Where was this 'Bandos' running?
I thought I told you that naming the course and time made it a bit easier for people.
Oh well................
Swish

Good call on Courage under Fire (2.40 Fontwell),the Class horse was out of form??,and could have been laid,there was a surprise fav,why I don't know.Would it be possible to go through this race for the less initiated like me.

Barney,how is the new job going?good I hope,and continued good luck.

The two shortest price favs, method, gave Mytimie at 4/11.

there was only one form horse in that race and it won.

As it happens it was also the class/form horse.
The slight doubts that there could have been with the fav could easily be eliminated by looking beyond the initial numerical picture.

fav was down to mc coy, Guest has stated many times that even he cant do it if the horse is not good enough and in any case it probably helped contribute to the good price.

hope this helps.

also worth noting is that nichols came on at the races, after the two winners,(probably why there was some money in the ring for garruth) and stated that garruth was being aimed at a 3m 6 race in the mud.

[This message was edited by Barney on November 11, 2002 at 07:28 PM.]

get off my case

Sorry I didn't reply to your earlier post, hardly had time to pick up the paper today.
Well done with the winner, never in danger, was it?

not really unless it fell or something.

The runner up is in form now and can take a class 50 dependant on the opposition or a class 35 easily.

I think that was its best performance to date.

Chaz

I was interested in your comment re Burrough Hill Lad in respect of the 1985 King George, where VDW had Wayward Lad as the class/form horse and BHL, with a higher ability rating, was deemed out of form.

As you know, Wayward Lad was one of 21 horses that VDW specifically named as c/fs in his articles of 26/1/85, 13/4/85 and 18/1/86, and these included, of course, Desert Hero.

I'd be interested to know whether you, and others who have studied all 21, are completely satisfied that the basis on which VDW determined "in formness" was applied consistently across the 21.

More specifically, are those who have looked at the races absolutely comfortable that the basis for regarding the lowly ability rated Desert Hero as the c/f (and by extension regarding virtually the whole field in that race as out of form) is consistent with that for regarding Wayward Lad as a form horse but Burrough Hill Lad as out of form? And in this regard I draw attention to one of Guest's comments:

"Burrough Hill Lad was not considered in form for Wayward Lads third KG victory due to two of his last three runs."

The question of form, or more importantly how VDW established form, is the stumbling block that has to be overcome to get anywhere with VDWs methods.

It may seem crazy to most to suggest that a race such as The Imperial Cup could have had only one form horse in the race, but that is just one reason why VDWs methods confound the vast majority. The fact that Desert Hero was actually the class/form horse was incidental to the means used to evaluate the race. VDW was just mentioning the fact to help further with the question of form because it was obvious, after the slightest of glances, that the race had many higher rated ability horses in it. But were they in real form?

Anyone looking at the 85 KG Chase could not fail to notice that Burrough Hill Lads only win of that season beforehand featured Wayward Lad close behind him. BHL then failed by some margin to give weight to a lesser but in form horse at 11/4. WL had run 4 times that season winning the Charlie Hall FTO before UR in a high class 3 runner race at Haydock. Then came the 3rd to BHL at Chepstow followed by a caught close home 2nd giving weight to Earls Brig (also in the 85 KG). VDW also thought it relevant to mention that had the race been run at Cheltenham he would not have wagered on WL. There are many points of interest in that statement, some of which will only become relevant when things are looked at from a particular angle.

The main point is that WL was consistently in form with BHL being out of form in 2 of his last 3 runs. WL was the class/form horse and with conditions in his favour. He was forecast at 7/1 but went off at 12/1 the outsider of 5.

In view of discussion made about the race run today where only one horse was a form horse and therefore has to be the class/form horse, some may like to look at Sir Tobys race last week. The only form horse in the race and therefore the class/form horse. By what criteria did the Alner horse go off favourite?

Also worth looking at One Knight on Saturday. Why did Le Roi Miguel go off so short against this one?

Guest

On his penultimate run before the 1985 King George, Burrough Hill Lad beat Wayward Lad (by 3l, giving 4lb). Had the next race for the two horses been the KG, it would be difficult to argue that BHL was other than in form.

But, of course, both horses had runs during the intervening period, and it is BHL's that interests me.

You rightly say that "BHL then failed by some margin to give weight to a lesser but in form horse at 11/4." But that sentence does not, perhaps, do full justice to the situation. BHL, carrying 12 stone 7, failed by 11l to give 29lb to a horse which, on its only previous run of the season, had run third in the Hennessy. Further, he failed by 3l to give 2 stone to another horse which, in the race where he, BHL, had beaten Wayward Lad, had finished a very close second (0.5l) receiving only 8lb.

On any basis of ordinary form analysis, BHL lost absolutely nothing in defeat on 14 December. But that, of course, is not the point, as we are all agreed that VDW went against the conventional in important aspects of his approach. What I suggest is important is whether there is consistency in the way VDW approached matters.

In his post to which I responded, Chaz referred to BHL in the same para. as other "old friends", Prominent King and Beacon Light, quite properly making the point that some find it difficult to accept that VDW saw both Beacon Light and BHL as not form horses for the 1978 Erin and 1985 KG respectively.

For me, the interesting parallel is Prominent King and BHL. Both lost their last race before the race which VDW used as an example. There were similarities in that both failed to concede huge amounts of weight to other in form horses with decent runs to their credits lto. Yet VDW chose to regard one as in form for his subsequent race, and the other not.

The question I'm interested in is whether - GIVEN the other "in form"/"out of form" judgements VDW made in the 20 races other than the 1985 KG where he explicitly named a c/f - those who have studied the races and believe they understand VDW's approach are wholly satisfied that the judgement re BHL was consistent with all those other judgements.

More specifically, we know that, on occasion, VDW "excused" a run which, at first sight, might be thought to indicate that the horse concerned was out of form. (Gaye Chance being a case in point, where VDW "excused" his last run, for an eminently sensible reason.) Would it have been wholly inconsistent with his approach as illustrated in those other 20 examples had VDW "excused" BHL's 3rd on 14 December (and, as a consequence, regarded BHL as the class/form horse), given the facts of the case as summarised above?

Fulham,

I have to agree with Guest that it is the question of form that causes the most problems for those trying to understand VDW’s methods.

If the races Prominent King and Burrough Hill Lad ran in prior to the races in question are viewed in isolation then there are indeed similarities as you’ve mentioned. However, VDW didn’t view the races this way and instead gauged the performance on what the horse had actually achieved PRIOR, on the track. Taking the most recent form as the best guide. This is why one will get nowhere by just taking in to account the last race when attempting to gauge form. As VDW suggested the last 3 races should be used for this stage.

In order to come to the conclusion that he did VDW must have seen Burrough Hill Lad’s last run behind Door Latch and West Tip as a downturn in form, which is against the grain of what most thought then, and indeed think now. The same goes for Beacon Light in his race also. With regards to Prominent King and Wayward Lad the opposite is therefore true.

With regards to forgiving a horse’s last run there has to be a reason and in most cases this will be because they were outclassed. Other reasons would include unsuitable going/distance. Non of these were the case for Burrough Hill Lad or Beacon Light. They both showed a downturn in form (the way VDW gauged it) and were therefore classed as out of form.

Chaz

Of course you are right that VDW regarded BHL's last run as showing him not as a form horse for the KG, otherwise he would have been the c/f.

But - on the evidence of both the particular (BHL's in form performance prior to his defeat in mid December in the context of his run before that), and the general (how VDW appraised form in the other 20 examples where he named a class/form horse) - was it a consistent decision? Or was it perhaps another possible case of VDW looking at a race only after the result was known, and "seeing" what he wanted to see - much as I regard the Beau Ranger/Carved Opal race Guest, you and I discussed at length some weeks ago?

Or could it be that VDW was looking at it from a simple and more logical standpoint than has been assumed to be the case so far???????????

Johnd

Not unless that simple and logical approach unambiguously pinpoints the other 20 class/form horses VDW explicitly named.

Fulham,

I see what you’re getting at but for me it’s a difficult one to answer for the following reason. Although I understand why a horse is the class/form horse, in ALL the examples that I’ve looked at closely, I have never found it necessary to go to the lengths that VDW seemingly went to in his winner-finding quest, and I certainly wouldn’t have backed all the examples that VDW gave as good things. But I’m sure that this is down to lack of dedication/full understanding as opposed to greater temperament!

I made the effort a long time ago to go through the past examples (with others) in the quest of making racing pay. I learnt the ropes and then applied it in a manner that I felt happy with. Even when you have an understanding of the essence behind how VDW judged form you still have to be able to make the correct decision based on the facts. For some it is easier than others. Some are able to balance class and form better than others.

As I’ve said, although I wouldn’t back many of the horses that VDW gave as good things the study has taught me one very valuable lesson and that is how too steer clear of backing horses such as Burrough Hill Lad, and more recently Il’Athou today.

Which brings me on to the question of the day – Who was the class/form horse in the 2.35 at Huntingdon?

nobody has mentioned it,but,i think that was a great comment on temprement,unless you are prepared to have a very large bet on a horse,leave it alone.

Chaz

Thanks. That is a very realistic answer, and you are probably wise in working as you do which, indeed, is how I currently work.

However, I constantly find myself wondering whether VDW's selections, especially those he explicitly named as class/form horses, were the product of him working in that way (albeit with much greater insight than I have), or whether something truly objective (as regards the determination of in-formness) is there to be discerned.

If VDW improvised on a line of thinking, then it would be natural to find some inconsistencies, some situations where, had we not been told the answer, different opinions are both possible and legitimate. If there are objective criteria at work, then we may still find inconsistencies, but are in a position to identify them and, in a sense, understand aspects of VDW better than he did himself.

Needless to say, this is not a matter of research for research's sake, but research with the practical objective of improved performance.

The 2.35 does indeed illustrate some of the difficulty. Can we say, with certainty founded in the discovery of VDW's objective criteria, what the c/f was, or are we speculating on the basis of a sense of how he did things? There is no question that Il'athou had the highest ability rating, but are we to regard him as in form? We could "excuse" his last two runs:

2/11 - fell when in potentially winning position - like Beat the Retreat;

12/3 - very much over-faced, like Gaye Chance.

But should we "excuse" either and, particularly, both? It is not the answer that interests me so much as the basis from which VDW would have derived his.

Whether or not one made Il'anthou the c/f, it was still a risky investment at a price which, to my mind, went nowhere near covering the degree of risk.

I couldnt split hit royal and red blazer enough for a bet but I had red blazer most likely.

that is not very clear.

when I saw the class horse had negatives and there were a couple of form horses in the race. I couldnt be bothered to try to split them accurately.

Thanks for the response Barney,appreciated.

with regard to excusing either or both, in my opinion there is only one reason why and its not based in logic or facts. IT would have to be experience of many, many years of "form watching".

He said himself "that when one gains an understanding some thing comes to the fore, intuition ...call it what you will".

We will never be able to read his mind, as its not a system with rules but a method, but our own
know how or intuition is what I think he tried to develop.