With this thread being resurrected from the ashes I thought I would have a look at the three h/c's today at Chester.What follows is the shortened version but I have tried to explain how I arrived at the ratings.For any new members wanting to know more about this method then may I suggest going back to the start of this thread where a complete explanation of how to operate this method is gone through step by step.


KEY = Using form evaluation method and taking top 6 rated from each read across-horses name-draw in brackets-best piece of recent (converted to same class) form –going-distance-trainer-jockey with ! = pass,x = fail and ? = unknown.

1.55 Chester class C

1.RECOUNT (7) 87B ? ! ! ?
2.SHAPE (2) 81B ! ! ? !
3.SANT (3) 80B ! ! ! !
4.CAP (8) 78B ? ! ! !
5.DOUBLE (4) 77B ! ? ! !
6.WAVERT (6) 77B ! ? ! ?

Conclusion-I see the winner coming from the top three here and around 8/1 number 1 has to be the e/w bet but i am hoping one that doesnt even figure in the list will come on a bundle, Trust Rule who is one of the pp runners on the other thread.


2.55 Chester class B

1.BAY (14) 112B ! ? ? X
2.FORTUN (11) 111B ! ! X ?
3.DIRECT (7) 111B ! ! ? ?
4.DIST (18) 111B ! ! ? X
5.KNAVES (15) 107B ! ! X !
6.ROMANY (16) 106B ! ? ! !

Conclusion-A tricky one to call with thetop 6 all rated within 6 lb's of each other.1 and 2 would be obvious candidates if not for the fail points concerning the trainer and jockey,number 2 especially looks an improver but for a top trainer like pipe his s/r at the course is terrible and again I see number's 3 and 6 as the likely two against the field.

3.30 Chester class C

1.BOND (13) 87A ? ! ? ?
2.THE PRI (3) 77A ! ! X !
3.HEY (12) 67A ! ! ! !
4.WHIPA (14) 67A ? ! ! ?
5.DOM (4) 66A ! ! ? ?
6.TAMA (6) 64A ? ! ? !

Conclusion-Number 1 is well clear on what it has achieved but drawn out wide will need a turbo charged exit to figure but is still a contender at the moment depending on price.Number 2 looked to be a real candidate until I noticed it was a 3 yo and Hannon does not win with these types here at Chester,a measly 5% s/r.As you can see from the top four rated all bar one are drawn out high so what to do?If pushed I would most likely look closely at number 5 who needs to improve to win but has the right trainer and jockey on its side.

Good luck anyway on a day when not a lot stands out.

Hi Max, just a question


Not too sure where to find the highest class win using racing post or online
Using racing post figures not too sure whether they are unadjusted
Not sure what the latest figure means as this is different from lto
I use the post data for going and course

Ok this is the horses I picked for this race

Using your system ratings I get at wincanton 6.00

Cedar Master 101d /79/118/118/~/!!/xx/

Goldbrook 101e/117/117/117/~/?!/xx/

Kez 86e/102/102/102/~/!?/!x/

Perouse 105e/111/111/111/~/!!/!!/

Analysis

Cedar master looks good with going and distance in its favour but lost last time due to soft ground so faltered last time as soft ground may have been the reason
Goldbrook a class under but is improving course going unsure but distance is good but needs 10 point to catch up has better jockey/trainer combo so could do it
Kez is improving but has to much work to do
Perouse is improving trainer/jockey good going/distance good Perouse looks like a winner I prefer goldbrook who is improving
Please could you tell me if I am doing this wrong

Thanks Mark

bump

Hi Mark thanks for finding this and bringing it to the top Steve

was this post put up a couple of years ago and are you the max that first posed it

Can't keep a good topic down has anyone been keeping an eye on this one.I will be dragging a few more up when I get time and trawl through them again

have fun

Max/Gummy
I am not sure if this thread has moved elsewhere under a different heading. A general search under "evaluating form " did not show any continuation.
Any way the question I wanted to ask Max or perhaps someone else could explain how to use Max's method of comparing postmark ratings from different race grades since the race classifications changed in September 2004.
He adjusted the postmark rating by 10 points to take account of the grade of race the rating was achieved in and the grade in which the horse was now competing.e.g if a rating was 124g it became 114f reflecting the fact that the horse was now competing in the higher grade f.(Hope this is right)
Not being sure how the 10 points was arrived at in the first place I wondered if it can still be used for the new classifications 1-7.
As this was such a great thread I do not understand why it ended but maybe this will start thing off again.
BOBG

I can't really help, Bob, and I'd like to know too.
All I can remember was that Max suddenly packed up posting. He seemed to know his stuff.

Personally, if you know how to work things out, I'd expect the method to be roughly the same today, even with the numerical grades in place of the letters.

Hi Sean,
Sorry to take so long to reply.
First of all thanks for that advice I think that makes sense although I am still not sure how to deal with the National Hunt classifications eg class 1 grade 2 races etc.
In reply to a query on how to take account of weight Max said he had expected a number of questions on the use of the ratings.I am afraid I did not see many after that and the thread again closed somewhat prematurely.Perhaps others have managed to work them out for themselves and I have tried to do the same but some fundamental ones persist.
The first one is regarding picking the best of a horse's last 3 postmark ratings in order to achieve a shortlist and then determining the class in which this was achieved.
The example max gave us of big bad bob pm97-pm94-pm91 for its last 3 runs and then stating that pm97 was the one to pick and that this was achieved in a class d.
He then went on to explain how to convert the ratings to reflect the class of the race as explained above.
My query is that given that Max allows a 10 point differential between different classes of races what if big bad bob's pm 94 had been achieved in a class c race then this would have been the best of its last 3 performances.Doing this for all the horses may or may not have meant their inclusion in the shortlist.
Incidentally,it is easy to see the last 3 unadjusted pm ratings for each horse and the class of race achieved in by clicking on "form" under the race in question.
Can you ,any other member or indeed Max say if this is how they determine their shortlist?
BOBG

Nice of you to keep this going, Bobg!

I only wish i could help, as i feel there is a lot of merit in the method - if only we knew the proper rules!

Nobody else wants to jump in and tell us , so I move onto assumption:

Whenever a seemingly good thread suddenly terminates on these messageboards, I think one of two things has happened;

1) the system is so good that the author thinks he's better off saying no more about it, but would rather just carry on coining it.

2) the system hit the buffers and the author skedaggles.

----

Class.

Despite having tried and tried to understand and use the vdw shit, where class is everything, I still don't have a good grasp on this one, Bobg.

I can look at the numbers; I can look at the prizemoney, but no way can I work out the answer to interesting questions like yours. Dunno, is my honest reply.
---

RPR ( formerly postmark).

Yes this is a good one, but I'm still trying to find which figure is most significant. Perhaps we should be looking for more than one?

Certainly, that adjusted figure on the RP cards is not the one - on its own.

---

Finally, have you tried looking at Postdata?
I reckon this could be a helpful and quick filter.

Seanrua,
Thanks for that, seems we are the only ones still interested in this method which is a surprise as I thought the problem most people have with VDW is the form evaluation.
Many times I have read on the VDW threads that people have been able to narrow a race down to 3 or 4 horses but cannot choose between them.
I thought this method would provide a means to do just that either using VDW in conjunction or on its own.
My view is that Max was genuinely trying to help those less knowledgeable than himself but a little like VDW kept a bit back.He only revealed how he dealt with weight in answer to a direct question(see his post of 24 November 2003.Its a pity he is not around to elaborate further.
In my opinion I think the 10 point addition /subtraction depending on the class in which a rating was achieved was what could help separate different horses chances.As I posted earlier I am not sure how this figure of 10 was determined but Max seemed to be able to make it work.
When I have tried the basic method I have not always had the winner in my shortlist admittedly this has usually been in a big handicap which Max did not seem to like because of the competitive nature of the race.
I see from the last posts that Max made on this thread that the shortlist had been extended to the top 6 rated from a horses last 3 races.I have always had some reservations about narrowing the field down using the highest ratings from a horses last 3 races although it appealed in its quickness and seemed to work for Max.
For instance a horse could have a rating from its last 3 performances which is outside the top 4,5,or 6 but it could well be its best,achieved in a higher grade than those that have made the shortlist and therefore have a real chance when the weight difference is taken in to account.
I realise this has to be given a lot more thought but I think looking at horses with a RP rating in their last 3 races which came within 5 pounds of its best,then using Max's 10 point differential for the grade and then taking into account the weight carried for the race in question may have some merit(I would also expect these horses to be in the top 6 RP adjusted ratings)
Finally to this hopefully small shortlist Max's other filters(going,distance ,trainer ,jockey)would be applied.
What do you think? Maybe this need only apply when its a big handicap.
I will hopefully be able to monitor this over the next few weeks.
BOBG

I think it's extremely interesting and potentially very useful, Bobg!

In fact, It ties in with my current renewal of interest in RPR. This was sparked by something I read on the betfair forum of all places!

A guy said that

" most winners come from the top three of the LTO RPR."

( that's the figure on the right of the six; check date).

So I checked this for several weeks, and sure enough, he wasn't far wrong. But it wasn't enough, really. Still having to pick one from three, or, dutch.

Your ideas about looking at a wider range of numbers is appealing, therefore.
I'll fiddle about with various combos of RPR and get back if I find anything significant.

At the moment, I'm messing about with using certain tick boxes in the PostData as filters; for instance, I eliminate any qualifier that does NOT have TWO ticks in the TRAINER box.

This may stop me backing things that used to be good, but are now in an "out of form" stable.
Not a straightforward subject,imo, especially as I don't generally accept that stables are in or out of "form".

Anyway, keep looking and keep posting!

quote:

( that's the figure on the right of the six; check date).

Hi Sean Rua,

Could you clarify where this is to be found please. Can I assume that "most winners come from the top three of the LTO RPR" refers to those who have shown the greatest increase from the LTO rating to the rating for the present race? Or I have I got that completely wrong?

Thanks in anticipation!

Ah, sorry to be so unclear, Kingsley, and nice to hear from you again, btw!

OK, on the Racing post website,

Open the racecards.
For the race in question, click on the button "RPR".

This brings up a table of figures ( most of which i still haven't got my head around!).

OK, look at the six figures in a horizontal row; the latest RPR ( ie the one for LTO) is the one on the right. This can be checked by hovering the mouse thing over it - the date appears.

Apparently - according to the guy on btfr - this is a most significant figure.
Dunno yet, whether he's right about this, but early results have shown that he's not far away.

Yes, in most cases, the same three horses will feature in the "adjusted RPR" AND in the top three market leaders in ther RP betting forecast.

Here's a rough copy and paste of the 4.20 Southwell.
It hasn't come out too well, but the "45" extreme right of the "Last 6 RPR" heads the column I'm chatting about.

"
ADJUSTED BEST RACING POST RATINGS
RPR TS HORSE (weight) LAST 6 RPR LAST YR GOING DISTANCE COURSE

75 61 Blakeshall Quest (8-7) 61 63 55 70 64 45 73 98 98 98
75 75 Tenancy (8-7) 55 64 64 34 51 75 90 88 79 75
72 56 Soba Jones (8-11) 72 72 58 67 65 51 78 98 102 100
71 73 Guadaloup (8-10) 71 51 65 71 66 55 74 78 78 78
71 72 Pappas Image (8-7) 42 70 68 61 71 71 71 74 74 74
65 57 High Window (8-7) 56 86 50 42 65 61 86 65 65 65
64 "” Cryptic Clue (8-7) 54 54 64 52 "” "” 64 72 71 72
57 56 Preskani (8-7) 32 36 57 "” 33 54 57 86 85 86
"” "” Sergeant Slipper (8-7) 67 40 63 67 65 25 "” 86 79 86

RACING POST RATINGS SELECTION: BLAKESHALL QUEST "


Don't worry: the original looks clearer!

Whether we're on the right track or no is another matter.

What the guy seemed to be saying was

take the three best figures from this LTO column ( i think).

That's what i've been testing, anyway!

There's plenty of scope for other investigation.

And, of course, this might be nothing at all to do with
Max's method!

It's worth a look, imo.

Thanks sean rua for the info. I'll have a good look over the weekend and see if it helps me with my HSR Dutches thread. The last 9 selections on there produced 7 losers which knocked my strike rate, and more importantly the profit, back so any info could be very helpful!

All good fun!!

Hi Sean,

Max did use the 3 best LTO RP figures but as a means of narrowing down the field and he preferred the unadjusted figures.

If any horse in a race had a best ever unadjusted RP figure lower than these 3 LTO figures then they were eliminated from further consideration.(see his post of January 04 2003).

It is a matter of opinion whether or not adjusted or unadjusted figures are the better. It probably depends on whether or not you think weight makes a difference.

Max does all his initial analysis using unadjusted figures but even he added back the weight differential ( see his analysis of Seebald and Young Deveraux posted January 24 2003)to determine if a horse was "well in"

So using the best 3 LTO adjusted figures as your shortlist would be a good starting point especially if the guy from BF has stated that most winners come from these 3.

Anyway as you say there is plenty of scope for investigation.

In order to determine a final selection and depending on the time available any or all of the following could perhaps be used:

(a)Check if the 3 best Lto RP ratings were also the best of all of the horses last 3 ratings

(b)See if any of the 3 best LTO ratings was also the horses best ever rating and therefore improving.

(c)Use Max's filters for going,distance, trainer and jockey.

This is probably along the lines of Max's method but from a new starting point.

Of course this might mean that there are very few selections!


Any way good luck with your investigations.

Thast's a good point about the best ever figure, BOBG. I hadn't picked up on that one before.

Perhaps not part of this method, but my preference now is for the lto RPR to be an improvement over the last race but one.

Another filter I'm toying with is age of horse. I'm talking only about flat racing here, but when my selection has decent fifgures but disappoints, I've found that it is often an "old" animal (8 or 9).

Of course, using the best ever figure as a filter may get rid of this problem.

I'll watch and see.

Thanks for your help to date with this. It can only help us in the long run, imo.

bump