Mtoto
I have taken on board that it had failed twice on the course,
Nuff said
Swish

I fully understand your approach to Paco Venture, viz; it was a tentative dutch before the race, and a racing certainty after, much like Lord Protector, and so many,many, more!

Guest,
I agree with you that the way you appraise class and form is how VDW recommended but I feel you concentrate too much on this aspect to the neglect of others. Sometimes you come up with a selection like Europa which had no worthwhile form at the distance and was nowhere near the pricipals on bare ability or at other times ones like Noverre which was not among the principals on consistency. If any one part of the equation had to be considered a cornerstone of the method it would be consistency, the reason being that all VDW's bets bar one were in the top 3 while the other one's form figs was no higher than 8 while conversely there are a number of VDW's bets which werent highly rated on ability due to the higher rated horses being out of form. You also seem to often ignore going/track/trip concerns relying on class to see the selection through. This is fine when a high class horse is up against markedly inferior rivals in Listed or B and C class races but just does not happen so often in the very top class races. The horse needs to be proven (whether conventionally or via VDW's way) under the prevailing conditions. This even applies in the derby (the fate of numerous milers) or in the national (horses with wins at less than 3 1/4 miles). When dealing with mature NH horses, handling the prevailing conditions in top class has to be paramount. I dont know, maybe you are trying to save time and cover as many races as possible but from my viewpoint (which is not a malicious one) you could easily cut out these bets-most of which are at short prices and improve both strike rate and profits.
The question with RB was not what would beat it (I couldnt see anything to touch it formwise) but was it worth chancing at those odds under the prevailing conditions of track/trip etc? or even as JIB mentioned (I know, I know, but credit where its due) that the race was merely seen as an afterthought by connections?
regards,

Rooster Booster, whether you like it or not, ran well below his 2m form on Saturday, the evidence is plain to see. 3 lesser horses ran closer to him than better horses did at Cheltenham, ( Like A Butterfly finding 23l?), his ratings were lower, and in his last 8 races, he has only been beaten twice, both over 20f. Strong enough evidence for any reasonable person.
Considering that he wins his races with a turn of foot in the closing stages, the only times he has failed to show this is over 20f, or on heavy ground. Once again, fairly conclusive evidence (In the real world) that he is disadvantaged by a test of stamina.
Given that any reasonable person would accept the above, it surely follows that the circumstances on the day must be a fundamental part of the decision to bet.
Three basic planks to your approach are' in form', 'a form horse' and 'the class of horse they competed against', yet, if you think about it, they are all corrupt if the horse(s) being evaluated are disadvantaged by the circumstances.
This is not a minor issue, indeed it throws into question your whole understanding of VDW. You will not have it that you were wrong about RB and Impek, therefore any future appraisal you do on these races will also be corrupt.
The logical extension to this, (And there is much evidence to support it), is in all your years of research, you have ignored this very vital factor, and, as a consequence, have devised your own method, which has missed one very important point, and thus constructed a house of cards.
VDW did say " It is easy to turn back to your records concerning a given horse and it will help to balance respective perfomances", but that was a direct reference to the previous sentence, which, in itself was a SIMPLE AND LOGICAL explanation of how VDW read form, and adjudged the circumstances that form was achieved in.
Yes, there is more to it than that, but it isn't ability ratings we should be recording, but each horses preferences. Once you have those, then you may understand the term 'Illusions of form'!
You will also be better able to grasp the real meaning of consistency, which should in turn alter your perspective of 'In form', 'Out of form'.
The alternative is of course to pursue your present beliefs, but believe me, VDW is not about backing a string of short priced horses, or backing 3 in a race.

FULHAM
Your first reaction upon reading the foregoing, will no doubt be to leap to your mentor's defence, a reasonable course in view of where you are at.
Before you do that, I would ask you to consider the above carefully, not least because it will supply most of the answers to Rivage Bleu, Killeshin, etc.

Statajack

I think you are mis-reading some aspects of VDW.

First, his famous equation makes no mention of consistency. Rather, in two marginally different formulations, - "constant form" ("No Magic Formula" article of 24/5/79) or "consistent form" ("VDW Update") - he referred to something significantly different: an idea that most certainly encompassed Righthand Man, the exception to which you refer.

Second, in no way do VDW's examples support the idea that the horse in question must be "proven ... under the prevailing conditions". For example, as Guest has pointed out, Rifle Brigade was just the first of a number of horses selected over distances they had not previously attempted.

Neither is it true as sometimes suggested that VDW's selections may have had one question mark against them, but never more. To stick with Rifle Brigade, (1) fitness (first run of season) and (2) distance (1m 4m having never previously raced over more than 1m) were two question marks. Personally, I find it difficult to find ANY VDW selection without at least one question mark.

THE point about VDW's approach is that it brings together a number of factors (most importantly class and form), and when these stack up adequately in respect of one horse, and that has a margin of superiority over the competition, provided the price is right, one has a decent bet.

No one gets it right all the time - even VDW admitted to backing Broadsword when a loser, as well as the three unnamed losers in the "32 bets of which 29 have won" period. No doubt Guest has sometimes made errors of judgement, and has sometimes been unlucky - which is merely to say he is human.

statajack,

I dont want to keep going over rooster booster, pointless realy as everyone has their view, but to say that sacundai was an inferior rival than Others is grossly misleading. I would say that it was rooster boosters best performance this year.

From a vdw point of view, or should I say my interpretation of it, sacundai was one of the better rivals that rooster booster has met to date. Certainly better on the day than the horses beaten in the champion or the bula.

A thorough investigation of this horse will show the conflict involved in the race analysis and its nothing to do with courses or distance or speed figures.

Barney,

Thanks for the information on the other thread. I find myself in the slightly strange position of agreeing with you about Sacundai. However it doesn't go very far, and I still can't see what you use to confirm class and form.

When I posted, I didn't think R. Booster would win I thought there was a chance of getting some value out off the race. On my s/f Sacundai (best ever) had recorded a figure equal to the figure RB's achieved in the Champion. I rejected him on the grounds the figure was achieved in a novice race, and went for a horse with a lower figure from a higher class race. I think if the Aintree race had been run at a true pace RB would have been beaten further. S would ALWAYS beat him over 2 1/2 Miles, RB would win over 2 miles, especially at Cheltenham. So I think the course and distance were very important.

I do agree it was RB's best performance over 2 1/2 miles, this year though.

Be Lucky

mtoto,

pace doesn't work like that, if a 2miler and a 2mile 4er meet in a false run race then the inherant speed of the two miler will see him have a stronger finishing speed than the 2m 4er because at the top leval 2milers are miles faster.on average 0.4 to 0.7 sec a furlong. at lower class levals however? something VDW often refered too........ "would need to be dropped a long way to score at this trip"

Stamina doesn't work like that. either!
Even without allowing for the slow ground on the hurdles course, Saturdays race was only 8 secs over standard. At a standard time of 14.2 secs per furlong, they would have to walk the first 3.5 furlongs for the 2 miler to win.

For goodness sake,The horse got beat by a head,Sacundai was all out at the end,So i think it's safe to say R.B ran a hell of a race,No doubt you will see for yourselves in the future that what your saying happens less frequently than your'e making out.

Fulham,
Firstly, I may be misquoting VDW but I'm not misreading him. VDW did not forgive inconsistent horses, even if they had a potentially valid excuse like Gaye Chance. Why?
Secondly, Rifle Brigade is a rather spurious example from your point of view, given that we are talking about a 3YO handicap where RB's opposition had considerably greater negatives than those you stated for RB-not least the kind of distance preferences that myself and JohnD have mentioned.
You mention a number of factors stack up ("most importantly class and form"). It is the other factors that perhaps Guest needs to pay a bit more attention to than he currently does. Class and form is the most important factor-but only in conjunction with everything else.
As I say, its up to Guest really. He can either look at his bets and see what happened to those which were not in the 3 most consistent or where unproven over course/trip/going in relation to the opposition or he can continue as he is.

Barney,
Youve lost me. I didnt even mention Secundai! I said I couldnt see what would beat RB and the fact that RB was not strong enough for a bet meant I left the race alone. I was looking for the winner in the race and I couldnt find one.
regards,

Investor,
The horse did indeed get beaten only a head, but that means all bets were lost.
I could also point out that the ability rating of the winner was 121 whereas Rooster Booster's was 434. Please think about it!
regards,

statajack,

sorry about that it was a reply to johnd's post.

an interesting train of thought though in your last post, that reminds me of a quote

This is just after VDW first described the method of calculating the ability rating letter 35.

"with minor modifications the method of rating can be applied to flat racing, but I must again stress the ratings are a guide and must be used in conjunction with other factors. This method does not evaluate the the ability of any horse that has not won, but there are ways of doing so which must be used in conjunction."

A suggestion for interested people - Evaluate the ability of these horses as if they had no ability ratings.

Statajack

You have both misquoted and misunderstood VDW. Consistency and consistent form are not one and the same. Righthand Man had the latter, but did not meet the simple rule VDW gave to help people focus on areas alive with winners. Many consistent horses (as measured either by the consistency aggregate or their rank in the consistency rating order) do not meet the requirements for consistent form (which is why some have found that a simplistic following of the "Spells it all out" approach doesn't work).

Your comment about Rifle Brigade proves my point. Yes, there were question marks. But when the whole situation was brought together and aggregated, bearing in mind the much greater question marks about the other runners, RB's question marks were minor in context, and at the price VDW decided he was a good thing. (And if you feel Rifle Brigade is truly an exception that can be disregarded, Guest quoted numerous others.)

There is only very rarely a completely unproblematic VDW selection - perhaps Little Owl among the historical examples (though even there not necessarily for the sf buffs), and perhaps Native Upmanship among recent ones. But overwhelmingly, if one looks hard enough, there are question marks (indeed, if one doesn't see them it is in my view almost axiomatic that one hasn't looked hard enough), and it is a question of balancing everything, including the opposition and their question marks, in the context of available price.

Fulham,

After reading your last post, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you are saying. Do you think VDW had a hidden agenda when he wrote these words?

{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. If there are three horses in a race each having won}

I can only see one meaning to them, consistency and consistent form are the same thing. The deciding factor must be is the form good enough? I have never thought that just because a horse is consistent that is enough, that's why an ability rating is necessary.

Swish,

Did you get my last e-mail? Sorry to hear you backed that loser, hope it wasn't to big a bet. Not to worry to much, expect you will learn from it though.

Barney,

VDW told us how to evaluate unexposed horses. As you don't like/believe in s/f I'm more than happy learn from you if there is another way.

Guest,

As you don't want to answer my question about the class and form being the most important eliminate. Could you answer another one, now many facts does it take to change an opinion into a fact?

Be Lucky

I think Fulham's opening paragraph in his last post amply highlights one of the key misunderstandings regarding VDWs consistency figures. As Fulham says, consistency figures are not the same as consistent form or constant form as it was referred to.

VDW said that "everything was explained" in the SIAO article "though a vital factor, call it the missing link if you will, was not deliberately pointed out. It was there and not covered up but until you approach the problem in the right way, the odds are it will remain hidden. Once you find it you will wonder how on earth you could miss it." And also later he mentioned a second numerical picture which he was attributing to the class of race. What's to say there wasn't a 3rd or 4th or 5th,etc numerical picture.

JohnD is right in that it is staring us in the face in the SIAO article. It is the process itself, which is an on going numerical picture. The idea that course/distance preferences are the answer just doesn't hold true in practice. yes they are important, but they do not explain so many of VDW bets, a point which if JohnD would care to investigate he may discover for myself.

I don't really know whether your are deliberately being obtuse, or really are blind to the facts.
Of course it isn't just about course and distance preferences, which is why VDW explained all the rest in SIAO, (Without one single reference to weight, informness,etc).
I have made it clear in the past that to go over old races to make my method fit, would achieve nothing but to prove my dexterity, which, essentially, is all you, or your mentor, have really achieved.
I have never fully explained my approach, nor do I intend to, but in one last effort, ( And it will be my last!), to educate the ineducable I will issue the following challenge.
Taking the list of 6 horses beginning with Rivage Bleu, I will explain each one, in detail, using only the logic in SIAO that I have so far shown on this thread. The form for these horses is available to all members, so they may check for themselves.
You would need to do the same thing, your way, so that others may judge which is nearer to the truth!
I am aware that VDW said that these were different from what he had shown before, they were, but the logic is exactly the same.
If you reply in your usual manner, I would expect a fudge, a few obscure references, and a mention of a couple of horses you backed last year.
That will not do! Either put up or shut up!

RE consistent form, it really is amazing how many conotations you and Guest can squeeeze out of what are, essentially, quite simple words. Perhaps that would explain why you tie yourselves in knots over VDW's methods.
Consistent form and constant form are one and the same thing. It is entirely possible for a horse to have consistent form without being in the top 3 for consistency, for the purpose of VDW, all one needs to understand is why.
He gave us some very clear guidelines in SIAO, if it is so simplistic, why can't you understand it? Perhaps the answer to that lays in my first two paragraphs.

Johnd

I have never suggested that there was a difference between "constant form" and "consistent form": I just pointed out to Statajack that "consistency" as he means it (the consistency aggregate) never featured in VDW's famous equation. In the two articles I referenced he used the two slightly different terms to cover the same thing.


Mtoto

Perhaps an example will serve to illustrate the difference between "consistency" and "consistent form".

In the "Kenlis" example among the four detailed from the 7 March 1981 card in the "Spells it all out" article is Greenways. On the face of it, this is the c/f:

Greenways is highest on the ability rating and has the third lowest consistency aggregate (and that only 7), and he was in the first six (it was a handicap race) of the Sporting Life betting forecast. Further, he had won a handicap carrying 16lb more he was scheduled to carry in the 7/3/81 race. It is true that Greenways hadn't won over the distance, but as Guest and I have pointed out, that has never been a necessary condition for a VDW selection.

Yet VDW did not select Greenway (actually made no reference to him at all - it is always significant when VDW "ignores" something that demands comment), and makes Kenlis the selection. Further, in a later article (13/4/85), VDW explicitly says that Kenlis was the c/f.

The explanation? Despite having the hallmarks of a selection on a simplistic understanding of VDW - "first six in the betting, high on ability, low on consistency" - in VDW's conception of the term Greenway was not a form horse. He lacked that truly vital "component" of the equation - not "consistency" as incorrectly stated by Statajack, but "consistent (or constant) form". The great challenge in discovering VDW's approach is to unravel how he determined which horses had "consistent form", and which did not in any given race - that is the "missing link".

VDW's statement that consistent horses win races is true, as is his observation that a high proportion of winners come from the first five/six in the betting forecast. But they have the character of orienting statements rather than rules.

[This message was edited by Fulham on April 09, 2003 at 07:31 AM.]

Fulham
Good post,I wish i could put my thoughts across the way you do