Handicap Class Droppers

[JennyK]

Tufnel

re horses dropping in class, I've been checking through the VDW examples and mostly the drops, in win prize money terms, are quite evident, exceptions being Merce Cunningham and Abathatc (1988). In my experience with lower class sprint handicaps, which are likely to be my main fare from now until next April, this is not always the case, however, and I suspect that may also apply to some of the handicap hurdle races you consider.

In this context G Garry's post, number 305 on this thread, had me revisiting some examples and I think both you and he are right. You are right that VDW never referred explicitly to ORs, but Garry is right when he suggests he did by proxy, as it were, for example with Canny Danny. It is, I think, unlikely that VDW knew the runners exact ORs in that race, but he did know that when horses like West Tip were running from out of the handicap they were running to a numerically precise disadvantage in OR terms. And that, coupled with what seems in those days to be quite common general weight rises for individual races, illuminate several VDW examples.

By the time of the six best bet/next best examples, VDW would of course have known the exact ORs of runners and I think that gave him another measure of race class, possibly the simple one I use, the average OR of the field. (I suspect that is more likely than some of the seemingly more "sophisticated" approaches such as using the median rather than the mean, or applying the measure to a subset of the field, as it seems to me all VDW's methods of rating were simple in conception if not always in practice.)

If we take one of the six, Valiant Warrior, he was going up in class slightly (win prize money basis) for the race on 17/02/96 when VDW claims to have selected him, but comparing the two races on an average OR of field basis tells a very different story.

We know that VDW took the view that the class of the race was not the same as the class of the runners, and once the ORs were readily available he had them as a possible additional (and maybe better) way of thinking about the latter to those he seemed to have used previously.

One thing I have yet to find out it when ORs became publicly available. The Superform annuals included them much earlier than the Raceform Form Books, and they must have got them from somewhere, but when they were able to get them and where from I don't yet know. VDW-wise, I think it is probably safe to assume he didn't use them as such in his analyses to 1989, but likely did for the 1995/6 examples. If however it becomes apparent that ORs were readily available much earlier than I now think, that assumption will need revisiting.

If you have another look at Valiant Warrior, a chase I realise, it may perhaps nevertheless help with your HH work, in judging how confident one can be that a horse is dropping in class. Incidentally, if you revisit the 1995/6 examples, don't forget the general increase in ORs introduced from 07/10/95 - one of my posts on page 7 of the Sorting Out A Card thread.

Over the last few days I've not been looking much as current races because I've wanted to check out my idea that revisiting the VDW examples from the Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability perspective, in terms of the order to take things, might be helpful. My increasingly strong conclusion is that it is, and helps with the really tricky VDW examples, which are not just the ones sometimes discussed as such on forums, Gummy or here. (For example, the three Cheltenham Festival 1981 bets pose problems which need to be addressed.)

Among the other VDW examples I've been reviewing is Philodantes, and I think race 1048 (06/06/79) provides for me the final piece in understanding it, and more generally helps a bit with sorting out what VDW referred to as the "tricky" ones from the "sore thumb" examples.

 

[PHS]

An Ian Williams special there at Bath. Dropped in class last time in a rubbish race at Yarmouth and down the field and comes out and wins this today comfortably.

Jeez! Newtown was 13 on BF last night, which I thought was short (it usually means something) compared to the 10/1 on offer with the books, goes off at 5/1 6/1. The spread/margin was narrow for 11pm the night before a race; 13 back, 13.5 lay.

 

[Tufnel]

Tufnel

re horses dropping in class, I've been checking through the VDW examples and mostly the drops, in win prize money terms, are quite evident, exceptions being Merce Cunningham and Abathatc (1988). In my experience with lower class sprint handicaps, which are likely to be my main fare from now until next April, this is not always the case, however, and I suspect that may also apply to some of the handicap hurdle races you consider.

In this context G Garry's post, number 305 on this thread, had me revisiting some examples and I think both you and he are right. You are right that VDW never referred explicitly to ORs, but Garry is right when he suggests he did by proxy, as it were, for example with Canny Danny. It is, I think, unlikely that VDW knew the runners exact ORs in that race, but he did know that when horses like West Tip were running from out of the handicap they were running to a numerically precise disadvantage in OR terms. And that, coupled with what seems in those days to be quite common general weight rises for individual races, illuminate several VDW examples.

By the time of the six best bet/next best examples, VDW would of course have known the exact ORs of runners and I think that gave him another measure of race class, possibly the simple one I use, the average OR of the field. (I suspect that is more likely than some of the seemingly more "sophisticated" approaches such as using the median rather than the mean, or applying the measure to a subset of the field, as it seems to me all VDW's methods of rating were simple in conception if not always in practice.)

If we take one of the six, Valiant Warrior, he was going up in class slightly (win prize money basis) for the race on 17/02/96 when VDW claims to have selected him, but comparing the two races on an average OR of field basis tells a very different story.

We know that VDW took the view that the class of the race was not the same as the class of the runners, and once the ORs were readily available he had them as a possible additional (and maybe better) way of thinking about the latter to those he seemed to have used previously.

One thing I have yet to find out it when ORs became publicly available. The Superform annuals included them much earlier than the Raceform Form Books, and they must have got them from somewhere, but when they were able to get them and where from I don't yet know. VDW-wise, I think it is probably safe to assume he didn't use them as such in his analyses to 1989, but likely did for the 1995/6 examples. If however it becomes apparent that ORs were readily available much earlier than I now think, that assumption will need revisiting.

If you have another look at Valiant Warrior, a chase I realise, it may perhaps nevertheless help with your HH work, in judging how confident one can be that a horse is dropping in class. Incidentally, if you revisit the 1995/6 examples, don't forget the general increase in ORs introduced from 07/10/95 - one of my posts on page 7 of the Sorting Out A Card thread.

Over the last few days I've not been looking much as current races because I've wanted to check out my idea that revisiting the VDW examples from the Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability perspective, in terms of the order to take things, might be helpful. My increasingly strong conclusion is that it is, and helps with the really tricky VDW examples, which are not just the ones sometimes discussed as such on forums, Gummy or here. (For example, the three Cheltenham Festival 1981 bets pose problems which need to be addressed.)

Among the other VDW examples I've been reviewing is Philodantes, and I think race 1048 (06/06/79) provides for me the final piece in understanding it, and more generally helps a bit with sorting out what VDW referred to as the "tricky" ones from the "sore thumb" examples.

It's possible he used ORs in that way once available. Though of course handicap races were shown and still are today as limited to 0-120, 0-130, etc so that gave a fair idea of the level of ORs in the race. All of the class droppers in those best best/next best had run in a races marked as open to higher OR bands than the races they won or in Valiant Warrior's case you had to look at the highest rated horse in the field which was the winner rated 148 and the Newcastle race was restricted to 0-140.

Even Killeshin's race had a 5 lb lower max OR ceiling than his LTO win in 0-145 though he was a winner going up in race value with bottom weight. Rivage Bleu was a LTO 2nd going up in race value and band with his last race being a 0-105 and the Cheltenham race a 0-110 though the top weight actually was only rated 104 a pound lower than Harwell Lad at Uttoxeter.

So I agree there could be something in it and I have considered it before. But equally, race class via prize money and opposition via the same shows the winner's of the LTO races were won by horses being dropped in class who had either won or been 2nd in that higher class race.

The only exceptions in the 6 examples were the 2 horses who actually won their LTO races Killeshin and Travado (which was in a non handicap anyway).

The other 4 were all beaten by a horse who was winning in the same or higher class of race and had been 1st or 2nd in higher or the same class last time out.

I would say for VDW in those days it was quicker to find the prev class and form of the winner in each runner's last race than to work out average ORs for potentially up to a hundered runners involved in past races of a 12+ runner field.

One way to quickly find if a handicapper is dropping in class or OR band is to compare the weight carried today to last time. The vast majority of times if they carried much less weight last time then they ran in a better race than today's. It is noticeable that the horses who didn't win or even place LTO in the examples all carried one of the 3 highest weights (after jockey claims) in their races.

And like the HH examples those who placed LTO carried one of the lowest weights (after claims) in the race.

The problem for me is knowing when to not get to tangled up in comparing lengths beaten and ORs etc. Because as I've said before a horse like Rivage Bleu doesn't bear that sort of scrutiny. You suddenly start thinking "Hang on am I really going to back a horse beatn a distance last time in a small field?"

And it's that sort of thinking today that led me to discard a well weighted LTO winner on ground issues and also 2 lower weighted runners who fitted the profile of low weighted HH examples but one had been beaten 31 lengths LTO and the other only 4.5 lengths but was a long term maiden, much like Rivage Bleu was and another negative factor that would put most off.

My first HH selection today was so out of kilt with the HH method as I see it that I can hardly believe I actually put money on that mare against the fav. LTO winners or 2nds giving weight away to other LTO winners or 2nds need to have a lot going for them to warrant a bet on them to win. I'm aware of that and yet I tried to go too deep into things to find a way to circumnavigate that.

My other HH bet Boyle's Hill just ran into a similar type in that it was dropping in class to carry a big weight against horses of most likely lesser ability.

I can't think of any class droppers VDW gave that carried something in the lower weights of the race it won.

One example at Southwell tonight in the main race was Asuka taking a big drop with more weight. I didn't back it and it was all out to get back in front after leading over a furlong out, but the same framework was there. Horses get beaten in better class with lower weights then drop to carry more against others who haven't been running in better class. Roushayd had the same profile.

There's a reason VDW mentioned that "you could have had a field day at Huntingdon" on the day Travado won. Scrub out the selling handicap and the mares novice hurdle with virtually no form to go on and you are left with Solo Gent, Travado, Cheryl's Lad and Fairy Park. The 2 of those that won LTO were either same class or dropping in class in prize money terms. Cheryl's Lad was dropping a long way from a festival handicap and was 3rd in the weights. Solo Gent had been 2nd LTO in higher class to a horse who had been 3rd in an even higher class race LTO.

Whilst over at Cheltenham where Rivage Bleu win, there were very few such situations on offer.

He said he didn't write anything just for the sake of it and certain things were passed over by many as not important. I've pointed out before that he made a point of saying certain horses were dropped in class when discussing form for another runner in the race. I think it was important that he said that and he was pointing us to a significance in that situation. Especially as ever runner that did not win LTO in his 6 examples for best bet/next best had been beaten by a class dropper who had won or been 2nd on their previous run. I don't think that is purely coincidence.

If a horse won or was placed in better class and drops in class, then those behind it who were not dropping in class were likely facing a better opponent than could otherwise have been expected to be in the race.

And if a horse actually beats such a class dropper, then that surely marks them up?

I can see the logic. But it seems few agree with it, even though it is clearly there in those races where a horse he gave was beaten last time out.

It's even in his very first example. Which is probably why he compared it to Rivage Bleu all those years later.

 

[JennyK]

"The vast majority of times if they carried much less weight last time then they ran in a better race than today's."

And the reverse, of course. Tufnel, which suggests a misclassification (by me) of VDW's Abathatc 1988 example.

I am not for a moment suggesting I now see solutions to all six - some of which were always more understandable than others - but I do think G Garry's point is relevant in helping with them, and to a lesser extent with some of the earlier ones. The ready availability of ORs by the 1990s gave VDW an additional means for rating and although we don't know how he used them, it would actually be surprising if he had not found ways of using perhaps the biggest change in available data during his "active" years.

 

[Chesham]

Can I ask why VDW if as successful as he claimed, would not have subscribed to The Racing Calendar. Many years before VDW , Marvex explained how to convert the Calendar weights to Ratings (He called them Form Ratings) I think from memory Jim Adam’s in his first book had to convert the Weight Handicap to Ratings . Then in his latest book the OR’s were then available.

Also, Marvex had an opinion on what he called the Form Horse. He appeared to be marrying performance in the class of race to arrive at a Form Horse

 

[Tufnel]

Can I ask why VDW if as successful as he claimed, would not have subscribed to The Racing Calendar. Many years before VDW , Marvex explained how to convert the Calendar weights to Ratings (He called them Form Ratings) I think from memory Jim Adam’s in his first book had to convert the Weight Handicap to Ratings . Then in his latest book the OR’s were then available.

Also, Marvex had an opinion on what he called the Form Horse. He appeared to be marrying performance in the class of race to arrive at a Form Horse

I suspect he did as he recommended several publications for those who wanted to go further into things.

In fact he also told us the reason he actually bought the SCHB each week was in order to study the entries and framed handicaps so he could study in advance. In that letter he also spoke of dividing the weights into ranges which I think is related to his handicap race approach. Most of his examples across all methods were near the top or the bottom of the weights. Off the top of my head I can only think of two middle weighted examples in Celtic Pleasure and Philodantes though the latter was in a small field and dropping in class.

 

[Tufnel]

"The vast majority of times if they carried much less weight last time then they ran in a better race than today's."

And the reverse, of course. Tufnel, which suggests a misclassification (by me) of VDW's Abathatc 1988 example.

I am not for a moment suggesting I now see solutions to all six - some of which were always more understandable than others - but I do think G Garry's point is relevant in helping with them, and to a lesser extent with some of the earlier ones. The ready availability of ORs by the 1990s gave VDW an additional means for rating and although we don't know how he used them, it would actually be surprising if he had not found ways of using perhaps the biggest change in available data during his "active" years.

I know when looking at the ORs involved in the 6 examples, including Travado which was obviously a conditions race but on official ratings was well in at the weights with his chief rival, I saw some level of filtering by OR related to previous performances perhaps being relevant.

Just one example was Ever Smile, who by the way completely fits in as an HH method selection too, and it related to the horse winning a race, going up in the weights and not winning next time off the new mark but then winning the next race from that same mark, suggesting improvement. Other runners in that race didn’t seem as progressive in the same respect and of course the fav had been dropped in the weights and class to win last time out.

Valiant Warrior had been a good second twice to the same horse before having a couple of months off before going up in class and only running 5th but still making a show in the race not simply down the field. I suspect VDW viewed that race as a prep for something back in his own zone and of course he carried much the same weight as his first 2 good runs to a horse on a roll at Newcastle compared to the lighter weight he carried up against the classy Unguided Missile who I’m sure VDW would have seen as the clear class/form horse that day too.

Arthur’s Minstrel is another winning with much the same weight he’d been carrying that season over a variety of distances at fairly low odds in all 3 races. And also here again we see a significant break in his campaign following 3 quick runs in the Autumn before Christmas. This horse had run in much better class the season before running 5th in Scottish National as co fav, 2nd in Midlands national and was running a big race when falling late on in the 95 Eider at Newcastle (same race Killeshin won in 96) which interestingly was the 18th of February almost exactly a year to the day before after a similar mid season break.

I suspect all 6 examples were found in varying ways but as I say one thing the non LTO winners all have in common was the key horse factor LTO.

 

[JennyK]

According to Google, the first comprehensive weekly registry of Official Ratings was published in The Racing Calendar in January 1985, which ties in with when they began to appear in the Superform annuals. Thus it can reasonably be assumed that VDW had access to them at the time of his late 1980s selections, broadly from Park Express onwards. Whether, and if so how, he used them is another matter.

 

[Tufnel]

According to Google, the first comprehensive weekly registry of Official Ratings was published in The Racing Calendar in January 1985, which ties in with when they began to appear in the Superform annuals. Thus it can reasonably be assumed that VDW had access to them at the time of his late 1980s selections, broadly from Park Express onwards. Whether, and if so how, he used them is another matter.

What we do know regarding the 6 best bet/next best examples is that VDW referenced the Sporting Life for the Nov 95 bets and therefore he would have had access to the OR ratings tables that were published each day alongside the Life's form expert Nigel Shields (who around that time went on to become champion AW owner with many horses trained by Karl Burke (before he was banned for a time).

These tables are similar to the ones in the RP stats tab online and showed last 4 runs (now 6 with RP) by OR and placing. To the side were Nigel's own handicap ratings crucially by actual race code, so hurdles form was marked as such and chase form likewise, which is one reason he had Rivage Bleu top rated. And it's certainly possible to devise a shortlist from just looking at those 4 runs based on OR and placing compared to the OR for the races they were entered in.

He also said in the same paragraph when pointing out how the "experts" and majority viewed races that he thought they "had little idea how to look at a card properly".

"Look" seems different than the more obvious "evaluate" he might have used and often did in other letters. Is he telling us that it is something visual we should note when looking at a day's card?

When I look at a card presented in the traditional manner of just the runners, last 6 placings, age, weights, jockeys and trainers the things that stand out beyond the placings, particularly for handicap races are the position each runner holds in the final framing of the weights.

Is it coincidence that the horses VDW noted were either top 3 of the weights or bottom weight itself?
And is it coincidence that in the HH method the selections again filled either the top 3 in the weights or the bottom 3 weighted runners?

Remember in the HH method most of the races were big fields more commonly seen in the UK back then and still in Ireland, but not so much UK anymore (most days anyway).

 

[JennyK]

I think that with small population sizes such as six, it is impossible to be sure whether similarities noted are evidence of intention or coincidence.

 

[Leodis]

These tables are similar to the ones in the RP stats tab online and showed last 4 runs (now 6 with RP) by OR and placing.

I would double check everything that the new RP database throws at you.

Using the OR section of the 'stats' page for the 13.15 Nwm , two horses have the following weights:
Marching Mac [11-1] actual weight on card=10-5
Fenlander [10-4] actual weight =9-8

 

[Tufnel]

JennyK Also as you noted the differences between what was in the paper on the day for ORs and what the RP site now says.

Valiant Warrior's last 4 runs in the Life's table show (last to latest) a win from 118, then the 2 seconds from 124 and also the 5th LTO from the same 124.

The RP shows 118 for the win then 125 for the 2 seconds and a raise to 126 for the LTO 5th.

On the day at Newcastle he ran from 124 in the Life but the RP have him 2 lb higher on 126.

So we have to go with what the Life said on the day.

Also worth noting the weights carried in the last 3 runs. 11-0 for the first 2nd to Master Boston off 124. Then 11-5 when 2nd again to Master Boston off the same mark. The latter race was also higher value.

Then up in class from same mark again of 124 but 5th with just 10-2 as 3rd in the betting.

At Newcastle he was effectively down in class of opposition on several measures but the fact he was carrying 11-6 which was 18 lb more than LTO without any OR change tells a story on that too.

The intersting thing in that Unguided Missile race is that the 2nd and 3rd horses were also in the Newcastle event. Strong Deel was carrying 19 lb more than his 2nd LTO and the ill fated Gnomes Tycoon was carrying 15 lbs more.

Strong Deel had run from out of the weights behind UM from a mark of 122 but carried 9-11 due to the claiming jockey. But was running from 120 at Newcastle.
Gnomes Tycoon ran LTO from 130 the same as Newcastle.

Strong Deel's last 4 runs on the table show (last to latest) 3rd 120, 4th 117, 3rd 117, 2nd 122
Gnomes Tycoon's were 2nd 125, 1st 125, 4th 140 (10 oh), 3rd 130

In the form section of the Life there was also an indicator to show each runner's last winning OR along with distance, race code and the winning margin in lengths alongside current OR.

Valiant Warrior's last winning rating was 118 in a 2m 5.5f Chase by 3 lengths
Strong Deel's was just 87 in a 2m 4f Hurdle by 5 lengths
Gnomes Tycoon's was 125 in a 2m 4.5f Chase by 4 lengths

Also very important in my opinion is the way I suspect VDW looked at that recent race involving all 3 horses. Where did they figure in the betting, when had they last run before that race and which horses ran their race and which one's did not?

Both Strong Deel and Gnomes Tycoon surely did their best on the day getting involved at the business end.
Valiant Warrior was mid division, driven along before 4 fences out and soon weakened.

Valiant Warrior had not raced for 49 days.
Strong Deel 23 days since prev race.
Gnomes Tycoon 84 days.

As you might remember it is my opinion that there were grounds for not being so harsh with Gnomes Tycoon, though he clearly was fit enough at Wetherby to make good headway and take a slight lead 2 out when stumbling. I'm not sure how VDW could have confidently eliminated him though I do see why Strong Deel was cast aside. And in the event Gnomes Tycoon fell fatally at the very first fence at Newcastle. So perhaps Valiant Warrior had his main opponent out of the race from the start?

 

[Tufnel]

I think that with small population sizes such as six, it is impossible to be sure whether similarities noted are evidence of intention or coincidence.

Sure, but I find the same traits in most of his examples across the board of methods in handicaps. Celtic Pleasure was in the middle of the handicap as I recall, but actually on checking Phildodantes he was actually one of the top 3 in the weights with the top weight declared a non runner on the daily cards printed in the press.

 

[Chesham]

Hi Leodis

Marching Mac was rated 82 and the maximum weight for a 80 horse =9-9 + 2 = 9-11

They have the horse as or 90 Was pushed up from Saturday 82-85 and from saturday will be 85 + 5Lb penalty = 90

9-9 +10 lbs penalty = 10-5

 

[JennyK]

Leodis

I have found that the Life is much quicker than the Post to put up the result after a race, but the Post is much quicker in updating its base than the Life.

I download cards from the Life, because with the recent changes the Post's cards are a mess, but if I download a race the evening before, sometimes the Life has not updated its card for recent races. For example, when I copied the Life's card for the 1.16 Nottingham on Wednesday, the Life had not caught up with the fact that both Edgewater Drive and Run This Way had run on Monday.

With either site one needs to be alive to problems.

Good luck if you get involved with Marching Mac and/or Fenlander today. Easy to see why they are are at the front of the betting, but I wonder whether their marks, in a better race than their ltos, will stop either or both making three consecutive wins. I've contented myself with a very small, speculative bet at long odds on the winner of the race a year ago, Roach Power, who may well fold in the last furlong but off 15lb less than lto might just hold on (well, that's my hope, anyway!).

 

[Tufnel]

HH race
Down Royal 1:30 Dark Lieutenant, Lost Features and Spill A Drop are my 3 against the field.

Newmarket 1:15 At the risk of having egg on the face I'm swerving Fenland and going with former winner of this race Marching Mac who beat my 2 earlier this week, Azinuinthejungle and Al Hussar for my 3 horse book.

More to follow with later races.

 

[Tufnel]

Leodis

I have found that the Life is much quicker than the Post to put up the result after a race, but the Post is much quicker in updating its base than the Life.

I download cards from the Life, because with the recent changes the Post's cards are a mess, but if I download a race the evening before, sometimes the Life has not updated its card for recent races. For example, when I copied the Life's card for the 1.16 Nottingham on Wednesday, the Life had not caught up with the fact that both Edgewater Drive and Run This Way had run on Monday.

With either site one needs to be alive to problems.

Good luck if you get involved with Marching Mac and/or Fenlander today. Easy to see why they are are at the front of the betting, but I wonder whether their marks, in a better race than their ltos, will stop either or both making three consecutive wins. I've contented myself with a very small, speculative bet at long odds on the winner of the race a year ago, Roach Power, who may well fold in the last furlong but off 15lb less than lto might just hold on (well, that's my hope, anyway!).

I've managed to circumnavigate the RP changes now. Though why they show 0-120, etc in race cards and have removed it from past results seems like an unspotted mistake at their end.

 

[Tufnel]

Marching Mac won on this Newmarket card in a sprint handicap in 2024 which as I recall may have been posted on here on the day as a bet. He had won 3 days earlier too.

 

[Tufnel]

Typical. One of the top 3 in the weights wins having run below form last twice.

 

[Tufnel]

Fiorella Princess last won off 70 then carried a 5lb penalty when beaten at even money off of 75. Then ran behind Marching Mac at Yarmouth "prominent, outpaced final furling) at 9/2 off of 80.

Ran today from the same mark of 80 but due to go down to 78 in future.

Hmm.