mtoto
Further to my last post,R.e pablo You won't see this horse as consistent until you see how vdw interpreted form,And like guest says it ain't rocket science.

Fulham,

Sorry I must have read too much into your reply to Grundy. He was asking why, when there were other consistent horses in the betting forecast did you make Pablo the 2nd c/form horse. I have to admit it is something I don't understand, VDW went out of his way to prove consistent horses win. I can see a horse can be consistent when having a poor rating (14) if there are no other consistent horses in the race/forecast. If there are, isn't that going against the odds?

It must be possible to have a c/form horse with the form figures 001. What happens when the win can't be faulted as in the case of Artie? What happens to the filter for consistency?

Re Little Owl, Yes Wayward Lad had a faster s/f, but the class it was achieved in was lower than LO. I think that the reason that is based on shows in VDW's other ratings.

Investor,

I have to agree if the form figures were just taken at face value it would be easy. However I have never suggested that is how it works. If VDW thought taking the last 2 form figures made a horse consistent I think he would have said so. Why do you think it is not significant the one really bad run was in the highest race contested? When or were had Pablo proved he could handle the class in the Lincoln? I can't see that much class in his race before. In the race before that he was beaten by a horse with an ability rating of 20. Could you show me were VDW has excused a 20 length beating on the flat, and the beating can't be excused because he was out classed if he is being raise massively in class this time? Think it was Guest that said you have to be ruthless when assessing form in handicaps. You appear to disagree with Guest about Adiemus, so why are you so convinced you understand how he works?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

In-formness is, for me, the only unbreakable rule, and in the Lincoln if one takes the view that Adiemus was not a form horse Pablo was certainly the c/f. The fact that there may have been other, lower consistency aggregate horses in the race, either not form horses or form horses with lower ability ratings than Pablo, did not detract from Pablo's claims, as he was both consistent and fine on capability.

To refer to a VDW example, Righthand Man was the c/f, with a consistency aggregate not among the three lowest, and the presence of form horse and lowest consistency aggregate Planetman (like RHM, in the first six of the betting forecast) did not prevent RHM being a good bet.

Yes, it is possible to have a c/f with form figures 001: Bonny Gold would have been one had his ability rating been as indicated in the Sporting Life. But he was not a bet for VDW, even though he was working on an erroneous assumption about the ability rating.

Artie wasn't the c/f in the race won by Feet So Fast, and FsF was of course highly consistent.

As to Little Owl, I'm not quite clear what gauge of ability you use: a horse's highest ever sf, or the sf achieved in a horse's highest class race. I had assumed the former.

If I read him correctly Mtoto offered to explain his ability rating if somebody shows sufficient interest by asking.

Mtoto
The beating can be excused if the horse has shown good form after the race in question,amittedly if pablo had been below par in the races following on from that event then fair enough,But he hadn't had he,A good look at the races prior to the lincoln showed that the horse was again showing form let's look

18th oct
class 90 finished 3rd btn a length

2nd nov
class 174 finished first winning by 2 1/2 lgth

and on both occasions with an improving s/f and then of course there's the class/form element,Surely you didn't consider Pablo out of form going into the lincoln

Your other point about me disagreeing with guest is correct,But only in the sense that i would have backed Pablo on his own,But i can fully understand why a book was made.

Mtoto
how did you view Harik in the 4.35 plum just interested.

Mtoto,

Pablo has run 8 times to date and only once has he run on ground with firm in the description and that was at Gdwd last August.

He was a heavily backed fav` in his most competitive race to date but disappointed. Both the RP anaylsis the day after and the Raceform Notebook suggested the ground may have been the reason for the poor effort.

Add to that the trainers comments in the Post on the day,

" he wants a bit of cut in the ground so if it stays firm he might not run ".

Add to that my view, I watched the race on video several times and I have never seen such an obvious example of a horse hating the ground.

In summary, it wasn`t the class that caused the poor effort but the firm going.

Take that effort away and we have a very consistent and improving horse.

What did the trainer do ? Put him away until the autumn, give him a pipeopener in a £9k race before taking the £17k prize 2 weeks later.

I was ruthless in my decision to ignore the Gdwd run which in this instance has seen me proved right as I backed to win both the NKT and DON` races.

If only it was that way all the time.

Cheers,

Fulham,

Artie was top on ability and in form, so was he not the c/form horse your way? From Guest's point of view he then failed when the form was studied in detail. This is were I feel a lot of assumption have been made, would VDW have taken the same view about the form, we will never know. Because of this failure in form another horse is considered, FSF, the horse I made the BEST in the race. I used the same procedure as I used for all the races, and the old examples.

You are correct when you suggest I work from the former. When studying the old examples, I use prize money, and the other relevant facts shown in the form book, or papers of the time.

Determined,

In one of my posts I said I had miss something about Pablo's form. The facts you state are the missing point. However the going for Lincoln day was reported as good with firm patches in the paper I use. The other thing I wasn't happy with was the fact he was being raised in class (by a long way) He had not proven he could handle the rise, there is a big difference between a 170 race and a 650. I have no problem with him being a form horse, I may have been happy to say he was consistent IF he had shown he could handle the class. However congratulations to you and all the others who backed him.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

Artie was not top on the ability rating relevant to this early/mid season 3yo race.

re your use of sfs as the general measure of ability, surely Little Owl was not the c/f in the VDW 7/3/81 example.

Mtoto - I'm glad Investor has pointed out an important part of VDWs approach to form establishment. If a horse clearly improves after a bad run, particularly if that bad run was followed by a holiday, then the improved runs become the guide rule. There is obviously a big difference between summer fast ground on a rollercoaster of a track like Goodwood and early spring ground at Donny. The trainer would have been foolish not to be very careful about the ground being ok.

All the horses were up in class for the Lincoln, it is the opposition that is more the point. Another VDW quote I may say.

Given your own view on how to measure class, I am surprised you don't see where Lord Protector came from. He was part of a book though.

I was going to volunteer Little Owl, but Fulham has beat me to it, so can I suggest Love From Verona. Not in the top 4 on ability, no speed figure at all and well outside the first 6 in the forecast. Hope that is not too much of a curve ball.

By the way, Mtoto. Artie showed form when up in class with a lightweight, but was he consistently a form horse relative to the Newmarket race?

Re Adiemus, the only reason you have him out of form ios because he didn't win. You, Guest and Barney all had him as a form horse before the race, but he becomes out of form after the race TO FIT YOUR METHOD. This typifies the c/f approach where adjustments are made to make horses fit.
The trainer says it wasn't far enough, the jockey says it wasn't far enough, and, more importantly, all his form at this level says it wasn't far enough, yet you still persist that he was out of form.
A triumph for convenience over logic, and nothing at all to do with VDW.

Fulham,

I don't quite know when a horse is consider exposed enough to use the conventional ability rating. I thought the speed based rating was for young unexposed horses. Artie had run 7 times winning 2, FST ran 4 winning 2. As Guest is happy to use it in Sept Oct, I suppose it is all right in July 14/15 weeks into the season.

Re Little Owl if my understanding of the form is correct Wayward Lad figure was gained in a novice race I don't think VDW would have taken that form as stronger than the race LO gained his figure in. Why do I think that, because Fairy King comes out better in the other ratings than WL?

Guest,

Why did I know you would choose that race?

If you take the 3 lowest rated for consistency that brings in LFV.
If you ignore Dyscole's (con rated 6) last run (as suggested by you) and make him a non form horse for this race it leaves the other 2 Explorateur (con rating 8) but out of form, didn't run well in it's first handicap. That leaves only LFV as the only form horse in the race. This way you don't have to bring any ability ratings into it, mine or yours. I know you will say VDW says rate every horse, but that's not how he showed the Erin, and if there is only one horse in form why bother? Can I ask why Persian Crown isn't a form horse your way?

Can I also ask why did VDW go to the trouble of working out the win % of the form figures if he was going to allow non consistent horse to figure in the consistency method? You put Pablo in your book on the 18/10/02 before he had proven he was back in form. I can see exactly why you included Lord Protector in the book, I just think it is very dangerous to judge horses by the horses that finish around them. I thought the whole idea of VDW was to judge horses against themselves. When THEY are in form and/or improving, just because a rival has improved doesn't mean your horse has.

Investor,

Sorry I didn't look at any horses today. I thought the racing was of very poor quality. I try to back good horses in good races. I couldn't find either today.

Be Lucky

johnd,

your right about Adiemus, I had him as in form. I thought it was the wrong trip for him.

PABLO,

Do not blame the goodwood defeat on the ground. There are far more important reasons for that defeat.The conditions of the race, relative to the last race, were against him. He would have to be very special to overcome that.

For those that believe Guest, ask yourself why did he figure in the book on the next outing if he was out of form?Where did he ever give an out of form horse?

Looking back At goodwood he was a false fav and no one who follows VDW's methods would have been remotely interested in supporting him for that race.

Mtoto

I'm a little unclear about your assessment of the race Little Owl won on 7/3/81.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but taking the view you do about weight, you use unadjusted sfs, ie what are now included in the Form Book, and you do not adjust them for the weights to be carried in the race under consideration.

With VDW's examples, the sfs in the Form Book were adjusted to 12 st., and therefore need unadjusting. Prior to the 7/3/81 race, the best adjusted sf Little Owl had achieved was 86, when carrying 11.3, ie an unadjusted sf of 97. Wayward Lad had achieved an adjusted sf of 85, when carrying 11.0, ie an unadjusted sf of 99.

Surely this means that, from the class aspect of the class/form nexus, Wayward Lad has the higher ranking? Then there is the question of evaluating the respective form of the two horses. Difficult, I think, to argue that either was not a form horse, though I can see why you might regard Little Owl's form as the better (though a contrary argument could be made, given that in his last race before that on 7/3/81 Little Owl's run did not merit a sf, whereas in his last Wayward Lad returned his highest ever sf).

But surely this would mean that you would view Little Owl as a preferred 2nd c/f, preferred on the basis that (in your view) he had better form than the c/f, Wayward Lad, rather than the c/f? (Rather as, in the 2002 Champion Chase, Guest was quite clear than Edredon Bleu was the c/f, but 2nd c/f, Flagship Uberalles, was the bet.)

Fulham,

You have explained how I used the old figures better than I could. When I have the figure the IMPORTANT thing is the class of the race it was achieved in. If Little Owl figure had been achieved in a 37 novice Wayward Lad would have been the class horse in the race. He didn't, and the 37 conditions race is stronger than WL's race.

An example of the 2nd rated being preferred is the 85 King George

Burrough Hill Lad being the top rated, much like the conventional method. The second rated Wayward Lad being preferred, because of course conditions. The sharp flat track suiting him better than BHL.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

So you rate an unadjusted sf of 97 achieved in a £3,733 conditions chase as a better performance (from the class perspective) than an unadjusted sf of 99 achieved in a £7,118 novice chase. Is it a matter of category of race, ie

(a) does any sf achieved in a conditions race rank as better, class-wise, than any sf achieved in a novice chase (and if so, do handicaps come between, ie ranking lower than conditions races and above novice chases),

or is it a matter of degree, with trade offs, ie

(b) if the 99 had been achieved in a £17,118 novice chase, or if in the £7,118 novice chase an unadjusted sf of 110 had been achieved, would either have been viewed as better than the 97 in a conditions race?

The reason I ask is that you often accuse those of us who work by the class/form method of rather arbitrarily taking the view that this or that performance of a horse should be "excused" to make it a form horse and thus justify a selection. Your reasoning in the Little Owl case looks a bit that way to me (ie one which does not fit your basic method so you add an arbitrary "rule" to make it fit).

Fulham,

The simple answer is a novice races form is ONLY used against other novices. I will say it is the class of the race that is used, if a novice runs it's best race against experienced horses that figure counts even if the horse is a novice. You ask about condition races and Handicaps. Form from group races rates higher than handicap form, handicap form is better than ordinary conditions form.

If you think I fiddled the Little Owl race ask yourself this. I didn't know you or anyone else was going to ask about the race. If you look at the selections I put up for The Queen Mother why wasn't Moscow Flyer included in those selections he has a s/f of 120 in Group 1 races but it is novice form.

3:15
Tiutchev
Edredon Bleu
Cenkos
Native Upmanship

Moscow Flyer had a higher s/f than either Cenkos, or Native Upmanship. I have on several occasions hinted VDW didn't appear to rate novice form very highly. This is based on the other rating for Wayward Lad. why is he rated lower than Fairy King? The win in a 71 novice last time out doesn't seem to have worth much against the handicap form.

I except I may write things to stimulate discussion, but fiddle? I don't think so!

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I didn't use the word fiddle. It just occurred to me that you were employing the kind of "flexibility" you are wont to suggest Guest and me apply when assessing in-formness!

Mtoto

Further to understand your approach, would it be fair to assume that, purely from the class side of the class/form nexus, in the context of weighing up a non-Group conditions race, you would see a higher sf achieved in a handicap as better than a lower sf achieved in another non-Group conditions race or novice event? Would your view be different if the penalty value of the handicap was significantly lower than that of the non-Group conditions or novice event?