Investor

For what it's worth, I think you read Lingo's form much more intelligently than I did, consequently analysed the race more effectively, placed a realistic bet and thus fully deserved your return. And, although these things are tricky after the event, I think your judgement that 5/2 was the minimum acceptable price was probably about right.

There is, I think, another matter arising from the race which may be worthy of attention: the running of Faithful Warrior. I don't know if you actually saw the race, but FW was dropped right out, and merely did enough over the last couple of furlongs to reduce the risk of being banned for schooling on the course. I suspect that, as hinted in yesterday's Post, FW's real target is Chester. I suggest that, in assessing in-formness for his next run, it might be worth bearing in mind VDW's Ekbalco example. Time will tell.

determined,

I Think that I have read a comment by vdw in which he describes a horse as "incredibly consistent"

that was after three runs over three different trips, something like 3m 2m 2m4.

I am trying hard to find it!!!

So was lingo an official vdw bet then, fancied the horse a bit myself dont ask me why, the ground was a concern but then he`d won on g/f last time out at pontefract.Was on him that day as well when he was ridden by F.Spencer for Mrs Ramsden, he won both races in similar fashion arriving late on the scene the second occasion under a decent ride by Fallon.

Fulham
It is worth it if you can or do understand the logic behind the bet,Not just the ponty,epsom,Ponty,Epsom but that the horse did have consistent form,The way vdw put it across.

Determined/Fulham/Barney

I think the quote that Barney is looking for states that the majority of a horses form is illusionary, as Investor rightly points out with Lingo. What Fulham and Determined need to bear in mind is that a horse remains in form when it produces an illusion of form. On Dec 13th 11.53 I gave a list which contains most of the reasons for the horse putting in what appears to be a bad one.

I have posted this before. Could someone please tell me were VDW shows he means anything other than what this says about consistency? These figures show a horse last 3 runs, and can be confirmed by present day figures. If he meant take the last 3 runs over 10f, races at Epsom, or what ever, wouldn't he have said that? The question MUST be why did he write it if he didn't mean it?

[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.]

It was ignored last time. As the last few posts have been about consistency, I will ask again. Is this what VDW meant when HE talked about consistent form, if not what does it mean?

Be Lucky

Mtoto
This HAS been explained to you before,They are consistency figures.Consistent form is different,The figures you show are most definately relevant when coupled with Form as vdw put it across,I gave you examples and you blow them out everytime without really thinking about it.To explain what you want would be very difficult for me anyway.But believe me and iv'e said this before,When you do find the factors you'll know,I stumbled across them by luck really but nevertheless once found,It will all make sense believe me.

Investor,

It is you that is missing the point, the words in the brackets are written by VDW. That includes the high lighted consistent form. He is saying the consistency rating is there to rate consistent form. I can't see any other explanation for the words. I do agree consistent form by it's self isn't enough. However, it doesn't mean you can just ignore bad runs. People keep saying VDW wrote everything for a reason, and read and understand what was written. So why has this very basic element been changed? The piece quoted comes from Form Can Mislead in The Golden Years, read it, and tell me how it can mean anything else. I can't find an example were a horse that isn't consistent is taken in preference to a consistent horse. (Unless it is in the 3 lowest ratings.) He even went outside the forecast to trap a few consistent horses.

Be Lucky

Fulham,

You are absolutely right about Faithful Warrior`s running.

Chester is the target without doubt and now the trainer has realised this one will get 10 furlongs far more avenues will be open to this horse.

The frustrating thing is I`m expecting some decent wagers in the next fortnight but there`ll all have to run without my hard earned cash for reasons already stated.


Lingo,

My race evaluation wasn`t fully complete therefore I didn`t bet but in my opinion like Investor I was leaning towards Lingo as a bet and my records will show he was a VDW selection and at 5/2 again in my opinion he was value.


All,

I accept that the answer to my question will be found once I eventually study all the old example`s but could I ask,

WERE ALL VDW`S NAMED WINNERS EITHER IN THE 1ST 3 FOR CONSISTENCY AND/OR IN THE 4 HIGHEST ON ABILITY ?

Mister Ed,

I have just reminded myself of that very post you mentioned. Thanks.

With reason no` 4 in mind I feel will should all pay attention to how Mr Fahey places DANELOR in his future races.

This City & Surburban might prove to be an interesting race with the future in mind !

Cheers,

Determined,

just think, vdw must have been doing every race like that, but better than all of us put together.

Determined

The answer to your general question is no - consider, for example, Son of Love.


Mister Ed

Of course I agree with your general point about illusions of form, but that wasn't for me the issue with Lingo on Wednesday.


Mtoto

It is often difficult to be certain what VDW meant, but I take two pointers from the passages you've quoted. First, that VDW's stats. showed the probabilities he quoted - which would probably have been much more exciting to contemporary readers than to us given that we are talking about the pre RSB age. Second, that horses with consistent form have, statistically, much more chance of winning than those without that characteristic.

Where I personally think you are in error is in assuming that the consistency rating is the means by which VDW assessed whether a horse is in consistent form in the context of a given race. VDW's examples include instances of horses which had numerically low consistency aggregates, which were also relatively low (three lowest in the first five/six of the forecast, five lowest in the field) which he clearly did not regard as form horses. Similarly there are horses with relatively high consistency aggregates or which had aggregates not in the three lowest in the first five/six in the forecast, which VDW clearly regarded as form horses.

I can't off hand think of a horse VDW specifically said was a form horse, or which can be inferred as such by being a clear selection, that did not have one of the five lowest consistency aggregates in the field. But even if there isn't such an example, I doubt that VDW would have regarded "must have a consistency rating among the five lowest in the field" as a rule.

You ask what VDW meant by consistent form. Personally, I think he meant those situations where a horse was both assessed as in form in the context of a particular race, and had consistent form over recent runs, ie horses such as Righthand Man as well as Little Owl. In this regard, I would contrast, for example, Spirit Leader in regard to its Cheltenham win, with Broadway Score in relation to the Rosebery. I think it probable that VDW would have regarded both as form horses in relation to their respective races, but would have viewed only the former as exemplifying what he referred to as "good consistent form". Needless to say, this can only be conjecture.

[This message was edited by Fulham on April 25, 2003 at 07:16 AM.]

Mtoto
You can ignore bad runs when the trip is all wrong Lingo had run 13 times upto the Epsom run Winning 4 of which 3 were at 1 mile and 2 furlongs surely that tells you something,I'll give you this from Golden Years to save you looking

F chester may be confusing the issue wit form which does appear to fluctuate,But if he cares to study it in more depth he will find a great deal of it is just an illusion. CONSISTENT FORM relative to the rest of the field,Combined with ability in better class events is a force to be reckoned with.

Was 3/1 Lto
In fact was the shortist price of the whole field Lto

Same as Zamandra and Stray Shot then
Who can say that this wasnt the reason why Stray Shot and Zamandra were the only ones to back out of the 6 according to VDW

Mr.Moto

Regarding the consistancy rating I can name one of the VDW examples off the top of my head that is not in the first
three namely 'Philodantes' (010) With a full understanding and a little skill the two 0's can be interpreted as illusory, after all on the NH a F can often be ignored.

Boozer

Bad news, Kevinsfort & River Rhine, to name but two are the
shortest prices of their last respective races.

You are wrong

Righthand man
Same year welsh National
Shortist price in the Lto Betting market
Coincedance?

I wish they would all fit

Mtoto
I know i keep giving passages from the books,But i am running out of options.Let me try this one,

All that should concern you are the relevant factors concerning the race being run "today".Because of our modern education,These are clearly understood on a numerate basis,Hence the "numerical picture" Illustrated many times during the explanation of my methods and set out in some detail in march,1981 SPELLS IT ALL OUT

interested punters should try and understand the whole concept and realise anything worth value has to be worked for.It is no good stopping halfway through the project or thinking a part fare takes you the full journey.A LITTLE was left for you to complete,But all relevant factors were there to set up a second "numerical picture",Providing you read what was said.

He later went on to add read and understood what was said,At this moment in time,You don't.

Fulham,
This may sound too simple or perhaps too zen for some people to grasp but the idea behind the consistency rating is to show those horses that are consistent. We are not talking form or consistent form relative to the field or informness or anything else here. An in depth look behind the figures will confirm just what lies behind them. No need for that at this early stage. Why is Pegwell Bay mentioned in this context by VDW when the run where he finished last is included?

The same applies with the 2 ratings part of the consistency method from SIAO. Another 2 ratings methods if used may show the horse to be last of all runners which would mean discontinuing. However, any 2 ratings (you can even go through ALL the available ratings, Timeform, postmark whatever-and find two that would show it in the top2/3) will show it to have the neccessary credentials ratings-wise. Providing that is, no other runner was in a similar position.
regards,

Mr e d,

May I suggest this example sticks in your mind because it is a one off? I seem to remember dealing with this race, I think it was around the 24th of March. (page 439)

I will enclose a portion of the post in case you missed it.....

{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}

As you say horses that don't finish a race over the jumps have to be looked at in a from a different perspective. If a horse was well beaten when it fell (or what ever) that run isn't just ignored. The horse was beaten, full stop. So how can Lingo's poor races be ignored? Investor makes much of ask the driver, in this case the driver thought 12f was the way to go. Not once, but twice. You can juggle all you like, Lingo was not consistent in the way VDW wanted. He came into the equation because he was improving, but then failed because he had been raised in class.

Fulham,

I have read your last post many times, and I THINK we agree. The only difference is I use the filters to narrow the field, rather than spend hours looking at the whole field. Once I have found the consistent horses, AND/OR improving horses. I then apply the factors suggested in SIAO. I have to say I can follow the logic in your selections, even when we don't agree on the final selection.

Investor,

With your last post I think the question must be, What do you think the second numerical picture consists off? The other rating could easily be just that. Or are you doing weird and wonderful things with the ability ratings from previous races? If that is what you mean, I ask again, if the ability rating really works, why the need?

Be Lucky