Fulham,

Much has been said about consistency, and consistent form not being the same thing. The question is were do you think consistency fits into the scheme of things? VDW went into great detail, putting win % against form figure sequences. Suggesting that we look outside the forecast for consistent horse, and showing how dangerous they can be, even when not the selection. Why do you think he did this if it isn't important?

A little while ago Barney asked about horses carrying more weight. I found 15+ with no trouble. I have been looking through the examples, (not including the Roushayd examples) and can find very few if any, that are not consistent e.g. placed in all last three races, winning 2 out of 3, or if those critera don't fit, in the lowest 3 on c/rating. Can you point me to a few?

Thanks

NESSIE
Well done today with 2 from 2 at fair prices to boot.I am glad to see everything has fallen into place for you.Do you find doing it this way to be quicker?

Mtoto

Only conjecture, of course, but I think VDW emphasised considerations such as first five/six in the betting forecast and three lowest consistency rates to ensure that, initially, his readers focused on "safe" pools. Once he introduced more complex issues - especially in-formness - he assumed that those who understood him would know the circumstances where the early considerations could be dispensed with.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the large majority of VDW's "ordinary" selections (by which I mean all except the six Handicap Hurdle and six Best Bet/Next Best selections) were consistent in at least one of the three ways you suggest (assuming that by "three lowest on c/rating" you mean in the field, not just the first five/six in the forecast).

Subject to re-checking, exceptions among non handicaps include Prominent King, Son of Love and Park Express. Unsurprisingly, there are more in the handicaps, including Philodantes, Ascenia, Parkhouse, Ekbalco, Saher, Direct Line, Castle Warden, Desert Orchid (13/12/86), Pipsted, First Division and Roushayd.

(Some of those I've named would not be exceptions if "three lowest on c/rating" was confined to the first five/six in the forecast, eg Prominent King, but others would, eg Son of Love.)

On the issue of weight, I'd be interested to know which of the 15+ were in handicaps.

Fulham,

Carrying more weight in handicaps, not counting the very small increases of less than a couple of lbs. Canny Danny at Ascot, Kevinscroft, Proven, Soaf, Sunset Christo, Beau Ranger, Stray Shot, and Baptism.

Re the consistent horses, once again I have failed to explain myself. The placed in all of the last three races, or winning 2 out of three are from the whole field. The other criteria (lowest 3 on c/rating) is from the first 5/6 in the forecast.

Of the other horses you have named as examples...

Pearlstone, I think there is a specific reason he was eliminated.
Homeson, couldn't the fact that he hadn't run for a year be enough to eliminate him?
Move Off, may have been c/form horse but passed over
Prominent King, form 422
Son Of Love, form 224
Park Express ?? I haven't this horses form figures or position in forecast
Ascenia, ?? as above
Saher, ?? as above
Direct Line ?? as above
Philodantes in lowest 3 c/rating
Ekbalco in lowest 3 c/rating
Parkhouse placed in last 3 races.

I have been side tracked and Fulham won't have time to answer this post. Can anyone fill in the missing form figures and/or forecast positions?

Also for the people that think the selections are based on c/form, can anyone make Connaught Bridge the c/form horse for his race on the 4/8/79?

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

Sorry, I didn't realise that you counted 4th as a placing.

Park Express - last three placings (earliest first): 10th, 4th, 2nd (disq.). Highest consistency rating within first five of Life's forecast (non-handicap). 13/8 Mill on the Floss (6), 4/1 Santiki (7), 9/2 Fleeting Affair (3), 8/1 Park Express (16 - 18 if the 2nd place from which he was disqualified and placed 4th counts 4), 10/1 Sue Grundy (15).

Ascenia - 5, 6, 1. Forecast (handicap): 5/2 Pride of Tennessee (9), 5/1 Tay Bridge (10), 6/1 Ascenia (12), 7/1 Rathdaniel (10), 8/1 Calverstown (21), 10/1 Roman Tiffin (11) and Jackstones (24).

Saher - 4, 3. 2, which now meets your criteria.

Direct Line - 4, 2, 3, ditto.

Philodantes - 8, 1, 6. He is in the three lowest from the (only) five in the forecast for this handicap if Palemon, 1, 6, 6, is counted as 17 on the ground that one of his 6ths was last. Personally I would not so count it as, unlike Decent Fellow's distant 3rd, he was only 5l adrift of the 4th, and within 15l of the winner in a 1.5m race where the course record was smashed. You'll recall that VDW advised "Horses shown as last should be given as assessment of 10 for this performance, but do let commonsense prevail. If it is last of six beaten five lengths, there is a world of difference to one last of 20 beaten out of sight." But I accept there is room for different opinions.

Ekbalco - agreed that this has one of the three lowest c/figures if criterion confined to first six in the forecast.

Parkhouse - 3, 1, 4 - now meets your criterion.

On your criteria as clarified, from the ones you've queried there would seem to be two clear exceptions (Ascenia and Park Express), plus Philodantes, where there is room for argument that he is not an exception. Some you didn't query and, for example, Desert Orchid (13/12/86) is another clear exception: consistency total 10 (5, 1, 4), and behind Whiskey Eyes (4), Little Bay (7) and Far Bridge (8) from the first six (and equals) in the Life forecast.

re Connaught Bridge, there is no difficulty in seeing her as a form horse, though personally I can't see her as the c/f (and of course VDW didn't say she was). The forecast and actual favourite, Tintagel, had a far higher ability rating and on its last two runs had won successive Group 3s so it is hard to see her as other than a form horse and thus the c/f.

With CB and Swiss Maid we have, to my mind, evidence that VDW sometimes selected another form horse rather than the c/f. I find it easier to see why in the case of Swiss Maid (c/f in my view Cistus) than with CB.

On the weight issue, we may be at cross purposes (my fault) because I made a wrong assumption about the question to which your comment was a response. I now presume the question was "are there examples where a VDW selection had carried more weight than on its previous run?" If I'm now correct about the question, your examples are indeed instances. However, whether a horse carries more weight than lto is not, in my view, an issue in sorting out in-formness and identifying the c/f, and clearly carrying more weight is no bar to being a VDW selection.

On the weight issue which is relevant to in-formness and identifying the c/f, all the selections you name qualify except Soaf, which is an interesting selection from a number of points of view. Although there are clear avenues for speculation, at present I am far from certain that I understand how VDW addressed the weight issue in Soaf's case.

[This message was edited by Fulham on May 27, 2003 at 07:11 AM.]

Fulham,

Re Connaught Bridge/Tintagel.

A little confusing here.

You last reply suggests that Tintagel had won succesive group 3 races prior to this race, and indeed the copy of the Sporting Life suggests this.

However,according to the official form book Tintagel was making his seasonal debut in this group 2 contest. His previous form reads:

11/11/78
8th of 11 in class 133 G3 at Saint-Cloud.

23/10/78
3rd of 19 in class 111 G3 at Saint-Cloud.

06/08/78
4th of 15 in class 133 G3 at Deauville

On the face of that form then I would have little difficulty in eliminating a horse from this group 2 that had failed in 3 succesive group 3 attempts, and was a maiden to boot!

It is quite obvious that the official form book (Raceform) did not register his two previous French victories and did not record the results of these races. All of this of course begs the question of what records/publications VDW based his assessment, a question to which we will never know the answer.

Crock,

I had tintagel as an unraced 4yr old going into the race against connaught bridge, not mentioned in the index of either the 78 (3yo)racing calendar or the 77 racing calendar (2yo).

Now that I look at the dates you mention I have found some of the runs where placed etc, Do you have the dates of the runs where Fulham says she was a winner.

As you can imagine this information throws a big spanner in my evaluation of that race.

Barney,

According to the Sporting Life of the day, Tintagel had run twice previously during the 1979 season.

16/06/79
Saint-Cloud 10f G3 Class 140
1st Tintagel
2nd Cameo Shore (2l)
3rd Model Girl (hd)
10 ran

23/04/79
Saint-Cloud 10f G3 Class 140
1st Tintagel
2nd ????????
3rd ????????
(unfortunately my copy of the SL is faded and I can't make out the placed horses, although Tempus Fugit, also in this race, finished 5th)

Hope this helps.

cheers crock

I think the c/f horses are quite evident in there respective races today,I know that the facts should be taken from the form book,but i,m a little concerned that frankie has deserted PARASOL.If he was on board i would put the mortgage on this horse,It may well win,Certainly has the form but i'll let it go of the others in the race i like the look of INDIAN CREEK...SIGHTS ON GOLD Has some decent irish form before being swallowed up by Godolphin and then been racing in Dubai,So a bit of an unknown quantity but L dettori probabably knows something we don't

In the other races today,Horses for evaluation are

3.15 red chico guapo,night protector and paradise eve.

3.30 leic comfy,ceepio and l'oiseau d'argent

7.15 san prince of denmark,russian valour

In no particular order but these horses would or are the ones for evaluation.

I'm surprised you dont include Bouncing Bowdler in the 3:30 L(?).

In the 3.15 red Paradise eve is a n/r,And i missed roman mistress this horse must be evaluated due to the revised weights with Chico Guapo.

Epi
I'm not quite sure wether your taking the mick,So i'll explain,Vdw said that only 2,3 or possibly 4 horses are in with a chance in any particular race.This is why i put the amounts up i do also these horses contain the traits that iv'e been trying to explain to mtoto over the past months.Bouncing Bowdler Most certainly doesn't come into it from my point of view or the way i percieve vdw.

Okay. Bouncing Bowdler could easily win this in my opinion, however I lost money on it once last year in a race I thought it should have won so I dont trust it, nevertheless that means that I cant back it but neither can I back against it so I disregard that race. Also, too much depends on the degree of improvement that L'Oiseau D'Argent will have undergone while off the track, that's something unknown and not reliably predictable, accordingly betting on any horse in this race can not be classed as excluding the element of 'gamble'.

Epi
When these horses are evaluated,And everything taken into consideration and balanced,It can often be seen which one will win.Tonight for instance we have Parasol,This horse looks all over the winner in the race but the jockey change puts me off.On balance the horse should win Dettori has ridden it to victory on the last 3 occasions it may well win but i won't be backing it.

Basically all i'm doing epi is giving my interpretation of form horses,But not all of them will be form horses in the context of the race,That is for individuals to make there own mind up.

Okay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by investor:

Basically all i'm doing epi is giving my interpretation of form horses,But not all of them will be form horses in the context of the race,That is for individuals to make there own mind up.

---

Investor,

What are you actually trying to do? You say you are putting up ‘form’ horses, and then in the next breath say that not all of them will be ‘form’ horses, in context of the race?

Why don’t you just put up the class form horses for each race?

Investor,

Using another method Beuvrai demands respect and for me at least, is a bet in this race.

and that was after thinking long and hard about sierra vista

[This message was edited by Barney on May 27, 2003 at 02:59 PM.]

Chaz
If you remember i have been banging on about horses having patterns etc.The horses i put up contain these patterns,Wether or not a bet is there to be had will be seen when they are evaluated,im basically trying to give Mtoto some idea of how i interpret form,As you know a horse can be in form but not neccesarily in the race being run today,If you understand what i mean.

Max The best horse to day

 LEICESTER, 27 May 2003, 3:30, Apex Scaffolding (Leicester) Ltd Conditions Stakes (Class C) (3yo+),Winner £8,769.60,(7f9y)7f GOOD, 6 Runners 

 Comfy,.......................................................Form 3-1-5  (9**)  sp lto 5/1  Av = 47k** , Ab = 19k**   Score=7+3
 100%  105A 7f 5/3 8rs  GS Nmk  116K    (584 days)   (** DIST  Unpl)    ***DOWN in class from 116K to 8.8k  IMPROVING ***
 16%  107A 6f 1/2 9rs  Gd Yor  19K    (644 days)(g)      (Chk Dist  + WIN **)
 4%  87D 7f 3/1 6rs**  GF Asc  6K    (669 days)   (** DIST  placed ?)
   .................................. (100%)
 L'Oiseau D'Argent,.......................................................Form 1-3-3  (7**)  sp lto 5/1  Av = 15.7k** , Ab = 6k  Score=5+2
 20%  106A 6f 3/5 10rs  GF Yor  23K    (278 days)     (Chk Dist placed ?)    ***DOWN in class from 23K to 8.8k  IMPROVING ***
 13%  105A 8f 3/2 6rs**  GF Goo  16K    (297 days)      (Chk Dist placed ?)
 7%  110C 8f 1/hd 4rs  GF Don  8K    (313 days)      (Chk Dist  + WIN **)
   .................................. (32%)  

On that basis would you back Parasol tonight