Epiglotis - Why do you feel the ability/class ratings are superfluous? It really is quite a simple premise. We are primarily looking for the highest class horse that is ALSO a form horse.

I think you are confusing the issue of form and class. If the means used to establish form are inaccurate then there is no consistent way to isolate the class/form horse.

You can perform the task anyway you like either by establishing the form horses and then taking the highest class from these or by going through the class horses in order to establish if they are also form horses. It's getting the evaluation of form right that throws a spanner in the works for most. Form is no good on it's own, it needs relating to other factors including class.

Of the 7 class/form horses to run so far from the exercise posted today (I left in the abandoned meeting for info purposes) 4 have won. In the races where the 3 class/forms lost it may interest others to know what the 2nd on class/form actually were. At Wetherby in the 1.35 it was Sir Storm (won) and at Cheltenham they were 2.15 Stormez (won) and 2.50 Cyfor Malta (won). At Wolves tonight the 2nd on class/form to
Adobe is Quiet Traveller.

As I said earlier, the only one to wager on was Tarxien and as Fulham has pointed out, he was returned well over the true odds. I also mentioned that Tarxien won at the meeting last year as a novice hurdler when again returned at well over the odds. Others who have followed the 2 shortest forecast favs method will have noticed that both qualifiers won today in Tarxien and Telemoss.

Fulham - I often leave things to sp and only really use Betfair for laying horses I think are false favs. So many spend all morning scrabbling round for prices and the steamers so often get beaten as you have no doubt noted yourself. Fine if they have the class/form and everything else, but horse such as Chicuelo that have several doubts are ones to leave to the hype merchants. We all know that no one knows everything about the game, even that little genius Martin Pipe.

Well done today,and the price was unexpected.

Tarxien was the class horse,from Hurdles career, no problem there.What I find difficult is,how to know that he was going to carry this through to his chasing debut at Cheltenham.OK he was the best horse in the field,but we had no chasing form to go on, I know vdw gave similar examples of this type,but unless he had run well previously over fences,I would find it hard to wager on these types.I know you were very confident about his chances,and wonder how to assess this.

Thank you for the reply. To my mind "having form" means having demonstrated a certain degree of ability against opposition of a recognisable strength (i.e. class), this implies that form demonstrates class. The way I see it you seem to be splitting form into two components, one of which you call ability the other form. Could you please explain further, preferably with the use of neutral, non-horse racing related terms.

Guest,

I found your response to Epiglotis very interesting. In your list of '2nd on class/form' you mentioned Cyfor Malta. Can I assume from that you considered Cyfor Malta a 'form' horse today?

Cheers

By "today" do you mean today as a temporal entity or does it refer to the opposition in the race?

Guest

I may be making a mistake here, but by my calculation Cyfor Malta had a higher ability rating than Chicuelo (231 to 210). If you saw him as a form horse, and I can see the reasoning as to why you might, would he not have been the c/f?

Hi Epiglotis,

Fulham has asked the question I was getting at a little more explicitly. If Cyfor Malta was a 'form' horse in today's race then why would he not be the class/form horse with the higher ability rating. The only way I can make Chicuelo the class/form horse is if Cyfor Malta is not a 'form' horse.

Cheers

This is what I'm getting at, the word 'form' is being used to express two entirely different concepts let alone the notion of "form as VDW interpreted it". I think that we the people discussing these questions should avail ourselves of the facility to chose unambiguous terms.

The term 'form' has to be relative to the current race and opposition (IMO). A horse who had been running and winning £4,000 chases wouldn't be considered a 'form' horse in a £30,000 chase against others who had been running and winning £25,000 chases in my book.

Of course there will be relatively 'unexposed' horses in certain races that we need to take a view on but an exposed horse suddenly going a way up in class against others that are in form from much higher class, wouldn't be considered a form horse relative to the class and opposition today.

Just my opinion of course

Cheers

if one ignores his last run he is the c/f.

the next problem is then the distance and class in that area.

If one takes the view that he has won 3 of his last four runs over 2m 4f and that the subsequent runs above this distance, when only winning once a class 180 then he has been performing incredibly well at the wrong trip and is very consistent, at 2m4 actually winning a class 470 far and above anything else in the race

looks like a good thing now.

Thanks for the further elucidation. Where it leaves me is wondering how form as previous achievement can be judged to deteriorate? The use of the term "in form" suggests the cresting of a wave. Again I will suggest that two usages of "form" are being employed without distinction and to the confoundment of the students on this thread.

Barney

Not if we take the definition of the class/form horse as being that in the first para. of Guest's last response to Epiglotis.

Especially in that case its specifically the c/f,in fact doubly so. I am sure guest will confirm his oversight.

Presumably you devoted some study to this race, didn't you make it the WIAR?

I have only looked at the race this evening, as I have been playing golf all day( 42pts and I won 2 quid as well, what a day!)no matter what Mr Pipe thinks he cannot go against real class and form.

Looking back, he was also a far better horse in france as well.

Thanks for the reply. Did I ever tell you I used to work with Mike Inglis?

I think I can see the distinction you are making, I hope

The term 'form' to my way of thinking could be better termed 'current form'. Thus 'form' shown 5 or 6 runs ago would no longer classed as 'current form' in the context of a 'form horse' today. Although it would of course be considered as material to the overall picture of class and race suitability.

Hope that doesn't read like double dutch but it probably does

Cheers

Thanks. This is why I initially questioned the use of the term with regard to Tarxien who had been off the track for 225 days. How can we say that Tarxien was a form horse? And if we have the option to talk about residual form, two points, first we should have easily distiguishable terms such that we understand which "form" is under discussion and second, we need a parameter by which to assess decay of residual form.

Barney

I'm sorry, but your reply to me has me foxed, no doubt to do with me not being able to handle your brevity.

Are you saying the c/f is not the form horse with the highest ability rating?

Well done with 42 points. I've never done better than 40, and that only once. (Can't putt, alas.)

No you didnt, did you ever play golf with him?