If Fallon rode that horse to win i'll eat my hat.

Investor,

Salt and pepper?

Be Lucky

Mtoto
LOL Who has been on the horses back for the last 3 wins,If they were that bothered R hughes would have been at Yarmouth.I know this has nothing to do with evaluating the race,But i feel having watched it that fallon didn't give 100%.Did you see the race.

Investor,

Yes, I watched it. The first question is what possible reason would Fallon have for not giving the horse the best possible ride? It's next target was/is Ascot, he wouldn't have a penalty for winning the race. I said the course was the worry, I think you can add going to that. The horses best form has been on stiff courses. He had never meet a horse of that class (who likes the course). Think it would be a very different result at Ascot, but the worry now is has he the class to take on the top horses?

Be Lucky

Mtoto
I will be interested what price Bonus is installed at next time out.

Mtoto - In the context of the Epsom race, on the day, Roushayd was not a form horse. Again, bear in mind we are talking about a handicap here. It only makes complete sense when looked at relative to each race. Had the Epsom race been a class 40 race then Roushayd would have been class/form. But it wasn't it was much higher class relative to his previous 2 runs.

Epiglotis/Three Legs
I wasn't,well not intentionally anyway.

Guest,

I don't have the form books for this period, but I'm finding this very confusing. A horse that wins a 48 handicap is the class form horse in front of a horse with a higher ability rating that has just finished 4th in a 77 Listed race. In finishing 4th beaten just 3.75 lengths giving 7lbs to two of three that finished in front of him??

Did Billet improve his s/f in his last race?

Investor,

Are you suggesting Bonus didn't run his race to get a better price next time out? That gives me two problems. How do they know the horse will stay fit and they will find the right conditions, and race? How much extra will they have to put on to recuperate the prize money lost (£5.5 thousand) it was nearly more than that. I thought the horse would win, but there was a doubt about the course. He will do better on a stiffer course on better ground. Until he proves different I would be very worried if he meets a class horse who like the same conditions.

Be Lucky

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe VDW used the DM ratings in some of his examples...

BONUS was rated 78 and the winner 77....

the b/f was 5/4 B and 13/8 VoN....

a 3y0 against a mature animal...

etc,etc

enough negatives to warn against B being a good bet especial at 4/9...

BONUS

Johnd makes a good point on another thread "was the prize
big enough" also I have always found that 3YO's rarely
prevail in all aged races for the *first* time more
especially in handicaps.

I have read this phrase many times

quote:

---

if the prize is big enough.

---

what do you think it actually means. does the prize have to be biger than the abilty ratng for example. or the prize to be at least as big as the previous biggest win.

having read the books many times have not see na answer.

Despite what has been said on the 80% thread, the class/form approach clearly showed the warning signs that Bonus c/f had a very dangerous opponent in VON the 2nd on class/form. VON was a much stronger opponent than anything at Lingfield and this time both horses were dropping in class.

Looking how the horses were placed, it is clear that Bonus was aimed at the big Lingfield handicap. But, to confound those who think the trainers know exactly when their horses will deliver everytime, Richard Hannon publicly stated that Bonus couldn't beat Move It at Lingfield. Why did he think that? Answer, because whilst he is undoubtedly an excellent trainer of horses, his views on the formbook are the same as those passed down through the ages ie the common belief in traditional form analysis.

If others including JohnD are prepared to continue with the 80% thread, then I will do likewise.

Will anyone get near 80%?

Mtoto - Look again at the Epsom race. The plus points are there granted in Roushayds listed run, but there are certain essential pluses that are missing in the context of the Northern Dancer Handicap.

Yes, Billet did improve it's sf last run, but moreover was the fact that Billet was a form horse FOR THE RACE, Roushayd was not.

Your participation is most warmly encouraged and no piss will be taken should you fall short of the mark.

Guest,

I don't think you should wait for anyone else to join in, at the end of the day it's a bit of fun, but will also be of interest to some.

I'm ok because before I even start I don't think it can be done (not at the prices VDW struck winners at). However, I'll give it my upmost effort and discipline.

Hope you get amongst it.

Just to show some of the process, here are the reults of my evaluation of the 2 main races at York today. Neither evaluation has resulted in anything strong enough to bet, so these are not selections and therefore not posted on the 80% thread. They might prove interesting though for those following the methods.

York 3.15 Bond Boy c/f - Fayr Jag 2nd c/f
York 5.00 Moon Emperor c/f - Barolo 2nd c/f

There are factors against all 4 to various degrees, but these are the results of the class/form application.

To look at the same races via the consistency/forecast angle the adjusted percentages are as follows.

3.15 3 most cons from f/c Welsh Emperor (17) Fayr Jag(6) and Prince Cyrano (19). 39% likely that one of these 3 will win.
3.15 3 most cons from the field Fayr Jag (6), simianna (10) and Grey Cossack (12). 58% likely that one of these 3 will win.

5.00 3 most cons from f/c Barolo (5), Mamcazma (6), Theatre (6), Conquering Love (5), Sahem (7). 83% likely that one of these will win.

5.00 3 most cons from the field is as above.

Hope this info proves of interest.

Investor
If you want to Dutch on the 80% thread, that's cool with me but no staking plans.

Fulham
Each way is also fine.

Guest

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you take the 3 most consistent in the 5.00 then surely Sahem can't be included as he's the 5th in order ofconsistency(jt 1sts and jt 3rds).
If you include him on the basis the ratings are close then that's fine.

Rob

Rob - VDW used best 3 ratings not horses. This was evident in several of his evaluations.