ive had a few this evening,the point im trying 2 get across is,apologies for those that didnt get it,special air freshner=magic glade?

Hi TC and Everybody,


"You cannot compare - Hcap Prize Money - With Stakes Money" !! "" : TC.

Just a simple point which may help me if no-one else.

VDW said that " Class/Ability is forever", doesn't fade etc.

Whether we agree or disagree with that view, would most of us think that the top class horses will have HAD top Official Ratings in their time?

I'd like to know about winners of handicaps AND stakes.

There is a follow up question, which can wait till we are clear about this HIGH OR point.

Perhaps someone would like to provide the BEST EVER OR of those horses listed by JohnD.

Seanrua
(From the RP website) Highest recorded OR, highest OR when running in a h'cap in brackets.

Azertuiop 177 (174)
Rooster B 170 (169)
Iris's Gift 173 (167)
Arkle, of course pre-dated official ratings as such, and was alloted a weight by each individual handicapper.

The situation on the flat is slightly different in that the maximum rating normally eligible for a handicap is 115, and that Pilsudski, (95) and Halling (93) date from a time when OR's were only shown in the RP when the horse ran in a handicap.

I think that the concept of the OR is not being given a proper examination. As we all know everything in life has an origin. It is in the origin that much of a subjects character lies.

The OR is awarded after a win or three non winning runs in maidens (flat) or novices (NH).
As we all know these races are free from weight considerations, other than the historic allowances traditionally awarded for sex or age.

The Official Handicapper makes a judgement based on previous experience as to how good (class) he thinks the horse in question really is. He does this by awarding the horse a mark, its OR. The alltime v best flat horse would be rated at 140 (10st), and the alltime v best NH hdlers and chsers 168 (12st).

From this point on it doesnt matter what path the horse takes. Each succeeding race, whether in hcps or non hcps, will result in small changes (if any) to the horses OR. These small changes mean that the Official Handicapper does not allow himself to be duped by tricks like running the horse at the wrong distances etc etc.

Neither does the Official Handicapper allow the weight the horse carried to influence his decision. To beat the system trainers have to invest in a lot of bum runs! And as soon as the horse wins, providing it wasnt a fluke, the OH takes suitable revenge.

This slow moving ability/class rating, that refuses to be conned by a solitary result, whether good or bad, and which ignores the weights a horse has carried since it started racing, is always going to be thereabouts as regards the horses true ability. It can get a little out of phase when the horse has improved or lost form but the OH cant be shaken off.

I dont know how many 105 rated horses have been beaten by 120 rated horses in the last few years but I can reassure anyone interested that it is many times more than 120 rated horses beaten by 105 rated ones.

Thank you, JIB and JohnD.

Can we take it so, that in this day and age, a horse with the highest best OR is every bit as likely to be the " class" horse in a race as the horse that has won the most win prize money per win?

Secondly, won't this often be the very same horse anyway?

I'm asking not to try streamline VDW ideas but, because a friend of mine on Smartsig has come up with a successful scheme based on looking out for a horse with an outstanding OR in its past.

I believe he goes back two and a half years and it still works! There are other essential factors , of course.

Not sure if he filters out non-hcps ot just does any old race. I'll try find out.

Sean,

I'd be interested to hear more about your colleagues approach as my lists work on a similar basis.

Keeping a racehorse is an expensive business and the longer the losing run goes on the more desperate connections are likely to get!

I don't quite follow the full method involved, JIB, as it appears complex and uses a lot of privately collected data that is thought important.

One simple piece that I've found I 'd copied from an e-mail is this:

In your own chosen field of specialisation or fancy, list as many winners as you like that had HIGHER RATED ( by OR) PLACED horses behind them.

Next race, you will find a high proportion that win again.

This doesn't seem to be what we've been discussing, so, I'll try find out more.

Sean,

When appropriate I ve been taking the average OR of races to compare the quality of opposition faced by the possible selection when it achieved the form I'm interested in and the current race in question.

Next years flat list will see a slight alteration to this idea as in non-hcps I'll only be averaging those in the betting market whose odds do not exceed the number of runners.

I think the OR is interesting and useful but no rating is going to be perfect, they all have to be interpreted. Take Ice Crystal who was in the 2.10 Bangor today. This was second in 3 consecutive races and was raised 5lb by the handicapper for its last race where it finished 4th. You could look at it in 2 ways , either the horse has improved and the handicapper has recognized that and upped it’s OR , or the level the horse can win at ( its class rating if you like ) is still the same but it has now been penalized for losing. Obviously VDW’s ability rating wouldn’t have increased at all for those 3 second placings. So even though we have 2 useful ratings there are still bound to be differing interpretations of what those ratings are telling us. If Ice Crystal was the topweight and/or had the highest ability rating does that make him the class horse in the race or a horse that has shown he has reached the limit of his ability and is now weighted above it?

Some good points, bream.

I think it's all an approximate estimate and in need of balancing eith other important factors.

The guy who uses old, highest OR has said that the race in which best OR was in effect must be checked; if the animal ran way below par - judged by collateral form rating or whatever - its next best OR should be used, provided the horse ran to form.

This is no different in principle from the VDW idea of guaging by " win only" prize money divided by wins.
It filters out useless non informative runs.

Obviously, totting up the value of races entered would prove little on its own. For instance, a beast that that had been entered in three Grand Nationals, and fallen at the first on each occasion, would have a massive figure for prize money per run. No use at all to the punter!

Though not perfect, like everything else, I believe the OR - sensibly used could be a valuable tool for punting.

Having said that, I take far more heed of other factors in my own bets.

bream,
like you said its just a rating,but its how you interpret it thats important,its a rating made by humans and there are mistakes in there

tc,
its a shame that this has happened,you deserve loads of credit for getting it back on its feet.
why do 20 yr old examples need to be followed?
i agree horse profiles can guide you in the right direction.whats wrong with the profile of texas gold?
why cant anybody make their own examples,all this bullshit about you might find out my secrets if horses are posted up,as far as im aware,someone posted this up,lee has evolved vdw,he will accept a high cons rating.
racing changes,what happened in the 1970 ch hurdle means little,texas gold is a recent example,i have many others,comes to the a/w every winter with a low o/r and wins.
tc,i think the banter made it a case of put up or shut up for the vdw fans.this was due to happen.

What's happened?

Mtoto,

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, but I’ve had more pressing issues just recently!

I’m hoping that my reply puts in to context the Ability Rating as well as giving you my conclusions regarding VDW’s method of class and form.

Lee,

The only class form methods I have ever seen explained are the c/form horse is the horse with the highest a/rating that is in form. A slight variation is the horse with the best form, that is also in form. Are you saying neither of the above is correct?

ALL examples were class/form horses – not 2nd, 3rd or whatever, and therefore the horses that were rated higher on ability were not form horses in the eyes of VDW.

Most of the juggling happens to get rid of the horses with a higher a/rating than the VDW selection. These horses are classified as out of form or even more strangely not a form horse for this race. If the a/rating works how can this be?

This may appear to be the case, however, in practise it is fairly straightforward to achieve. The ability rating was given as an introduction to class and how best to rate it (don’t be fooled by that statement). In isolation NO method of gauging class is any good.

I think you have stated the a/rating can't be used to gauge the class of a horse. If I have misunderstood you I apologise, if not, what is the point of it?

Answered above.

So can I ask do you think the selections VDW put up are the c/form horses in those races? If not why is he backing against them when he thinks the c/form horse is the most likely to win?

Answered above.

Do you think Petronisi was out of form (or a none form horse) or his form just not good enough. If you have him as out of form why isn't Baronet? Investor says P is out of form because he didn't win a lower class race last time out.

Not correct – that was just coincidence.

Baronet also went into the same race with a higher class win last time out. P beats B, P is out of form, Baronet is a form horse, and the selection to boot??

Similar to the Braashee/Cossack Guard weight turn around, if you can answer the question – you’ve cracked it!

Love of Verona and Son of Love are the 2 that I have never seen explained to any satisfaction. Is Dyscole eliminated purely on the fact that his last race was a chase?

No.

Son Of Love, I fail to see how he is a form horse (the way others have explained it) If the a/rating has anything at all to do with the c/form horse (or in this case the race and/or the horse at all) how can a rating of 50 compare to ratings of 266, 133, 112, etc.?

On one hand you argue the worth of the a/rating then appear to ignore if you can make the examples work without any juggling.

Actually reading back through my notes you don't ever seem to have commented on the a/rating one way or another. Except to say it is of use. So the long and short of it is do you think the a/rating is being used in the wrong way? Is Investor correct to use it as a collateral marker?

The ability rating cannot be used as a collateral rating – I.e. horse A beat a higher rated horse than horse B last time out, so horse A must now rate higher? This is nonsense, just like all other collateral form ratings - This will of course be apparent to anyone that has taken the time to look at his examples; those who haven’t however, wouldn’t have been privy to such knowledge.

As stated above the AR was an introduction to class but VDW gave enough away for the reader to realise that it was no more use, per se, than the consistency rating.

Those who condemn these 2 ratings are no Sherlock Holmes’, even a fool should realise their limitations if used as ratings in isolation; those who rubbish VDW on the strength of such basic elements have no chance.

Given a race and the selection, it is very easy to come up with some very impressive looking reasons why that horse is the selection. In truth they maybe a mile away from the real reason(s) that horse was chosen, but the reasons can be made to fit and look good. Yesterday I didn't look at Top Speed and never take weight into account and don't judge a race by prize money on offer. Investor came up with some good reasons to make the selection fit, none of which were used by me. Has he really found the answer to the way I work?

Not as far as I can tell.

Greg,

Any selection of mine that has a high consistency rating generally fits the Roushayd mould. Consistency is key.

Lee - are you saying that the First letters were little more than a - Janet and John / Simple Simon - Introduction to his "Methods" ???

G. Halls "KEY" ???

simple ! -

Stick to the Higher Class Races !

Clue is in his complaint that - "There are fewer of them in th NH season" -

Greg -

have just had a good look at "Texas Gold" - see what you mean !

Lee,

Thanks for your reply.

[ALL examples were class/form horses – not 2nd, 3rd or whatever, and therefore the horses that were rated higher on ability were not form horses in the eyes of VDW.]

When you say they are not form horses are you saying they are out of form, or the form isn't good enough? In the case of BL are you saying as VDW had him well out of it he couldn't be a form horse, even though he was consistent?

[Similar to the Braashee/Cossack Guard weight turn around, if you can answer the question – you’ve cracked it!]

Problem here, I am more than happy with my answers to both these questions. In fact I can use the answer to solve most of the examples. So can there be two answers, as I don't think for one moment we are using the same idea?

I agree that no one factor in isolation can be used to judge ability. I think the others who are using the c/form formula would argue they are not using just the a/rating but a series of factors. They are using a criteria set down by VDW to judge whether a horse is in form or not. Do you disagree that this criteria exists? When VDW said BHL wasn't a form horse doesn't he fail in the strength of his recent form? If so isn't there a pattern that can be followed and used as an example for other horses being a none form horse?

Be Lucky

Hi TC

Do you really think Mr. Hall's key could be that simple?

BC