Roushayds race before the Old Newton Cup was a 0-110 hcp. Unfortunately the ORs are not available on the RP. However Roushayd was only 2nd top weight with another two horses 5lbs below him.

As he came 6th his OR certainly would not have risen and the great mistake is to think that he has been dropped in class because the prize for the Old Newton Cup is down 5k to 17k. The real drop is in the ORs of the opposition.

Even though the Old Newton Cup is a 0-115 affair the biggest OR belongs to Roushayd now on 96 (the RP now has them!) with only two horses (3yos admittedly enjoying a 14lb wfa allowance) are rated below him, but over 90. The rest are all rated at least half a stone less.

At 6/1 surely this is enough to attract your attention? If you then had a feeling that the horse was improving or wasnt really ridden out lto then you had a bet.

Well using ORs Pegwell Bay is going noticebly up in class and Roushayd noticebly down.

To be bets (rather than just possibles) the pair would have to have been judged to be improving one way or the other. Mtoto thinks its sfs, Lee what they did or didnt do in the final 2/3 furlongs.

Im not sure about Pegwell Bay where the winning distance is probably the telling element as one of the first three was also driven out. But Roushayd has the famous rising sfs and didnt get flogged out when coming 6th.

However I cant see this being a common factor in the hundred or so examples.

The problem for those acting under the assumption that Lee is capable of communication is wondering how one can assess preformance over the final two furlongs without relying on race comments. One thing that could be made clear is what it is that speed figures measure as they dont seem directly connected with the time in which a race is run. Another possibility that I haven't seen mentioned is comparing relative finishing distances throughout the entire field in order to assess the competitiveness of the race and it's various runners, although I wouldn't think this necessarily relevent to the last two fulongs, two furlongs is a long distance and things can change dramaticly.

JIB,

How do you consider VDW went about assessing the form of the Pattern class race examples that he gave, which of course included many lines of form in which there were NO Official Ratings at all? Indeed, what do you do when faced with these circumstances?

Epi,

Perhaps, instead of pondering out loud, in the hope that you’ll be spoon fed, you should take the time to find out what elements a speed figure is made up of. Then you will have the answer to your question. If the content of my communication doesn’t suit you, put your earmuffs on.

Lee: fortunately I'm a member of an internet community one or more members of which will already have done the research, there is therefore no need for me to do so as far as this matter is concerned.

Garstonf - I agree VDW left the numerical picture in this race as incomplete, but for a very different reason to yours. I'm sure plenty of people thought the same as you and moved on thinking VDW had pulled the wool over their eyes. But if you delve a bit deeper into the points you noted AND read the summaries of each horse that VDW gave in that race, there is a glaring clue as to how VDW weighed up the form of past performances.

As has also been noted recently on here with VDWs closing comment on the result of the race, there is a further clue as to how VDW judged a horse as at peak.

JIB - VDW never argued with the fact that there are many ways to come to the same conclusion about a race. The fact remains though that he only ever mentioned official ratings in a negative manner suggesting that whilst they had some use as a further guide they were not the answer. He was ingenius with his articles, but never deviously put people away.

As a further point to the class of opposition in the Old Newton Cup, it's worth considering that even if Ile De Cyphre had not unseated old Starkey when about to win the KG Hcp at Ascot, the form was still well below that of the Northern Dancer at Epsom where Roushayd was 6th.

quote:

---

Originally posted by epiglotis:
".....oh my god, VDW must be turning in his ink pot.

---

nice one, still laughing

Lee,

In answer to your question I am probably not the best person to address it it to if it was mostly a rhetorical one.

With younger and relatively unexposed horses my own personal guide starts with the the sire starts, throwing out those horses that seem unsuited by the conditions.

I would then look at the trainers record at that course and unless there was one who seemed to prefer to take a winner there, I would not bet. However I will make exceptions if there is a horse with a fast time in the race.

But in VDWs day certainly sire and a lot of trainer stats were not readily available to the punter.

In those days, before the light dawned, I used to bet at the front end of the market in non hcps using the form of the last 3 races to be found on the betting shop walls plus the little tables of trainer and jock stats that had to be hunted down, often by unpinning the page from the board and searching the other side.

Besides that I would of course retrieve!


Guest,

This business about VDW being negative about the OR is a concern.

The OR is the lynch pin of racing, without its presence we are all knackered. Trainers refer to their horses quoting their ORs numbers as if it was a vital part of their identity. And all races have their identity defined by them.

The very best horse in the world gets an OR usually somewhere between 130 and 140,
(the theoretical max) the descending ranks of ORs are understood to represent the change (drop) in class of successive animals.

It is all very well for VDWers to state that trainers deliberately undervalue their horses' OR from its true class to gain the advantage of easier opposition so consequently the OR is inaccuate. It may be inaccurate but it is still v useful.

iF all trainers do this then any trainer can see from the number of races since the oppositions' last rise in OR what is likely to be the 'relative' difference in class should the opposition be 'returning to form'.

Both Roushayd and Pegwell Bay were 1st and 3rd top OR respectively when made selections, whilst that may not have been one of VDWs' criteria, do you think it is just coincidence that they had both arrived there? How many of VDWs' selections were in the bottom half of the ORs? I bet there werent many!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: john in brasil,

Garstonf,

Interesting question. I waited until after Guest answered you before putting in my two penny's worth.

I think this is a defiant attempt to try and show the ability rating wasn't all it was cracked up to be. You mention SIAO, but I think he also tried to point it out in one of those examples. Here he says mark of the top 4 on ability and the lowest 3 for consistency. You will see King or Country is in both lists, but then VDW says he has NOTHING going for him.

With the Pegwell Bay example the top 2 on ability are then given very poor write ups in the analysis. Some have said this is a very important example. I have to agree it is saying to me don't put any faith in this ability rating. Apart from the slightly strange * against Gee A, it is saying look carefully at the consistency. Never lose sight of the form, and class is judged in some other way. It also shows if you look at the first example it can't be based purely on the penalty value of the last race.

Be Lucky

Mtoto
Of course it's not purely based on the penalty value of the last race,This is of course a guide,But can be a good one.In the pegwell bay example you have got to look at Smart Tar.That is where the clues lie.

If Smart Tar is the proof that Pegwell Bay is improving then the assumption is a bit dodgy. Look at the betting market Investor, Smart Tar wasnt fancied at all on 21-10 or 12~10. If it had been fancied on 12-10 it was bound to have been a better price considering the previous meeting between them. At that time it was in 'donkey' mode.

Jib
With all due respect,Without at least one of the pamphlets i.e betting the vdw way you won't be able to get to grips with this particular example from a vdw perspective.Vdw interpreted form differently john,Although there is a lot of logic behind it.it won't be seen just by looking on the r/p website unfortunately.

JIB,

Thanks for your reply. It does bolster, as I’m sure you’re aware, that VDW made no reference to Official Ratings, when assessing form, this I’m sure. His selections that were made in handicap races bear out the same traits as the non-handicaps. You may argue that times have moved on and that now Official Ratings could be the best guide to the class of a horse. But this, from my research, isn’t the case at all.

Contradiction in terms (not really): ‘Class is kingpin’, but too much is emphasis is put on class ‘of horse’. There are many ways to determine this factor, and it is no surprise that the top 3 class horses on the Ability Rating will generally be the same as the Official Handicappers assessment. On occasions the OR will come out on top, whilst other times it will be the AR. I doubt that over enough races there is anything in it.

Lee,

What you say is very true, there is likely to be some overlap in all methods that assess class.

What I like about the OR is its total impartiality, one has only to read some trainer in the RP cursing the OH to know hes not being fooled easily.

The method of the ORs adjustment is reasonably simple to follow too, and nothing is done in drastic leaps and bounds, like sfs which are at times v hard to understand, or indeed prizemoney with horses winning 5k one day then a month later winning 30k!

JIB,

Prize money, and gambling, is what racing is all about, and things have never changed in this respect.

The apparent disparity in prize money that a horse wins from one race to another is no different now as it was then. It is part and parcel of this method.

Investor,

I'm well aware that by looking at Smart Tar, Pegwell Bay can be seen in a very good light. Indeed VDW plainly said this. The question is how does this effect the top 2 on ability, if indeed they are the top 2. I haven't seen the actual a/ratings for this race. The other thing I don't qute understand is Decent Fellows 3rd and last is counted as a 10 by many. In the case of Pegwell Bay's 2nd of 2 finishers, this appears to be ignored and counts as a 2. If it wasn't PG wouldn't have been in the best 3 for consistency. A case of some only believing what they want, and making the examples fit?

I seem to remember reading somewhere PG was only the 5th highest on ability. Apart from this example I can't find another example of the selection being so far down the rankings. I still think this is an example showing the a/rating as later explained wasn't up to scratch. Trouble is using this method wouldn't have found the winner of the Erin.

Be Lucky

mtoto
vdw gave various crosschecks as i'm sure your aware,One of these was the 3 highest ability rated horses from the first 5 cons.As for the other point certainly Townley stone and Smart tar were higher on the ab rating.But after the beating by pegwell bay Smart Tar was not a form horse for this race.But why did he leave out the ability rating for this horse.And what was significant between the two.

I wasn't about today, but, on checking tonight, I find there was no VDW qualifying race, anyway - imo.

Investor,

The point I'm trying to make is while I can see on that going Smart Tar was very unlikely to reverse the form with Pegwell Bay. Why has this horse that is way down on the ability rating coming into the equation? VDW didn't think much of the chance of the top few as he later said. If you think ST wasn't a form horse for any other reason other than the going you are saying all the top ability horses are of poor class If the a/rating was/is of any use why would he think that, or are you saying they were all out of form? I have seen folk who think either Jim Thorpe or Townley Stone must be the c/form horse. I can't see how/why VDW would have thought that in fact he says neither has the class.

The more I look at this a/rating the bigger nonsense it becomes. Lee states the a/rating of the horse doesn't help decide the class of the race after it has been run. However he seems to think it having a good rating going into the race is a positive. I can't quite see the logic there, is that not a case of being wise after the advent?

When VDW first came up with this method I think it was fair to say better the prize money the better the class of horse that usually took part. For what ever reason this has changed, and the only way now is to judge the class of the horse and race is by the OR of the competitors. So I have to say strange as it may seem I find myself in agreement with JIB, hope that doesn't do anything to worsen his condition.

Be Lucky

Mtoto,

I, as yet am still undecided what part the ability rating plays but I am confident it has a role within the methodolodgy.

Re` establishing the strength of a previous race. A quote I liked sometime ago which is one I keep going back too, reads as follows

" form is an ever evolving factor and the strength of any one performance can only be gauged by carefully considering how all those involved came to arrive at the race in question "