Lee is this where we should look?

quote:

---

“To confirm what the figures say it is necessary to study the form of all concerned, taking particular note of the class in which they ran, the course they ran on, the pace and going of the respective races, distances won or beaten by and MOST IMPORTANT, HOW THEY PERFORMED IN THE LATER STAGES OF EACH RACE.”

---

Last 3 outings and the win on 24/9/04

quote:

---

3/7/04
St Andrews, who got warm in the prelims, continues to impress after his year off with a serious leg injury. The easier ground looked to help him and, while the handicapper has not been kind, he is making up for lost time and the William Hill Mile at Goodwood was nominated as a likely target.
24/7/04
St Andrews looks to need more cut in the ground as the principals readily outpaced him but he kept battling away.
7/8/04
St Andrews and Camp Commander ran as if there big-race schedule had taken its toll for now.
24/9/04
ANALYSIS: Not as strong a handicap as might have been expected for the money, with several having questions to answer, and though they went a good pace, few got into it up front. The ground had been too firm for ST ANDREWS on his two previous starts but he is useful with plenty of give underfoot and he was an emphatic winner, leading over two furlongs out and pulling well clear. He should continue to give a good account if the weather remains in his favour - though the handicapper may make things much tougher for him.

---

Lee I read your post and you say 'After race comments also have no bearing whatsoever' but then where in the form info does it show how they performed in the latter stages of the race? Apart from their actual placings? elsewhere discussion was about how impovement was judged by improving placings but this was also dismissed by vdw guys.

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

Lee

Could Double Vodka 22 july be the best example?
Do Stray Shot and Zamandra have the same criteria??

And I wonder why did G Halls Key not produce as many bets over the jumps

I will reply later, but so you don't waste valuable time and enable you to use it more productively, finishing distances are not the answer, nor are after race comments - they are someone elses opinion, and based on nothing more.

JIB,

No, it means we had different agenda's. Sir Mark could afford to take the chance that the horse was good enough. For me he was guessing, why was he guessing? The horse had never run against horses of that class, so he was only guessing what the horse was capable of. He could earn several thousand pounds even if the horse just failed. The price was poor, I would earn nothing if he was slightly wrong. He learnt about the horse so did I.

Many VDW novices, and a few with more experience lost on the bet. There was a consistent horse well placed in the forecast. In short it had a lot of the pluses. Just the type for the critics to shout another VDW failure, and in Soviet Song and they have even more ammunition. It doesn't work!!! It does when everything lines up, but nothing is a 100%.

Lee,

Are you saying because Roushayd didn't perform in the last 2f that was proof he was being saved for the next time? Some are saying the s/f isn't an important part of that method and R can be classified as a form horse next time, without using the s/f.

Be Lucky

From Golden Years I believe

Speed figures alone have little value if not supported by form. It is true, form is a complex thing, and subject to interpretation, but there are many aspects which give clear indications. Mr Swann may care to give thought not to a race as a whole but to the respective horses' performances over the last two furlong in each of their three previous outings. What a horse does, or does not do, at this stage will provide the answers.

As one example, a horse that noticeably improves to make a race of it at this stage without winning can be looked upon as a potential candidate in the near future and note should be made of how the trainer places it. Mr Swann states he had found good reason to back the horses mentioned and I suggest he examines this aspect in depth. With the obvious effort he has put in, this will give him the answers he seeks. The placing of an investment must be backed by solid reason and not by a compulsion to gamble.

Mtoto,

He was placed to win in the trainers mind, 27-09 3:10 am.

For me he was guessing, why was he guessing? 27-09 02:11 pm.

If you are trying to back out of the first statement by using the second all you are doing is showing that you didnt think about the trainer before the race.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

JIB,

You don't have to time my postings. I know what I have said, and once again I can't understand your thinking.

I have said I concentrate on the good class races BECAUSE I think horses are placed there to win. Why pay good money, and cart a horse around the country for a prep race? What's wrong with that statement?

I have said the horse is the important factor, no matter what the trainer thinks the horse can't win if it's not good enough. Again what's wrong with that?

The trainer THINKS the horse is good enough. How do the likes of us know, or the trainer? The trainer has the inside knowledge gallops, etc. How does he know how the horses will react in a races against horses of a higher class than he has raced against? He can't be sure, so in my mind it is a guess, an educated guess, but a guess. What's wrong with that?

No, I don't look at the trainer first, or even second. In fact I often don't even look at the trainer unless the horse is going up in distance or there may be a doubt about the going. I don't look at stats unless they involve that particular horse. However before making a bet if the trainer is badly out of form I will think twice.

If a horse isn't good enough it can't win, I don't give a monkey's who rides/trains it. All I'm saying is I want some proof it is good enough before I put my money on it. Even with that proof I won't back it unless ALL the factors ARE IN PLACE.

You have lists of horses, do you back any of them if the important factors are missing? They may only be important to you, but even you take notice of them. You are right, the rest are wrong. Ego or what!!!!

Nessie,

The only after race comments that you should be taking notice of are the race reader’s comments. Even they, of course, still have an element of opinion in their make-up, particularly where it matters, but they are as factual as you’re going to get.

Once again though, in isolation, they mean nothing. Ran on, quickened to lead, hard ridden, and stayed on strongly etc. are all decipherable comments and are designed to give a description of how the horse ran its race, but for instance, just how good is the performance of a horse that noticeably improves to make a race of it? These comments mean nothing on their own.

Mtoto,

The speed figure was an important element of the Roushayd example. Generally as the class of race improves, so does the figure, particularly in Handicaps. For instance, had Roushayd failed to record a figure then there would have been a question to answer – why?

That said, the crucial element is still apparent in the form; the speed figure merely confirmed that although finishing down the field, Roushayd ran it’s race and improved.

Boozer,

Double Vodka was a Roushayd type selection on the 22nd and was equally a good thing next time out at Ripon.

All VDW’s selections have the same traits.

There were less bets for G.Hall simply because there were/is far less quality races/horses that appear during the jumps season.

lee,mtoto, everyone, one of vdws quotes, the class of horse is differant from the class of race they compete in, trying to gauge the class of horses is difficult to assess are there other factors which you use.

Mtoto,

Believe me I have no desire to be arguing with you, however I feel that your first statement about Elusive Dream being placed to win in the trainers' mind was inspired in the belief (that I, unfortunately for our relationship, so firmly uphold to the contrary) that being placed to win is not all that important. Other factors, principally the horses class, being far more weighty, something you make clear in your latest contribution.

However I think you now realize that Prescott, whilst he had many reasons to expect an encouraging run, had not placed the horse to win. (A term that must be inherently endowed with a large amount of confidence and certainty). You will have understood that when you noticed the 7-13 and the resulting improvised jockey.

When you reread your final paragraph I hope you can see the irony of it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

Lee. sorry but I am as confused as ever. How can the last 2 furlongs be shown in the form book. is not the form the data gathered after the race? so where is the data for the last 2 furlongs?
please help.

Nessie

ev ch 1f out ran on well faded
etc etc

Nessie,

Boozer has cleared that up, the following is the race-readers comments for North Light after the Derby:

tracked leader, led entering straight and kicked on, driven 2l clear over 2f out, never going to be caught after.

Most of the comments will be regarding the later stages of the race, however, as stated above these comments mean nothing in isolation.

Nessie - on the R.Post site - click on the horses name to get the list of previous races - then click on its last race - there are some general comments on the race - but if you click on

quote:

---

comments in running

---

- you will get what Lee calls the race-readers comments !

I know its not exactly the greatest race in the world - but since it involves Sir Mark - what about a little bit of input

Trilemma is fav - but I am Puzzled by his SF lto of only 40

If we project his graph forwards (graphical) then we could expect a new pm of around 85 (improving ?)

His race-reader comments are not that great .

Race The Ace - Rates at sf of 83 lto - an improvement on his previos run ,

and if we project his pm forward - we might expect a pm of around 90 (also improving)

His race reader comments have him steadily drawing clear !

It would appear to be a Dunlop v Prescott and Dettori v Sanders - Battle !!

any opinions ???


Sorry epi - I'm talking about the 4.10 at Nottingham

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

JIB,

Looks like a classic bit off after timing to me, if you have stated on another thread this horse was not out to win this, I of course apologise. When the entries were made don't you think this trainer would have considered the possibility the the stable jockey would have problems. 1 in making the weight, and 2, he couldn't be in 2 places at once. He choose a jockey that knew the horse, and had ridden the horse to win before.

I think a large part of your problem is thinking very winner is expected, and the trainer is all seeing, all knowing. Interesting M Johnston could offer no explanation for the poor run by Lucky Story in France. Jarvis was also disappointed Rakti couldn't finish in front of Powerscourt at Leopardstown. You seem to have more faith in their powers than they do. They only win when it is planned, and there is always a reason for the defeat, that reason being they weren't trying.

Mtoto,

By no means; the Donkey Register shows far more losers than winners and I only bet them when I feel they have been placed to win. Obviously I will have got at least some wrong, but I think a fair number of losers were indeed placed to win.

As an example of this In the race won by Passing Glance. There were 4 Donkey Register horses in the race two of which I felt were placed to win (1st and 3rd) and two who I felt were not placed to win (2nd and 5th).

However of the horses I felt were not placed to win (the majority)I believe only 5 have won and two of those were not bets because of their price.

Of those that I felt were placed to win about half have placed and half of those (a quarter of the total bets) have won. V. few of them have been short prices.

Mtoto

"I have said I concentrate on the good class races BECAUSE I think horses are placed there to win. Why pay good money, and cart a horse around the country for a prep race? What's wrong with that statement?"

Perhaps you should ask Toby Balding why he ran Gold Ring at Hamilton today?

Nessie -

24 Sept 04

COMMENTS IN RUNNING
HAYDOCK 2:50
1 St Andrews
tracked leaders going well, smooth headway to lead 2f out, ridden clear approaching final furlong, stayed on strongly

2 Excelsius
slowly into stride, pulled hard and soon in touch, pushed along and headway when edged left 3f out, driven and stayed on final furlong

3 Imperialistic
held up, headway on outer 3f out, ridden well over 2f out, soon driven, edged left and one pace over 1f out

4 Gift Horse
held up towards rear, switched outside and headway over 2f out, ridden over 1f out and soon one pace

5 Young Mr Grace
chased clear leader, effort and every chance 3f out, soon ridden and weakened