Mtoto,

Hurricane Alan was 9/15 to place at a mile, so a mile seems a good distance for him, whether you call that consistancy or not I dont know.

As he won the same race last year and was getting the same jock and going as last time plus a marginally easier opposition you could also say he was likely to be consistant and run to win.

I didnt bet him to win because the form of the two market favs couldnt be ignored. However his previous run had 'prep race' written all over it. And 5/4 the place in an 8 runner contest was lump on material.

Interestingly it is too often that these form good things get beaten in gp races especially if they won lto.

On the subject of consistency I will write more tomorrow as I ve just got home after a week away, but to prepare the ground I can say that I will be examining why from the consistancy point of view the Cheltenham novice hdls results are not the most difficult photos in racing.

Thanks Mtoto

So that i'm clear, another example...

From a consistency perspective when adding the figs, would you ignore 'Clan Royal's' run in the 'National' and work from the three previous figs?

Nat,

That is exactly the way I would look at Clan Royal and any other horse in the same circumstances. When looking at the consistency factor.

JIB,

No hurry, take your time and recover that's the important thing. Glad to see you found some value even in the place element of backing this consistent horse.

Interesting to see Ectoo was also backing Hurricane Alan, again not JUST because it was consistent. He went into a fair bit of detail about why he thought he was a good bet, all of the reasons making sense. The one thing that he didn't mention was the consistency (that I noticed), but being consistent must make profiling a horse easier and that must be a +. Norse Dancer didn't lose because he was inconsistent as Ectoo pointed out there where a few things against his chances. We also knew even when things are in his favour he doesn't always run the race expected.

Be lucky

Thanks Mtoto

If form figs are vitally important to winner finding, we should first look at what they tell us.

They tell us which position a horse filled in its previous run. No more no less.

In this years Royal And Sun Alliance Novices Hurdle (grade 1) there were 21 runners. Every single one of them had a vdw CR of 12 (the recommended upper limit) or less. Eleven of the runners had the really impressive CR rating of 6 or less.

If consistency was (irrespectively) a truly vital piece of information, the logical assumption to make would be that the result of this race should be the most complicated photo in all racing. But this year, as is perennially the case, the runners finished strung out like the washing.

We are told that the CR should not be taken baldly, but if that is the case, why take it at all ?

What is the missing ingredient to the bald form fig? Ingredient? There are more of them than there are toxic substances in a cigarette!

Here's just a few ingredients that should bring a form fig bettor out in a sweat:

Finishing distances
Time
No. of runners
Grade of course
Grade of race
Type of race
Grade of the opposition
Trainer record
Jockey
Going
Distance suitability
Future Entries at the time of the race
Etc., etc., etc.

Without examining at least some of these aspects of the bald form fig it is a meaningless thing. And if we have to examine the form fig in more detail what is the point of such a childish activity as totting up a horses placings?

In flat racing in particular distance is vital.

At races of a mile or less a horse has a v specific distance at which it runs to its best ability (all other considerations being equal). In some cases this can even be understood in fractions of a furlong. Once exposed and at or near its true mark then the horse will only be dangerous at its prime specific distance and again only if the opposition doesn't include higher rated horses running, in their own turn, at their best distances. At 10f and above this distance constraint is more lax but still as true.

Very very few horses ever run up a string of wins, and as Mr Pipe has shown, its usually because of previous jiggery pokery! What mostly happens is that a trainer gets his horse fit then finds the right conditions to run it. If it wins, then usually everyone has earned their beer money and the horse, even if still good enough, is not asked to win again for fear of the handicapper.

If the horse only managed to place or worse then they are still likely to have another go with it . Though greed may make it vulnerable to poor placing.

Consistancy doesn't exist in racing, it is a red herring that has swum into the pool of form.

Consistancy has come to exist in vdwology and ˜fineform' and myriad other rating methods because sometimes good form figs were earned in conditions that coincide with the conditions and opposition of the race being examined, and as a result when the horse runs well in this race, seem to impute them with a power that closer examination reveals to be an imposter.

Really nice to see members exchanging proper views on this subject.

se

JiB

But you have to have the proper skills to be able to add up the form figures in the correct manner adding up the form figures its not easy
Ask investor
I think investor also said that Consistency ratings have nothing to do with consistent form
May be wrong about that ,I am sure he will enlighten us if I have got it wrong

At the end of the day
The consistency figures were the second step in reducing the field from the first 6 in the betting forecast
If it doesnt work then its Bollocks

Perhaps we need Investor to give us the correct procedure so we can prove one way or the other
Whether we can actually narrow the field better than
A random method

Like a pin

John, cracking post.
Vdw said `What is form if not that one performance is better than another`.
Personally one feels this is where ratings can come into effect.
Have to ask John, at what point do you feel a horse is exposed or near it`s true mark if you are of the opinion that trainers are involved wholesale in trying to create illusions in form ?.

WP,

Sticking to the flat where my methods do better I use the sire dist stats for 2 and 3 yos, though these are tempered by the quality of the trainer.

The trainers habits and his record in class A and B races gives an indication of the horses possible class and the sire dist stat should indicate its ideal dist. Obviously if this horse wins at a 'wrong' distance I upgrade my idea of its class.

Likewise if beaten at one of the trainers preferred courses when supposedly ideally placed I do the reverse process.

By 5yo most flat horses have shown what is their winning mark and ideal conditions and I put great emphasis on the trainer. Yesterdays winner Hurricane Alan is a 5yo trained by R Hannon, a trainer who would be v unlikely to 'keep' a horse of this age unless there was a 'good' win it.

Yesterdays prizemoney pays for a full years training fees and a beer or two on top so as everyone is now satisfied Hannon is likely to concentrate on his other charges and Hurricane Alan is in for another dry spell.

The best thing to do is to draw up a list horses who had a good win in the previous season and whose ideal conditions and mark are identifiable and follow them when ideally placed.

I've not done that this season for health reasons but will do so again for 2006.

JD,
Fair enough but in a broader sense as always there are exceptions to the rule.
Ron Shearer & Chief Singer in the 80`s for example.

Without examining at least some of these aspects of the bald form fig it is a meaningless thing. And if we have to examine the form fig in more detail what is the point of such a childish activity as totting up a horses placings?

JIB,

The point of looking at the c/rating first is to find the consistent horse to give a starting point. As you say without the other factors the c/rating is POINTLESS. But even with so many consistent horses running in the same race the stats STILL show the consistent horses fare the best overall. In this race only one could win knocking the rest into the losers column.

This is a good race to examine as, as you say they are all consistent, but how many are consistent FORM horses. What is form if not one performance better than another. When I looked at this race I had 13 horses I considered to be horses that were form horses. As this was a top class race the form has to be top class so the a/rating comes into it's own now. It shows, and eliminates all the horse at have weak(er) form. I'm left with a short list of 4, 4 good consistent horse. All are going to be trying for the good prize, irrespective of future entries they have come to THIS race and are going to try to win. As the a/rating I use has allowed for most of the factors you list, I am left with the task of checking for proof that the course, distance, and going, are such that the horse can give of it's best.

To me saying why use consistency as a STARTING point is a bit like saying why get out of bed to start the day. I don't care how many consistent horses there are in a race, I'm only looking at the good consistent horses. I also believe trainers seldom mess around with these top horses when they are out to win, and logic can find the prep races.

Be Lucky

Jib
Welcome back, (At least, most of you ). Trust the surgery went well and you are now on the mend?
Congrats. on your support of Hurricane Alan, nice to see you return with a winner.

Re consistency - as with most things VDw, there is a simple and logical explanation behind his reasoning, though, not unusually, many can't see it for looking for 'smart' answers.
Again, though, the less they believe in his work, the less likely they are to come up with the answers!
No assumption of mystique by the way,just an appeal for common sense!

Some interesting and thought - provoking points in this thread! Thank you, all.

Consistency?
I feel finishing position may meam little unless we know how much EFFORT was put in.

How do we measure this? I wish I knew, for I think it's the key.

Just a few examples: let's consider jockeys rather than horses:
Dettori has done next to nothing YET this season and often ( especially when I've backed him) finished nearer last than first.
He would seem intent on staying out of the frame above all else!

Now for trainers: Stoute is an old favourite of mine, but just look at the number of his runners that don't make the frame at this time of year.
Later on, many of these same " inconsistent?" runners will go flying in when they win decent races.

Again, when Godolphin are ready to play, Frankie won't be pissarsing about and his serious work will begin.

So, in many ways, I'm with JIB, but I do feel that Mtoto has found a way to guage "EFFORT" behind those add ups.

I manage it myself sometimes when I've been at the race and had a good look at what goes on.
My conclusion is that many of the top trainers have mastered the art of getting away with " lack of effort" in the untargeted races.

The jockeys play along, imo. R Hills must be the out and out master of coming 4th, 5th and 6th for 65% of his rides.
Not sure whether he's a good yardstick, or just a dipstick. I'd say that what he reports back about the runners in front of him must be such valuable information that it pays for all those losing favs he rides!

I suppose the simplest way of looking at it is that horses that finished in the frame win more often next time out than horses that finish way down the field. So it makes sense to concentrate on horses that have better form figs, first.

At the end of the day the consistency figs are just a rating and the better rated horses are going to win more often. It's not the be all and end all, but if other ratings back up the consistency fig's and there's nothing in the form that suggests they are in-accurate then they have to be worthwhile and potentially profitable starting point and after all it does not take long to compile them does it.

I ve not seen a good example in tomorrows racing so far but Olivia Rose 600W has a lot of what I like to look for.

Ideally placed and a recent run at the 'wrong' dist to clear her pipes could she be imitating last years start to the season winning 2ndto after a pipeopener 8 days before?

She has now returned to her last winning mark.

My main quibbles are the relative raise in quality of opposition tomorrow since her last winning race. And the lack of trainer tradition in all age non hcps at Windsor.

The RP fc is 8/1. I m not backing her tonight because I dont want to wake up tomorrow and see her 18 or 19 on BF. But if there is market support It probably means she has been placed to win.

Consistency doesn't exist in racing, it is a red herring that has swum into the pool of form.

JIB

Why can you accept consistency and form are two very different attributes? It is possible to have one without the other, and it is a big mistake to confuse them. This is why I think when VDW said he was looking for consistent form he meant the overall form of the horse not the fact a horse was in form. A horse wins it's last three races it has to be in form, simple as that. Whether that form is good enough to win this race is a very different matter.

Stream Of Gold was/is a consistent horse who was also in form, he has to be winning his last race. Was his form good enough to win on saturday, I didn't think so? Once again those who use prize money had him going down in class?? Fair enough, Investor will claim when the form is examined he will have noticed this was nonsense. If a logical a/rating was being use that can be seen at a glance. If we take your logic at face value Stoute had done his job with this horse for the season and the desire to win this or any other race has gone out the window. VDW on the other hand pointed out most winners are raised in class next time out and get beaten. Why are these winners raised in class? To get them beaten or to try and find out how good they really are? They can believe you if they like, but I think you are wrong. The picture you paint fits the below average horse, and I'm looking for better than average horses to back.

Norse Dancer was also a form horse, he also had won his last race. He isn't consistent and the form figures confirmed that. You says consistency doesn't matter, but what does consistency show. To me, it shows even when everything isn't in the horses favour it still runs well and tries. So was everything in ND's favour, again I didn't think so? In fact there quite a few things against the horse, course, distance, and the fact he was running against consistent horses. Add to this the little matter of pace as ND runs his better races of a fast pace. Does Elsworth think he has done his job with ND, I don't think so and would be very surprised if the owner thinks he has. So why run him on a track where he has failed in the past, simple he was in form and on paper had a better than fair chance of winning. The hope was his class would carry him through, but is class alone enough?

You can call this after timing if you like, but you can't get away from the fact Hurricane Alan was shown as the top rated. Plus ND didn't make the list.

Be Lucky

Archeologist

Mtoto,

In better racing, as we call it, we must remember that all owners have an eye to a 2nd career for their horses.

From my research into the stud market, a horse (male) has a future only if it runs up a few class A wins at a specific distance which involved taking the scalps of some of the best horses around at that time.

For females just one good class A win seems to be acceptable or even only to be unraced and have come from top class bloodlines. (This is because, in flat racing at least, the male side has the genetic predominance.)

So there is no need for a horse to be a multiple distances winner and I dont believe that trainers waste their time trying to do so. They are quite happy to poach a few wins at ideal conditions for the animal and dont give a damn about consistancy.

If you read pedigrees you will see that no mention is made of consistancy as a desireable factor (nor to be fair, as a negative one) and it is only mentioned when combined to a specific distance.

A horses pedigree besides detailing its ancestors mentions the horses Gp wins and places. Clearly the horse has only been expected to run well when ideally placed. If it has done so it will probably be tried as a stallion.

If it doesnt then gelding and a career in hcps awaits and once again like some silent curse consistancy is only likely to bring grief, this time from the hcpper.

If, in the highly unlikely situation, the BHB ever allow artificial insemination of racehorses then the the number of stallions will fall dramatically and possibly things could change.

But until then, the CR continues to be swimming aimlessly around in the pond of form.

You know enough to be extremely wary of form figs, but not everyone else does, as the other place clearly shows. And its not just eccentric old investor who is the culprit all the top dogs are victim to the mistake which is why they are reduced to aftertiming.

You continue to bow to the CR from habit but I know you dig and dig away at the form figs until you are happy with what they really mean.

There does indeed seem to be quite some confidence in Olivia Rose as she is currently 4th fav in a tight market. But I will wait until much nearer the off.

You continue to bow to the CR from habit but I know you dig and dig away at the form figs until you are happy with what they really mean.

JIB,

I disagree that I look to the c/rating from habit. If it is a habit it is a newly formed one, as for many years I thought like you. It wasn't until I when back over my records I found the big advantage that backing consistent horse had. Why don't you try it?

While a few inconsistent horses may well be used at stud, in the main most good horses also bring the consistent tag with them. That is one of the factors that makes them really good. Mtoto is just one that springs to mind, his best distance was 10f but he could win at 12f. He was better on good good/firm going but he won on soft. When you backed him you knew he would do EVERYTHING in his power to win what ever the going and/or distance. Call me naive but these are the type of horses I want to back. Every horse has it's class and there are handicappers like this. When they are coming through the ranks they have to start somewhere, but the trainer can't get caught up in worrying about it's handicap mark if it really is top class. I do agree very few horses manage to put a winning string of top class races together, but is that always because of the weight, or the fact the they are having a prep races? Most of the top races are on set courses the trainers have to know if the horse will act on those courses. Some do, and some don't, the trainer then has to decide (after the trial) whether it is worth going for that target, but they don't know until they have tried. But rest assured a top class consistent form horse is easier to profile and place than some of these horse you are asking us to back.

You are correct in thinking I don't take the form figures at face value as some do. I don't care if the c/rating is one of the lowest 3. So I'm not governed by the final rating but I do care that the horse in consistent, but most of all it must have the form. Not necessarily in the last 3 runs, if it has that is a big bonus, but it must have the form to beat the rest of the field. I agree some on the other forum are still stuck looking at form figures, but they will learn. That is if they don't listen too much to you, or Ectoo.
Consistent form horse win races, they win more than their fair share of big races. They have in the past, and will in the future. Sorry, but that is something I firmly believe!

Be Lucky

Olivia Rose 600W is a bet