Les

Paco Boy is a non-runner, as is Mad Rush in the Ebor
Probably just as well for MR in the changed circumstances, though he might still be of interest in his alternative on Sunday

you would have backed ravens would,nt you john

Not sure Les, as I never have a proper look until I know the runners and the going.
Doubt I would've backed Paco Boy to beat him though.

going to put up my saturday selections dont think the laptop will make it tungsten strike t can win his race again at goodwood and mad rushes defection can see young mickdo ok

Mtoto

Sorry, I thought you were interested to see how they came out the way I currently think Van der Wheil worked. If so, the method I showed of setting out the basic numbers for each horse's last three races, and then doing similarly with the winner or second in each of the races, would have done the trick.

I've no doubt that you can come up with a different explanation for all the selections to which you have referred, but as you yourself have said, not for all, which to my mind is a fatal flaw. It is a bit like the ways to which Andy Capper and I have referred of solving the probables numbers in the Erin. There are clearly several, but they mostly they fail quite early on when applied to Van der Wheil's other races. Only a method which gets them all, without exception, can be the right one.

From the approach I've described, Ekbalco is, like one or two others, not typical but essentially the same as Gaye Chance and the contemporary horse Johnd mentioned, Tamayuz. Petronisi is, as you say, not a form horse. Celtic Pleasure's last run was indeed fine (essentially, what Van der Wheil wrote about Prominent King could have been written about Celtic Pleasure), and he too was a form horse.

I have found the other one you mentioned, Soaf, the hardest of the selections to sort out from the form horse perspective. With Soaf, it is worth bearing in mind that the horse that beat him ran again subsequently, before the race for which Van der Wheil selected him. Given the sort of horse he was - young and potentially progressive - that additional knowledge would surely have been material to Van der Wheil. And there are one or two others where the same is true - for example Celtic Pleasure and Love from Verona, the latter being, I suspect, one with which you have difficulty working your way.

Young Mick`s race on Friday if ye fancy him les.

Ive been reading the debate on this thread with interest the last wee while back - ive dug out this post of Lee`s from my files for you guys to have a look at.

.................................................................

Lee
Member

Walter,

Unfortunately the narrowing of the field further and identifying if there is a horse worthy of support requires work!

Firstly, if you are going to try and emulate VDW to any degree then it is my opinion that you need to work through his writings. But that involves a lot of persistence and frustration along the way. For me it has become an obsession to some degree. I wanted to try and make a profit from racing, a pastime of mine for many years, and this way appeared to be as worthy as any, and like Pringles, once I popped, I couldn't stop!

There is certainly a great deal of mileage in his methods but initially the starting point isn't that obvious. This thread, although extremely helpful, is cluttered with a lot of unhelpful stuff as well. You have to make up your own mind though.

I think JIB has touched on a point of extreme worth: compilation of lists to follow. This is, in my opinion, how VDW worked, in the main. He mentioned the ˜races to come' section that enabled him to study well in advance – the 4/5 day entries contain races with declarations sometimes containing over 50 horses! Surely he didn't go through that lot and rate them for consistency and ability etc. etc. He was looking for horses that he had listed, noting what entries they had, and how the trainer was placing them.

Amongst his examples there were races that weren't in line with those that he outlined in ˜spells it all out' article i.e. not from the principle race of the meeting, or the 2nd at the main meeting. However, on investigation these horses would most certainly have been amongst a list based on speed. Roushayd was a listed horse, and would have been followed by VDW until he was dropped in class for the Old Newton Cup. I bet though that he gave due consideration to the 3 most consistent in the field, as well as the rest, before deciding he was worthy of support.

Lists put you ahead because they immediately stop you looking for things that aren't there i.e. the winner of every race that you look at and that urge to bet to justify the time you've just spent in analysing it. With the aid of lists you will be studying races with horses in them that you know are capable of winning given the right circumstances – you will be looking to see if your horse is that winner in the race.

JIB,

You are of course right in what you say; speed figs open up a whole area for consideration, however, VDW told us exactly where he stood with his views on speed right from the start through to the end, and I don't think things changed that much:

From 1979:

"Speed figures are an assessment of a single performance and form figures are the overall merit of the horse, and times do not necessarily reflect this."

"The Punter is obviously interested in, not one-off times, but an assessment of a horse's true capabilities and this can be done by combining speed figures with form. A horse that records a figure of 100 one week and 2 weeks later records 60, must have a reason. To find this out, one must delve into the form book and assess the differing peculiarities that have caused this.

Only by using the figures in connection with the actual race will one be able to fathom this out."

"Speed figures alone have little value if not supported by form."

From 1987:

"I have long held the view that there is not any one single factor which can determined the probable winner in a race but time has shown over the years to be extremely useful and there are many ways to utilise it."

Speed figures haven't changed since he began writing, yes they may be a little more accurate nowadays, and one has to decide where he stands on adjustment for weight, but the ways in which they can be utilised are exactly the same today as they were then. The only restrictor is the user. Form figures haven't changed either, 1 means 1st and 2 means 2nd, but just like VDW, we all no that they mean far more than just that.
Posts: 421 | Registered: February 07, 2002

Ignored post by Lee posted May 27, 2004 01:54 PM Show Post

Mtoto
Member
Posted May 27, 2004 02:12 PM

Sorry, I thought you were interested to see how they came out the way I currently think Van der Wheil worked.

George,

I am very interested in the way anyone can make the examples work. However as I have seen and tried many times working the way you are, it DOESN'T do it. The way you are explaining ONLY works when the selection is known. CP MUST be a form horse or it wouldn't/couldn't be the selection so we will let that last run pass by being acceptable. I can see no way using the your method and thinking BL is a none form horse but CP is. The very best that can be said of his last run is if you are VERY generous that run is just about "acceptable" and how does that fit in with one run better than another?

I had rather hoped that if you are new to the methods you would have started with an open mind. As your answers are so pat either you have spent a lot of time reading a certain set of posts, or you started with some preconceived ideas. EVERYONE of your answers mirrors the answers given by them down to saying if I can't solve all the examples I must be wrong. That's fair enough, BUT there are more than a few examples I have never seen explained. These examples are just brushed aside whereas I will admit to them.

I will go and leave you in peace. I have no doubt in time you will be selecting the short priced winners and claiming successes.

Good Luck

Member
Posted May 27, 2004 02:44 PM Hide Post

Lee,

From 1979:

"Speed figures are an assessment of a single performance and form figures are the overall merit of the horse, and times do not necessarily reflect this."

"The Punter is obviously interested in, not one-off times, but an assessment of a horse's true capabilities and this can be done by combining speed figures with form. A horse that records a figure of 100 one week and 2 weeks later records 60, must have a reason. To find this out, one must delve into the form book and assess the differing peculiarities that have caused this.

Only by using the figures in connection with the actual race will one be able to fathom this out."

The above was written by a G.Hindle, Manchester.

In his reply VDW said there where bits of this article he didn't agree with. As he then wrote SPEED IS NO USE WITHOUT FORM SAYS 'DUTCHMAN* it begs the question what didn't he agree with.

Be Lucky
Posts: 1327 | Registered: October 22, 2001

Ignored post by Mtoto posted May 27, 2004 02:44 PM Show Post

Lee
Member
Posted May 27, 2004 03:01 PM Hide Post

Mtoto,

Yes, you are right - I always thought that letter was by VDW for some reason. As you say, it does beg the question though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lee,
Posts: 421 | Registered: February 07, 2002

quote:

I had rather hoped that if you are new to the methods you would have started with an open mind. As your answers are so pat either you have spent a lot of time reading a certain set of posts, or you started with some preconceived ideas. EVERYONE of your answers mirrors the answers given by them down to saying if I can't solve all the examples I must be wrong.

You've noticed that, too!
Told you he wasn't being honest with us!

Walter

That's an interesting post and very much in line with Andy Capper's recent one re listing horses to follow. I've done that in the past, not related to Van der Wheil but just ones I've noted in running. The difficulty I had with it is that I found myself half convinced before I started that "my" horse would be the winner and I doubt I looked dispassionately at all the other runners. Coming to a race without any particular interest in any of the runners, and just applying the method, has its attractions.


Mtoto

I agree with you on one point: given Van der Wheil's early pieces and his formula in which Constant form, and later Consistent form, is the first element, we must surely assume that his selections were consistent form horses. Thus, in methodological terms, we are presented with a series of answers and some guidance as to the procedures through which they were found, and invited to work out those procedures in detail. Doing that is not a question of juggling and excuses, as you put it earlier. Rather, it is a question of following the basic research method - having an initial idea and revising it as it fails to explain examples, until either the idea falls completely apart in one's hands and one starts again, or it is in a form where it explains all known examples and can (albeit always provisionally) be considered right.

You seem to be happy to ignore just about the most clear cut bit of the whole thing - Van der Wheil's principal way of rating a horse's ability, and content with ideas about the procedures he used which don't solve all the examples. That seems strange to me. I see no evidence that Van der Wheil was being deceitful when explaining his method of rating ability, and any set of procedures that can't explain all the examples seems to me clearly to fall short.

I'm some way short myself, in that I can't yet see how Van der Wheil balanced ability and form when those were in possible conflict (Clayside, Von Trappe etc), which must be important, and I can't yet see how he judged which of his selections were "80%ers" and should be backed, while others were clear class/form horses but fell short, which is also clearly important. And I continue to get frustrated at my inability to crack the two ratings methods used in the final columns of the Little Owl, etc tables - though I think there is reason to think that is much less important. But the way I've outlined of sorting the form horse sheep from the non form horse goats, and what I've learnt about identifying the consistent horses and then the probables, are, I think, probably right because they all work with all the examples.

You seem to be happy to ignore just about the most clear cut bit of the whole thing - Van der Wheil's principal way of rating a horse's ability, and content with ideas about the procedures he used which don't solve all the examples.

George,

Haven't you asked yourself why I have serious doubts about how you think VDW judged ability? The first thing that jumps out at me is how many of his early selections are way down the ability ratings. Not just down the rankings but in many cases down the rankings of the consistent horses. I could accept that everyone of these consistent horses with higher ratings was just plain and simply a none form horse, easy isn't it. Every selection is a form horse irrespective if the very same profile renders other horses as out of form, again easy.

I took the first example, looked at the wording VDW used BL was well out of it in his ratings. I then found a way of achieving that fact using VDW methods. I then checked the idea against some of the harder looking races and it works. It works without making horses in or out of form, it works with the selections being in the top few (as VDW suggested). Agreed there are perhaps half a dozen races I can't make work using that method, but if you stick to the letter of your ideas there must be about the same amount of examples where you will have trouble. Son Of Love and Love From Verona are two I would be interested seeing how you work. In B's Cambrigeshire who do you make the c/form horse?

You say you have sorted the consistent horse, and the probable's. VDW gave very few examples of probable's, but can I ask what you think a probable is, does a horse have to be consistent to warrant the tag, in the forecast, rank well on ability etc.?

I'm some way short myself, in that I can't yet see how Van der Wheil balanced ability and form when those were in possible conflict.

As VDW said form and class are interwoven how can there be conflict, though that's not fair as you have decided to use an ability rating that doesn't combine the two elements. That's another reason why I'm not happy with that rating using the one I do I don't have that problem. Class rules plain and simple, but I can see in some cases that wouldn't work for you.

Be Lucky

Walter

The difficulty I had with it is that I found myself half convinced before I started that "my" horse would be the winner and I doubt I looked dispassionately at all the other runners. Coming to a race without any particular interest in any of the runners, and just applying the method, has its attractions.
........................................................................................................

I begin by looking for reasons not to bet a listed horse George - one of the benefits of having a list is that you get to know most of the horses quite well - its rare for me to note one and not have it win - there are some long waits - wrong decisions made and downright bad luck at times but at the odds played at there`s only one outcome.

Walter

You've obviously got the capacity to be dispassionate about your list horses. In the past I've found that a problem - always afraid one would go at a decent price if I left it. I don't doubt Andy Capper and Lee are right about Van der Wheil keeping lists - he discusses the criteria for several types. Just not sure I could cope with them.


Mtoto

At the risk of being repetitious, from what I can see the main method (obviously there are variations such as using the Sporting Chronicle selection box to shortcut to probables) is as follows, and success is dependent on understanding each stage.

1) identify the consistent horses. Those in the first 5/6 of the forecast with the three lowest consistency scores, plus others which (in my view rather misleadingly) Van der Wheil described as "highly consistent". As I've looked through the archive, and indeed seen selections on this thread while I've been a member, I have to say I am not convinced that many know how to identify consistent horses apart from those with one of the three lowest scores at the front end of the forecast;

2) sometimes, as Van der Wheil made clear in the Pegwell Bay article, for example, there are more than three consistent horses - in that case six - Bishops Yarn, Jim Thorpe, Pegwell Bay, Comeragh King, Giolla Padraig and Townley Stone. (Incidentally, one test of whether one has solved how to identify the consistent horses is if one knows why Bishops Yarn was a consistent horse with a score of 7, while Warner for Leisure wasn't with a score of 6, neither being in the first six of the forecast we know Van der Wheil used.) Where this happened, as it did in the very first illustration the 1978 Erin, Van der Wheil used a rating method to try to reduce the consistent horses to three probables. Sometimes he succeeded (as with the Erin), sometimes he failed (as with the Pegwell Bay race where he managed to reduce the six only to five), but assuming I've identified this procedure correctly, it simply reduces in some but not all cases the number of consistent horses to be considered at the next stage.

Again, in the archive I have found almost no mention of probables, but obviously sorting those out properly is a necessary step for considering the right horses at the next stage;

3) once the probables have been identified, I believe Van der Wheil rated them to separate those he regarded as form horses from those he didn't. The best example is the 1985 King George VI, where all five runners were consistent horses. He surely eliminated one, Half Free, at the probables stage, leaving four for consideration at the next. He tells us that Combs Ditch, Earls Brig and Wayward Lad were the form horses and Burrough Hill Lad wasn't. I've outlined what I believe was the general procedure Van der Wheil used to make his form ratings, though obviously the relationships between the elements in the numerical pictures can only be worked out in detail from scrutiny of them all;

4) carrying forward the Wayward Lad example, at stage four there are three horses left for consideration, and I think it is clear that at this stage Van der Wheil looked at them comparatively, with a pre-disposition, made clear in the March 1981 article, towards the highest ability rated. That was Wayward Lad, and looking at the runs of all three and their weights compared to previous meetings not perhaps difficult to reach the same conclusion as Van der Wheil. But actually in my view this judgement was less straightforward than with, say Sunset Cristo, also top on ability among the probables with form, and with much the best form.

In some cases (I've referred previously to Clayside and Von Trappe) there seems a conflict between ability and form. Either the highest ability rated of the probables with form seems not to have had the best form of those probables and a lower ability rated one was selected (Clayside), suggesting Van der Wheil gave more weight to form, or the highest ability rated was selected but seems to have inferior form to one of the lower rated (Von Trappe), where he seemed to give more weight to ability. Sometimes it is clear how Van der Wheil came to his judgements on these "balance" cases, because either he tells us (Pegwell Bay), or there seem fairly obvious answers (Wayward Lad). But on others I am stuck, and this is of practical importance because these situations seem often to arise in current races, as on Saturday;

5) then the last stage: is the final horse - the class/form horse - strong enough to back? Van der Wheil wrote a little about this, particularly in relation to Little Owl, Sunset Cristo, Kenlis and, later, First Division, Merce Cunningham and Billet. All stages are important, but none more than this one, as knowing how he established a horse was 80% or more likely to win is clearly what determines the strike rate one achieves. And although I've picked up the obvious clues from those six examples, and have reason for supposing that position in the ability rating ranking is very relevant, I know I don't yet understand exactly how Van der Wheil reached his judgements. (Incidentally, you are of course right that some of Van der Wheil's class/form horses were well down the ability ranking, but NONE of those he said he backed, said Mr Spiers should have backed, or described as "certainties" or "outstanding" - and that may partly explain your concern.)

How can we work any of this out? Only, surely, in the way Lee says in the post that Walter re-posted today, and by assuming (as I have seen in another of Lee's posts that he does) that all Van der Wheil's selections were the class/form horses in their races and, I believe, mainly arrived at via (1) to (4) above. (Obviously with some there are minor variations, eg the ones from the Sporting Chronicle selection box.) Thus, although Baronet was not one of Van der Wheil's selections, the fact that he endorsed it and three others selected by Mr Hall as "good things" can, I think, confidently be taken to mean that Baronet and the other three were all class/form horses.

If one takes the view that it is appropriate to assume that all Van der Wheil's selections were class/form horses, and one wants to know exactly how Van der Wheil worked, one can't settle for "answers" that leave examples un-explained, and it is necessary to develop ideas that match the answers.

As I have said in a previous post, I am fairly sure I understand the procedure up to and including (3) - fairly sure only because the procedures I apply end up with all Van der Wheil's class/form horses as probables with form, ie entrants to stage (4). Sometimes (4) is straightforward, but often not and with some I'm stuck there for the present. And I know I don't know how to handle the last stage properly. Hence at the moment my difficulty in offering selections here: even among the straightforward class/form horses, I simply don't yet know which can confidently be expected to win (ie are at least 80% probable).

quote:

Originally posted by George Johns:

At the risk of being repetitious, from what I can see the main method (obviously there are variations such as using the Sporting Chronicle selection box to shortcut to probables) is as follows, and success is dependent on understanding each stage.

1) identify the consistent horses. Those in the first 5/6 of the forecast with the three lowest consistency scores, plus others which (in my view rather misleadingly) Van der Wheil described as "highly consistent". As I've looked through the archive, and indeed seen selections on this thread while I've been a member, I have to say I am not convinced that many know how to identify consistent horses apart from those with one of the three lowest scores at the front end of the forecast;

2) sometimes, as Van der Wheil made clear in the Pegwell Bay article, for example, there are more than three consistent horses - in that case six - Bishops Yarn, Jim Thorpe, Pegwell Bay, Comeragh King, Giolla Padraig and Townley Stone. (Incidentally, one test of whether one has solved how to identify the consistent horses is if one knows why Bishops Yarn was a consistent horse with a score of 7, while Warner for Leisure wasn't with a score of 6, neither being in the first six of the forecast we know Van der Wheil used.) Where this happened, as it did in the very first illustration the 1978 Erin, Van der Wheil used a rating method to try to reduce the consistent horses to three probables. Sometimes he succeeded (as with the Erin), sometimes he failed (as with the Pegwell Bay race where he managed to reduce the six only to five), but assuming I've identified this procedure correctly, it simply reduces in some but not all cases the number of consistent horses to be considered at the next stage.

Again, in the archive I have found almost no mention of probables, but obviously sorting those out properly is a necessary step for considering the right horses at the next stage;

3) once the probables have been identified, I believe Van der Wheil rated them to separate those he regarded as form horses from those he didn't. The best example is the 1985 King George VI, where all five runners were consistent horses. He surely eliminated one, Half Free, at the probables stage, leaving four for consideration at the next. He tells us that Combs Ditch, Earls Brig and Wayward Lad were the form horses and Burrough Hill Lad wasn't. I've outlined what I believe was the general procedure Van der Wheil used to make his form ratings, though obviously the relationships between the elements in the numerical pictures can only be worked out in detail from scrutiny of them all;

4) carrying forward the Wayward Lad example, at stage four there are three horses left for consideration, and I think it is clear that at this stage Van der Wheil looked at them comparatively, with a pre-disposition, made clear in the March 1981 article, towards the highest ability rated. That was Wayward Lad, and looking at the runs of all three and their weights compared to previous meetings not perhaps difficult to reach the same conclusion as Van der Wheil. But actually in my view this judgement was less straightforward than with, say Sunset Cristo, also top on ability among the probables with form, and with much the best form.

In some cases (I've referred previously to Clayside and Von Trappe) there seems a conflict between ability and form. Either the highest ability rated of the probables with form seems not to have had the best form of those probables and a lower ability rated one was selected (Clayside), suggesting Van der Wheil gave more weight to form, or the highest ability rated was selected but seems to have inferior form to one of the lower rated (Von Trappe), where he seemed to give more weight to ability. Sometimes it is clear how Van der Wheil came to his judgements on these "balance" cases, because either he tells us (Pegwell Bay), or there seem fairly obvious answers (Wayward Lad). But on others I am stuck, and this is of practical importance because these situations seem often to arise in current races, as on Saturday;

5) then the last stage: is the final horse - the class/form horse - strong enough to back? Van der Wheil wrote a little about this, particularly in relation to Little Owl, Sunset Cristo, Kenlis and, later, First Division, Merce Cunningham and Billet. All stages are important, but none more than this one, as knowing how he established a horse was 80% or more likely to win is clearly what determines the strike rate one achieves. And although I've picked up the obvious clues from those six examples, and have reason for supposing that position in the ability rating ranking is very relevant, I know I don't yet understand exactly how Van der Wheil reached his judgements. (Incidentally, you are of course right that some of Van der Wheil's class/form horses were well down the ability ranking, but NONE of those he said he backed, said Mr Spiers should have backed, or described as "certainties" or "outstanding" - and that may partly explain your concern.)

How can we work any of this out? Only, surely, in the way Lee says in the post that Walter re-posted today, and by assuming (as I have seen in another of Lee's posts that he does) that all Van der Wheil's selections were the class/form horses in their races and, I believe, mainly arrived at via (1) to (4) above. (Obviously with some there are minor variations, eg the ones from the Sporting Chronicle selection box.) Thus, although Baronet was not one of Van der Wheil's selections, the fact that he endorsed it and three others selected by Mr Hall as "good things" can, I think, confidently be taken to mean that Baronet and the other three were all class/form horses.

If one takes the view that it is appropriate to assume that all Van der Wheil's selections were class/form horses, and one wants to know exactly how Van der Wheil worked, one can't settle for "answers" that leave examples un-explained, and it is necessary to develop ideas that match the answers.

As I have said in a previous post, I am fairly sure I understand the procedure up to and including (3) - fairly sure only because the procedures I apply end up with all Van der Wheil's class/form horses as probables with form, ie entrants to stage (4). Sometimes (4) is straightforward, but often not and with some I'm stuck there for the present. And I know I don't know how to handle the last stage properly. Hence at the moment my difficulty in offering selections here: even among the straightforward class/form horses, I simply don't yet know which can confidently be expected to win (ie are at least 80% probable).

Yes GJ.
That must have been exactly what he meant when he said " You'll wonder how on Earth you could miss it"?
FFS

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

Good luck with Young Mick, Les.
His lto performance makes him much the likeliest winner, but there is more than a suspicion that he won't last home. Hope he does pull it off for you though.

Mtoto

To illustrate the method as I see it with a current race (3.25 Newbury), assuming the current full field of 20 goes to post:

Consistent horses: Wicked Daze (score 4), Milne Graden (8), Young Mick (8), Ajaan (13). No "highly consistent horses" outside the three lowest scores within the first six of the Post's forecast.

Probables: all the consistent horses. Van der Wheil's rating method for identifying the probables does not, on this occasion, lead to an elimination.

Form horses: Wicked Daze, Milne Graden, Young Mick. The first two straightforwardly progressive. The last on the lines of Celtic Pleasure.

Class/form horse: Young Mick: highest AR of the the three probables with form by some way; best recent form.

Probability of class/horse winning: fine on ability rating (ranked 4th), but form not in my view up to the standard Van der Wheil seemed to require for horses going up in class, and in this latter respect well below what he seemed to look for in "80%" horses.

Overall conclusion: Young Mick the most likely winner, but not a bet at the 80% probability threshold.

Sean,

Thanks for the endorsement.

Jd,

And are we supposed to guess when that will be?

I can give you a partial answer to that in that my specialization is all age C2 flat hcps. In these races I am always interested in horses whose ORs have reached the level to qualify them for these events but who have yet to win one of them. However it is important to remember that within the C2 grade there are in fact two hugely different class differences between them, the ordinary <15k events and the big money 'heritages'.

Horses that win heritages aren't really handicappers at all, they are group class animals whose ability has been hidden away to only be revealed in stages before the final ´denouement' of taking one of the 40 or so biggest handicaps of the calendar.

The answer to your question then is that one first needs to find the true class of a horse and then see if the prize is suitable and the opposition inferior.

Fortunately enough there is an example of this type of horse running today.

Milne Graden 325Nb is, if my analysis is correct, going to win this today and has been backed accordingly.

well done george hope you move on now,upwards and onwards

3:25 Newb.

George,

To show willing. I have only just returned from Heathrow and to be honest I had no intention of looking at anything in detail today.

Young Mick 1
Tropical Strait 2
Ajaan 3


I have six consistent horse and only three consistent form horses. These three have to be the probables for me.

Young Mick the first and biggest doubt is the course as all his very best form has been on the stiffer tracks. In saying that he has one very good performance over nearly this distance on a flat track and this is slightly stiffer than that one so track MAYBE ok.
Tropical Strait has a bit to find on the bare figures but as the track is known to be suitable as is the going and distance I think there is a good chance he can close that gap. With him a worry would be the speed he has returned to the track as I can see no evidence this is a usual trend by trainer or horse.
Ajann, on the figures has a lot to find with the top two. Track is a major concern, and last run doesn't do much enhance his chances.

So I have a consistent form horse that you haven't considered, and you have two that fail to have achieved enough form wise for me. I think on balance I would have to say YM is the c/form horse, but not one I would back. Thinking about if I had worked this race last night I may have taken TS to place, depending on the price, anything over 3/1 would have been seriously considered.