Boozer

Oh, sorry. With you knowing as much/more about VDW than me, naturally I assumed you'd have them.

Fulham,

Apart from the fact that you took the view that I was incorrect in using Bobayaro, however, Guest stated that it had some bearing on Wild Spices form?

Am I also incorrect about the necessity of taking in to account Dunster Castle (having just beaten Zaffamore), Elenas River, and even Uncle Mick, when weighing up the form of Wild Spice, in comparison to the others and what they’d been up against prior to the race at Nab?

Dont be bitchy
I threw all my old formbooks out years ago
Good excuse then for not posting them

[This message was edited by boozer on June 10, 2003 at 11:47 PM.]

Thats what gets you isnt it
Some prat like me can work it out in a few days
People like you take years

Fulham
I often get myself into trouble because I am too blunt and aggressive.
On the other hand your'e so vain you probably think this thread is about you
Swish

It is interesting to note how some members on here perceive others. A poster can come across in a completely different manner from one person to the next.

This is just one reason why common ground will not stretch too far, especially given the subject matter of racing. That crazy game of opinions.

VDW once said he didn't deal in opinions where form study was concerned only facts. A point that seems to escape many.

Mtoto - I'm surprised at your comments on studying the class/forms for Boxing Day. Also, why do you think only 2 years formbooks are enough to appraise all the horses concerned in the many races involved?

Pipedreamer - Crow Wood was the class/form horse, though I made it a borderline bet. Given the race conditions I perhaps missed an opportunity though.

Guest
I often get myself into trouble because I am too blunt and aggressive.
On the other hand your'e so vain you probably think this thread is about you
Swish

Guest,

I don't quite know how you can talk about opinions being off no value. VDW expressed an opinion about weight, that is his opinion not a fact. He doesn't appear to use the weight formula when it could be used to reverse form from previous races.

What don't you like about my remarks about the c/form aspect? I believe it is only as a cross check not the main filter. A cross check that is applied to the main contenders only. if there is more than one that passes the initial filters. I don't believe the he went to all the trouble to show consistent horses win races for nothing. The consistency rating is here to help judge the not so consistent. Show me were he took a none consistent horse that isn't in the lowest three, over a consistent one. If the c/form is worked as explained, it must have happened in one of the examples. You get round it by saying VDW didn't select it so the form must have been weak, or he ignored it for some other reason.

It's like the way the ability rating has been bought into the Roushayd horses. The class is judged by the LAST race. How can Ad Hoc be a Roushayd selection if he wasn't the c/form horse, or don't you agree he was a Roushayd?

The form book statement was a mistake I agree. I have the Sporting Life copies for those races, I didn't remember the ability rating as I have them. I just thought about the horses that hadn't had 3 runs in the season

I have read this 3 times, I'm sorry if it comes across as a bit sharp that is not my intention.

Be Lucky

Boozer

You wrote "...some prat like me". You said it!


Gilly

I'm glad to see that I got it right second time.


Pipedreamer/Mtoto

Pipedreamer, your question seems a straightforward one but isn't, and from the perspective of someone who takes my position on c/f and weight rather than Mtoto's, it isn't just to calculate the ability ratings that one needs to go back earlier than Mtoto suggested. Indeed, re-reading my post of last night, it was inadvertently misleading.

Even if one has the ability ratings, when tackling a NH race where horses often have careers extending back five, six or even more years, the way I work one MAY need to go back all five, six etc, or one may find one of two years is sufficient. It simply isn't predictable.

To take the Stray Shot race as an example, the oldest horse in the race was Scots Nogger, an 9yo in 1984. Such a horse could easily have begun his NH career as a 4yo, or even a 3yo, so to calculate the ability ratings solely from the Form Books one would need to go back to 1978/9 to be sure.

In practice, Scots Nogger didn't run until 1979/80, and didn't win until 1981/2, but how can one know that without the Form Books back to his earliest possible NH year? The only, partial, way I know - partial because it this only covers winning performances - is to use the form section in the relevant Life, which lists winning performances by year, and in the Stray Shot race included no horses with wins prior to 1981/2. Can one rely on the Life? In 99.9% of cases. But it has been known to be wrong, ie with another of the Boxing Day six, Bonny Gold, where the horse's wins are listed as one in 1981/2, and one in 1982/3, with total win prize money of £3,070, ie an ability rating of 15. The Form Books show Bonny Gold had won four races, though, one in 1981/2, two in 1982/3 and one in 1984/5, with a total win prize money as printed in the Life, and thus an ability rating of 8 (rounded) not 15.

If one has the ability ratings, does one still need to go back through a horse's whole career, or is just the recent form? Mtoto has suggested that details of the last three races, as per, for example VDW's Pegwell Bay evaluation, may be sufficient. It all depends on how one believes VDW assessed in-formness and when one believes he factored in weight. My answers to those two issues require, in principle, the ability to go back through the entire careers of all the runners, though in practice I can't ever remember having to do so. But it has certainly been necessary to go back through all the runs of one or more horses in a race. One simply can't tell in advance.

With the six Boxing Day 1984 examples, GIVEN that the ability ratings are known, my notes show that the earliest Form Book necessary is 1980/1.

Anyway, I'm "away" now until about 21 July as far as any researched contributions are concerned, but will be able to keep abreast of postings and no doubt cross swords with some in the usual way. But I will have access to email if Pipedreamer wants the ability ratings.

Dr Fulham,

Rather than clogg this thread, I`ve replied (re Ravenswood) on the Off Topic.

111
.

Hello all

3.15 bev THE JUDGE/FACTOR FIFTEEN and LAKOTA BRAVE.

4.05 m/R EI EI

4.50 here..I have 4 horses in a 6 horse race of the 4 GOVERNOR DANIEL/FLASH GORDON come out on top.

8.05 newb PEACE FLAG/I WISH

8.20 ham..Spoilt for choice.

have fun everybody.

This thread's readership goes beyond Pipedreamer and Boozer, for all the students' general reference it would be convenient if someone with access to the ability ratings were to post them both here and on Tuppenycat's thread.

Fulham,

Maybe= possibly, definitely not certainly.

Maybe therefore, it’s you that doesn’t understand.

You’ve still not answered my questions.

a serious queston to the panel.

when using the abilty rating should you use the wins that aply to the race being run.

i agree with investor re govenor daniel and fkash gordon.

govnr has won 4 times over hurdles ab=2.25k and 2 tiems over fences ab=3.5k

flash has won 3 times over fence only. ab=4.7k

Binnybay has won over hurdles only a=2k

poundsly mill has won 2 on fences ab=3.5k

thunderpoint has won on hurdles ab=2k

this may be another link hinted at. thanks to mtoto for telling me.

apart from improving distances lost and on by most of investors considered horses were placed 1 or 2 lto. again easy to spot when doing the consitency rsating. also look at lto sp s.

another link is that when looking at the horses history it is not unusal for it to win a similar one that it ran previously.

ex. same no.runers same prize was good sp and weight pm ts etc. in other words todays race is a rerun of a previous one. again this is obvious now ive seen it. govnor dan is running a similar race to one 19 april. flash is the prob so dutch them.

does this make sense. lots of pieces but when putogether it fits and is easy to look for when you no what to look for and in what types of races.

  HEREFORD, 11 Jun 2003, 4:50, Welsh Guards Association Handicap Chase (Class E) (5yo+,0-110),Winner £4,277.00,2m3f GD-FM, 6 Runners Handicap

 Flash Gordon,,.......................................................Form Pl*-8*-1*  (19)  sp lto 16/1 ln 90* Av = 4.7k** , Ab = 4.7k**   Score=5+0
 100%  119D 20f 1*/4 9rs  Gd Ban  7K    (25 days)     (Chk Dist lengths)    ***DOWN in class from 7K to 4.3k  IMPROVING ***
 46%  96E 16f 8*/29 13rs  Gd Wor  4K    (32 days)   (UP in dist, lengths)
 41%  114F 24f Pl*/65 14rs  Gd Str  3K    (53 days)  (Down in dist lengths)
   .................................. (100%)
 Pounsley Mill,,.......................................................Form 4*-8*-1*  (13**)  sp lto 9/1 ln 56* Av = 3.7k, Ab = 3.5k  Score=1+0
 53%  111E 20f 1*/¾L 12rs  Gd Fon  4K    (37 days)     (Chk Dist lengths)    Same class 4K,  CHK for improv
 38%  108E 18f 8*/21 17rs  Gd Fon  3K    (776 days)      (Chk Dist lengths)
 47%  98D 20f 4*/35 4rs  Sft San  4K    (845 days)      (Chk Dist lengths)
   .................................. (74%)
 Rose Tina,,.......................................................Form H4-3*-Pl*  (10**)  sp lto 9/2 ln 55 Av = 3.3k Ab = 0k  Score=5+2
 50%  105E 20f Pl*/27 9rs  GF Hun  4K    (13 days)(g)     (Chk Dist lengths)    Same class 4K  IMPROVING ***
 34%  96F 19f 3*/11 12rs  GF Her  3K    (29 days)(g)(c)   (** DIST  lengths)
 27%  75F 19f H4/17 8rs  GF Exe  3K    (57 days)(g)   (** DIST  lengths)
   .................................. (59%)
 Governor Daniel,,.......................................................Form 1*-H2-H1  (4**)  sp lto 3/1 ln 3 Av = 2.7k, Ab = 3.5k  Score=3+0
 37%  105F 17f H1/nk 13rs  GF Nab  3K    (8 days)(g)   (UP in dist, Unpl)    UP in class from 3K to 4.3k,  No improv
 26%  112G 17f H2/6 10rs  GF Mar  2K    (51 days)(g)   (UP in dist, lengths)
 42%  118G 21f 1*/3 10rs  GF Nab  3K    (53 days)(g)  (Down in dist lengths)
   .................................. (56%)
 Binny Bay,,.......................................................Form 4*-4*-3*  (11**)  sp lto 8/1 ln 98* Av = 4k Ab = 0k  Score=7+0
 60%  100D 17f 3*/17 6rs**  GF Ban  5K    (60 days)(g)   (UP in dist, lengths)    ***DOWN in class from 5K to 4.3k  IMPROVING ***
 33%  70E 20f 4*/40 6rs**  GF Wet  4K    (80 days)(g)      (Chk Dist lengths)
 0%  01F 16f 4*/41 6rs**  Hy Sed  3K    (141 days)   (UP in dist, lengths)
   .................................. (50%)
 Thunderpoint,,.......................................................Form H1-Pl*-2*  (4**)  sp lto 7/1 ln 65 Av = 3k Ab = 0k  Score=4+0
 31%  87F 21f 2*/1 7rs**  Hy Utt  3K    (16 days)  (Down in dist lengths)    UP in class from 3K to 4.3k,  CHK for improv
 0%  01E 20f Pl*/63 13rs  Gd Wor  4K    (21 days)      (Chk Dist lengths)
 16%  70G 20f H1/1 13rs  GF Chp  2K    (35 days)(g)      (Chk Dist lengths)
   .................................. (24%)
 

[This message was edited by Nessie on June 11, 2003 at 10:30 AM.]

Nessie
keep plugging away my friend.

keep pluging away like a good little lad
one day i will be as good as me dad.

as we say round here.

FULHAM
As a student of the mind, you should recognise that your need to patronise is a direct result of your own feeling of inadequacy. What better way to bolster your fragile ego than to constantly strive to score points off others.
You really are a sad S.O.B.!

Mtoto - Obviously at some stage, VDW formed an opinion about weight BUT he would then have researched his theory and put it to the test in conjunction with the other parts of his method. If he liked what he found then he could reasonably be sure it would prove useful in future race analysis.

I said he was concerned only with facts in his form study, and virtually all of the elements he selected for use for this purpose are in some way numerically based. This means they are actual figures that cannot be manipulated after the event. If a horse carried 9-10 it carried 9-10. If a horse ran in class 100 it ran in class 100. If the horses engaged were rated 30,40 and 50 on ability, then so they were. The answers lie in how to combine all these elements and be able to read the picture they form.

I suggested that my "mistake" in the Island Set figures was worth further consideration, but I suspect this was lost.

With Roushayd I have said many times that I agree with VDW when he said the point of the exercise was missed. There is more to it than up in race class, up in speed figures, then drop to collect, at least on another level to that commonly known.

VDW set these examples out in a particular way. Why? Surely it was more obvious to just list the horses in last class order and then give the evaluation for each race? But he didn't. Why?

The consistency debate boils again down to how VDW set things out. He clearly said, after the calculations have been made, always start with the highest ability rated. This is so as to establish if they are form horses for the race. This is very logical to my mind, afterall why start with the lower rated horses or even the consistent ones when it is class balanced with form we want?

Anyone having done their homework on the success of the 3 most consistent from the f/c or even the field, cannot failed to have noticed that whilst the winner is often trapped, the chances of isolating that horse from the other consistent ones is sometimes a non starter. However, if the class and form is there then being consistent also is a sign the horse needs respecting.

By the way, Mtoto, you know I'm rarely offended.

Nessie - VDW used flat ratings and NH ratings seperately. So on the flat all AW/Turf wins and for the jumps all Chase/Hurdle/Bumper wins.

JohnD - Why don't you cut out the insults and start giving some clues if you have it all sussed? I'm always giving clues where I can, sometimes subtly, sometimes loud and clear. The clues you claim to have given as to your approach would have caused even Poirot to pass on the case.