Quick link to Lee's post

Trypod

Spot on, thanks. (I misread my notes as page 742, and was thus looking on the wrong thread.)


Paul

I hope you find the post Trypod has noted, and to which BlackCat has provided a link, helpful. It was the one to which I was referring in my post last night.

Lee enthused...

quote:

This is an area that requires focus because being installed as the favourite before the race reflects the majority view - and that majority view is a valuable element of form......

The majority view coupled with how the race pans out will also assist in identifying those horses that are ready to win. What the trainer does next can then be analysed.

Very interesting!

Walter

I agree with you and as has been commented recently by Ectoo, there is clearly not one right way of going about things when it comes to analysing horse races with the aim of identifying winners.

There is, however, in principle a right interpretation of how Van der Wheil went about things - though in the absence of confirmation from the man himself it is difficult to see how in practice one could ever be absolutely sure one had found it. I suggest that Lee's posts need to be read not in the context of a general "how best to evaluate form" discussion but specifically in a Van der Wheil context, ie they illuminate how Lee thinks Van der Wheil worked, and will be most fully understood by those already some way to understanding Van der Wheil on the same lines as Lee.

quote:

Next paragraph - "it is interesting to note that Strombolus did not feature in the first six in my daily, or in a well known sporting daily. Af further point I feel worthy of mention is that both firsty and second in this race had a total of three from last three placings."

Strombolus' form for the season to that point was 1622111F. The Fall was at Cheltenham where, in the Sun Alliance Chase, Strombolus "led 2nd to 7th, 2nd and every chance when fell 16th"

Here you are Walter

April 21 at Sandown, the day following Methodmaker's comments, there was on outstanding bet by my calculations, Celtic Pleasure won 7/2. It is interesting that on the same card Little Nugget scored and I leave it to readers to ponder without further comment other than to say it did not feature in the first six in my paper, in fact it was not mentioned. The following day Saturday, April 22, produced two more good things (by my calculations) Battlement won 9/2 at Thirsk, and Strombolus won 7/1 in the Whitbread Gold Cup at Sandown.
Again it is interesting that Strombolus did not feature in the first six in my daily, or in a well known sporting daily. To the credit of the Sporting Chronicle it did feature. A further point I feel worthy of mention is that both first and second in this race had a total of three from last three placings.

[quote]walter pigeon
Member

Posted September 08, 2008 03:24 PM Hide Postboozer
Member
Posted September 08, 2008 04:07 PM Hide Post
Here you are Walter

April 21 at Sandown, the day following Methodmaker's comments, there was on outstanding bet by my calculations, Celtic Pleasure won 7/2. It is interesting that on the same card Little Nugget scored and I leave it to readers to ponder without further comment other than to say it did not feature in the first six in my paper, in fact it was not mentioned. The following day Saturday, April 22, produced two more good things (by my calculations) Battlement won 9/2 at Thirsk, and Strombolus won 7/1 in the Whitbread Gold Cup at Sandown.
Again it is interesting that Strombolus did not feature in the first six in my daily, or in a well known sporting daily. To the credit of the Sporting Chronicle it did feature. A further point I feel worthy of mention is that both first and second in this race had a total of three from last three placings.
Posts: 801 | Registered: August 19, 2002
...............................................................

Interesting but not necesarilly factual Imp 100 people bet a jt fav with a book to a fiver each at an opening 5/2 - 2 mins later another guy comes in with a grand on the other original jt fav - who does the bookie make fav now? and has the majority view been expressed?.*If were talking pre-race as in pre the live market then its a different ball game as its the odds compilers views we are dealing with*?.
................................................................

Cheers Boozer ma auld mucker *ahm sure this aw ties in somewhere but ahm fkd if ah can hink oh what it is*??.

With a helpful nudge, you should now see that what a horse does from the distance, or doesn't do, can only be gauged by the opposition that it faces. What happens down the field is of no real interest to us as form students.

can't agree with this..it's terribly naive, basic, misinformation from someone who only looks at half the picture.

what a horse does in the last furlong..or last two furlongs is related to what it has done earlier in the race...as well as the class of horse it is running against

to isolate the last 2f of a race..and ignoring the earlier fractions will tell you bugger all.

two instances

1. race pace early is slow...horse A..racing against horses of similar ability...has sat near the pace and therefore is able to finish near the leaders when they quicken after going slow early fractions.

2. race pace early is too fast...horse A sat near it...in the last two furlongs has used too much energy and finishes unplaced

both scenarios are possible if the race is run twice...in 1. the person who ignores the early part of the race thinks horse A has run a good race because he has finished at the front end

in 2 the person who ignores the early part of the race thinks horse A has run poorly...when in fact in both cases he has run the same...just distributed energy differently.

so..if you want to start looking at what a horse does in the last two furlongs...you must know what it did early...or it is meaningless

to do that properly...you will need to start doing your own sectional timing

the idea that just watching the last two furlongs of a race and getting an accurate assessment of a horse's performance..is complete nonsense..and simplistic to boot

after reading the last few posts and been told that vdw viewed form in a strange way it seem that he selected his selections on how they performed against the races favorites wither they won or not,or waited until a fav performed well [placed]or won then built a slection round that favourite am i getting warm? he waited till the race was a true ran race [a favourite had won]then found future selections from the horses around it

Ectoo,

I have no problem with your post. Only to say in VDW's day there was little chance of arriving at sectional times even if they understood them. VDW did think PACE was important, and said as much. So if the race was run at a good pace and the horse in question recorded a good/reasonable s/f there was a fair chance the form would stand up.

For me the important element of Lee's post is where he mentions the opposition in the race. Fair enough but how you measure the class/form of that opposition then becomes important. The A/R doesn't measure form, one without the other is tells you nothing.

Be Lucky

he,s going on about the prices of the opposition to mtoto getting close to a 1/2 shot winner must go for something

quote:

after reading the last few posts and been told that vdw viewed form in a strange way

Les,

Apart from VDW being a rich Dutch man, the above is IMHO the biggest fallacy in the whole VDW saga. I think he read form in a very straightforward manner, perhaps a little unconventional, but straightforward.

Be Lucky

main point is Mtoto

mentioning what a horse does in the last furlong of a race...and saying the rest of the race is unimportant doesn't make sense..bit surpised at Lee...and also the fact that no one corrected the flaw in that type of logic.

a lot of this VDW expert advice...isn't really that...it is generalised scratching at the surface stuff

if VDW wanted to discuss pace...then he should have done just that...not thrown in just a fraction of the picture...better off ignoring it altogether than use it badly

just looking at the end of races is like just using bare times to allot speed figures...both are lazy and of little use without being done correctly

just my view

quote:

Originally posted by George Johns:
Trypod

Spot on, thanks. (I misread my notes as page 742, and was thus looking on the wrong thread.)


Paul

I hope you find the post Trypod has noted, and to which BlackCat has provided a link, helpful. It was the one to which I was referring in my post last night.

GEORGE /TRYPOD/BLACK CAT

Thank you for you time im still busy at the moment but hope to read lee's post soon

THE MAJORITY VIEW COUPLED WITH HOW THE RACE PANS OUT WILL ALSO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING THOSE HORSES READY TO WIN [lee]=favs,what i said earlier

ECTOO
I think you are absolutly right when it comes to distributing energy.

Also i would like to mention that horses have a running style that they are / maybe best suited to, from the front , just held up , middivision or held at the back and at some point the horse has to move just that bit faster to enable it to be in the finish of the race.

They can not all quicken from the 1f or 2f pole some have to make there move much further out. But how can you spot the crucial move the form books do not comment to much on a horse making its first move 8f out in a 12f race and the tv pictures and commontators do not pick up on it because they are looking at the first few runners mainly.

Does anybody have any thoughts on the above how can we tell when a horse is being asked to make moves either to early or to late, surly this would then tell us if the horse was really trying on a given day

LES
Could you please be a bit more specific

sorry paul may have picked this up wrong

he,s going on about the prices of the opposition to mtoto getting close to a 1/2 shot winner must go for something

Les,

The short answer to that is why? If said 1/2 shot was the class/form horse and the race was run at a true pace I would agree. The important factors are the horse being a true/worthy favourite, and the pace being good, not the price of the winner. I'm far from convinced VDW paid any attention to the majority view, I think he was looking for horses/races that confirmed HIS view. Agreed in some cases they would be short priced and/or favourites.

Ectoo,

To be fair I don't think VDW said the early part of the race wasn't important. I think he was looking at the overall pace, and if a horse was putting in an effort at the end of the race it was worth a second look. If it wasn't performing as expected then make a decision about why. As you say this could be down to incorrect pace for the horse, or wrong course type, etc.

"What the clock says at the end of a race may not appear to tell the whole story, but it gives enough when interpreted and used to best advantage to provide one of the most useful means of evaluation".

I don't doubt for a second the mind that wrote the above would have jumped at the chance to use sectional times if they had been available. As it is I have still to see anyone use s/f in the way I think he did.

Be Lucky

Les

I also took "market" from Lee's reference to majority view, and added market data to the set I extracted when undertaking the kind of analysis Trypod referred to in his post at 9.43am on 29 August. While it doesn't seem to me on its own to lead to any absolutely definitive "answer" (anymore than do better known elements such as the consistency score or ability rating), the evidence it provides as to whether a horse has more or less met, or has significantly failed to meet, market expectations seems a material aspect of the whole.