Mtoto

Thanks. That phrasing about Zilzal is interesting.

I don't know what significance there is in the different ways van der Wheil describes selections but am struck by the apparent differentiation of selections in item 13 of "The Golden Years" and the March 1981 article (item 39).

In the latter's four tabulated we have "certainty" (backed), "almost a certainty" (backed), "good thing" (not backed), and a "not difficult to to sort out the eventual winner ... but should be left alone" (unbacked). I have studied them in detail, and I do think it is clear that Little Owl and Sunset Cristo were much better prospects than the other two.

The four tell us that being near the top on ability and a consistent horse is not a sufficient condition for a bet, but leave open the possibility that for Van der Wheil they were necessary conditions, though Park Express and the one you mention, Pegwell Bay, seem to weaken the idea of the top four rates.

I do think this ability rating idea is an interesting one, as unlike ORs (which are the Official opinion and therefore subjective in their basis) they are objective and tied to what is clearly one of the main goals in racing - winning prize money. And with the large majority of horses, prize money is the prime goal, only with the very best is breeding income more important.

Mtoto

JohnD,
I think you are very wrong to even suggest Mad Rush and Anna Pavlova could/would be VDW selections. Trying to compare them with PK and Rousayd is way of the mark.

'Tis you who is very wrong, I'm afraid.
As I said MR had class, the same way that PK did. AP was consistent in exactly the same way Roushayd was.
That you can't see it is hardly my fault.
Vive la difference!

'I do think this ability rating idea is an interesting one, as unlike ORs (which are the Official opinion and therefore subjective in their basis) they are objective and tied to what is clearly one of the main goals in racing - winning prize money. And with the large majority of horses, prize money is the prime goal, only with the very best is breeding income more important.'

GJ,

The worst multiple losing selling plater will have an OR of 35. A G1 winner will have a rating in the region of 135.

Between those 100lbs of class a multi-billion pound industry exists providing a way of life for thousands.

I can assure you that no mere 'subjective opinion' could sustain such a reality. You appear to put the 'genius' of VDW both above and beyond the O`Briens, Cecils, and Godolphins of the real world, and I would advise more caution lest you allow yourself to get carried away by your enthusiasm.

The other point I would like to highlight is that unless it has proved itself unreliable from the outset a horse has a career planned for it. Depending on the trainers evaluation on the animal's class the horse will be set a target, the biggest prize that the trainer feels it can take.

For example if a trainer has a horse he feels can take a 10k C2 prize as a 4yo he does not waste his time picking up sellers and claimers when it 2 yo. Nor, as a 3yo, does he flog it around C6 or C5 hcps to hoover up easy money in the provinces.

Do not delude yourself in thinking that prize-money is the be all. Remember that in any serious industry intelligent planning, research and efficiency are indispensable.

And do not forget that on the morning of his big race win, a horse has the same class as he has that evening, though his AR will look very different within that 12 hour period.

quote:

I do think this ability rating idea is an interesting one,

George how on earth can a rating that only rates the winner of a race
Be of any use
Horses race agaainst each other
The winner of a 30000 race gets 300
The short head second gets nowt
Wheres the Logic in that?

The VDW experts who try to answer the above usually fob off with the answer
Its horse with the will to win that we want and not seconds

Never seen any ratings before that only rate the winner and not those that run behind

After all what is form if it is not that one performance is better than another

and which is better a £3000 win at warwick or a second or third at
ascot

VDW reasoning
not mine

Warwick winner AR=30

Ascot runners AR=0

As VDW said the abilty rating isnt foolproof for obvious reasons

He was right about that

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

JohnD,

As I said MR had class, the same way that PK did.

Everyone one is entitled to an opinion, but I find it very hard to agree with yours here. Agreed PK had a low A/R, but as VDW said he came out top and joint top in his other ratings. With PK it is possible to point to the/an actual race and say this horse has class. MR did/has run in a top class race, but that race lacked one of the factors VDW said to look for when assessing form. Using the same criteria that put PK well in the running, MR fails. So he fails on two accounts, I can see no way VDW would have thought he had the class to win that race.

AP was consistent in exactly the same way Roushayd was.

R was one of the lowest three for consistency in the forecast as well as being in the lowest five in the field. AP wasn't in the lowest three in the forecast and also failed to make the lowest five in the field.

However I do agree with you on one point!

Vive la difference!

Be Lucky

John/Boozer

Give me a break. All I've said is that I think Van der Wheil's ability rating idea is an interesting one and I'm going to see how it works out in current races alongside the OR-based ratings I've long used. I've probably worked with ORs as long as any of you, and have a lot of respect for the Official Handicappers, but the individual ratings are subjective and not infrequently I find changes in particular ORs puzzling.

Obviously the ability rating is crude. So why should we be interested in it? For me the answer is simple - Van der Wheil's claim that his method, of which the rating is clearly part, "produces 85% to 90% winners Flat and jumps, year in year out". I've no idea whether that claim is valid or pure invention, but want to try to find out, and thus have to take the ability rating seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by Mtoto:
JohnD,

As I said MR had class, the same way that PK did.

Everyone one is entitled to an opinion, but I find it very hard to agree with yours here. Agreed PK had a low A/R, but as VDW said he came out top and joint top in his other ratings. With PK it is possible to point to the/an actual race and say this horse has class. MR did/has run in a top class race, but that race lacked one of the factors VDW said to look for when assessing form. Using the same criteria that put PK well in the running, MR fails. So he fails on two accounts, I can see no way VDW would have thought he had the class to win that race.

AP was consistent in exactly the same way Roushayd was.

R was one of the lowest three for consistency in the forecast as well as being in the lowest five in the field. AP wasn't in the lowest three in the forecast and also failed to make the lowest five in the field.

However I do agree with you on one point!

Vive la difference!

Be Lucky

Bozo

So you dismiss Mad Rush because he didn't "come out top in VDW's ratings"?????????? and you didn't think his s/f good enough????
You also dismiss Anna Pavlova because, based solely on her form figures, she is inconsistent?????????
It matters little about their underlying consistency, their class, their capabilties, how they ran in their previous races, and the fact they both won by an easy 4l, because they don't fit with your idea of what a VDW selection would be?????????
You really crack me up.

GJ

Read Systematic Betting again.
In the chapter on Roushayd there is no mention of ratings apart from the class of their previous race, certainly nothing about a/r's, yet VDW was moved to say he thought this chapter would carry readers a long way in understanding his method.
WHY?????

ye knoweth the man by the company he keeps

You really crack me up

Have to say the feeling is mutual. It sounds to me you are saying the VDW literature isn't worth a toss. Why all the words and explanations about consistency and ability/class if they are just going to be ignored. You are the one that keeps spouting VDW said everything for a reason, and then you just ignore the fundamentals.

So you dismiss Mad Rush because he didn't "come out top in VDW's ratings"?????????? and you didn't think his s/f good enough????

Your words not mine. I was just showing how stupid your argument was in trying to compare MR with PK. I also didn't say anything about s/f, why would I BL had a s/f of 127 against PK's 112?

You also dismiss Anna Pavlova because, based solely on her form figures, she is inconsistent?????????

I didn't dismiss AP because of her form figures I was just showing you what a stupid remark it was comparing AP and R on CONSISTENCY. It was you that mentioned consistency not me, until I tried to answer your points.

quote:

ye knoweth the man by the company he keeps

Or by the b0ll0x he spouts

Be Lucky

Does anyone else get dizzy going 'round and 'round on the carousel?

Johnd

Hopefully I will be able to answer that in due course.

I think it is only fair not to try and confuse those trying to pick up on VDW,and reading this forum would confuse plenty me included.

George look at the way VDW drafts the Roushayd example,and ask yourself why,he wrote nothing for the sake of it his words.

I popped into Roscommon this evening,and with just a flimsy racecard picked out 3 winners,(2 not backed.)

Lucky Wishes last 3 races beaten by the fav for the cheltenham bumper,before that beaten by Corskeagh Royale multiple high class bumper winner,before that beat Limestone Cowboy and Oscar Looby,compare to rest of field,and Ruby engaged.What would any sane person do ?

ps Ruby was very happy afterwards as was Eoin Griffin he couldn't conceal his delight with whatever Ruby said to him,a horse with a bright future.

Hi JohnD,
In total agreement with you re Mad Rush and Anna Pavlova being VDW selections, however didnt back either, MR's low ability rating put me off combined with finishing 2nd last 3 runs and would have had a lumpy bet on AP if I'd have known the ground would have been declared soft earlier in the day.
I dont live very far from Haydock and when it stopped raining they were still saying the ground was good, however they then changed it to good to soft and then soft over the next couple of hours and not a bloody drop of rain fell on Haydock during that time! been stitched up by going reports from Haydock on more than one occassion!
You said in an earlier post that Mad Rush had class, can you confirm please were you refering to class lto or some other measure? thanks in advance
RE

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Regal Exile,

quote:

Originally posted by Regal Exile:
Hi JohnD,
You said in an earlier post that Mad Rush had class, can you confirm please were you refering to class lto or some other measure? thanks in advance
RE

Hi RE

Indeed it was the class he ran in lto, and how he performed.
Many wouldn't have that down as an improved run, (Particularly those who rely mainly on ratings ), but it was - when looked at correctly.

George Johns

As you are probably aware, it is not the horse itself that is the certainty, outstanding bet or good thing but rather the situation the horse is in that shows it to be one of these things. In this respect you cannot compare the profiles or individual form of Crown Matrimonial, Ascenia, Little Owl, etc and expect to find a common thread.

Mtoto

In that particular sentence I am using the terms class rating and ability (as a rating) to be the same thing. Class in terms of the class in which a horse runs, is measured by the prize money of the race (as shown by VDW). But class against which a horse runs (the class of the opposition in previous races not the present race) is unlikely to be measured by the ability rating. Class in terms of a winning class rating is the class of race won (again prize money of race as shown by VDW). As an example Roushayd's best winning class rating was 641 which was different to his ability rating (but of course it would be the same if it was his only win).
In systematic betting VDW compared the previous season of both Greenhills Joy and First Division and noted their winning class ratings. If you do the same with Prominent King you will see he didn't have a winning class rating and the weight carried by PK showed this to be true. Ability ratings could only be calculated using the Sporting Life (without trawling through the form books) and I have given my reasons on another forum why I think he didn't use this at the time.

Garston

quote:

In this respect you cannot compare the profiles or individual form of Crown Matrimonial, Ascenia, Little Owl, etc and expect to find a common thread.

The study I've done so far leads me to think you may be wrong about that. From the March 1981 article perspective the three you name do seem to have common characteristics such as being top rated in their field on ability, though of course I agree with you that, whatever its characteristics a horse has to be considered against those in opposition.


Johnd

I am interested in your comment to Regal Exile. To my way of thinking it is clear that Mad Rush's lto performance was an improvement - a good 2nd in much higher class than his other two consistency aggregate races. And it was on that basis that I put in my post on the race that he had the best form of the three consistent horses.

But your comparison with Prominent King puzzles me. The race Prominent King ran in prior to the one discussed in item 8 of "The Golden Years" was a modest class 6, compared with the Erin's Food 90, though I see that the first of his consistency aggregate runs was in the 1977 Erins where he came a decent fourth. The class 6 therefore has the sense of being a prep. race for the 1978 Erin, with Van der Wheil concluding Prominent King was coming to hand because of his closeness to Drumgora, giving lumps of weight, when Drumgora himself had recently run well in an even higher class race than the Erin.

Mad Rush looks a different case to me. The last of his consistency aggregate runs was in a class 374, the highest class race he had at that point run in. Unlike with Prominent King, therefore, there was no direct evidence that he could hold his own at the class of the Old Newton Cup, nor even evidence collaterally as there could be argued to be with Prominent King through Drumgora. What we had, surely, was a lightly raced improving horse who might or might not prove up to the rise in class from 374 to 623, which takes us back to Paul's question, how does one judge when a rise in class is likely to be achieved successfully. I haven't looked at nearly enough of Van der Wheil's selections to have a sense of where he drew the line, but on the small number I've looked at so far Mad Rush looks more like Billet than Prominent King, albeit without some of Billet's positive characteristics.

Royal Ascot was a bit of a disaster but I'm going to be more selective for the July meeting, so here goes!

3.10 Falmouth Stakes

DARJINA, had trouble coming over from France but as long as she's over it (don't think connections will run if she hasn't)she should win, looks a "sore thumb". My only proviso being the ground is no slower than GOOD.

HEAVEN SENT to chase her home.

REGAL EXILE
FOR ME
darjina and finsceal beo