Do you have his form pipedreamer?.

Mtoto - My main observation about your evaluation is you are not going the whole hog with VDWs class ratings, both for class of race and animal.

For example, two points to note straight away are BLs last 2 winning class ratings against Sea Pigeons. BL has won class 85 & 43, Sea Pigeon class 41 & 36. But, what if we look at those races with an eye on the oppositions recent form.

Alvertons last 3 runs were (3rd last run) 1st class 12, then 2nd class 31 then 2nd class 70 before dropping to class 43 against BL getting 6lbs (7/2).

Dramatist had (3rd last) 2nd class 42 then 1st class 16 then 2nd class 37 before upto class 85 (6/4fav) against BL.

In Sea Pigeons last 2 (forgetting the chase fall) he got 6lb when beating Birds Nest class 36. Birds Nest had (3rd last) 1st class 29, then 1st class 5 then 5th class 181.

Sea Pigeon had previously given 37 lbs to Multiple (20/1) who had (3rd last) Brought Down class 6, then 9th class 8, then 9th class 4 before 2nd to SP class 41.

It's not about who beat the better horse, it's who beat the horses with the best recent form.

By the way, Sea Pigeon was 4th class 181 (Champion hurdle) when Birds Nest was 5th. Getting 10lbs no wonder SP was 4/9 fav at Ayr.

Mtoto
You need to look at the relative merits of Drumgorra and beacon light going into this race,Don't forget that Prominent King was Giving lumps of weight to Drumgorra and going down by 5lgs.it is how this horse had faired when metting P.K in comparison to Beacon Light when meeting Sea Pigeon.One is a reverse of the other.No doubt you won't understand what i mean but that's the way i see it.

I find it amusing that some of the senior proponents of the buy the form books and work it out for yourselves approach are making such a good case against themselves; still unable to agree on races they must have been over a thousand times. Superb advert isn't it?
As the 1978 Cambridgeshire is causing so much angst, and there is little else happening at the moment, I decided to dust off the old form books. The following is my view of the aforementioned 2 horses, take it or leave it as you wish.

PETRONISI
Won cl 72 8f York, good pace. Made all, clr 3 out, ran on well
Dropped to cl 28 8f Asc, stdy pace. Led, hmpd ins fnl furl, awarded race.
Whichever way you look at it, a definite downturn in form. The horse couldn't do what it had done lto, even in lower class.

BARONET
Same cl 72 8f, York, good pace. Hdwy 3 out, sn hrd rdn, no ex.
Dropped to cl 38, 8f Sand, good pace. 4th straight, led 1 out, rdn out. Although dropped in class, he showed improved form for this stiffer test, (Even on s/f's), finding extra at the end up Sandown's hill. A definite upturn.
Dropped again, same cl 28, 8f Asc, stdy pace. Ev ch 1 out, rdn & nt qkn. A literal translation would make it a downturn, but given his previous 2 runs, and the steady pace, not hard to see that the horse was inconvenienced by the way the race was run.

Which horse would you back over a stiffish 9f, in a race almost certain to be run at a good pace?
The result of the Cambridgeshire, and the way both horses ran in it, bears out the above entirely.
As the man said, the answers are in the form book. Buy all the books you like, read and dissect them as much as you like, write about them on various web sites to your heart's content, but, unless you know what you're looking at, you will always be chasing rainbows!

wp,
yes I have the relevant form books

Tell me what`s puzzling you maybe i can help.

JohnD,

Good to see you have the form books (that you don't think are necessary) so you can make an informed decision.

I'm a little puzzled why you think Petronisi has a down turn in form. Would you give a horse a hard race 10 days before the big race? You say he couldn't repeat the form of his last race, he still finished in front of Baronet. All the reasons you give for forgiving/excusing Baronet, could also apply to Petronisi, he ran his best race on a stiff course in a big field.

You haven't said if you use the c/form method, but if you don't why would you need to show Penronisi form as a down turn?

I also can't see why you think these discussions a bad advert for the methods, or the folk that use them. It shows there is far more to it than adding up a few figures and bingo away you go. It also proves VDW was correct when he says it's all in the form book, it is. How will one ever know that he was talking about if you don't have the same form book as he used?

Guest,

I have to say I think you pay to much attention to these ratings the are based on prize money. I also think you don't pay enough attention to horses that finished further down the field.

Didn't VDW say ability was permanent, why else would he say take all the runs not just the recent ones? I did say ability and consistent form are very important and it was a bonus if they happened in the same sequence of advents. You don't just forget what the horse has achieved in the past.

I can't find the form book so I can't argue, you say the race Beacon Light won 26/12/77 was a 85 class race. The Sporting Life says it was a 74. For me that doesn't matter, but I did doubt the strength of the race at 74. He had one decent opponent for whom the conditions didn't look ideal. It's not the value of the race that makes the real class it's the competition. I think you said that, and VDW did say always check.

You chose to belittle Sea Pigeons form based on the horse that finished second and third. I think that is very dangerous. In SP Liverpool race yes the 2nd and 3rd may not have been up to much. You failed to mention the winner and 2nd of that years County Hurdle were both in the race plus others with recent form. You don't mention the 2nd in the race came out 2 days later and won at Liverpool. VDW said look at the sharp end, it can also be useful to see which form horses fall away when the power comes on. If in form horses fade then the form may be very good.

For some reason you also don't count/show the 77 Champion Hurdle in his last 3 runs and judge him on two. That form would have been in the Life on the day of the race so why not use it?

Pipedreamer,

I know I know nothing and have it all wrong. Out of interest try Swiss Maid my way. It should be good for a laugh if nothing else.

Be Lucky

Mtoto - I've pointed out indisputable facts in the form book. VDW used these figures AS A GUIDE to avoid doing exactly what you are, adding in too much opinion about the relative merits of various horses chances. Forget that SP beat BL and we could have found the result as a bet your way, it's BL's very failure there that contributes much to his discard by VDW.

Swiss Maid works fine by weighing up the opposition in the same way as do the other VDW examples.

Just one example of your many differences with VDWs method is concerning weight. You seem to see no merit in a horse giving weight to another and finishing 3rd to it, close up. Yet the vast majority of VDWs selections had similiar performances in their recent form.

Why don't you just except that VDW is not for you. It's like someone trying to learn a foreign language, but changing the bits they don't like because they don't sound like the English equivalent. Both languages work in their own right, but combined haphazardly they don't.

Mtoto
That I have many of the form books is just an accident of my former life. That one needs them to understand what VDW spelt out in just one sentence is over-egging the pudding somewhat.
I doubt very much that I use the c/form method as you recognise it; it is still a basic requisite to understand a horse's form and the reasons for it.
As I said, take it or leave it, though to ignore the final result, and the way the horses performed in that race, smacks of bloody-mindedness to an absurd degree.

Guest,

More nonsense, and changing things to suit yourself. You say it was the fact that BL was beaten that stops him being considered. VDW says it was because he was well out of it on his ratings. Is that a fact or not? If he had beaten this poor/weak (class wise) horse how would that have changed? I seem to remember you saying if he had won he would be the c/form horse. Do you still think that?

There are enough of your thoughts about VDW on here and many other forums, don't you wonder why Pipedreamer is asking the question about Swiss Maid? Now I hate to mention it but this is another example where you have trouble. You can't make this horse the c/form horse using the a/rating. I have never spoken to him about this example, but a pound to a pinch of anything you like he is having the same problem. You file the race away as one VDW must have gone against the c/form horse, easy quick and solves the problem. After all that has been said why would VDW say that? He said going against the c/form horse is going against the odds. He showed an example where he wasn't happy with the c/form horse, did he back against it? Why would he here? Perhaps Pipedreamer has a little more about him, and wont's to know the real answer

You use the example of learning a foreign language, I think it is a very good example. You have learnt this language parrot fashion from a record, and in the real world the natives can't understand you. That's because you think you know how it works in theory, but the practical lets you down.

JohnD,

Pity, I thought it might be good for you to get into the discussion. I can see that it's a waste of time if you don't/cant read the written word.

I said on the 9/10/04 at 7.14 pm.......

Just to clarify a point I'm happy that B is the selection for the Cambridgeshire as VDW said. I arrive at this answer without making one a non, out of form horse.

and on the 10/10/04 at 2.03 am........

You say what Baronet did in the race last year has no bearing on this years race. Are we supposed to forget all his good runs have been on stiff tracks? His very best have been on stiff tracks in big fields. Perhaps this is what was meant about form giving problems?

So we are in agreement, how's that being bloody minded?

Be Lucky

I dont know how each VDWer relates the AR to 'class'. Certainly my thoughts on the OR went down like a stream-lined brick, however look what I ve found the man himself states:

"You should not need to be reminded that the class against
which a horse runs is not the same as the class of race in which
they compete. Most will be acquainted with the idea of looking
for horses which are dropped in class. Often this is a race
offering less prize money, but not necessarily so. The quality of
horses engaged is more to the point."

Now that seems fairly straightforward!

Jib
That is a good pasage and says quite a lot,Like you say it seems straight forward.And it is to a degree.When weighing up the merits of all the horses concerned,Guest did say a while back that often more horses need to be looked at than are running in the race.I totally agree with him.The arguement that's going on at the moment over The relative merits of beacon Light and petronisi Bare this out.There are lots of things that can trip you up.This is why Lee says if he sees something that has the edge he takes the race apart.It's hard work but worth the effort in the long run.

JIB - It is a very important point, but one that Mtoto doesn't want to see for some reason. What have we got to judge a horses class and form, if not the class of races they have won and competed along with the class and form of those they competed against?

It's a simple idea, but can throw up endless permutations in practice, again a point VDW made clear in the Roushayd article. The problem is, everyone has their own take on it. Mtoto has just taken parts of the method, a point he cannot deny. JohnD says you don't need the form of VDWs examples, well I think that is like trying to solve a crime without the evidence.

I said I would demonstrate one of VDWs methods as I use it. This I did with a fairly lengthy evaluation a few weeks ago, though far from detailing everything. The horse duly won followed home by the only other horse the method picked up upon. I used the same logic as that used for Prominent King, Swiss Maid or indeed Beacon Light vs Sea Pigeon. It's worth bearing in mind that VDW never said what, if anything, he backed in the latter race.

Just one last thought for Mtoto. VDW said he used TWO METHODS OF RATING, when having Beacon Light well out of it. He later said that surely the best basis for a rating was FORM. It's logical to suggest that at least one of his methods of rating was based on form. Now how did he evaluate form?

Good hunting guys.

Monday, October 11.

The VDW Race.

410 Leicester, £13.9K C1 hcp , 1m 4f.

Difficult, competitive race which wouldn't be my choice for betting, but

my idea of the VDW selection is CARTE DIAMOND.

Second choice, rather strangely, is LET'S ROLL.

Personally, I'll stick with the 2yo Maidens, as mentioned over on the " Stale Crust and Dripping" thread.

Btw, If Vdw said that " ability is permanent", he is clearly wrong. ( Mtoto,12 Oct 12.21)

All living creatures mature, peak and die, so, unless he is talking in riddles, his statement was not factually correct.

No broken nose for that, I hope?
Talking about stopping a few shots with the head, I put forward two living, human, legends as my evidence ( for those who cannot think in abstracts):

Cassius Clay/M Ali

M Tyson.

I hope VDW's other statements are more realistic, or is this just misinterpretation yet again?

W.P.mtoto,
I have looked again at Swiss Maid,and it is ok.

guest,
vdw said "what is form if it's not that one performance is better than another".

What did G.Hall have at his disposal?he had the top three on consistency (even though Prominent King wasn't),the first 5/6 in the forecast,and what else?the penalty value of the race,the runners in the race,and the previous form(he said he burnt considerable midnight oil etc),it is surely from that information that he spotted the "key" as he called it.

You ask how did he evaluate form?well he obviously used Class to evaluate form,and he looked in an area "that was positively alive with winners".

Pipedreamer

The "key" is a red herring. You can easily find out what that is if you want to... and you'll be sick as a parrot when you see it - 'cos it has been 'spelt out' later on!

BlackCat

Mtoto
No doubt you won't understand this either but here goes.

Roushayd,Billet,Merce Cunningham,Prominent king and baronet.Had shown form in higher class than what? beacon Light and Petronisi where in decline.

Seanrua,

I have enclosed both the question and the answer. As with most of VDW writings you have to make up your own mind about what it really means. I take it to mean is always remember if a horse (person) has achieved a particular feat once it is there in the record book for ever. This is what can be achieved when the circumstances are right NEVER forget it

Another query in the May 9 issue was from F.Chester, St Albans:

[THE ability of a horse is, broadly speaking, measurable by the value of the
races it wins. This principle is embodied in Mr Van der Wheil's procedure of
dividing the total prize money by the number of races a horse has won.
Ability however, has its peaks and troughs. What's more, a horse's ability
fades in due course. It seems to me that very few horses have long-term
consistency - in winning performance to justify Mr Van der Wheil in including
all the wins in a horse's long career when calculating its rating.
No such device is perfect, and surely an at least equally good guide to
probable performance can be achieved by adding together the prize money won
in the same three most recent placings that are used in his consistency rating.
I t h i n k too, that it would be more within most readers' resources to manage.
Apart from this, all that seems to be necessary is to review the value of the
races won by runners in the preceding 12 months. - F.Chester, St Albans.]

VDW REPLIES: I am at variance with views expressed by F.Chester and I
quote 'Ability however has its peaks and troughs. What's more a horse's ability
fades in due course'. In my view both statements are completely wrong.
Usually, ability will remain static, fluctuate slightly, progress steadily
upwards or rise sharply. Ability cannot eventually fade, this is tantermount to
saying a horse's victory will in due course be regarded as a second and so on
down until eventually it will be established as never to have been in the race at
all.F.Chester may be confusing the issue with form which does appear to
fluctuate, but if he cares to study it in more depth he will find a great deal of it
is just illusion. Consistent form relative to the rest of the field, combined with
ability in better class events is a force to be reckoned with and I think he has
missed the point entirely. END VDW.

Boozer,

That word just for you.

Be Lucky

guest, you mentioned form as one of van der wheils method of rating <a horses</a>,how far back would you assess , van der wheil stated, it is important to study form from 2year olds flat] and this should prove useful to serious punter? also..{one way to note improvement is to equate race class with the ratings achieved guest, would you go into further detail with this very important aspect of rating form, exposed and unexposed form thanks