HOME »
Gummy Racing    Gummy Racing Forum    Gummy Racing Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Archived Van Der Wheil    VDW (CONTINUED)
Page 1 ... 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 ... 854
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
3-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
Lee
Member
Posted
quote:
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?


Mtoto,

I'd be grateful if you could highlight where it was that I've said the above, because it is not in line with the method, at all?
 
Posts: 374 | Registered: February 07, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Mtoto
Some may say that the ability rating is flawed but it has to be used as a guide in determining peformance.In the pegwell Bay example,He gave a rundown of all the horses and for the first time (only time) he gave the 3 previous class runs.In his summing up of all the horses He specically said that Pegwell Bay "had been running consistently in higher class" Then if you ask yourself the same question r.e the higher ability rated horses,The only conclusion you can come to is that they hadn't.It's a process of elimination but it's logical,I don't know if you still have the books.If you do,it may be worth getting the ab ratings together (all of them) and the picture may become clearer. Smile
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
mtoto,lee, guest, investor,everyone, guest you said the form of the great northern handicap was stronger than ile de chype race..which horses would you have used as the benchmark......mtoto, would smart tar have been a selection, investor, lee, was pegwell bay the class/form horse in the race, i believe pegwell bay was rated 5th on ability rating..
 
Posts: 189 | Registered: February 07, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Friday, October 8.

VDW race:

315 York, £13.5K, C1 hcp, 1m.

My idea of the VDW selection is

CALCUTTA.

The pro points were mainly "class" & prizemoney.
Others seemed slightly better to me, but they weren't in the first six of the RP betting forecast.

My own bets in the race would be Nashaab, Literatim and Flighty Fellow, all EW.
The reasons for these are mainly to do with the trainers or jockeys, though if Naashab had been in the top six of the betting, it would have been my "VDW" selection.
 
Posts: 1514 | Registered: April 23, 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Determined - Glad you liked that quote. Cool

Mtoto - As Lee says, the ability rating is not all conquering and form is more important when weighing up opposition. So, forgetting Smart Tars ability rating for the moment, what is wrong with his listed hcp win in much higher class last run before meeting Pegwell Bay first time up?

I bet you haven't checked out the Beacon Light versus Sea Pigeon idea in the same way either?
Smile
 
Posts: 748 | Registered: February 18, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Grundy
Imo Pegwell bay was the class form horse in the race,When you look at the others again imo the majority had shown downturns.Pegwell bay most certainly hadn't plus they were all going up a long way in class.Smart Tar should have taken care of pegwell bay and would no longer have been seen as a form horse,Having said that if the going had been different it would have thrown a different complex on the matter,But why. Smile
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
It has always been my opinion that one of the primary functions of the ability rating,was to alert vdw to high class horses that were outside of the consistency/betting forecast area.Why else would he say "rate the entire field for ability".

This way he was not going to get caught out by a "possible spanner in the works"
 
Posts: 546 | Registered: February 09, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Some very interesting points from all contributors about OR.

Doesn't seem to be highly thought of as a positive factor by most VDWers.

I used to feel it was worth disregarding - especially as trainers are always banging on about "the mark".

However, at Wolver yesterday, (definitely not VDW fare), my post-mortem ( I opposed every fav) shows that good OR would have been a significant pointer to success (even at this level).

OR and best latest RPR, to split those roughly equal on history of running in higher prize races, would have been profitable.

I'll need to monitor in future; there's going to be enough of these AW races over the next few months for me to see if there IS a pattern.

If Boozer is reading, I must say that, his stats about horses that had run in £20K races, may be one of the most useful things i get out of this thread (even if it's not strict VDW) !

In conjunction with this, what about horses that had run at top tracks - say, Newmarket, Ascot, Epsom, Newbury ?

I feel this could be another useful filter.

And finally, for those who love analysing races; check Forzeen yesterday at Wolver, 250 ( top "value" flat race of the day!).

Why didn't I lump on??!? Plonker!
 
Posts: 1514 | Registered: April 23, 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Pipedreamer
There is a very good reason for the ability rating,Like you say,It can show if there is a spanner in the works and it can also show wether a particular horse is out of it's depth.You have to rate the whole field to make comparisons.Then like i said to Mtoto it becomes a process of elimination and it is during this process that you will find "a winner".Obviously the ab rating is a guide,But it's needed to determine class and form. Smile
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Re Pegwell Bay

The fact that ability is mentioned in the form summary of horses where the ability rating is not shown shows that the ability rating must have been recorded in VDW’s original evaluation. The question is who left them out for the booklet “Make Racing Pay”, was it Tony Peach or VDW and why ?

One reason why Bishops Yarn was included and Smart Tar left out of the ability ratings listed is that VDW could have used a different forecast to that shown. It all depends on how much Tony Peach edited or added to the original draft.
 
Posts: 67 | Registered: April 05, 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Garstonf
There is a reason why the ability rating was left out.This is why he said he had left bits to be filled in.He wasn't going to give things away that easy.So he left us some homework,Like most good teachers do. Smile
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Determined:

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 "


Determined

Was this written by VDW?
I cant find the passage in the books Frown
 
Posts: 690 | Registered: August 19, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Both factors take some shrewd planning, but the former should beg the question – when evaluating the form of a previous race, are a horses Official Ratings a true reflection of their comparative class? No Chance - in exactly the same way as the Ability Rating isn't.

Lee,

The above is what I was referring to. If I have misunderstood you I apologise. I took this argument was to show no matter how good the OR doesn't prove the horse ran to it making it a worthless guide.

Guest,

You ask what is wrong with the form of Smart Tar in the listed race. Nothing, but you would have to admit he would be hard pressed to repeat that form from a stiff course on heavy going to a flat course on good to firm. So once again I think you are taking VDW words very literally. VDW said he wouldn't have made the same bet on heavy going. Couldn't the reason for that be because Pegwell Bay wouldn't/couldn't repeat the form on heavy, as ST are could repeat his best form?

Re BL & SP. I not sure what you mean. I have pointed out that BL was running on the wrong course on the wrong going. Giving weight to a horse that had the race been a handicap he would have received weight from, beaten a length. If I took weight into account I would expect the defeat to be much bigger than that. You say this is a downturn in form. I say you must be a very hard task master and I would hate to train your horses, or worse still have to compete for you in a race!
If you are asking have I checked the race using my method, the answer is no not yet. I'm working slowly through the examples looking at EVERY possible reason for the selection. Not just concentrating on my idea of the solution.

Grundy,

I wouldn't have made ST the selection based on the reasons I have given, course and going.

Determined,

I too think ability is an important factor in the methods. It is I just don't think the one used and explained is the original rating. He said he would NEVER explain his 'other' ratings so he gave a substitute. This new rating was better than nothing, but had major flaws. When I say flaws I'm not talking about having to look closely at factors like going, course, etc. I'm talking about horse being top or near top rated that just don't measure up class wise. In this Pegwell Bay example there are at least two. The ability rating says yes, the analyse says NO!! I think this also happens when this new rating is used on the Erin. To get round it folk are finding reasons to eliminate the top rated. By making them out of form, or non form horse for the race. The end result of this is to give false impressions of how VDW really looked at form.

Be Lucky
 
Posts: 1133 | Registered: October 22, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Mtoto
Excuse me for butting in,You say "The ability rating says yes,The analysis says no".I'm sorry mate,But when the class and form of others in the race are looked at in detail.The analysis becomes a resounding Yes.Vdw did say that had the ground been heavy he wouldn't have supported pegwell Bay.As it happened on the day in question (and that is what evaluation is about.The race today.) Then Pegwell Bay had everything in his favour,Smart Tar didn't. Smile
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Mtoto
I dropped a bollock the other week with Muqbil.We had a bit of a conversation about it,You said "you thought Muqbil was a form horse but would have gone out on capiblity/Probability".That wasn't the case,The horse had shown a downturn in form.If you can see why, Then it will take you some way towards solving this example. Smile
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Investor,

Are you missing the point? The point is the a/rating said yes. Ok, the going was against ST. What is against Jim Thorpe and Townley Stone, the only reasons seem to be class? What is the point of the a/rating, we are told it is a measure of class? It failed in this case. It failed with BL, it failed the Baronet race he was well down the rankings. In these examples horses are deemed out of form to make it work. I don't think I have seen folk say JT or TS are out of form, but then again how can they? VDW said they weren't good enough.

I have said using an a/rating doesn't take away the need to check conditions, etc. It should at least consistently point you to the best horses in the race.

Be Lucky
 
Posts: 1133 | Registered: October 22, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Mtoto
For goodness sake,The ability rating is a measure of class but it is a GUIDE.You say what was wrong with townley stone and jim thorpe.I'm affraid they are 2 horses that need to be looked at,Jim thorpe had been dropped from 97 to 29 and winning fair enough Townley stone had won at the back end of the previous season class 25 First time out in 88 class 47 3rd,Then dropped class 31 again finishing 3rd.Jim thorpe had shown nothing over 2 mile.Now compare them with pegwell bay,Bearing in mind There class "as horses".

I would like you to give your views on a couple of recent horses

1.How did you view Attraction last weekend.Did you feel she was a form horse or not.

2.How did you view Guest's bet St Andrews. Smile
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
The Vital Spark
Member
Picture of john in brasil
Posted
"The more I look at this a/rating the bigger nonsense it becomes

Well Done Mtoto!

I once mentioned that the difference between the Derby winner and the winner of a class E stakes over the same distance is about the time it takes a miner to down a pint.

In terms of time, a horse rated 130 and one rated 65 have a difference of only 3% in performance.

What we understand as class falls in fractions of that 3%. To my mind any method that is seriously trying to rate class has to do so in the same incremental manner. Wild fluctuations have to be inherently inaccurate if the overall physiological difference is at most 3%.

SFs should in theory be the best measure but there are too many aberations (the going not being the least) to put much faith in them. I think that in distances of less than a mile they are pretty accurate (going excepted) but by the time we go National Hunt racing they are a complete bollocks!


You only have to look at the Cheltenham festival and the following Aintree meeting to see the huge disparity of sfs in horses of the same class.

A lot of horses, particularly hurdlers are dropped in class after Cheltenham with these magnificent sfs and look great things to win nto. I ve lost more money on them than any other single type of horse! But on closer inspection you can see that the horses has been doing sfs of 80 and 90 and suddenly get 117 for coming 17th of 23 at Cheltenham.

The ORs never fall into this type of trap. They are unemotional and totally cold blooded.
 
Posts: 4717 | Registered: February 10, 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Member
Posted
Jib
It's how the ability rating is used to establish why or if there is a selection.It isn't bollocks at all,Infact there is a great deal of logic behind it.We could argue for the next 3 years over this matter,But i know from a vdw perspective your wrong mate.

I hope yor back on the beer again. Wink
 
Posts: 2832 | Registered: November 28, 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
junior member
Junior Member
Posted
Lee/guest/investor

It looks as if the 3 of ye have found the key or the missing link as some like to call it.I remember on 1 particular day that van der wheil backed 2 horses by the name of zilzal and braashee.If i remember rightly he had been in the caribean for most of the flat season and therefore he would not have seen either of these horses performances that season.Can i then assume that van der wheil would have spotted this key or missing link by what he saw in the paper on the given day which would have been the form for the horses last 3 races?
 
Posts: 22 | Registered: August 18, 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by groupee community Page 1 ... 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 ... 854 
 

Gummy Racing    Gummy Racing Forum    Gummy Racing Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Archived Van Der Wheil    VDW (CONTINUED)

© Gummy Racing 2004.