jib , it may have helped had it have had a jockey on it's back , lost about 5 lengths at the start managed to get chopped off at the bend and never got in the race after that , seemed to me that quinn tried his hardest to find every bit of trouble that he possibly could.

Thanks Tan!

Thats another little trick we have to contend with. I ve noticed when a horse is v v heavily backed it doesnt do a thing but pops in a couple of races later!

quote:

Originally posted by john in brasil:
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.

Wrong! Apart from indicating the likeliest area to find the winner, they also show the more reliable horses, possible improvers, and horses at the top of their form

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.

Hardly surprising then, that VDW should point us toward the better races, as he knew this was where we would find the better and more consistent horses.


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.

Yet, oddly enough, 5 of the first 6 in the betting filled 5 of the first 6 places, another VDW myth?
Perhaps even stranger is that the winner had previously run in one of the better class races of the whole field!

All these pointers, and we haven't even begun to assess the form.
Such tosh,this VDW?

I remain intrigued but confused and uncertain about consistency form figures.

Just for fun and as an experiment, I have looked at today's Bath ( 26 April).

Excluding 2yo races, I list the " consistency qualifiers" found in the top three of A Massey's selections.

Please note that I'm crap at Bath and I don't know how Adrian has worked out his ratings.
Nothing else has been considered.

235 Rowan Pursuit 9

405 Batik 9
Boot N Toot 7

435 Paradise Isle 11
Solar Power 5

505 Star Duster 6
Canadian Danehill 10.

Actually, now I've checked other details, I'll be amazed if several of these fail to place and maybe one or two will win!

Seanrua,

If your confused by this, it is others who have confused you. The likes of Investor with their remarks like 'the consistency rating has nothing to do with consistent form'. This simply is utter rubbish. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think what he is trying to say 'consistency does by it's self make a horse a form horse.' My thinking on this is a horse can't be a CONSISTENT FORM HORSE unless IT IS consistent. The consistency is found by looking at the last 3 form figures, it's as simple as that. The next element FORM is open to discussion, (even if we accept form is one performance judged against another) is he talking about a horse being IN form. An in form horse is improving, or maintaining it's form over it's last three runs judged on it's own performances ONLY. To me a form horse is one capable of a performance that is better, or as good as the REST of the field. If this performance is included in one of it's last three runs that's a bonus. but not a necessity. Everyone must be able to see a horse can in form, but is that form good enough to win this race?

Any thoughts anyone? I would like to hear JohnD's thoughts on this, I can't see how that would give away any secrets. I would also like to ask him does he use the a/rating as set out in SIAO. You may have already said if you do, but I think I missed it.

Be Lucky

Seanrua
If it helps, from my point of view, none of the British races were worth more than a glance today. Punchestown was!

Mtoto
There is a difference between consistent form and low consistency figures. VDW did refer to this when he said "F Chester may be confusing the issue with form, which does appear to fluctuate, but if he cares to study it in more depth he will find a great deal of it is just illusion".
My view is just that; many of the better horses are far more consistent than most give them credit for.
I don't use the ability ratings as set out in SIAO, but neither do I ignore them as a guide.

JohnD,

Thanks for the quick reply, although I'm afraid i'm not sure if we are in agreement or not. We seem to agree that consistent form is not the same as having a low c/rating, but I still get the feeling you don't completely with me on the reasons why.
The passage you quote as an answer to Mr Chester, I thought was in answer to a question about ability. Interesting about the use of the ability rating not being the same as SIAO, I think Lee was suggesting much the same. I would use it if I could find where to, and if I can ever find any proof that it works. Once again on saturday Stream Of Gold showed it can't be taken as a true guide to ability, without first going into detail. There are so many things that have to be looked when studying a race, wouldn't it be better to use something that could be used as a reliable guide in the first place?

Be Lucky

First, I must admit that VDW would probably not have bet at Bath today.
Nevertheless, "last three form figs" didn't do well:

Batik 2/1 winner,
Canadian Danehill 3rd 15/2,

The other 5 unplaced.

Now, just blindly backing " bold Topspeeds" ( best and last) at the same meeting, we would have

4 unplaced,
Darko Karim 2nd 6/1
Sumora 2nd 9/1
Cree 2nd 11/4
MYSTERY FIT won 11/4 ( backed down)
INDIAN MAIDEN won 9/1.

-------

Re consistency: not for nothing the financial spinners warn us that " past performance is no guarantee of future success".

I believe frame-placings have a natural limit, largely as a result of fatigue and injury.

Fleshandblood weakens over time regardless of ability. It is inevitable.

Consistency, in a machine, means performance is on an even plateau.
With horses, ability/achievement/performance is more like a series of peaks and troughs.

On the face of it ( I agree I have insufficient data), I'd feel that , say, best Topspeed ( for all its faults and lack of science) is a more positive figure, in general, than the sum total of last three placings.

Let's face it, if Moscow had got the decision today, he'd still be just as fkd, and would probably underperform next time out just as badly - even though there's 100% difference between 1 and 2!!

Also, I can never erase the memory of a winning horse I backed at Wolver one time; this animal ( forgotten his name) won despite breaking his leg about six yards from the line!
He was put down where he fell, just a few feet past the finish.

OK, " scratched, dead", he won't be troubling anyone's study of a subsequent race, but what if the same injury had been 80% less serious and undetected?

We'd be saying, " yes, won well lto at Wolver" etc.
Truth is, we don't know from figures on paper how things really are.
This applies equally to Topspeed, of course.

But what about the softly running fourth or fifth? They could easily be the ones that spoil the party for us nto.

Still, nobody said it was easy. Except Investor.

Slightly off-topic, my VDW type attempt at

410 Lingfield:

Dubai Success
Franklin gardens
Alcazar
Cruzspiel

Closely rated, but that's my order of merit.

I've made no allowance for " consistency".

Result:

1) Alcazar 5/1
2) Franklin Gardens 4/1
3)Dubai Success 9/4 f

Consistency figures:
1) 9
2) 14
3) 15

Best Topspeed:
1) 96
2) 119
3) 120.

Mtoto
Forsome unknown reason i haven't been able to get into the site,i thought Gummy had seen the light and banned me.I tried about 20 minutes ago and BOB'S your uncle here i am.There is no point gioing over the races at the weekend because it will just be classed as aftertiming,Although i did mention Hurricane Alan on the other forum as a horse i would not have backed due to a similar scenario that i encounterd with Tartouche.But well done to those that did.I hope youv'e all been having a good look in ireland,If not why not.

As for consistent form and the consistency rating,I thought i had explained myself on that score.The cons rating is just that,"a" rating just like s/f's or what have you.It has been said that the rating is used to establish "consistent form" which i don't feel is true.I agree with mtoto that the last 3 runs will determine a horses in formness and if it has won it's last 3 it has to be a consistent form horse because you can't get any lower than 3 on a cons rating.But you have got to look back to horses like Kumbi cons 16 this was a form horse.Onapromise was a consistent form horse although finishing 7th in it's last run,Philodantes was a cosistent form horse with a cons rating of 16 also finishing 6th on it's last run.So there is more than meets the eye with regard to consistent form in respect of the consistent rating.

Investor
I had the same problem myself and now its very slow.

FJ

Investor,

Something must get lost in the reading of my posts, if it's me I apologise. I was trying to show a horse could win it's last three races and NOT be a form horse. It is obviously an IN form horse, but is that enough in the real world? The final question must be has this in form horse the form to win this race, if it hasn't how can it be a form horse in context of this race? This then brings me back to the advantage of having an a/rating that DOES show the horses true ability. What has it done, and that did it do it against?

The only reference I can find to Kumbi is in the Welsh National against Righthand Man. In that race he had a c/rating of 7 the form figures being 1U51, a consistent form horse that had won it's last race. In this case the a/rating did reflect he didn't have the form to be seriously considered to win.

Onapromise, I have to confess I haven't yet found the example that features this horse.

Philodantes, as you say had a c/rating of 16, but is in the lowest three c/ratings for that race. Consistent in context of the race, a form horse because it has the beating of the lowest c/rated horse in the race on previous form. A fact that isn't show by the a/rating. I do agree any rating is just that, a rating. For any rating to have creditability though it should do it's job, surely with a rating to judge ability the top rated should be the best horse? In horse racing doesn't that mean have the best form?

Yes, I have had a passing glance at Punchestown, but nothing has taken my eye. Well, nothing that ran at a realistic price that was worth a bet. The two that did run and win where not my type of price.

Be Lucky

quote:

Originally posted by Seanrua:
Result:

1) Alcazar 5/1
2) Franklin Gardens 4/1
3)Dubai Success 9/4 f

Consistency figures:
1) 9
2) 14
3) 15

Best Topspeed:
1) 96
2) 119
3) 120.

Sean
Rather than trying to spot winners purely on the basis of ratings, could I suggest that more account should be taken of the form of the principals?
In the above race there were only 2 horses that had shown anything like the form to win at this level and this distance and they duly filled the first 2 places.
Obviously you need more than that to invest with confidence, but, at least, you would begin to eliminate horses from the initial appraisal that had little chance on the day!
A no bet race for me, but at least we agree on the likeliest race to produce one.


Mtoto
"Yes, I have had a passing glance at Punchestown, but nothing has taken my eye. Well, nothing that ran at a realistic price that was worth a bet. The two that did run and win where not my type of price"
Trust me, I am not having a pop, but surely there has to come a stage, given the level of confidence that VDW often expressed, where one has to eschew 'value' in the light of the knowledge of a horse being highly unlikely to lose?
No particular reference to Punchestown, rather a general observation on the ultimate goal.

Mtoto
There are many horses that go int a race with form figures of 111 that get turned over we are both well aware of that.On a majority of occasions these horses will be consistent form horses,But they won't posses the form not neccesarily to win but to be backed in a particular race in question.

The point i was making with Philodantes and co is that it is a misconception to think that a horse that is say dropped in class as was the case with Philodantes from winning a class 70 to finishing 6th in a class 18,But was still considered a form horse.Soaf dropped from winning class 16 to being 4th in class 9.Onapromise dropped from winning class 13 to finishing 7th in class 9.It is trying to get to the bottom of why these horses were still deemed in form.Many would bypass these types as having no chance,But they were ALL "consistent form" horses but what made them keep that category when they had all been beaten when dropped in class quite convincingly in the case of Philodantes and Onapromise.

Johnd
i can only agree with your comments in regard of horses unlikely to lose.There have been 2 such instances at Punchestown this week and given there profiles in relation to others in the field they were both value.at 7/4 and 4/5 respectively.This isn't to say that these type of prices are the norm when it comes to "good Things"But some are so far ahead on balance that they are often far better priced than they should be.

JohnD,

Although I'm happy that VDW does produce winners, I'm not happy with his idea about horses being certainties and the like. To use a popular expression sh1t happens, when it does I want the damage to be minimal. My way of working is to back any given selection to cover a set amount, this doesn't lend it's self to backing short priced horse. Well, not in my eyes. There are plenty of good bets to be had so why should/would I back horses at prices I don't like? What's the point of backing these short priced horses to win when one can often get better prices about gaining a place? Fair play to anyone who is happy to back them, I'm not saying it's wrong, it just doesn't feel right to me and after all it's my money on the line.

Investor,

I think the examples you have given go to show VDW wasn't looking for the IN form horse unless that form was good enough overall. It also goes some way to cast doubt on your thinking about some of these out of form horses (using the methods given to judge this) out of form to stop them being the selection. Why is BL out of form but the others you mentioned form horses? Soaf drops in class in it's last three runs, gets beaten in the last (the weakest of the three). Is then raised in class, distance and weight and lo and behold he is then lorded as a consistent form horse. How does this sit with the thinking on BL? The simple fact is VDW judged BOTH horses on overall form, one was found wanting, and the other had shown it was good enough against THESE rivals.

I can see no way the 7/4 shot at Punchestown was good value. The 4/5 shot I suppose was value but not to me. At Lingfield yesterday I thought there was a very sound bet, it paid better, 5/4 for the place than your 4/5 winner, so which one was real value?

Be Lucky

Some interesting points which leave me still in an uncertain frame of mind.

First, there are races where this idea ( originally explained to me on this forum by Investor) of win prize money over number of wins does give a good shortlist of three or four - witness those that i managed to pick above.

This leads on to the second point which Mtoto mentioned. Shit does ,indeed, happen, so dutching IS a good idea for people like me who don't know which of the list will win.
I believe VDW favoured this staking and probably did like Mtoto, ie aimed to win a set sum of money.

As to last three form figs, I noticed they had a better day yesterday, and had I followed them, I would have backed the winner from my shortlist!

SP and TS were totally in reverse order on that occasion!

Mtoto
it depends how one percieves a horses chances as to wether they are considered value or not.Both the 7/4 and the 4/5 shots had pretty much everything going for them and i came to the conclusion that both should have been lower.

Just as a matter of interest how did you view Strangely Brown and Akilak in the 3.10 at punch.I would be interested to hear your views on this given my comments of a horse with figures 111 on a majority of occasions being a consistent form horse.

That seems a bit of a contradiction "i aim to win a set amount and it doesn't lend itself to backing short priced horses,Not in my eyes anyway" so why go for a place at 5/4.Very odd.

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