on a side note.....purely on breeding Liberation [2.10 Brighton]looks unlikely to enjoy Soft ground and looks to be worth laying..or ...taking on with the next two in the betting...L trades at 1.72 at the moment..makes the 2nd & 3rd fav's look value

good luck


cheers Rab..I'll be on..I have to..I make it that Dijeerr wins the race 60/70 times out of every 100...so is really good value at 2.58ish it now trades at on betfair

theo theo theo,dear dear dear walter walter please lol

quote:

Originally posted by ectoo:
I make DIJEERR a 10 star VDW [my way of using it] bet tomorrow in the 3.30 at Sandown.

ECTOO

HAD A LOOK AT THIS RACE TO THE FORE WAS DIJEER AND CAPTAIN MARVELOUS.
CM HAS NOT REALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN 2 OF LAST 3 RACES AND D LOOKED GOOD UNTIL I LOOKED AT THE FAV / CLASS STRIKE RATE WHICH PUTS ME OF IF D SHOULD REMAIN FAV

but I haven't yet spotted anything in the examples I've studied which really suggests he was concerned about the extent to which the previous races of his selections were run slower or faster than average.

George,

As Lee pointed out in several of his posts to me "VDW didn't write anything just for the sake of it" so why would he here? This is one of the reasons I think the last three runs are only used to measure consistency, the first numerical picture. As you say many/some of the selections didn't run in a good paced race last time out, some didn't even do this in ANY of their last three runs. Doesn't this fact make you think why am I only looking at recent form? I do find it slightly strange you and others are happy to use an ability rating the goes right back through a horses career, but still think only the last three race count. Also a race being run faster or slower than average isn't really enough to show if a race was run at a good pace. All that can tell you is the going.

The only person I can find that said he had a Yankee up using the VDW methods was Mr Hall. When I first started trying to make sense of VDW I did look at speed plus as the ratings could be found in the SCHB. From memory only one of the Hall winners was a speed plus horse. I have often wondered if one of the "other" VDW rating was the figures shown in the SCHB, the handicap ratings, the equivalent of the RPR ratings shown in the Post now. Unfortunately I don't have any old copies so I can't check it out. Even then there is no way of knowing if he (VDW) made any adjustments to them. Personally I am starting to come to the conclusion that the rating shown in SIAO are NOT the same rating as used in the Erin. While I can make several of those ratings work I can't get the figures and/or ranking exactly the same.

For those who are asking, I have had no contact with Guest for several years, but I do know he sold his form books, and now seems to be more interested in laying false favourites. Whether or not that has anything to do with him having a young family, and finding the time to work the methods a problem I can't say.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I agree that Van der Wheil included pace as a factor, and that it cannot be measured by time alone because obviously going (not to mention other factors like wind and weight) are also determinants. So I am assuming (in the absence in Van der Wheil's day and, mainly, now, of sectional timing) that the only available measure was the speed figures in the Form Book, which in those days sought to factor in those factors.

Van der Wheil indicated several uses for speed figures - as a criterion for creating lists of horses to follow, as an ancilliary ability rating for lightly races younger Flat horses, and as a means of noting whether one performance was better than another. I had initially wondered whether this last was the basis for assessing form, as of course he illustrated Roushayd and several of Desert Orchid's races in that way, but as we agree it is not the answer if, as I believe, form was assessed on a horse's last three runs.

So the nub of the issue is, as you say, is it reasonable to suppose that Van der Wheil did indeed assess form (as distinct from consistency and ability) on a horse's last three runs? My answer is an unequivocal yes, for three reasons:

1) form for me connotes recency. The question "is this a form horse?", like the question (of any kind of sportsman) "is he or she in form?", to me only makes sense with an implied notion of the recent past. One may pick a horse (or a player) on the basis of a long term track record rather than recent good performances, but that is to do so in the hope that performances in the immediate future will be better than those in the recent past and like those of some while ago. (Thus, for example, I think Faldo was right to leave Montgomery out of the Ryder Cup team, despite Monty's excellent record in previous RCs, though I can sympathise with those who take the opposite view.);

2) the evidence from Van der Wheil's more extended discussions - Prominent King, the March 1981 four, Roushayd and Pegwell Bay - all seem to point to a concern with relatively recent performances, and in the Roushayd and Pegwell Bay cases specifically to the last three - which of course match the consistency races;

3) all the main method selections Van der Wheil gave (or endorsed in the case of Mr Hall's) work out if their form status is determined on the last three runs.

So I am left confident that it is right to treat consistency and form as separate notions, and in general to use the last three runs to assess each, but accept that as yet (except in the minority of cases where sfs as the ancilliary ability rating are used) I can't see a distinct role for pace in the process.

Although Dijeer is clearly the class horse in the race, the 7f trip has to be a big worry. His form, his running style, his breeding, and his future entries all suggest he is better over further, and nothing he has achieved so far suggests he will benefit from this drop in distance.
He may well still win, but a certainty he most definitely is not.

JOHND
May i ask what has D achieved to warrant entries in the Queen Elizabeth and the Champion Stakes, is it not just fancyful entries hoping the better horses drop out.

Paul

Horse C wins a 5f sprint at Catterick in standard time (58.6s) producing a speed of 38mph (38.396). Horse A wins a 5f sprint at Ascot in standard time (60.2s) producing a speed of 37mph (37.375). The pair meet next time out at say Newmarket. Who will your money be on?

Another scenario, Horse X runs a mile at a steady 36mph (1m 40s) Horse Y goes with him but quickens away at the furlong pole and wins by a length. The winning time is 1m 39.8s. The average speed of the winner is still 36mph (36.07) but in the final furlong it was actually 36.585mph. The form shows that Horse Y is 3lb superior to X.
Speed in mph calculated from the winners time tells you very little about a horse.

quote:

Originally posted by paul:
JOHND
May i ask what has D achieved to warrant entries in the Queen Elizabeth and the Champion Stakes, is it not just fancyful entries hoping the better horses drop out.

Far from it.
The horse was progressive as a 2yo culminating in a gp3 win, had problems as a 3yo, and has shown similar progression as 4yo.
Already having a group race on his cv, a listed win today will do little for his breeding potential, and his participation strongly suggests this as nothing more than a prep race for a bigger prize later.
My guess would be that if he doesn't show enough speed to win this today he will be trained for the 10f Champion Stakes rather than the 1m QE11.

1) form for me connotes recency. The question "is this a form horse?", like the question (of any kind of sportsman) "is he or she in form?"

George,

I thought VDW had written a chapter explaining why just being "in" form wasn't enough. Form is only worthwhile if it is measured against the class of the opposition. This "in" form horse then must have form that says it has form in the book (proven form) to show it can compete with the other consistent horses in the race, (the operative word here being consistent). While I agree, and it should never be forgotten consistency and form are two very different animals, consistency is a required factor.

3) all the main method selections Van der Wheil gave (or endorsed in the case of Mr Hall's) work out if their form status is determined on the last three runs.

I can't agree with this idea as I can see no way PK and Baronet's last three runs did anything to show they had the form, they just fulfilled the requirements needed to qualify for the first picture consistency. To say they are form horses based on their last three runs takes a big leap of faith, or the knowledge they must be form horse because they are selections. Apart from the A/R I think accepting horses with this type of profile is one of the reason so many are failing to make VDW work in real time. Both of these horses have form that as VDW said must have a degree of achievement, but it isn't one of their last three runs.

Finally I will end by asking you the question I have asked many times, and never received a worthwhile answer. Why bother to use speed to make lists of horses to follow if it isn't a good accurate measure of ability? Remembering VDW said he used it to measure the form of exposed, and unexposed horses? Also there is the little matter of VDW's quote..........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. Please don't try to counteract the above with the following paragraph......There are good grounds for taking the view that when using time as a means of evaluation, attention should be restricted to the five and six furlong sprints, or at least, to a maximum of one mile. These same grounds hold good for thinking the use of time during the National Hunt is not so reliable as other
means because of the minimum of two miles. As for me VDW clearly shows by the lists he suggested while there maybe grounds for thinking it, he doesn't agree with that idea.

Be Lucky

Sorry, EC,
I don't like the race at all! Your pick is way top on a ratings site I like, but something doesn't seem quite right to me.

Has Dijeer got the speed for this? Dunno. Not happy about the Hills and Channon things. Only seven runners, and Icelandic could be anything.
No bet in that for me, I'm afraid.

The best of fortune to you, anyway!

Ectoo

Good luck with your bet this afternoon. I think you may need it with Atlantic Sport in the field but as I am not betting I'll be be cheering on yours.


Mtoto

To be a form horse, in my view all a horse has to have is the profile of a form horse - no requirement that it should have "proven form" to be able to compete with the other consistent horses. (Van der Wheil's piece "Introduction of VDW Update", reprinted as the first section of "Betting the VDW Way" is helpful on this.) Being a form horse, or not, is a matter solely of the horse's profile in the context of the class of race for which he is being assessed and the form status of the other runners is irrelevant.

That changes when we come to the class/form horse. To be the class/form horse and a bet (seemingly only about 20% of all class/form horses), a horse does indeed have to have form that shows it can compete with the other consistent form horses, but that is a far higher level of requirement to that needed for form horse status.

Baronet and Prominent King are no problem from the form perspective once one has done the work to which Trypod recently referred. Until one has, I can see that they, and several of Van der Wheil's other selections, look problematic.

re sfs, I think Van der Wheil did regard them as a good indicator of ability: a Flat horse that returned in his day an sf of 70 or higher was clearly a high quality horse, and the best sfs (always published in the end of year edition of the Form Book), offered a quick and easy way of drawing up a list of good horses to follow. I don't know how anyone could easily draw up a list based on the win prize money a horse had won, divided by the number of wins.

The point that, in my view, you are missing is that, while he undoubtedly valued the sf as a measure of ability (hence its use as an ancillary measure in specific circumstances), Van der Wheil clearly told us - in the March 1981 article - that he used the win prize money one as part of his main method. Why? because for that purpose he regarded it as better - "each element was selected after a great deal of research". Your belief that, despite what he said, Van der Wheil really used an sf-based measure of ability strikes me as strange, given that on your own admission it doesn't account for all the selections, while Lee and others (now including me) say that the win prize money one does.

To be a form horse, in my view all a horse has to have is the profile of a form horse - no requirement that it should have "proven form" to be able to compete with the other consistent horses.

George,

If consistency is different to form, the profile you are suggesting is that of a consistent horse not a form horse. This then raises the question how do you measure form as I think you agreed the A/R doesn't do that?

Baronet and Prominent King are no problem from the form perspective once one has done the work to which Trypod recently referred.

On going back and reading Trypod's post he only mentions the last three runs. So a simple question which of B's last three runs show he has the form to compete in this race?

The point that, in my view, you are missing is that, while he undoubtedly valued the sf as a measure of ability (hence its use as an ancillary measure in specific circumstances)

My reading of the situation is s/f were not used as an ancillary measure. He used them to measure ability in exposed, unexposed horse, older horses, and NH.

Van der Wheil clearly told us - in the March 1981 article - that he used the win prize money one as part of his main method. Why? because for that purpose he regarded it as better - "each element was selected after a great deal of research".

The answer to why I have explained, he said he would never spell out how he formulated his "other" ratings. I have no problem with each element as also explained before, the formula says consistent/form + ability +. Why then do you take him to mean this "new" rating and not the one he has used for many years. His words not mine, Rope Ladder shows he was using the other method for 15 years before he even mentioned the A/R.

Your belief that, despite what he said, Van der Wheil really used an sf-based measure of ability strikes me as strange, given that on your own admission it doesn't account for all the selections, while Lee and others (now including me) say that the win prize money one does.

You yourself have found examples were the need to use the A/R wasn't needed. I could argue that the races I can't make work fall into that category, while a couple do, I can't claim that for all of them. As for you and others claiming you can make them all work, with all due respect I will have to wait and see. I think you and others are arriving at the shortlist and then looking for reasons to eliminate the horses that are not selected. This is being done AFTER the result is known, using VDW perceived ideas. Why do I say this, simple I have read more than once remarks like I'm still not sure why VDW didn't make Town and Country the c/form horse. To do this it is easy AFTER the race to come up with possible reasons, trouble is in other examples these reasons are not enough to stop another horse being the selection. So to end, why/how do you eliminate TAC from B's Cambridgeshire?

Be Lucky

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

some good responses re Dijeer..thanks

a lot to take from the race for me...pre and post comments are SO valueable...

Mtoto

"If consistency is different to form, the profile you are suggesting is that of a consistent horse not a form horse. This then raises the question how do you measure form as I think you agreed the A/R doesn't do that?"

1) Consistency is different to form - see Van der Wheil's comment re Burrough Hill Lad;

2) I agree that the AR does not measure form - it measures what it says it measures, ability;

3) How do you measure form? To establish whether a horse is, or is not, a form horse, it is not necessary to measure form, merely to see if the profile is that of a form horse. To compare the form of two probables with form to see which has the better form, no measurement is need, just simple comparison against ability. (That is of course why Atlantic Sport was the class/form horse in the 3.30 Sandown today, not Dijeerr. And of course, contrary to Johnd's comment, neither was Dijeerr the class horse in the race - that was Captain Marvelous, though neither a consistent horse nor a form horse today and therefore not a contender from the Van der Wheil perspective.)


"Baronet and Prominent King are no problem from the form perspective once one has done the work to which Trypod recently referred.

On going back and reading Trypod's post he only mentions the last three runs. So a simple question which of B's last three runs show he has the form to compete in this race?"

The last one, ie immediately before the Cambridgeshire.


"The point that, in my view, you are missing is that, while he undoubtedly valued the sf as a measure of ability (hence its use as an ancillary measure in specific circumstances)

My reading of the situation is s/f were not used as an ancillary measure. He used them to measure ability in exposed, unexposed horse, older horses, and NH."

As suggested in my previous post, to me that is a strange view as it implies (a) Van der Wheil was deceitful and (b) as you yourself acknowledge, it doesn't work with all the examples.


"Van der Wheil clearly told us - in the March 1981 article - that he used the win prize money one as part of his main method. Why? because for that purpose he regarded it as better - "each element was selected after a great deal of research.

The answer to why I have explained, he said he would never spell out how he formulated his "other" ratings. I have no problem with each element as also explained before, the formula says consistent/form + ability +. Why then do you take him to mean this "new" rating and not the one he has used for many years. His words not mine, Rope Ladder shows he was using the other method for 15 years before he even mentioned the A/R."

As has been brought to attention recently in posts reposted by Walter, Van der Wheil distinguished rating from ratings. He did not divulge the basis of his two crosscheck ratings given in the final two columns of the four tables in the March 1981 article, any more than he divulged his probables device - he merely gave us some evidence to work on. I haven't yet cracked the two ratings, though still suspect one derives from the Mail's. But in another post resurrected by Walter it seems that Guest has cracked one.


"Your belief that, despite what he said, Van der Wheil really used an sf-based measure of ability strikes me as strange, given that on your own admission it doesn't account for all the selections, while Lee and others (now including me) say that the win prize money one does.

You yourself have found examples were the need to use the A/R wasn't needed. I could argue that the races I can't make work fall into that category, while a couple do, I can't claim that for all of them. As for you and others claiming you can make them all work, with all due respect I will have to wait and see. I think you and others are arriving at the shortlist and then looking for reasons to eliminate the horses that are not selected. This is being done AFTER the result is known, using VDW perceived ideas. Why do I say this, simple I have read more than once remarks like I'm still not sure why VDW didn't make Town and Country the c/form horse. To do this it is easy AFTER the race to come up with possible reasons, trouble is in other examples these reasons are not enough to stop another horse being the selection. So to end, why/how do you eliminate TAC from B's Cambridgeshire?[/quote]"

1) the ONLY time the AR is not needed to identify the class/form horse is when there is only one probable with form - because the first use of the AR is in assessing, comparatively, the probables with form. But even then it is needed to determine whether a class/form horse should be a bet (Van der Wheil may have backed class/form horses below 5th in the AR ranking, but it is far from certain - ALL the class/form horses he said he backed, or described as "certainties" or "outstanding bets" were ranked 1 to 5.)

2) re Town and Country and Baronet, I suspect Van der Wheil regarded Baronet's better form and the obvious planning for the race by the trainer - same route as previous year - as off setting Town and Country's advantage in ARs. (Similar, in a way, to the reasoning with Jim Thorpe and Pegwell Bay, but not to be confused with more straightforward examples like Clayside, Von Trappe and, today, Atlantic Sport.)

quote:

Originally posted by garstonf:
Paul

Horse C wins a 5f sprint at Catterick in standard time (58.6s) producing a speed of 38mph (38.396). Horse A wins a 5f sprint at Ascot in standard time (60.2s) producing a speed of 37mph (37.375). The pair meet next time out at say Newmarket. Who will your money be on?

Another scenario, Horse X runs a mile at a steady 36mph (1m 40s) Horse Y goes with him but quickens away at the furlong pole and wins by a length. The winning time is 1m 39.8s. The average speed of the winner is still 36mph (36.07) but in the final furlong it was actually 36.585mph. The form shows that Horse Y is 3lb superior to X.
Speed in mph calculated from the winners time tells you very little about a horse.

GARSTONF
I think it would depend on how other factors were interpreted

quote:

That is of course why Atlantic Sport was the class/form horse in the 3.30 Sandown today

I'm sorry George..but if you think AS was the class/form horse..in any way you read form..then there is something wrong with your decision process.

Firstly..talking after the event in that manner is so bollox mate.

I will say this...I have every respect for your postings..but if you try and pull this crap when I'm reading posts on here..I'll always pull you up


lets be looking at AS shall we then?

he is running in a listed race today

his last run AT 7f was in a poor Class C event..he was 4/6 fav and beaten by a horse that is unable to win at listed level

his last run was again below winning listed level form...albeit at further than he wanted

neither run makes him any class/form horses..either VDW or any other W.

please do not aftertime such rubbish..it's very annoying...

if you REALLY believed he was the class form horse then you would have posted before the race that he was...the mention you made told me bugger all..because had Dijeer won..you would never have described AS as a class form horse..I do know how this after confirmation stuff works you know.

our cat can make cases for horses after a race

sorry for getting annoyed..but I can't be having this sort of nonsense...either post before a race clearly what you think or just carry on discussing old races

my confidence level after a race for picking the winner..is also very high...funny that ain't it?

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:

quote:

Originally posted by paul:
JOHND
May i ask what has D achieved to warrant entries in the Queen Elizabeth and the Champion Stakes, is it not just fancyful entries hoping the better horses drop out.

Far from it.
The horse was progressive as a 2yo culminating in a gp3 win, had problems as a 3yo, and has shown similar progression as 4yo.
Already having a group race on his cv, a listed win today will do little for his breeding potential, and his participation strongly suggests this as nothing more than a prep race for a bigger prize later.
My guess would be that if he doesn't show enough speed to win this today he will be trained for the 10f Champion Stakes rather than the 1m QE11.

JOHND
I AGREE A 7F ON A CV IS NOT WHAT BREEDERS AND OWNERS WANT. THE FASHION IS FOR 8F AND 10F IN THE MAIN AND THEN 12F ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE FRENCH DERBY IS NOW RUN AT 10F SO I READ.

GOOD LUCK IF YOU CAN EXPLOIT A NICE PRICE ABOUT D IN THE QE2 YOU NEVER NO THE BETTER CLASS HORSES CAN STILL WITH DRAW

quote:

Originally posted by paul:
JOHND
I AGREE A 7F ON A CV IS NOT WHAT BREEDERS AND OWNERS WANT. THE FASHION IS FOR 8F AND 10F IN THE MAIN AND THEN 12F ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE FRENCH DERBY IS NOW RUN AT 10F SO I READ.

Pual
The 2nd & 3rd in the top sires list are Pivotal & Danehill - both sprinters!

quote:

You yourself have found examples were the need to use the A/R wasn't needed. I could argue that the races I can't make work fall into that category, while a couple do, I can't claim that for all of them. As for you and others claiming you can make them all work, with all due respect I will have to wait and see. I think you and others are arriving at the shortlist and then looking for reasons to eliminate the horses that are not selected. This is being done AFTER the result is known, using VDW perceived ideas. Why do I say this, simple I have read more than once remarks like I'm still not sure why VDW didn't make Town and Country the c/form horse. To do this it is easy AFTER the race to come up with possible reasons, trouble is in other examples these reasons are not enough to stop another horse being the selection. So to end, why/how do you eliminate TAC from B's Cambridgeshire?

this is why post race ONLY analysis sucks Mtoto

thats why I say that without the pre..you will be discussing races in 20 years time..and still be no further forward

maybe you like going round in circles..i'm sure some love it..what is it you want?...a diploma in VDW racing selections and why he picked em??

like I said earlier...our cat can give lots of reasons why a horse won/didn't win..after the race..that is a mugs game imo.

when you start realising that real time pre and post is the way forward..i'm sure you will be happier