JohnD,

Sorry but this is what I mean when I say you explain nothing. What exactly are you talking about when you say the four criteria. To me it means the items mentioned in the formula if you are talking about something else why not say so, and name them. If you are talking about those items could you explain how the answers are definitive?

Consistent I do agree here I can't see how any other conclusion can be reached about VDW's views on this.
Form. Is he talking about a horse being in form, or about a horse having the form? Does this mean the over all form of the horse or the form based on it's last three runs? VDW said form is one performance better than another fair enough but do those performances have to be in a progressive sequence, or is a one off performance good enough if it is better than the rest? I can see nothing definitive in the way VDW talked about form. When the examples are looked at I think he is talking about HAVING the form.
Ability At no time did VDW say the explained a/rating was the only way to judge ability. He said it was a quick easy way. Though to be honest I can't really see it was that quick, so he may have meant a simple way. I've been asked what exactly does this a/rating judge, apart from showing a horse can win races, I don't know? Perhaps you could help here? For me it is full of flaws, why is a good close run ignored, how does it show a will to win? More important was it the a/rating VDW used for the first dozen or so examples? Why did VDW say money couldn't always be used to judge class, isn't he giving a warning about using this rating? Again far from definitive.

That is just a few of the critera set out by VDW, all open to interpretation. All this is without getting into the question did VDW have more than one method, if he did are they all based on the same idea, finding the c/form horse? Can there be more than one way of finding the c/form horse? He showed at least two different ways of coming up with a horse that had class and form, some argue there is only one method and the c/form horse would fit into all examples. I don't agree do you?

When you say the answers are all there you must mean the answer that fit your interpretation. The question must be, but have you got it right? The only way to answer that truthfully is how many of the examples confirm those answers.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

It may be 'my interpretation', but it is based purely on a literal understanding of what he wrote, and as such, has a much more factual basis than any of convoluted and contrived answers passed between you and your brethren. In other words, I simply believe what he wrote, without supposition or manipulation, and therefore do not need to make the number of assumptions that Guest, etc. have in the past.
I have no intention of broadcasting that understanding, it is there for others to see, but they won't find it in old form books, though they may make progress once they begin to believe what he said.
I will, however, show the capability aspect, which, despite the uncertainty demonstrated by yourself and others, is quite clear, once understood.
As you are aware, VDW made numerous references such as had the ground been heavy, I would not have wagered on him (Pegwell Bay),...Kempton was not the track for him(Forgive N Forget),....would not have been a bet had the race been at Cheltenham(Wayward Lad?), all of which point in the same direction, but on two occasions he was quite specific, viz:
...I suggest they should instead determine if there is a horse with all the attributes of a winner. Having done this, evaluate its capabilities of doing so in the present situation. and;
The combination of consistent form and class (ability) is a formidable factor, but the horse must be in a situation where it is capable of capitalising on it.
In other words, is the horse capable of performing to its best in today's situation?
No clever conotations, no cobbling together, or bending to make the pieces fit, just a simple and straightforward interpretation based on exactly what he wrote, yet a clearer definition of capability than you will find anywhere on this thread.
The other 3 parts of his equation are, to my mind anyway, equally as simple and straightforward, but will onlybe found by thinking about, and believing, what he said, and will not, as the above should demonstrate, yield themselves to any amount of studying his selections.
You pays your money, and you makes your choice.


Epi
I would disagree that it is essential to be familiar with the form of all the opposition in a horses previous performances, on two counts.
First of all the assumption, made by many VDW'ers, that the class in which a horse runs is not the same as the class in which they compete indicates that collateral form is essential when judging the class of any race. It isn't,(IMO), prize money alone was seen by VDW as sufficient proof of the class of the race, and it remains true today, with the exception of restricted races such as 'mares only' and 'sales' races, that better prize money attracts better horse.
The above phrase, to my mind anyway, is a caution by VDW that horses will often run in above or below their appropiate class to get them fit for future targets, as Roushayd clearly did, and the reason for his survey a phenomenon insertion when he first introduced class into his writing in "A METHOD NOT RULES NEEDED".
One thing I am certain of, it wasn't there by accident.
The second reason is a purely personal one, but between the time when I stopped buying Raceform, (When they replaced their excellent s/f with the present crap) and the time I gained access to the internet, (Around the same time as I joined this forum), I successfully operated a (my) version of the Roushayd method with nothing more than the printed RP.

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

[This rating gives one of the most reliable assessments of a horse, but always remember it must be used as a guide in conjunction with other factors.]

JohnD,

The above is part of VDW introduction to the new improved a-rating. Below is what was written when he talked about speed figures.

[What the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation.]

So the question is which of the two statements do I take literally? Before you answer just remember the FIRST time VDW ever mention ABILITY it was in letter 19 where he said

[The important thing is to establish proven ability and here a previous speed figure of 80 plus, should give a reasonable base.]

Your remarks about capability, I do agree with, and agree this is one aspect of the methods I think many don't give enough consideration. In saying that how do you split Baronet and Petonisi? Both had shown their best form on a stiff track, and Petonisi had the highest a-rating using the usual method and was a distance winner. To get round this many/some are saying P is a non form horse. How do you arrive at Baronet, or are you saying you make P a non form horse? If you do are you working this c/form idea, I thought you didn't agree with it?

You end your post with the following comment.

The combination of consistent form and class (ability) is a formidable factor, but the horse must be in a situation where it is capable of capitalising on it.

What part of this statement do you think I fail in? As explained I use an a/rating, a VDW a/rating. An a/rating that can find the winners of the early examples using the procedures as set out in SIAO. Something that can't be done with this other a/rating. PK about 7th in the rankings, Baronet about the same.

Be Lucky

I find alot of trainers are hiding the form/Ability/well rated horses untill either they get the price they want or the hcp mark,
1 example would be A King this week alone with 3 winners @ 11/2,50/1,20/1 from 19 runners and alot of the losers very well rated by RPR or short in the market,
And sorry to say i didnt bet them

Mtoto:
You accuse Johnd of never explaining yet in your latest post you ask him questions without first giving your own answer. How do you split those two horses?

Anyone agree, that "Ratings" - as published today, are much more accurate - than those published 30 years ago in the racing press.

The advent of computors - chips in the saddlcloths - etc

must mean that more attention has to be paid towards this aspect of a horses performance, than VDW originaly advocated .

surely ????

tc

TC,

Agreed.

However to use ratings to their full one must be able to read them against another such set. That demands that we know their scale. The problem with Massey is that we dont really know what constitutes a good, moderate or poor rating.

I think I split them in the same way as VDW did, the same way as he found PK, on his ratings. Looking back through some old post's JohnD says, VDW did it on superior form reading. While this of course maybe true, I think that form reading was backed up by the ratings. As VDW showed he put a lot of faith in those ratings. He said ratings are not the be all, but when SIOA is read carefully it does show how much he relied on them. If they are used as the a/rating they are far more accurate.

TC,

While the ratings today are possibly more accurate, the trouble seems to be there are so many to choose from. As JIB says unless we know how they are compiled it can make it difficult to know how to use them to the best advantage. I have been looking at Top Speed and the oher rating (used to be Postmark) and I have trouble working out which figures they use as the base figure. Even after reading the explanation box it doesn't really show you, or it didn't for me

Be Lucky

If I was betting to three figs I would have a permanent Timeform subscription, unfortuately at the prices they charge its way beyond my racing budget.

They are so heavyweight that no one even dares to publish pirate figs!

Mtoto, thanks.

JIB
in the flat season(no good now sorry) if godolphin have a runner you can go to their site & get TIMEFORM ratings for every race in which they have a runner this helps at the big meets
all the best
Larry

Mtoto
A few brief answers to your queries.
The quotes you highlight are both referring to 2/3yo races where VDW stated that s/f were a useful tool for young or unexposed horses. As you should glean from my reply to Epi, I don't have a problem with s/f as a useful method of rating, I don't, however, agree that they are the 'new improved ability rating'. The original Roushayd approach never mentioned them, except as an 'add-on' in a subsequent chapter on s/f.
Re Baronet & Petronisi, my answer is the same as it was previously, and as it is for Roushayd,Brashee, and others that cause you problems, it is down to how he read form.
I don't need to make Petronisi a 'non-form horse', the phrase is, I believe, another invention of the Guest brigade to make their interpretation fit.
As you agree with the definition of capability, would you also now agree that that conclusion can be arrived at much more simply than by protracted study of his examples.

LD,

Thanks for that!

I was aware that many trainers had permanent TF subscriptions but that these were also used on the olympian heights of Godolphin is a terrific endorsement of their worth.

Does any contributor to this thread think that they also calculate the c/f horse?

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

JohnD,

Let's get a couple of things sorted out. First the s/f are NOT the new improved a/rating they are part the OLD ORIGINAL a/rating. Second, in letter 19 VDW was talking about NH horses and he also used s/f for older horses on the flat.

[Each year in the Handicap Book and other publications by the Sporting Chronicle, a list is give of the best figures produced by the previous season's two-year-olds, (Other ages
as well, but for the moment confine attention to this group).]

This was followed on by

[Additions can be made to this small list from older horses with a best speed figure of 80-plus over a minimum of 8f at the same course(s) as above.]

Agreed the Roushayd method didn't mention s/f at first. Perhaps that's because without them the article didn't make a lot of sense. A horse trails in beaten 9lths and that is an improvement?? Said horse showing nothing in the last 2f a VDW requirement. The only horse in the race that could be used as a guide for improvement, had been heavily eased being saved for it's real target!!

Roushayd,Brashee give me no problems they are quite easy to understand as long as you read what is written and don't go adding bits in like trying to use that ability rating.

Your answer about Petronisi is as much help as many of Barney's and Investor's post NONE. How do you learn how VDW looked at form WITHOUT reading the old form books? How do you know he considered many of the horses where running on the wrong course how would you know Forgive and Forget had NEVER run at Kempton. All through the examples are horse being pasted over because they were running on the wrong course.

Be Lucky

I have a good table of NH tracks that is on Excel.

However I dont have the same for the Flat, I have been using the TF track descriptions in the past which whilst thorough arent all that user friendly. Can anyone recommend a better designed guide?

JIB
have you tried Superform you can usually get a weeks free trial of their site then can download loads of stuff including current ratings for every horse that has run this year they also do track guides
hope this helps a little
btw they also do(free) daily racecards which also give ratings
all the best
Larry

JIB

Try these.


http://www.cdsystems.uk.com/nhtrack.htm

http://www.cdsystems.uk.com/flattrack.htm


Roughyed

LD,

Thanks, I ve sent off for the free trial.

Rough,

They are splendid, thank you!

Mtoto

You asked a number of questions, which I answered.
I asked you one, which you didn't.