quote:

---

Originally posted by Fulham:
Boozer

... 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.

---

Is that the

111 in sellers

000 in group 1

scenario?

Mtoto
i hope i'm not misunderstanding you,The list you put up are consistency ratings,Which have nothing to do with consistent form,Well that is probably the wrong thing to say,The rating is good when used in conjunction with horses that are in form,But as i'm sure your'e aware a horse may have a rating of 3 better equated as 111 but what has it beat,In what class,over what distance,what type of ground,if the horse has been beating others that have better class relative to today's opponents,then there's a good chance the horse is going to be C/F That's when the 2nd numerical picture will tell you wether the horse is the winner in the race..or not.

Mtoto

I'd find it easier to offer a comment on your point that it is possible to have "a c/form horse that is far from consistent" if you could suggest two or three from those VDW gave that you see as having that character.

As regards the being ruthless in handicaps point, that observation was made by Guest - and a very helpful pointer it has proved to be.


Imp

Sorry, I don't understand your question. The only points I'm making are that:

* the most consistent horses are not necessarily form horses, and

* not all form horses are among those with the lowest three consistency ratings,

and this applies to races of any type and class.

Investor,

SIAO = thanks.

JIB,

vdw did not ask anyone to accept what he stated.

He advisedly urged anyone interested to prove it for themselves, indeed to "go back as far as they wished". Another clue.

Fulham,

The point I am trying to make is that the c/form horses VDW put up ARE consistent. The ones that failed he said have a look, and decide why they were not bets. Unlike some that Guest has suggested. I can't remember the name of the horse but there was an example were Guest made Feet So Fast the class/form horse. Many hours must have been spent trying to work out why the horse with the highest ability rating, that was defiantly in form, wasn't the selected. I have no idea why Guest went for FST. I just hope it wasn't down to more false ideas about how VDW read the form book!

Investor

The words {consistent form} high lighted in the passage, are VDW's words. I high lighted them because people keep saying consistent form has NOTHING to do with the consistency rating. Perhaps someone should tell VDW! I think the order of things is to find the horse with the best form, only using the consistent horses.

Be Lucky

JIB - You can theorise all you like, but like most theories, they mean nothing unless they acheive the goal. You can argue this point and that or whether this is logical or that is logical, but again it proves of no help unless it actually works in operation.

I am convinced VDW devised his method based on results and experience. He must also have had a thirst for finding out reasons for instance as to just why 67% of favourites don't win as the public expect them to and more importantly why the 33% that win do so.

Mtoto - Most "form" horses are consistent and the odd bad one can be excused if the likely reasons are sound to do so. See Battlement or Love From Verona for examples.

Pablo could not be discounted on his consistency rating alone. He had too much else in favour to do so. I did say he was part of a book though just as he was when 3rd and 1st at Newmarket at the tail end of last season. His previous run was out of character. If you look in depth at his last 3 runs you must see the progession in form and class and I mean the in depth form and class, not just what appears on the surface.

Mtoto

Do you mean the race which Feet So Fast won on 9 July last where some thought the c/f was Artie? Why does that one trouble you - FsF was not only the c/f but the most consistent horse in the race, with an aggregate of 4.

Mtoto - Artie had undoubtedly shown his besst just prior to Newmarket, but was it a better performance than FSF?

Looking indepth I don't see how it could be and this race amply demonstrates just why I never take the bare ratings at face value. Good job too because FSF won very nicely as I remember.

Also, Philodantes may prove interesting at Goodwood when winning with a consistency rating of 15. This didn't prevent VDW making it a good thing.

JIB - Fair enough, but there is no hope at all then.

Guest,

Funny you should mention Philodantes, this another one I was trying to work c/form.
The class form horse Doogali highest on ability, in form, and lowest on consistency. He is well held by Philodantes on form, for me making a bit of a mockery of the ability rating. Agreed Philodantes c/rating is 15, but the lowest is 7, (the only consistent horse in the race) the other 4 are 12, 13, 15, 15. I don't think consistency really is prevalent in this race. Philodantes is the winner in this race, no need for ratings of any description. Although a few who worried about weight may not have thought so. Philodantes carrying 8lb more than his winning weight, and Doogali 11lbs less than his, and on 8lb better terms with Philodantes.

Fulham,

It only worries me because Artie was the highest on ability, in form, and passed over. Agreed he wasn't consistent, but in some cases the hasn't stopped Guest selecting a non consistent horse as the c/form or a selection. I also made FSF the BEST HORSE in the race, so I have no doubts about him. Don't you think some/many would have tried to make Artie out of form to fit in with Guest? Guest has said the form wasn't strong enough, no mention of consistency!

Be Lucky

Amazing that Three Legs questions the humourous content of this thread, Guest says that starting prices are facts not opinions, that must be the best yet.

Mtoto

Guest has surely made two points about the Feet So Fast/Artie race:

* FsF was the c/f;

* while NOT saying that Artie was out of form, the clear implication that, in his view, FsF's form was the better.

Let's consider each.

First, it is I think agreed that, for VDW, the c/f was the form horse with the highest ability rating. For NH horses, and older Flat horses, the ability rating was the total win prize money divided by the number of wins. But for younger Flat horses VDW suggested an additional ability rating - the best career sf adjusted to 9 stone - and his examples suggest that he favoured this one for 2yos and early season 3yos.

On the prize money-based rating, Artie was well ahead of FsF, but on the additional sf-based rating the reverse is true: from the ability point of view both horses needed close consideration.

Turning to form, superficially Artie's was the better, having lto won a class 490, whereas FsF had lto won a class 290 - both races handicaps. But as Guest has regularly pointed out, the class of a race is not necessarily the class of the horses involved (illustrated in VDW's very first example). From that perspective, there can surely be no doubt at all which was the better performance.

In my view, therefore, without in any way suggesting Artie was out of form, we had a situation where, from the perspective of the ability rating VDW favoured for such races, FsF was the higher rated, and had the better form. I don't see anything problematic here.


Epiglotis

Like ORs, sps are opinions which, once officially determined, become facts, and are there to be observed as such in the Form Book.

VDW's approach is successful in part because it incorporates a fact-based element which, when appropriately used, offers a better indication of a horse's ability than the OR.

Mtoto
I understand what your saying,And i agree that the consistency rating will often guide us to a selection,But on occasions there are certain horses that don't have a particular good consistency rating,I'm not saying a rating of 18 or 20 or figures that high,But when one actually examines the form in depth (remember the horses whole career has to be looked at)Certain horses have consistent form but it's slightly hidden that's why every horse must be looked at.If this doesn't make sense i apologise but that's the way i see it.

Mtoto
Further to my last post,I know that your'e a big fan of s/fs purely from that point of view and based on the last 2 runs you could see that Pablo had progressed.i didn't play in the race,I'm not a great fan of large fields but nevertheless the factors were there.

Mtoto - The Goodwood race was a lower class of race compared to Philodantes' previous runs and much lower class than the race in which he beat Effulgence(9-2) and Doogali(7-11). Doogali was later dropped to collect at Sandown by a short head at 7/1 carrying 8-8. Your noting of Doogalis rating clearly shows you the answer, but you don't see it. Why?

3Legs - As Fulham has already pointed out, the sp is a factual element, and whilst it does have some base in opinion it is the weight of peoples money that determines it. This is very different to a rating based on one persons opinion such as an OR or handicap rating. People who follow the market in action will struggle in the main, no question, but it is of more use for future races.