BREAM
You make a very good point, and I was, likewise, nodding in agreement, until I applied the principles that you applied to Fondmort, to Gunther Mcbride. Virtually the same situation, but G.B. runs the race of its life. This will not do as a definitive answer.
VDW himself said, "No genius in finding winners, just a CONSISTENT and methodical approach", which, in my understanding, means applying the same criteria to each horse, in each race.
The question of 'in form', 'out of form' still remains an enigma to all of us.

Bream,

You use the word subjective about Fondmort's 2 mile form. I have looked it up in the dictionary (just to make sure we are using it in the same context) it says existing in ones mind and not produced by things outside it. If you look at the form it shows 3 wins from 5 runs. the first win is.........

Kempton a 50 class race
Sandown a 180 race
Kempton a 110 race

If you notice the best win is on the stiffer track. Why then would you expect the horse to do well in a 460 race on the weaker track? You then use this expression 'expected' expected by whom? We have no way of knowing but I don't think VDW would of expected, I know I didn't.

Be Lucky

Expected By the betting Public
100/30 fav??

Boozer,

Sorry but I don't have a lot of faith in that particular crowd of people. I would rather take notice of a few 'faces' than the crowd. There are many, and varied reasons why a horse is heavily backed, and logic often comes a poor second.

Be Lucky

BREAM/MTOTO
Looking back at Fondmort's form, he had run 4 times previously at Kempton, his highest value win was an 11k race, and his highest Post Mark was 156.
He had also won at Sandown (gd/sft), an 18k race, earning a PM of 160, and at Chelt, (2m5f), in a 58k race, earning a PM of 171.
Add to this the trainer's comment, "2m around Kempton was always going to be on the sharp side for him", it then becomes a fairly objective judgement that he is a better horse given a stiffer test, and therefore to have him 'Out of form' in a 46k race at Kempton can only have been a subjective judgement.
Conditions on the day do have an important part to play, and to ignore them, in any appraisal, is, in my view, totally illogical.
Why did VDW draw our attention to ' The class they ran in, the course they ran on, the pace and going of their respective races, etc. if this is not the case?

The crowd dont seem to do too badly considering that 50%+ winners come from the first 2 in the actual betting

Fulham,

if its not to late to catch you.

I submit that chicuello was a form horse in much the same way as Mr kildare.

Therefor how can LL be the class/form horse when C has a higher ability rating?

regarding your return "before cheltenham" what are you returning with? lots of winning bets?

JohnD/Mtoto,

Thanks for your thoughts.The point about Gunther Mcbride is a fair one. I had actually taken the course he ran on lto into account.Having put in a good run when up a lot at Newbury he was then sent to Sandown with a heavy weight then back to a good course for him with less weight.In my (very much a novice opinion) he was a contender as where Fondmort and Chicuelo but all had negatives for me about them.

I certainly do consider the courses the horse has run on but I must admit I would not have thought of relating the horses ratings to the courses to assess suitability.I’ll try to keep your thoughts in mind in future when assessing races and results.Relating course distance and class together is something I’ve done but not in this way.

All the best.

ALL (Who are interested)
Perhaps it would help our understanding of the inform/out of form puzzle, if we were to select a race on Saturday, and post our own views on say, the first 6 in the betting, from this particular angle.
Not a contest to see who is the smartest, but a hopefully constructive and informative attempt to allow us all to make progress.
GUEST
Your input on this would be a great help, if you are prepared to join in.

fulham,

in the past, when I and others have done that, you have stated that its wrong and misleading to others.

Barney

I'm away dealing with family business which I now know will be completed on 6 March at Leatherhead Crematorium, so I have little scope to look at current races and no access to my VDW papers and records. However, I can of course comment on more general matters not needing these resources.

It is interesting that Johnd is becoming interested in the way VDW assessed in-formness, and he has suggested a means of approach. Personally, I don't think it is the best means, for a reason I will set out. But my initial concern is to respond to your point and to do so I find it necessary to be rather long-winded, because the issue is complex.

It has often been remarked that VDW said that once we understood his approach, we would find the same horses as he did. And I think he was substantially correct, although it seems to me there will always be a degree of subjectivity (and therefore difference of view) as regards the ultimate bet/no bet decision. Because, at that point - as with La Landiere on Saturday - the question one is answering for oneself is do I think this class/form horse is strong enough to back at the odds I can get?

VDW's statement was based on the assumption that, to find the same bets as himself, people would understand his approach to class and form, and be able to weed out the palpably weak c/fs.

He explained his means of assessing class explicitly, but left much of the rest to us. And it is first and foremost sorting out the form issue that causes difficulties, and then some of the "conditions" issues like weight.

As regards assessing in-formness, we have one, AND ONLY ONE, sure source of reference: those examples where VDW explicitly stated that particular horses were form horses or not. ANY other statement about in-formness, whoever makes it, carries less authority.

It doesn't of course follow that all such statements by people other than VDW have equal authority, but as none of us is VDW it is singularly difficult to know how much authority to ascribe to anyone else!

Quite early last year, it became clear to me that Guest knew far more about VDW than any other regular poster on the thread. By studying his posts, and his examples, carefully, I was able to build on, AND SUBSTANTIALLY CORRECT, my own previous understanding of VDW's work and, I believe, make progress.

The result is that I now have an understanding of "in-formness" which provides a coherent and consistent explanation for all VDW's explicit "form" examples; enables me to see that all his other selections (except the Handicap Hurdles ones and some of the Best Bet/Next Best ones, which I've yet to understand) were "form" horses; and to agree with the form horses Guest has put up (often pre the off) over the last year.

This does not, of course, mean that my hypothesis about how VDW assessed "in-formness" is correct - but at least it is consistent with the evidence. And at times I'm far from certain how to apply my understanding in practice: I'm still not sure whether, technically, Copeland was a form horse in the race won by Spirit Leader. Guest and others with a more confident grasp than me may be sure, but I'm not.

However, I am (at present) sufficiently confident to know that when you and others state that X is the class/form horse in the Y race, you are often enough wrong. That in itself is not important, but it is for people who are trying to get to grips with these matters and who have no basis for knowing what degree of authority to attach to different statements.

If I was in the position of wanting to work out how VDW assessed "in-formness", I would do what I have actually done - focused my attention exclusively, in the first instance, on the examples given by the only real authority we have, VDW himself. That poses difficulties for those without the necessary Form Books etc, but to an extent the remedy is in their own hands, and you and others like Determined and Hedgehog have equipped yourselves for the task.

If someone is wanting to take a next best approach, then far and away the next most authoritative source available is Guest's posts: and every board member, through the Racing Post website, can ponder the races over the last year for which Guest has named form and non form horses (confining themselves to those races where the posts were made before the off, if preferred).

Through either of those routes, anyone with the necessary persistence and capability has the prospect of making progress. But (with due respect) every other poster to this thread - myself most certainly included - should, in my opinion, be regarded as an inferior authority and thus the horses they have named as form horses be treated as a less useful basis for research.

From the above you will understand why, though I understand Johnd's proposal, I do not see it as the optimal way of making progress in understanding how VDW assessed "in-formness".

Mtoto,

You asked me a question some time ago regarding Smart Tar which I said I’d get back to you on; better late than never – my apologies.

‘Smart Tar has a lot of ability and has run in better class than most in this race, but went under to Pegwell Bay last time out and there is nothing to suggest a reversal.’

‘Had the ground been heavy, I would not have wagered on him’ (Pegwell Bay)

The conditions that a horse fails on or indeed prevails on have to be taken in to account. Smart Tar failed last time out on ground that was not to his liking so this was not on its own an out of form performance. The reason Smart Tar was not a form horse in the eyes of VDW was when the conditions of his next race were taken in to account. Ie. Meeting the same horse over the same distance over similar going, and that is why VDW made the comment ‘there is nothing to suggest a reversal’. Had the going been heavy, Smart Tar still wouldn’t have been classed as in form. Instead there would have been conflict and the race would have been left.

Hello Fulham,

I'm sorry to hear of your loss. My thoughts are with you.

All the best
hedgehog

Fulham,

thank you for all that I agree that there have been some good posts over the last 12 months.

Sorry to here about your sad loss.

Hi all,
I don't know if anyone has read the latest Raceform Update but I see that yet again somebody has fallen for the trap of naming horses before the days racing and only succeded in giving the VDW knockers yet more to laugh about.
Graham Weldon seems to positively revel in knocking VDW as his closing comment implies after he has given the results of the tipster as all losing. The comment 'foolproof this VDW isn't it?'.
If we, who are allegedly studying the great man can't get it right whats the point of making a public idiot of yourself?
It really narks me.
See you soon, Mike.

Barney/Hedgehog

Thanks. It is losses, actually. News of three relatives dead in a fortnight, in three different countries. None close enough to cause me any real pain, but two have generated plenty of work for me to do on behalf of others for whom that isn't true.


Mike

Graham Wheldon is known to be sceptical about VDW, and of course he is trying to whip up a bit of controversy to liven up what has, in my view, for some while been a dull "letters" page.

Impossible to be sure, of course, but I've a suspicion that that Dr Bacon won't let the nonsense of Bob from Edinburgh go without comment. (Incidentally, I noticed a letter from a Dr Bacon in yesterday's Times. No mention of VDW, but I suppose it would have been strange if there had been, given the subject was the current state of the Conservative Party. But who knows, maybe VDW was Denis Thatcher!)

Well done for stepping into the breech Fulham. I`ve no doubt your efforts will be appreciated. In the fullness of time you will be rewarded............the later the better!

Well done for stepping into the breech Fulham. I`ve no doubt your efforts will be appreciated. In the fullness of time you will be rewarded............the later the better!

.

Sorry my machines going kaput