was you that said VDW chose the Erin for a very good reason, I agree. He explained exactly how he worked without using ability ratings, or the c/form method.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
I agree with you that each of us have our own interpretation of the methods,But what i do strongly believe is that consistent horses do win races,I'm not for one minute saying that if a horse has form figures of 111 it should be supported,Sometimes you have to dig a lot deeper for the form.

to my mind there is a quicker and easier way of establishing wether such and such is a bet,i tried to get my point across with pegwell bay but unfortunately i can't write or put my point across as well as guest yourself and fulham,There are strong clues for me in pegwell bay which was a highly consistent horse.and also a big clue in Ultimate wheel of fortune concerning Wing and a prayer.You may feel the ability rating is flawed but consistent horses most definately win races.

Mtoto - I don't recall stating that the sentence you quoted from me was a "fact". What I was saying was that I use facts to establish class and form as VDW set out and then use the results of this evaluation to determine the class/form horses.

You are still missing the point I am trying to convey. Nothing works in isolation, why do people find that so difficult to understand?

The fact a race is worth 20 grand carries some weight, but as to how much weight we have to dig much deeper, but using the same principles throughout. It really is obvious, if only people would think about the whole process.

JohnD often quotes the phrase "a consistent approach" and I fully agree with this, not because VDW also said so, but because that is what VDWs method is. A consistent evaluation process using facts in the formbook. The process is used for every race studied. Please think about that last sentence. I'd be interested to know how people interpret the meaning of it.

Trouble is
Inconsistent horses also win races

GUEST/FULHAM
Consider the evidence. In SIAO VDW gave us a way to interpet form. Not only did he give us that, but he purposely drew our attention to it on a number of occasions afterwards. WHY?
When he later said, " Once you find it, you will wonder how on earth you could miss it" does that suggest some convoluted theory, that after years of trying, still ties you in knots, or does it scream out that that it was simple to understand?
The line were he said you must keep records is just as easily explainable by Roushayd, where his last 3 runs only told the part of a story.

Guest
Whose opinion was it to put up 200k for a mickey mouse 2 yr old race at Redcar, or a 20k seller at York. O.R.'s are fact, based on opinions, so is prize money.

Investor,
You are absolutely right about consistency, it is far more fundamental to the method than most on this board realise.

P.S. Using the method my way, I backed Selective on Wednesday, believing that Pablo would be withdrawn due to fast ground. It became apparent on Saturday morning that the ground hadn't changed, so I filled my boots with the 8/1, ( All the above can be substantiated). The only other horse I considered was Norton.

Boozer
I totally agree with you,Inconsistent horses do win races but a lot of the time there not as inconsistent as some may think.

Is there any wonder that people come to different conclusions when even the simple task of adding form figures together is subject to some sort of secret science
That some indispensable type of people would have us believe

Boozer

Surely there is no disagreement about adding form figures together - VDW suggested the conventions that should apply, and they are relatively unproblematic. But as has often been pointed out, for VDW consistency (which is what the form figure aggregate indicates) is NOT the same as form.

Are you taking the piss

Fulham
There is obviously a difference between the consistency rating and consistent form,I don't think anybody can deny that fact.a good deal of the time the form comes within those 3 consistecy figures,And on other occasions it doesn't.A good example of this comes from see more business When winning at either wincanton or warwick,I don't keep records but he was certainly a good thing on the day in question.

JohnD - The scenarios covering the sales races,etc are in the minority, but even so a false rating is usually shown up when the process has been applied in full. VDW said his ability rating was one of the most reliable guides to a horses ability, though he also warned it was not foolproof. The combination of form with class of race and opposition clearly shows when all is not as it may seem with his ratings. Nothing works in isolation. Again, I ask what do people think I mean by that? And the same for the earlier sentence on all horses/races receiving the same attention.

The process VDW showed in SIAO clearly uses various elements including ability ratings. VDW later said that there was a second numerical picture to be seen that he had not spelled out. If he used the process for one race, why would he change it when looking at the form or races for those involved in that race?

Boozer
a long time ago now Guest gave an analysis for a particular saturday in Mar 2002,He didn't actually name horses but said there were wagers to be made,Go to r/p website and have a look at Choisty,this is a very similar scenario to See More Business when running at winc and just shows that all is not what at first may seem.

All,

What is SIAO ?

Determined
Spells It all Out.

Boozer

No. I merely took your earlier post as evidence of a misunderstanding that, probably, many of us laboured under when initially trying to come to terms with VDW's work. As Investor says, form horses are often to be found among those with low consistency aggregates, but not all such horses are form horses, and not all form horses have low consistency aggregates.

Consistent horses win races and to illustrate I will give some examples which show percentage wins next time out from various form combinations . . .
111 33%, 121 32%, 131 29%, 141 26%, 122 30%, 313 24%, 214 24%, 404 5%, 000 2%.
The figures show beyond reasonable doubt that consistent form does have an important part to play.

Fulham,

I agree with your last post, but it does raise a question when the words above are taken into account. As Guest keeps saying, no one factor is to be taken in isolation. Shouldn't we then be looking for the form horse, only from the horses that have shown they are consistent?

This is why I'm not happy with the c/form method as it appears to be used by Guest. It is possible to have a c/form horse that is far from consistent, but if it also has the highest ability rating were do you go from there? Do you take the pieces that suit you, or just start making excuses why the horse hasn't been consistent. Wrong course, distance, going, etc. I think it was you that said we had to be ruthless about form, only forgiving a horse when it was outclassed.

Be Lucky