LES
Can you explain a bit more about how it is ranked in the ace it know races in

boozer is on about vouchsafe 7 of 9 but was that race contested by well rated horses was it only beaten by a short distance so that when it was dropped in class the 7th was consistent look at paco boys 7th on saturday it kept it consistent because it was in a very good race

Les

quote:

take a wee chance george stick your neck out whats the worst that can happen?

As soon as I've managed to untie the form knot with which I am currently struggling.

York is off today, amd maybe tomorrow, due to water on the course.

quote:

Originally posted by George Johns:

For example, in relation to the big race at Ripon on Saturday I posted as follows:

"I can't get anywhere near a bet in the Great St Wilfred. The three consistent horses are well outside the top four on ability."

What I had learnt to that point led me to believe that the winner was most likely to come from the three consistent horses (which it did);

Had the race been another 2 strides there would have been a different result, which rather blows out of the water any theory that form figures are in any way a predictive tool.
Re my question "Have you ever put up a selection anywhere?", a straight yes or no will do.

john the guy maybe does,nt want tae you waitin tae pounce

quote:

Originally posted by walter pigeon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwsUWcK-PzY

incontinence knickers

Johnd

But in fact the consistent horse won, and your non consistent selection lost. A lesson there, surely, for those seeking to achieve a high strike rate.

If you have the courtesy to answer my question to you, ie where in the March 1981 article Van der Wheil was "quite detailed and specific about how he read form", which I posed earlier than you posed yours, I'll answer yours.

Blackcat, GJ,

I would strongly urge you to completely disregard what JohnD has to say on this subject. It's complete bollox I'm afraid.

It's impossible to judge form without paying due attention to the other protagonists involved.

That is not to say it's 'collateral form' in the universally accepted sense of the term ie. A beats B by 1 length giving 3lb, A beats C 1 lenth giving 4lb ergo B is 1lb better than C. That's how the 'majority' view form not VDW.

It's also important not to take everything at face value. Beating a high class horse that's out of form is not quite the same as beating a high class horse that's in form.

VDW mentioned what Sunset Cristo had behind for very good reason and he gives a superb example of 'consistent form' in the analysis of Roushayd.

I hesitate to say pissed myself laughing there BC but i did - been a wee while since ah watched that we have it on dvd up -stairs somewhere - brilliant!.

Andycapper

How many more examples of VDW,s evaluations can you find where he mentions what was behind?

And if VDW,s form reading is shall we say unorthodox
How come VDW thought "more people were conversant with it than is the case"

As I said in my recent response to Walter, I am happy as regards ability and consistency/probables, but am still bogged down with form.

George,

Have to say the above remark only serves to drive home (for me at least) the problem with using that A/R. VDW said form and ability are linked, that rating does very little to help the form aspect. What happens went a horses best form was in a race it didn't win, and/or wasn't one of the last three runs?

**********

Looking at the racing post website it seems hard to believe that Vouchsafe's 7 of 9 on the 3rd of June 88 amounted to improvement.

Boozer,

The increase in s/f is only one part of the equation. The class of the race is the other, so using the class of the Epsom race it was an improvement as he equalled the s/f of the last (lower) class race. Right or wrong this is the only way I can make BOTH horses improving.

**************

johnd how to make friends and influence people that's the book you must write

I would suggest he should read it before worrying about writing anything

Be Lucky

Boozer,

The simple truth is that VDW didn't really go into any detail regarding his form analysis for any selection with the exception of Roushayd. That's left for us to figure out from his selections.

Let's be honest, only a fool would think 111,112,311 etc mean a damn thing without reference to how they were achieved and under what circumstances.

VDW said he advanced his method slightly when discussing Roushayd, some may draw the conclusion that he was referring to speed figures, I prefer to think he was referring to how he viewed 'consistent form'. He didn't just mention the rising speed figures he went into the detail of horses like First Division, Vouchsafe, Billet etc and what they had done previously. Why bother if he only needed to draw attention to a rising SF?

Andy Capper

Thank you. That is very helpful and encourages me in thinking that on this point Johnd is wrong.


Mtoto

I don't think Van der Wheil intended his ability rating to have any bearing on form. The best horse in a race from Van der Wheil's point of view is the class horse (highest ability rating), just as the top weighted is the best horse in a handicap from the Offical Handicapper's point of view. But that doesn't mean the best horse is going to win, and that I think is where form and capability come in.

If the class horse is in form, and suited by the conditions, then it should be a good bet - and I feel sure it is no accident that quite a few of Van der Wheil's "certainties" were just like that. If the class horse is not in form, or not suited by conditions, then a horse of lesser ability who is in form and suited by conditions is more likely to win. And from what I can see Van der Wheil was certainly prepared to go down to the fourth or fifth best. But I suppose that going down much lower increases the odds that a better horse will return to form and win.

Again as far as I can see, for judging form Van der Wheil focused on a horse's last three runs, though if what he wrote in his account of the Roushayd example was his general practice, always conscious of a horse's history. Thus using Roushayd as an example, the horse had shown towards the end of the 1987 season what he was capable of - winning a class 621. He came out in 1988 in a couple of very much lower class races and ran all right without winning, and ran well again when raised a long way in class, so Van der Wheil could see he was running into form. But that form was still below his best, the 1987 win in class 621, and I doubt Van der Wheil would have selected him had his next run been in another class 621. But when dropped down in class from 227 to class 171, and was the best horse in the race, with conditions to suit, we can see why Van der Wheil saw him as a bet.

If this is right, it doesn't matter that a horse did not show his best form last time out, or indeed in one of his last three races. What seems to matter that it is the best horse in the race who is in form, and suited by conditions. Even then, I think there must be a further step - possibly what Van der Wheil meant by probability in his formula.

What if, after the class 227, Roushayd had been run in a much higher class race, where he could still have been the best horse, and would also have been a form horse? Obviously it depends on whether he was also a consistent horse/probable for the hypothetical higher class race. But even if he was, I can't see that coming 6th, beaten nearly 10l, in a class 227 would have been good enough to make him the selection for, say, another class 621. My best guess is that Van der Wheil's view would have been yes, Roushayd is now a form horse, but not in such good form that is it probable he will win a class 621. On the other hand, had he won the class 227, Van der Wheil might well have thought he was in such good form that he could go on to win another class 621.

Good post that Georgy .

George,

Don't forget that VDW said of Pegwell Bay 'The result makes it appear he is capable of winning again before long'.

There is (to my way of thinking) 2 completely different ways of operating VDW methods.

a) We can start from scratch pulling a race apart looking for a winner

or

b) We can start from a horse already marked on our list to follow and ascertain it's chances of winning today.

Personally, I prefer the latter and I suspect so did VDW. Didn't he say that he took the SCHB for it's races to come section, 'there were always horses I thought ready to win and how they were placed could give the game away'.

It may help to think about this from the perspective of what it was that made him think horses like Pegwell Bay could win again before long.

That`s York`s second day away now.

I don't think Van der Wheil intended his ability rating to have any bearing on form.

George,

This does give me a problem, if the ability rating isn't a measure of a horses performances (form) what is its purpose?

"Logically, the relative merit of form must be equated to the quality (class) in which it was achieved. This means there has to be at least two elements to jointly equate when judging the relative merits of one performance against another".

The above are VDW's words and IF the key race(s) are winning and/or one of the last three I can see how it works. However I do think when solving these puzzles there is a tendency to "make" one of these races a key race even if it isn't. I keep going back to the Erin where for me none of the last three races are the key for PK, neither are his two winning races. Forgetting about horses not being in form, (something VDW didn't mention here), if PK's run against Drumgora (who's reputation is enhanced by his run against Decent Fellow) is so good how/why didn't DF show in the probables? On a line through D there is enough to put DF in the rankings of the other ratings, if PK finished top or joint top based on his run against D.

If this is right, it doesn't matter that a horse did not show his best form last time out, or indeed in one of his last three races. What seems to matter that it is the best horse in the race who is in form, and suited by conditions.

I agree with the first sentence, but if the ability rating doesn't equate to form, how do you know who is the best horse is, to work out if the conditions suit. Also without being able to isolate/rank individual performances how do you know the conditions that suit best?

Be Lucky

quote:

Originally posted by Andy Capper:
Blackcat, GJ,

I would strongly urge you to completely disregard what JohnD has to say on this subject. It's complete bollox I'm afraid.

It's impossible to judge form without paying due attention to the other protagonists involved.

That is not to say it's 'collateral form' in the universally accepted sense of the term ie. A beats B by 1 length giving 3lb, A beats C 1 lenth giving 4lb ergo B is 1lb better than C. That's how the 'majority' view form not VDW.

It's also important not to take everything at face value. Beating a high class horse that's out of form is not quite the same as beating a high class horse that's in form.

VDW mentioned what Sunset Cristo had behind for very good reason and he gives a superb example of 'consistent form' in the analysis of Roushayd.

So what you're saying is that VDW judged Sunset Cristo purely on the horses behind him, which in turn would have to be judged by the horses behind them in their previous race, which in turn would have to be judged on the horses behind them in their previous race etc. etc.
Of course,at each stage you would have to judge whether the individual horses were in form or not, which of course would be guesswork unless you knew each horse's class, fitness level and ideal circumstances, and when you've finally worked all that out you might eventually get to the stage where VDW said "You'll wonder how on earth you could miss it"?
And you reckon I talk bollox?

quote:

So what you're saying is that VDW judged Sunset Cristo purely on the horses behind him

Er no, I've not said that all. Although it is important.

If you think Sunset Cristo would have been a bet had he only been beating selling platers with a string of duck eggs next to their name then carry on John. Each to their own