Investor
I have had another look at The Tatling's race, and am now much happier that I understand the reason for the reversal.
I won't bore you with the detail, suffice to say that you are way off beam with your assertion that the 4lb weight made the difference; had the weight shift been 4lbs the other way, it would have made little difference to the result under today's circumstances.
As you say, it isn't a matter of opening the paper and sticking a pin in, nor is it a matter of making trite assumptions, but actually reading the form correctly in the first place.

Tc
From memory, 3 horses trained this season by the 'unpredictable' L Cumani. Lost Soldier Three, Mephisto, Pongee; count the duck eggs.
How predictable were some of their victories?
Even Spuradich, (A highly consistent horse last year), had only gone down 3lbs since his last win.

TC
How would you go about proving that consistent horses do/dont win races?
Would a list of say 1800 winners that have run at least 3 times current season with thier last 3 placings be any use to you?

L.Cumani remember Dallas?.

What do you make of him?.

First let me re-iterate that by 'winning' form I also include close shaves (especially if the time was quick) and the genuinely unlucky efforts.

Now from 'winning' form we have to record the conditions of the race. That is not just dist and going, it involves the type of track (in the NH RH and LH seems important), the horses OR and the average OR of the opposition. The relevance of the actual weight carried generally becomes redundant in the face of the respective OR changes.

Sometimes a horse gets some of these 'ideal' conditions but that doesnt necessarily mean the horse has been placed to win. However when all the slots are filled in you can be pretty sure the horse will be trying.

In younger less exposed horses I use the sire stats for dist and going and the average winning progeny Timeform rating as a substitute for the OR.

The final consideration is the trainer going for his ideal conditions too. A good example was TCs comments about Dandy at Doncaster.

Look at Gosden would you believe hes never had a 4yo+ winner at Newbury in the last 5 years (21 attempts) but is 3/4 at Yarmouth (+11.92pts)! Is there really any point taking the form of a 4yo+ Gosden runner at Newbury (or more importantly Yarmouth!) seriously?

johnd - as you know I hate - "Bloody Aftertimers" -

but I assure you - that like seanre - I included Cumani's - " Spuradich" - in my 3 horse "Dutch" ! -

I felt that he was targeting the race (dont ask me why ) - it was - just a "Gut Feeling" - something that happens when you follow a Trainer !

I didn't talk about it on the thread - as that would have been pointless -

but like sean - I have been celebrating a 33/1 and a 14/1 result tonignt !

boozer -

thanks -

but I have spent half my life in Industry -

"Number Crunching" -

and at the end of the day - I have found that - the early conculusions - seldom differ much from - the "Final Analysis"

-

Your own conclusions would be interesting !

Four pages of new posts and the only one worth reading was Pipedreamer's, I should find this depressing or funny or whatever but in fact I'm reassured, after all Pipedreamer was the only one to pass the 80% challenge. Two points though, first we don't have any reason to trust the veracity of "G.Hall" anymore than we do the claims of Barney. Second, as VDW is an entirely after-timed theory I would ask those with the form books if they've studied all the races in those books, science requires controls. To Ectoo, bear in mind that the 100-1 Tata Naka had form figures something like 2232.

Mtoto

My views on weight are always open to change if I discover something that convinces me I have to change my attitude to it.

My comments on handicaps are not just about the physical effect of weight, as you say a trainer won't want a higher rating because it may mean he has to run his horse in a class above it's level. Of course some trainers chose that way of getting a rating down.

I think that a horse has a set speed it can run at comfortably in an evenly distributed way. The effect a few pounds have on that performance is hard to measure but I don't think it is as important as a lot of handicappers think. The main stopper of horses in handicaps is trainer intent to keep his horse on a mark that allows a horse to compete in races HE has in mind.

You see a horse win a race, if it ran 2 days later with 8lbs more on, in many cases most horses would win again as they are "well in themselves"..but if the trainer thinks a double win will spoil his plans for a race in 3 months time he may want to get a poor run on the board immediately to encourage the handiapper to be a little more lenient. Most pundits would say "oh he lost because of the penalty" when in fact he lost beacuse the trainer has a target race in 3 months time.

Each time a horse loses after a win the more people are convinced that extra weight is the reason. This isn't the case imho.

Epiglotis

Each time you produce an example like that you are proving nothing at all. I really don't understand this plucking of horses with a 2 or a 3 in it's form out and using as some kind of proof that "consistent" horses win at big prices or win more than those without lots of "happy" numbers in their recent form.

Don't undersatnd that sort of posting at all.

Congrats Pipedreamer you have been officially endorsed as the bestest authority on vander wheelyism this side of the Yukon.

Ectoo: I responded directly to a post of yours, there's no need to avoid such figures for an edge.

WP - interesting post !

quote:

---

Pipedreamer
Member

posted September 18, 2004 12:02 PM
The solution to vdw,surely is not too difficult or is it?G.Hall solved it,F.Chester had almost reached the ultimate conclusion,so what is it,that causes the problem.

We can all measure consistency,ability, class,ratings etc.For me the one big difficulty is form.

What is form?vdw said,is it not that one performance is better than another.How is it presented in a numerical format?VDW said,there is enough to form a second numerical picture,so what is the best way of doing this.

People back winners everyday of the week,through one form or another,but are they winning consistently?Why not put an end to the nonsense once and for all,and have a reasoned debate,on what constitutes the various components we are looking for.

I would like to start by asking for some assistance on how form is best presented in a numerical format.I may be able to offer help on other aspects of the methodology.

---

I am sure you will -explain your thinking - to the rest of us !



or -

are you - just - taking - "The Piss" ??

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tuppenycat,

Epiglotis

You like figures that prove something?


Total horses showing 1 2 or 3 on in their last 3 wins in any combination =

6808/36325 = 18% = -4558 LSP = -12% ROI

Those priced at 16/1 or greater

83/2909 = 2.8% = -1153 LSP = -39% ROI

All these 16/1+ shots were " consistent" horses and if you backed all of them you would showing losses worse than pin sticking.

You are posting the odd one up to try and prove something I don't understand. Keep backing horses like that and you will be well out of pocket..fact. Unless of course you only pick the ones that win as you did on your post.

Yawn, another brainless idiot whose main concern is to appear to be clever. Maybe there's a field for psychologists investigating the phenomenon of gambling addiction, rather be "right" than win, **** you.

Ectoo,

I find I am in agreement with your thinking. The only difference is I'm trying to find that target, then there is no need to interfere with the performance. I don't know exactly how much it costs to enter a horse in one of the top handicaps, and I may be a little naive but I do think when most of the entries are made the intention is to win. If it is just a prep race, or to get the OR down there must be cheaper ways of doing it.

So come the day the horse is taken to the track, for me the question is, is this horse good enough? I assume the trainer thinks, so or it wouldn't be there. Am I convinced the horses is good enough? I have to be because it's my money that's going on it. I except things can go wrong during the race and when that chance has gone the placings down the field can mean very little. That is why I will consider a horse as consistent if the c/rating is as high as 12, that means I will forgive 1 bad/poor race. (at times)

So which horse would you prefer to have your money on a horse that runs it 's race even when things may not be ideal, including the prep races? Or one that is in and out and you have to guess how it is going to run?

For me the problem seems to be this thread is starting to suggest some horses are winning BECAUSE they are inconsistent. Looking at your next post I think you could just as easily show inconsistent horse fair as poorly as consistent ones if not more so. I looked at the Ayr Gold Cup, I worked on the fact all of these horses were going to try and win. I looked at the ones that had proven they could hold their own in a race of this class, the ones that hadn't proven it were eliminated. This included the consistent ante post favourite, even if the draw had looked right the horse wasn't good enough in this class. Of the horses that were still on the list the winner was still there. The only horse that came up to scratch for me on the figures was Quito, I had heard he had been held up with a foot injury, so there was no bet. In the 4:00 at Newbury all the possibles that passed my first filter failed on the c/rating, no bet.

A lot is being made of trainer intentions, but only winning examples are being held up. Does anyone really think Doyen didn't go into that race without the sole intention of winning? Does anyone think Stoute took First Charter to Ireland for the day out. Of course not, but aren't they better examples of trainer intentions, but going wrong? Ok in both races trainer intentions were proven correct, but those trainers had the horse with the correct credentials, for me at least.

Re the posting above, try to ignore it. Every board has one it's just that the one here is a beauty. If there were prizes he would be the world champion.

Be Lucky

Stick that on your shelf, if your friends are bored enough they might read a few lines between the sheets. Sorry "shits" is the general pronunciation.

For example: the conductivity of selenium under sunlight in outer space, those men in Telefomin in the morning, et al. I understand JiB's idea but I prefer the stimulus of Clement Doke.

Bored and empty handed as I presently am I still couldn't wade through the turgid extraloquacity of Mtoto's crap. Boozer, I think you're an excellent contributor but what the **** did you mean about Mtoto's posts being logical and worth reading? The guy is braindead, sorry to not wax poetic but. . .

Johnd
It wasn't a "trite assumption" it was well calculated before the off.I made a post to Epiglotis when i first came back about horses winning races on several occasions I.E relkeel,Best mate etc etc.i did this for a reason,Vinnie Roe has been splattered all over the racing post site and in the paper version,Eveybody keeps banging on about trainers intentions,Nobody even metioned the f.....g horse i really cannot believe that

T.C
You were right in what vdw said "i like to judge horseflesh by what it has achieved in public and by no other means" you and the rest on her had a hose with it's ideal conditions (as you Put It) staring you in the face,And you missed it,Dear me.