Hi Fulham,

I have used Profile for a couple of NH seasons (I found it of less value for the flat due to horses being lighter raced). Unfortunately, I found the product of little value.

The scope for your own notes is certainly not comprehensive enough for our needs and I found much of the data flawed. In my opinion they tried to become 'a little too clever' in their compilation of data and tried to put differing conditions in a lb above or below base rating format.

Fine in theory I thought, nice to be able to calculate a horse is say 8lb below best on soft going or on a right handed track but unfortunately it is too statistical based to give reasonably accurate opinions. It seems to pay little attention to 'current form' or 'class of opposition' when formulating these ratings.

I sort of lost confidence when they had a horse I checked as being 71b below 'par' on good going, 12lb below 'par' on soft going and yet 4lb ABOVE 'par' on good to soft going??????? I couldn't quite work out the logic

In truth, I think much of the value of the publication has been supersceded by the RP website. The product was useful for determining trends and patterns in horses winning form but I find it just as easy (providing you have a reasonable knowledge of course characteristics) to spot the trends from 'winning form' lines of the RP website.

I know the RP website can be infuriatingly slow at times, particularly for those without broadband connections, but I think it must rank as the greatest free resource on the net. Free for how much longer I don't know but whisper it , I certainly wouldn't object to paying a small fee for their services.

Cheers

Hi Crock,

I’m a bit of a dinosaur also when it comes to record keeping, and I’ve recently, having chatted to Guest one evening, began to think that this is now an area that is holding me back somewhat. The most important part of the methods is form study, however, this cannot be done unless the tedious collation of data is kept up to date. It never used to bother me much, as it used to give me a bit of a buzz (strange I know) but nowadays it’s becoming a chore that I could do without!! There isn’t any commercial program that I know of that is suitable for our needs, and so the only option, which is something that I’ve toyed with on and off for some time is obtaining/designing my own. The only problem is that my computing skills are next to useless which is a major drawback when you need a bit of programming doing.

Fulham,

It’s always worth considering what a horse had actually achieved prior to the race in question, in relation to the others. Prior to the Beverly race SV hadn’t achieved what some of the others in the race had. I appreciate that he was an improver and most likely to win as expected but nevertheless he was up against horses with comparable/better ability. However, at Goodwood for the 2nd time, he was head and shoulders above the rest in what he’d achieved when the two runs are compared relatively. I know I keep using that word but it is important! So in view of that the latter race, according to the form-book, was less of a test, on a class basis.

[This message was edited by Chaz on August 08, 2002 at 09:00 PM.]

Hi Chaz,

I understand what you are saying, but its worth fully recognising the character of the issue.

Leaving SV out of consideration for the moment, compare the horses in the Beverley race with those in the Goodwood one: which were the classier?

SV ran against both sets and IF (as I would see it) the horses in the latter race were generally superior than those in the earlier one, in overall terms the second race posed the harder challenge. (Rather as if a football team had to play an average Premiership side and a top Premiership side a few weeks apart. IF both Premiership sides played to their normal levels - admittedly a big IF - the common opponent would be under no illusion which side offered the stiffer competition.)

What had changed between the two races? Not SV in any real sense: he was still essentially the same horse, although he may (or may not) have "improved" a few pounds over the intervening month by strengthening or becoming even fitter.

Rather, what had changed was what we KNEW about SV, namely that he was good enough to win a race of markedly higher class than either - namely the Goodwood race on 30 July, ie his capability was more fully known.

After that race, SV's VDW ability rating increased markedly, and in terms of ability ratings he was relatively "better off" with the horses in the latter race than he was, with his pre Beverley ability rating, with the horses in the Beverley race.

I thought that the first Goodwood win showed that SV had a level of ability such that, relative to the competition on Saturday, he was overwhelmingly likely successfully to carry the weight. But I still think that he was running against a better set of horses than he had at Beverley, and that was (I think) the essence of Simon's point.

Regards.

Hi Fulham,

If we are comparing the horses that ran at Beverley to those that ran at Goodwood, then surely we should also compare the Scotts View that ran at Beverley to the Scotts View that ran at Goodwood.

I feel you may be trying to look at things in the old conventional way. Yes SV is still the same horse who has been increased a few pounds by the handicapper, but that is where VDW parts company with the conventional. His increase in ability rating is only part of the story.

Hi Chaz,

I agree: but it was, in all essentials, the same SV in the two races.

Think of it this way. If SV had not run in the first Goodwood race, he would not have been the class/form horse for the race on Saturday, which would have been Robe Chinoise. We may, or may not, have found SV as a bet, but he most certainly would not have been viewed by Guest, yourself, me and others as a racing certainty. But he'd have been the same horse, and would have won, probably even more easily without the penalty.

What changed because of SV's success in the first Goodwood race was not in essentials the horse himself, but our knowledge of his capabilities, which we were then able to capitalise upon (or attempt to) when he ran on Saturday.

I really don't think that, on the key question of what we knew about SV, and his relative capabilities against the others in Saturday's race, there is anything between us.

Regards.

I think that what Chaz is trying to say is that SV's capabilies were recognised by himself after the Beverley race. Its the old chestnut "class against which a horse runs is not the same as the class of race they compete in."
I have been too busy lately to do much race analysis but I wonder what a vdw style rating of that Beverley race would tell us? What would the result then tell us about the potential ability of the winner of that race?
regards,

Chaz.

Scott's View.

I am more than a little surprised you think the race a Beverley can be classified as a good run. Or that it comes anywhere near the class of the 2nd Goodwood race. For me it only proved SV could carry a big weight against low class horses. I can only judge the class of the race against the criteria I use.If there is one that makes this a good race, I can only say it has a flaw. I saw SV as the likley winner of his second race at Goodwood, but in no way a good thing. That was based on his win a couple of days before. Nothing he had done before that gave me any inkling he was capable of winning it. In the race on Saturday he was against horses that had the same potential to improve, and very near the same standard. He had to give weight to them, and while I say I don't worry about weight. I was concerned that this light framed horse that received a negative in the paddock (2/3 days before) would be up to it. This is based on his 2 fastest s/f where achieved carrying light weights. The next highest was scored carrying 10st 2lb against weak opposition I wanted a far bigger price than the one on offer so I didn't bet. On form there where at least 2 horse in the race that where capable of giving him a race. I think he was lucky to be given an uncontested lead, and the race run in a very slow time.

Be Lucky

Hi JIB,

That's a fair point. And if there were a system that produced worthwhile profits, year in, year out, without the hard work that is part and parcel of VDW's approach, anyone in possession would be in an enviable position.

But one is as likely to be given such a system as one is to be told in detail all aspects of VDW's approach. So I suppose its a question of where one judges that one's efforts are most likely to prove fruitful: pursuing the search for such a system or seeking ever more fully to understand, and effectively apply, VDW's approach. And, of course, those are not the only options.

As in so much else, ultimately its a matter of personal preference. As the French are said to say (though with accents): chacun a son gout.

Regards.

Hi Mtoto,

I’m aware of what you are saying here. I’m afraid we’ll always have some difference of opinion though due to the fact that we judge class differently. Of course I don’t think that the horses in the Beverley run were better than those in the Goodwood races, but Scott’s view wasn’t as good then (achievements on the race-course) also.

JIB,

I do take in your thread and it certainly has a lot of potential particularly once you start to note how certain trainers work. They are like most of us, creatures of habit, and it can be uncanny how regimented they actually are. Indeed VDW made much mention of watching how the trainer placed his charges, and mentioned that it is worth studying the ‘races to come’ section, as you are doing, and it’s something that I spend a fair amount of time on also. But it’s just another cog. Without class/form it doesn’t matter to me how the trainer is placing the horse. The system made the right choice for you at Sandown, but I’m sure you are aware that a completely systematic approach is never a good thing.

Would peoples opinions regards Scotts view be different if he had been say over 2-1 or over for his last race - ie woould he have been a bet then

Fulham/Mtoto - The relativity factor is just one of the points where VDWs ideas differ from the crowd. This along with judging what a horse has actually achieved at the time of the race in question. I concur with the idea that Scotts View was a different proposition at Goodwood in his first race of the week compared to his previous runs and subsequent runs. Racing a horse does bring about some sort of change and ability can rise dramatically, remain fairly static or go into decline. Either way it what the animals had achieved on the racecourse prior to each race that counts.

Subsequent events often lend little help to the evaluation of form. As just one example, there was an H Cecil maiden running earlier this week who had run 2nd at Windsor to Zenda on it's last run. A short time after Zenda won a group 1 in France, but that didn't increase Cecils horses ability. With the races in reverse it may have been a different matter.

Guest


You commented that "it [is] what the animals had achieved on the racecourse prior to each race that counts". I couldn't agree more, and VDW's principal legacy is the material he placed in the public domain to enable us to discover how best to evaluate that.


Pro

Assuming you are referring to the Sandown race, most certainly. There was the question of whether SV could "take" three races in quick succession, but he was the class/form horse and, at the right price, would have been a bet for me.

Hi Chaz, Fulham
Regarding the Scotts View's race this has provoked quite a lot of posts on the subject which can only be a good thing, for us all. I can see where Chaz is coming from with the relativity aspects with regards to the Beverly race and I can also see that Fulham fully understands this view.
Chaz,
You say "if we are comparing the horses that ran at Beverley to those that ran at Goodwood, then surely we should also compare the Scotts View that ran at Beverley to the Scotts View that ran at Goodwood."
In the Beverley race he did indeed beat Wintertide who was a strong contender having had a good run in the Northumberland Plate, but was it really that good a run to constitute SV having a upturn in form as he was expected to win anyway.
His next race at Kempton I did not feel he achieved much here coming a poor second to Jasmick, a down turn in form I felt. He showed slight improvement in his next run winning against Tandava and Alberich but still nothing to write home about. But where I feel as Fulham does he came into his own was at Goodwood being the Class form horse who won a class 290 race LTO and Beat Darasim and Moon emperor.
You say the goodwood race was less of a test (I've heard that statement somewhere before!! Greenhills Joy) would you really say that beating Darasim compared to Wintertide was less of a test. I know what you mean that it does not matter about the value of race he runs in because he was at a different stage in his development but even on pure class I cannot see how the Beverley race was more of a test compared to the Goodwood race !!!
Any thoughts on the above always welcome.
Cheers Mimas.

Chaz, did vdw write about multiple-entries specifically or just placing in general?

Mimas - I think the fact that Scotts View ran in two races at Goodwood that week is causing confusion. Undoubtedly his best form was shown in the race he first won at Goodwood, but also his defeat of Wintertide had a lot of merit. Consider what VDW said about Billet and as you say, Greenhills Joy. Then consider the 2nd Goodwood race on Saturday and ask the question, what really did he have to beat back against his own age group ?

Hi Guest,
Sorry if I have caused some confusion, when I said he was the Class/Form horse I meant in the Saturday race not the previous goodwood race on the 30th of July. Yes I agree that if you compared the two Goodwood race's the previous race on the 30th at Goodwood was more of a test than Saturdays race at Goodwood by far. He had "marked his card" on the 30th to coin a phrase, raised in class winning and showing good form and improvement (just like Billet) and as you say the wintertide win did have some merit I would not deny this just not the same amount as his Goodwood (30th) run.
Cheers Mimas.
:

Guest,

let me be the first to congratulate you on your accurate pre race analysis of the 330h on wednesday.

Guest.

You say there was merit in SV's Beverley victory. He beat a 6 year old maiden, who had just run his best ever race. Wintertide ran again in 5/6 days over a different distance to his good run. I would expect SV to beat a horse that had most probably bounced after running his best ever race.

Pro.

You ask would SV have been a bet at Sandown if he had been a better price. The answer for me is no. I will try and show you why I think this

7.20 SANDOWN my ratings my tissue
COURT SHAREEF .............289. ................. 3.29
SCOTTS VIEW...................248....................1.61
DR COOL...........................182....................19
GOLD STANDARD..............160....................19
CAPRICCIO..........................78....................11
CHIVITE ............................107....................4

There is no way I would have backed him. My ratings are based on putting a numerical value to the things I read in Systematic Betting. Like all rating they are not infallible, and I NEVER just take the top rated at face value. In this case SV had a lot to make up in the figures, let alone the value.

Be Lucky

Hi John,

No VDW didn’t write about multiple entries specifically, but I’m sure from what I remember about his writings that he hinted on the subject; I don’t have the letters to hand anymore, as I lent them out sometime ago and I haven’t seen them since – which has just reminded me to chase them up! Perhaps someone with the books, (Guest I’m sure will be able to put his finger on it) confirm if my memory serves me right or not.