Abilty rating
- Thread starter nagwa
- Start date
JennyK
Gelding
The ability rating is in principle easy to calculate, even if like @Duckandive or me one uses a variant on the basic way. But quite a few horses have foreign wins which my daily downloading of all UK results and top Irish handicap results doesn't capture.
Were I considering paying for ability ratings, I'd need assurances about what countries were covered (they would certainly need to include Ireland, France, Bahrain and Meydan). As it is, I use the free Racing Post website to cross check significant ones calculated via my results download, But of course getting the ratings from the Post site involves time.
Were I considering paying for ability ratings, I'd need assurances about what countries were covered (they would certainly need to include Ireland, France, Bahrain and Meydan). As it is, I use the free Racing Post website to cross check significant ones calculated via my results download, But of course getting the ratings from the Post site involves time.
JennyK
Gelding
nagwaIn post 9 I used Aberama Gold to show how ability ratings change over time, and his is currently 218 (though less on my modified use of the rating), but (on both) well clear of the other runners. He is also in my view a VDW "form" horse, and as far as I can see distance, going, course type and weight suit, and with several runs already this year it is reasonable to assume fitness. In my opinion, he is the VDW class/form horse in the race.
So far, so good. But VDW wrote that he backed "less than 20 percent of horses I consider potential winners". Unfortunately, he did not tell us much about how he differentiated the <20% from the >80%. He gave some indicators, though, including weight spread (the Canny Danny example) and, spotted I think by Lee, especially though maybe not exclusively with horses dropping in class, support via what is often termed the key horse. It is clear - from the Little Owl example - that available price was a factor, too, the actually available price compared to the "true" odds as calculated by him.
I have no idea how VDW calculated his "true" odds; though the word "calculated" suggests to me a formula.
This issue, differentiating the <20% from the >80% , I regard as the final VDW puzzle and maybe it cannot be solved. Trying to approach it logically, the missing element among the VDW "knowns" (unless he relied on one or other of the two methods of rating shown in the 28/03/81 article for it), is a way of assessing likely performance in a current race. The ability rating gives us relative abilities within the field, and the possibility of reading them across to race class in a current race. VDW's way of rating "form" status tells us which horses could be regarded as "form" horses on the basis of their last three runs and we hope that a "form horse" on those will prove still to be in form in its current race Neither, though, ensure that this class/form horse at X price will win this race.
I'll come back to performance assessment after lunch.
JennyK
Gelding
Alabama Gold is rising slightly in class (win prize money) and VDW's concern with key horse form seems less clear than with class droppers. That said, the key horse form is not inspiring: the key horse in Alabama Gold's last race was Sir Garfield, the winner, 8th in the market of none, and in his previous run 7th in a class 37.
On weight spread, Alabama Gold is giving 8lb to the second on class/form, Dorney Lake, which although not negligible seems less of a concern than the weight situation on VDW's Canny Danny example.
But neither key horse support nor weight spread are advantageous to Alabama Gold.
On performance, I am currently working by comparing last wins with current race, in the context of any evident progression or regression.
In 2025 Alabama Gold won three times: a class 129, AOR 77.0 off 79, a 63, 77.9 off 80 and a180, 76.3, off 83. Today, with the absence of Yorkshire Glory, he is in a class 52, 76.8, off 79. By comparison with the highest AOR of his three 2025 wins, he is against a weaker field (76.8 cf 77.9) and off 1lb less in ORs. But of course he is eight months older.
Taking the average of his performances in 2024 as 100, in 2025 the comparable figure was 93.3, so reasonable to assume age-related regression. In seven runs so far this year the comparable figure is 94.1, so for practical purposes plateauing at his 8yo performance level.
Taking the two together, today Aberama Gold seems to be running in a race the class of which - both in win prize money and AOR - should be within his range.
So, from the <20%, >80% perspective, Aberama Gold seems to me to be a class/form horse running at the right level, but with relatively weak lto form and giving 8lb to the next best on class/form. I have no idea how VDW would have calculated what he regarded as Aberama Gold's "true" odds. What I do know is that I would need substantially more than the around 5/4 currently available to back him, seeing him as distinctly short of being a "<20%" class/form horse.
ps
finished this ages ago put failed to "post". Good job I wasn't arguing that Aberama Gold was a VDW "certainty" otherwise it would have been open to the charge of after-timing a winner.
On weight spread, Alabama Gold is giving 8lb to the second on class/form, Dorney Lake, which although not negligible seems less of a concern than the weight situation on VDW's Canny Danny example.
But neither key horse support nor weight spread are advantageous to Alabama Gold.
On performance, I am currently working by comparing last wins with current race, in the context of any evident progression or regression.
In 2025 Alabama Gold won three times: a class 129, AOR 77.0 off 79, a 63, 77.9 off 80 and a180, 76.3, off 83. Today, with the absence of Yorkshire Glory, he is in a class 52, 76.8, off 79. By comparison with the highest AOR of his three 2025 wins, he is against a weaker field (76.8 cf 77.9) and off 1lb less in ORs. But of course he is eight months older.
Taking the average of his performances in 2024 as 100, in 2025 the comparable figure was 93.3, so reasonable to assume age-related regression. In seven runs so far this year the comparable figure is 94.1, so for practical purposes plateauing at his 8yo performance level.
Taking the two together, today Aberama Gold seems to be running in a race the class of which - both in win prize money and AOR - should be within his range.
So, from the <20%, >80% perspective, Aberama Gold seems to me to be a class/form horse running at the right level, but with relatively weak lto form and giving 8lb to the next best on class/form. I have no idea how VDW would have calculated what he regarded as Aberama Gold's "true" odds. What I do know is that I would need substantially more than the around 5/4 currently available to back him, seeing him as distinctly short of being a "<20%" class/form horse.
ps
finished this ages ago put failed to "post". Good job I wasn't arguing that Aberama Gold was a VDW "certainty" otherwise it would have been open to the charge of after-timing a winner.
Last edited:
JennyK
Gelding
I haven't checked the ARs that my database generates with the Post site's, but I think that in the 2.52 Beverley Fuji Mountain has the highest rating based on the standard VDW approach.
He is a 4yo and presents a different problem to the likes of Documenting and Aberama Gold discussed recently, as the assumption I make is that he is certainly not age-related regressing which with older horses calls their basic ARs into question. BUT his AR of 77 comes from one, non-handicap, win as a 2yo, in July 2024. As a result of that performance and others, he started his handicap career off 87 and has now had twelve handicap runs without success and dropped to a mark of 68. He ran off that two days ago and came a very close second.
The problem today is that while running off the same mark, he is raised substantially in class, from class 42, average OR 64.5 to class 56, AOR 74.1.
On AR terms, I think he is currently too highly rated at 77 and is likely to struggle to beat seemingly lower ability-rated "form" horses such as Jenever and Ventura Express.
Who knows how the current favourite I'm Next, also a "form" horse, will do. A good second lto in much higher class than today's but at 28/1 and thus not expected, unsurprising given his 2025 form. That second was achieved carrying 8.06 and today he carries 15lb extra dead weight, though of course in much lower class.
Far too tricky for me to contemplate a serious bet.
He is a 4yo and presents a different problem to the likes of Documenting and Aberama Gold discussed recently, as the assumption I make is that he is certainly not age-related regressing which with older horses calls their basic ARs into question. BUT his AR of 77 comes from one, non-handicap, win as a 2yo, in July 2024. As a result of that performance and others, he started his handicap career off 87 and has now had twelve handicap runs without success and dropped to a mark of 68. He ran off that two days ago and came a very close second.
The problem today is that while running off the same mark, he is raised substantially in class, from class 42, average OR 64.5 to class 56, AOR 74.1.
On AR terms, I think he is currently too highly rated at 77 and is likely to struggle to beat seemingly lower ability-rated "form" horses such as Jenever and Ventura Express.
Who knows how the current favourite I'm Next, also a "form" horse, will do. A good second lto in much higher class than today's but at 28/1 and thus not expected, unsurprising given his 2025 form. That second was achieved carrying 8.06 and today he carries 15lb extra dead weight, though of course in much lower class.
Far too tricky for me to contemplate a serious bet.
Chesham
Sire
Not enough Runners for a Bowers Analysis so a different approach .
Not a betting race for me, but thought I would post a few things to consider if anyone intends to bet in this race\
Looking at the Timeform comments and 0-20MPH RaceIQ splits, I'm Next projects as the controlling speed. He successfully led a better Class 3 field just last week and possesses the early burst to clear this field.
I'm Next He fits the Lone Speed Anomaly criteria perfectly under the Analiese Blueprint. If he gets a free pass on the lead and dictates the early fractions without pressure from the likes of Tees Aggregates or Fuji Mountain, his tactical advantage becomes immense.
Export to Sheets
Export to Sheets
Export to Sheets
I'm Next (6/4). His recent Class 3 run produced an elite 88 TFR and a perfectly balanced 100.79% PR. In a field where the other main contenders are either out of form or require a specific pace collapse, his ability to break sharply, control the 0-20MPH phase, and sustain his speed makes him the premier bet.
Ventura Express (6/1) profiles . With his explosive 102.47% Finishing Speed %, he is the one most likely to be picking up the pieces late if the front-end speed gets tested.
Here is what the H2H data reveals, broken down by the most significant rivalries:
Not a betting race for me, but thought I would post a few things to consider if anyone intends to bet in this race\
Looking at the Timeform comments and 0-20MPH RaceIQ splits, I'm Next projects as the controlling speed. He successfully led a better Class 3 field just last week and possesses the early burst to clear this field.
I'm Next He fits the Lone Speed Anomaly criteria perfectly under the Analiese Blueprint. If he gets a free pass on the lead and dictates the early fractions without pressure from the likes of Tees Aggregates or Fuji Mountain, his tactical advantage becomes immense.Top Contenders: RaceIQ & Timeform Synthesis
1. I'm Next (The Tactical Play)
Coming off an outstanding run at Beverley where he ran right up to his peak in a higher grade (Class 3), he drops into a very winnable spot here. His Timeform Rating of 88 puts him right at the top end of the Class 4 spectrum.| Date | Result | TFR | Tfig (IPS) | PR% (Fin. Speed) | Timeform Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 Apr 26 | 2nd | 88 | 85 | 100.79% | Hails from a yard whose runners often need a start or 2 to reach their peak, so deserves plenty of credit for running right up to his best after 6 months off, this a better race than he need contest, too; led, ridden when edged right over 1f out, headed close home. |
| 18 Oct 25 | 8th | 56 | 47 | N/A | Again found himself less than ideally placed and is probably best not judged on this; in touch towards centre, ridden under 2f out, weakened soon after. |
| 27 Sep 25 | 9th | 36 | 43 | N/A | Came here in good form but was poorly placed well away from the main action in a much better race than the one he won last time, no surprise if he gets back on track sooner rather than later with his sights lowered; prominent, weakened over 1f out. |
2. Ventura Express (The Closer)
If the pace collapses or I'm Next goes too hard early, Ventura Express is the most likely beneficiary. His underlying RaceIQ metrics are exceptional; his 102.47% PR (Finishing Speed %) shows he has the turn of foot to close down leaders in the final furlong. He also boasts strong head-to-head records against several of these rivals.| Date | Result | TFR | Tfig (IPS) | PR% (Fin. Speed) | Timeform Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 Mar 26 | 3rd | 85 | 62 | 102.47% | Attracted support and ran creditably having been eased another 2 lb since his comeback run, a further 8-week break clearly no issue; waited with, headway 2f out, led final 1f, headed final 100 yds, no extra; he hasn't won for a while but has been given a chance by the handicapper. |
| 22 Jan 26 | 6th | 76 | 64 | N/A | Shaped as if better for the run after 4 months off, not given an overly hard time; in touch, shaken up over 2f out, made little impression. |
| 4 Oct 25 | 10th | 44 | 49 | N/A | Simply ran poorly on this occasion; always behind. |
3. Jenever (The Class Angle)
Boasting the highest overall flat rating in the field (89), Jenever cannot be entirely ignored, though his recent form has been patchy. He is slipping down to a dangerous mark and his 0-20MPH metrics suggest he can hold a prominent mid-field spot.| Date | Result | TFR | Tfig (IPS) | PR% (Fin. Speed) | Timeform Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 Mar 26 | 5th | 81 | 79 | 98.30% | Ran better than last time and is perhaps gradually working his way back; mid-field, pushed along over 2f out, one paced. |
| 20 Feb 26 | 11th | 76 | 65 | N/A | Wasn't easy to catch right last year and possibly needed the run after 4 months off; raced wide, mid-field, weakened over 2f out. |
| 10 Oct 25 | 9th | 78 | 69 | N/A | Shaped as if still in good form back down at 5f, just caught away from where the main action developed; raced near side, mid-field, ridden over 1f out, merely plugged on. |
Final Verdict & Race Analysis
The setup here screams I'm Next (6/4). His recent Class 3 run produced an elite 88 TFR and a perfectly balanced 100.79% PR. In a field where the other main contenders are either out of form or require a specific pace collapse, his ability to break sharply, control the 0-20MPH phase, and sustain his speed makes him the premier bet.Ventura Express (6/1) profiles . With his explosive 102.47% Finishing Speed %, he is the one most likely to be picking up the pieces late if the front-end speed gets tested.
Head-to-Head Data Analysis
The head-to-head data provides some excellent confirmation of our initial pace and class analysis, while also highlighting some massive weight swings that solidify the top picks.Here is what the H2H data reveals, broken down by the most significant rivalries:
1. I'm Next Owns Tees Aggregates
This is the most glaring takeaway. I'm Next is 3-0 against Tees Aggregates, beating him at York, Haydock, and Catterick over the past year.- The Weight Angle: In their tightest finish (a 0.15L win for I'm Next 292 days ago), I'm Next was conceding a massive 12lbs. Today, he only has to concede 3lbs. In their other two meetings, I'm Next won comfortably while conceding 6lbs. At today's weights, I'm Next holds an insurmountable mathematical advantage over his rival.
2. Ventura Express is Vastly Superior to Fuji Mountain
Ventura Express has soundly beaten Fuji Mountain twice in the last year (by 5.75L and 5.00L).- The Weight Angle: In both of those victories, Ventura Express was carrying significantly more weight (giving away 10lbs and 7lbs, respectively). Today, he gives away 9lbs. Given the margins of those previous victories, Ventura Express should easily confirm that form, reinforcing his status as a premium closer in this field compared to the lower-rated runners.
3. The Trilby vs. Novello Lad Weight Swing
These two have traded blows, but the weights today strongly favor Trilby.- The Weight Angle: When Novello Lad beat Trilby 260 days ago, Novello Lad was carrying 5lbs less. When Trilby avenged that loss 199 days ago with a 12.5L thrashing, Trilby was carrying 2lbs less. Today, Trilby is carrying 3lbs less than Novello Lad. At these weights, Trilby should comfortably have Novello Lad's measure.
4. Jenever's Recent Edge Over Trilby
The most recent piece of H2H form in the entire field is from just 42 days ago at Newcastle, where Jenever beat Trilby by 1.10L.- The Weight Angle: In that race, Jenever carried 3lbs more than Trilby. Today, he carries 4lbs more. That 1lb swing is negligible, meaning Jenever is highly likely to uphold that form and finish ahead of Trilby again.
Summary
The H2H data perfectly validates the tactical blueprint. I'm Next is demonstrably well-handicapped against the mid-tier horses he has routinely beaten, while Ventura Express possesses a proven class edge over the bottomweights. Meanwhile, Jenever looks highly likely to win the battle of the mid-pack against Trilby and Novello Lad.
JennyK
Gelding
A little surprised that Fuji Mountain was able to beat both Jenever and Ventura Express. A quick check suggests that on my ratings his performance today was similar to his lto one, so it looks more a question of the other two running below what might have been hoped than Fuji Mountain showing improvement. I'll be interested in the Official Handicapper's reaction and surprised if he raises his mark. I remain of the view that his basic VDW AR misleads.
Chesham
Sire
Not enough Runners for a Bowers Analysis so a different approach .
Not a betting race for me, but thought I would post a few things to consider if anyone intends to bet in this race\
Looking at the Timeform comments and 0-20MPH RaceIQ splits, I'm Next projects as the controlling speed. He successfully led a better Class 3 field just last week and possesses the early burst to clear this field.
Top Contenders: RaceIQ & Timeform Synthesis
1. I'm Next (The Tactical Play)
Coming off an outstanding run at Beverley where he ran right up to his peak in a higher grade (Class 3), he drops into a very winnable spot here. His Timeform Rating of 88 puts him right at the top end of the Class 4 spectrum.
Export to Sheets
Date Result TFR Tfig (IPS) PR% (Fin. Speed) Timeform Comment 15 Apr 26 2nd 88 85 100.79% Hails from a yard whose runners often need a start or 2 to reach their peak, so deserves plenty of credit for running right up to his best after 6 months off, this a better race than he need contest, too; led, ridden when edged right over 1f out, headed close home. 18 Oct 25 8th 56 47 N/A Again found himself less than ideally placed and is probably best not judged on this; in touch towards centre, ridden under 2f out, weakened soon after. 27 Sep 25 9th 36 43 N/A Came here in good form but was poorly placed well away from the main action in a much better race than the one he won last time, no surprise if he gets back on track sooner rather than later with his sights lowered; prominent, weakened over 1f out.
2. Ventura Express (The Closer)
If the pace collapses or I'm Next goes too hard early, Ventura Express is the most likely beneficiary. His underlying RaceIQ metrics are exceptional; his 102.47% PR (Finishing Speed %) shows he has the turn of foot to close down leaders in the final furlong. He also boasts strong head-to-head records against several of these rivals.
Export to Sheets
Date Result TFR Tfig (IPS) PR% (Fin. Speed) Timeform Comment 19 Mar 26 3rd 85 62 102.47% Attracted support and ran creditably having been eased another 2 lb since his comeback run, a further 8-week break clearly no issue; waited with, headway 2f out, led final 1f, headed final 100 yds, no extra; he hasn't won for a while but has been given a chance by the handicapper. 22 Jan 26 6th 76 64 N/A Shaped as if better for the run after 4 months off, not given an overly hard time; in touch, shaken up over 2f out, made little impression. 4 Oct 25 10th 44 49 N/A Simply ran poorly on this occasion; always behind.
3. Jenever (The Class Angle)
Boasting the highest overall flat rating in the field (89), Jenever cannot be entirely ignored, though his recent form has been patchy. He is slipping down to a dangerous mark and his 0-20MPH metrics suggest he can hold a prominent mid-field spot.
Export to Sheets
Date Result TFR Tfig (IPS) PR% (Fin. Speed) Timeform Comment 12 Mar 26 5th 81 79 98.30% Ran better than last time and is perhaps gradually working his way back; mid-field, pushed along over 2f out, one paced. 20 Feb 26 11th 76 65 N/A Wasn't easy to catch right last year and possibly needed the run after 4 months off; raced wide, mid-field, weakened over 2f out. 10 Oct 25 9th 78 69 N/A Shaped as if still in good form back down at 5f, just caught away from where the main action developed; raced near side, mid-field, ridden over 1f out, merely plugged on.
Final Verdict & Race Analysis
The setup here screams
Ventura Express (6/1) profiles . With his explosive 102.47% Finishing Speed %, he is the one most likely to be picking up the pieces late if the front-end speed gets tested.
Head-to-Head Data Analysis
The head-to-head data provides some excellent confirmation of our initial pace and class analysis, while also highlighting some massive weight swings that solidify the top picks.
Here is what the H2H data reveals, broken down by the most significant rivalries:
1. I'm Next Owns Tees Aggregates
This is the most glaring takeaway. I'm Next is 3-0 against Tees Aggregates, beating him at York, Haydock, and Catterick over the past year.
- The Weight Angle: In their tightest finish (a 0.15L win for I'm Next 292 days ago), I'm Next was conceding a massive 12lbs. Today, he only has to concede 3lbs. In their other two meetings, I'm Next won comfortably while conceding 6lbs. At today's weights, I'm Next holds an insurmountable mathematical advantage over his rival.
2. Ventura Express is Vastly Superior to Fuji Mountain
Ventura Express has soundly beaten Fuji Mountain twice in the last year (by 5.75L and 5.00L).
- The Weight Angle: In both of those victories, Ventura Express was carrying significantly more weight (giving away 10lbs and 7lbs, respectively). Today, he gives away 9lbs. Given the margins of those previous victories, Ventura Express should easily confirm that form, reinforcing his status as a premium closer in this field compared to the lower-rated runners.
3. The Trilby vs. Novello Lad Weight Swing
These two have traded blows, but the weights today strongly favor Trilby.
- The Weight Angle: When Novello Lad beat Trilby 260 days ago, Novello Lad was carrying 5lbs less. When Trilby avenged that loss 199 days ago with a 12.5L thrashing, Trilby was carrying 2lbs less. Today, Trilby is carrying 3lbs less than Novello Lad. At these weights, Trilby should comfortably have Novello Lad's measure.
4. Jenever's Recent Edge Over Trilby
The most recent piece of H2H form in the entire field is from just 42 days ago at Newcastle, where Jenever beat Trilby by 1.10L.
- The Weight Angle: In that race, Jenever carried 3lbs more than Trilby. Today, he carries 4lbs more. That 1lb swing is negligible, meaning Jenever is highly likely to uphold that form and finish ahead of Trilby again.
Summary
The H2H data perfectly validates the tactical blueprint. I'm Next is demonstrably well-handicapped against the mid-tier horses he has routinely beaten, while Ventura Express possesses a proven class edge over the bottomweights. Meanwhile, Jenever looks highly likely to win the battle of the mid-pack against Trilby and Novello Lad.
Post-Race Analysis & BHA Handicapper Predictions
The 5f sprint unfolded largely as the tactical map suggested, with the front end playing a defining role. The BHA handicapper will look closely at the margins and the weight carried, using the standard metric of roughly 3 lbs per lengthat the 5f distance.Here is the projected reaction from the BHA handicapping panel, alongside the integrated race metrics.
Race Summary & Official Ratings (OR) Projection
| Pos | Horse | Wgt | Old OR | TFR | Tfig | PR% (Fin. Speed) | Top Speed | Beaten Margin | Predicted New OR | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | I'm Next | 9-7 | 77 | 91 | N/A | 98.57% | 41.74 MPH | - | 82 | +5 |
| 2nd | Trilby | 9-5 | 75 | 84 | N/A | 99.96% | 41.75 MPH | 1.25L | 76 | +1 |
| 3rd | Novello Lad | 9-8 | 78 | 82 | N/A | 99.53% | 41.92 MPH | 2.50L | 78 | 0 |
| 4th | Fuji Mountain | 8-12 | 68 | 71 | N/A | 96.95% | 42.50 MPH | 2.75L | 68 | 0 |
| 5th | Ventura Express | 9-7 | 77 | 76 | N/A | 97.35% | 41.61 MPH | 3.75L | 75 | -2 |
| 6th | Jenever | 9-9 | 79 | 66 | N/A | 97.73% | 42.13 MPH | 6.50L | 76 | -3 |
| 7th | Until Dawn | 8-6 | 62 | 47 | N/A | 96.79% | 41.91 MPH | 7.00L | 60 | -2 |
| 8th | Arctic Summer | 9-7 | 77 | 62 | N/A | 96.04% | 41.98 MPH | 7.10L | 74 | -3 |
| 9th | Tees Aggregates | 9-4 | 74 | 59 | N/A | 95.14% | 42.53 MPH | 7.20L | 71 | -3 |
BHA Reaction Analysis: The Logic
I'm Next (Predicted: +5 lbs to 82) The winner tracked the leaders, led inside the final furlong, and ran on comfortably to win by 1.25 lengths. At 5f, 1.25L translates to roughly 3.75 to 4 lbs of superiority. He gave 2 lbs to the runner-up (Trilby). If Trilby ran to his mark of 75, I'm Next achieved a performance rating of roughly 81 (75 + 2 lbs + 4 lbs). Given the dominance of the win (TFR 91) and his solid 98.57% PR%, the BHA will likely hand him a solid 5 lb hike, moving him into the mid-80s and firmly into Class 4 territory.Trilby (Predicted: +1 lb to 76) Trilby ran a phenomenal race from the back, highlighted by an outstanding 99.96% PR% and the longest stride length in the field (7.83M). He made up massive ground but was held by the winner. Because he was 1.25L clear of the third-placed horse, the handicapper will likely nudge him up 1 lb to recognize the clear runner-up effort without punishing him severely.
Novello Lad (Predicted: Unchanged at 78) He finished 3rd, beaten 2.5L overall. Carrying top weight (excluding Jenever) of 9-8, he ran exactly to his mark. The handicapper will likely use Novello Lad as the anchor/benchmark for this race and leave his OR completely untouched.
Fuji Mountain (Predicted: Unchanged at 68) He showed excellent tactical speed, clocking the highest Top Speed in the field (42.50 MPH) and briefly taking the lead 1f out before his stamina gave way (96.95% PR%). Since finishing 4th will ensure the handicapper doesn't drop him, but fading late prevents any raise.
Ventura Express, Jenever, & Tees Aggregates (Predicted: Dropped 2-3 lbs)
- Ventura Express (-2): Never featured where it counted, beaten nearly 4 lengths. The handicapper will offer some relief.
- Jenever (-3): Dropping fast. Beaten 6.5L carrying 9-9. The BHA will likely aggressively drop him below 77 to make him competitive again.
- Tees Aggregates (-3): He burned himself out early. He controlled the 0-20MPH phase but completely collapsed late, registering the lowest PR% in the field (95.14%) and finishing dead last. He will be dropped 3 lbs.
gerry
Mare
I don't think you can use ability rating from horses wins only it just does not make sense to me at all and that's why it was something from VDW i just dismissed very quickly, Surely in any given race your trying to work out all the horses best ability and that one thing dividing the runs to winning prize money just does not give you that at all surely dividing its total price money by runs is far better as your now getting what the horse is averaging a race in winnings and your now getting the ability its showing over every run. it still not full proof even at that.
What you would be better doing and i don't know how you would get this info is divide its last 6 runs into the price money it errand for those six races that would give you up to date winnings of the horse and if any horse had never run 6 races that race completely gets by past as there uncertainty there.
Because horses do run for place money to in better races so its crazy to dismiss them because there winning price money is less but over all winnings way higher its really no brainer there to do this if you had information to get what they got for being placed in all races not sure you can though.
But one thing is certain ability rating for winning only just does not give true ability.
You only need look at any horse that run in times of great horses like frankel because keeping getting beat with it did it make it worse horse than others no it made it very good for running against it and maybe its price money was still better than horse winning the slightly lower grade.
What you would be better doing and i don't know how you would get this info is divide its last 6 runs into the price money it errand for those six races that would give you up to date winnings of the horse and if any horse had never run 6 races that race completely gets by past as there uncertainty there.
Because horses do run for place money to in better races so its crazy to dismiss them because there winning price money is less but over all winnings way higher its really no brainer there to do this if you had information to get what they got for being placed in all races not sure you can though.
But one thing is certain ability rating for winning only just does not give true ability.
You only need look at any horse that run in times of great horses like frankel because keeping getting beat with it did it make it worse horse than others no it made it very good for running against it and maybe its price money was still better than horse winning the slightly lower grade.
Chesham
Sire
This is an excellent application of BSPWAX. While it is traditionally used to evaluate betting systems, using it to profile individual horses is a fantastic way to identify "money burners" (horses the market continually overrates) versus "value machines" (horses the market consistently underestimates).
Looking at your dataset, the BSPWAX metric—especially when paired with the A/E (Actual vs. Expected) ratio and the sample size (Races)—paints a very clear picture of these horses' true consistencies.
Here is a breakdown of what the data tells us about these runners:
These horses boast a positive BSPWAX, meaning they cross the finish line first more often than the Betfair market predicts they should.
These horses have a negative BSPWAX, meaning they routinely fail to live up to the market's expectations. They might win occasionally, but they are consistently sent off at shorter prices than their true probability warrants.
Looking at your dataset, the BSPWAX metric—especially when paired with the A/E (Actual vs. Expected) ratio and the sample size (Races)—paints a very clear picture of these horses' true consistencies.
Here is a breakdown of what the data tells us about these runners:
The "Value Machines" (Consistently Underestimated)
These horses boast a positive BSPWAX, meaning they cross the finish line first more often than the Betfair market predicts they should.- Im Next: This is the standout profile. With a BSPWAX of +2.59 over just 15 races, this horse is drastically outperforming market expectations. The market only expected ~1.62 wins, but the horse delivered 4. The A/E of 2.47 means it wins nearly two-and-a-half times as often as its odds imply. This is a horse the betting public consistently ignores, leading to a massive 85.87% ROI.
- Jenever: This is the most reliable positive profile due to the larger sample size. Over 40 races, generating a BSPWAX of +1.84 and an ROI of nearly 80% is incredibly difficult. The market expected roughly 6 wins, and Jenever delivered 7. This shows a gritty, consistent horse that frequently outruns its price.
- Tees Aggregates (IRE): A solid overperformer. A BSPWAX of +1.21 over 19 races shows the market consistently undervalues its chances, reflected by a healthy A/E of 1.42.
The "Money Burners" (Consistently Overbet)
These horses have a negative BSPWAX, meaning they routinely fail to live up to the market's expectations. They might win occasionally, but they are consistently sent off at shorter prices than their true probability warrants.- Ventura Express: This is a textbook "cliff horse." Over a very robust sample size of 60 races, this horse has a BSPWAX of -2.26. The market expected 9.51 wins based on its starting prices, but it only managed 6. With an A/E of 0.63, you are getting terrible value every time you back this horse. It is a statistical money drain and potentially a great candidate for laying.
- Novello Lad: A similar, albeit smaller, profile to Ventura Express. Over 23 runs, it has a BSPWAX of -0.98. The market expected ~4.5 wins, and it only got 3. The A/E of 0.67 confirms that backing this horse blindly is a fast track to the poorhouse.
The "In-line" or Small Sample Profiles
- Fuji Mountain (IRE) & Until Dawn (IRE): Both have slightly positive BSPWAX (+0.73 and +0.66 respectively) over 13-20 runs. They slightly outrun their odds, but it's marginal compared to Im Next.
- Trilby: Has a large sample (41 runs) and is roughly performing to market expectations, albeit slightly under with a BSPWAX of -0.48. The market has this horse mostly figured out.
- Arctic Summer: With only 6 runs and 0 wins, the sample size is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from a BSPWAX of -0.25.
The Verdict
Using BSPWAX at the individual horse level perfectly cuts through the emotion of a horse's past performances. It immediately highlights that Im Next and Jenever are horses you want to keep on your side (or look for reasons to back when they run), whereas Ventura Express is one you should actively look to oppose or lay.
JennyK
Gelding
gerry VDW wasn't trying to measure "true" ability, whatever that might mean. His ability rating method "for obvious reasons ... is not foolproof, but at least it enables a better judgement to be made and usually it is unwise to stray from the top few ..... a guide and should be used in conjunction with other factors."
You may remember a few months ago ARAZI91 posted for a while and got quite annoyed when others were inclined to see ratings as just a guide, and he pointed out, quite accurately, that we all use them in one form or another.
There are in fact two sorts of ratings - those like VDW's ability and form status ratings where the constituents were known (ability) or discoverable (form status) and those where that is not the case, for example the RPR ratings. Some people at the Post must know how they are compiled, but I don't think that has been made public.
Why is that important? Exactly for the reason
mick stated several times. It is not that a rating whose constituents are known is likely to be better in pinpointing winners than one the composition of which is not known, and Mick was clear that he was not, for example, saying his personally generated ratings were better than the RPR ratings. But they were better for him as by knowing how they were constituted he knew when they were more or less likely to paint an accurate picture. And that is why I generate my own performance ratings rather than use the Post's.Those who have made any significant progress using VDW's approach know that when he wrote "A horse does not HAVE to be top rated to be a sound wager" he was, as usual, spot on. In commenting recently on the ability ratings of Documenting, Aberama Gold and Fuji Mountain my aim was to point out circumstances where specific rating can mislead. No serious VDWer would bet solely on the ability rating ranking order, but equally no serious VDWer would back without using that, or an alternative, as part of the overall picture.
Chesham
Sire
Hi
gerry
Dont know if you remember Hot Form from the Handicap Forum pages. He developed a rating based on Robert Dowste who was around in the 1940’s even better know that we have decent sectional data etc
This was a post that I sent to Motto who used Speed Merit Ratings where he combined Speed with the highest OR in a past race. He did have a minimum Speed Figure before it went in his personal data base . On the old Split Second rating it was 80
Thought you might be interested from a Book by Robert Saunders Dowste who wrote about Horse Racing in the 1940's
The first aspect of consistency has to do with its certification of a horse's real class. I have suggested this already.
The second aspect of consistency has to do with its measurement of a horse's relative racing ability in a fixed class.
A third aspect of consistency has to do with the difference between steadiness in winning and steadiness in running in the money or close by.
A fourth aspect of consistency has to do with an animal's ability to remain in contention and stay with the sort of pace that probably will be set. To note that one horse in a race can run to about .46 at the half, and still keep going for a full three-quarters, and that another cannot keep within lengths of such pace, is not to depend on bare time to get a winner but rather to detect the obvious fact that the second animal is under a very definite handicap, that he must win from behind, and may not be able to get through horses ahead of him when he starts his drive. It is a simple matter to cast an eye down the half-mile calls in a sprinter's past performances and note that he usually is running first, second or third to time of about .46, at tracks fast enough to permit it, and also to note that another horse usually is fourth, fifth, sixth or worse at the same point when the time is similarly fast.
As stated above, the first aspect of consistency has to do with its certification of a given horse's real class. A racing Thoroughbred is just about as good as what he can beat; there is no other dependable measure of horse-quality. An animal may be perfect in conformation and looks; he may be bred in the purple; he may be able to break watches in morning gallops; but if he can't win he is no earthly use as a betting medium.
gerry Dont know if you remember Hot Form from the Handicap Forum pages. He developed a rating based on Robert Dowste who was around in the 1940’s even better know that we have decent sectional data etc
This was a post that I sent to Motto who used Speed Merit Ratings where he combined Speed with the highest OR in a past race. He did have a minimum Speed Figure before it went in his personal data base . On the old Split Second rating it was 80
Thought you might be interested from a Book by Robert Saunders Dowste who wrote about Horse Racing in the 1940's
The first aspect of consistency has to do with its certification of a horse's real class. I have suggested this already.
The second aspect of consistency has to do with its measurement of a horse's relative racing ability in a fixed class.
A third aspect of consistency has to do with the difference between steadiness in winning and steadiness in running in the money or close by.
A fourth aspect of consistency has to do with an animal's ability to remain in contention and stay with the sort of pace that probably will be set. To note that one horse in a race can run to about .46 at the half, and still keep going for a full three-quarters, and that another cannot keep within lengths of such pace, is not to depend on bare time to get a winner but rather to detect the obvious fact that the second animal is under a very definite handicap, that he must win from behind, and may not be able to get through horses ahead of him when he starts his drive. It is a simple matter to cast an eye down the half-mile calls in a sprinter's past performances and note that he usually is running first, second or third to time of about .46, at tracks fast enough to permit it, and also to note that another horse usually is fourth, fifth, sixth or worse at the same point when the time is similarly fast.
As stated above, the first aspect of consistency has to do with its certification of a given horse's real class. A racing Thoroughbred is just about as good as what he can beat; there is no other dependable measure of horse-quality. An animal may be perfect in conformation and looks; he may be bred in the purple; he may be able to break watches in morning gallops; but if he can't win he is no earthly use as a betting medium.
Chesham
Sire
Robert Saunders Dowst was a pioneering American handicapper and author in the 1930s and 40s (best known for books like Playing the Races and Winners and How to Select Them). His primary methodology was famously known as the Consistency Method.
Rather than focusing heavily on speed figures or complex pace scenarios, Dowst believed that a horse's historical ability to win and finish in the money was the single most reliable indicator of future success. His goal was entirely focused on separating "good horses from bad horses."
Here is how he produced his ratings and finalized his selections.
The Golden Rule: The horse with the LOWEST total score is the top selection for the race.
1. Win Consistency (Strike Rate)
Due to this consistency, he was a strong advocate for progression betting rather than level stakes. He recommended gradually increasing bet sizes after a loss (using a scale like 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 units). The logic was that because you were strictly betting on "good" horses, a winner was statistically inevitable in the short term, and the progression ensured you would turn a profit once the consistent horse finally crossed the line first
Rather than focusing heavily on speed figures or complex pace scenarios, Dowst believed that a horse's historical ability to win and finish in the money was the single most reliable indicator of future success. His goal was entirely focused on separating "good horses from bad horses."
Here is how he produced his ratings and finalized his selections.
The Dowst 5-Minute Rating System
Dowst developed a simple, point-based rating system to evaluate the overall profile of a horse in a race.The Golden Rule: The horse with the LOWEST total score is the top selection for the race.
1. Win Consistency (Strike Rate)
- 1 Point: 70% or higher career win rate
- 2 Points: 40% to 69%
- 3 Points: 20% to 39%
- 4 Points: Below 20%
- 1 Point: 70% or higher win/place/show rate
- 2 Points: 40% to 69%
- 3 Points: 20% to 39%
- 4 Points: Below 20%
- 1 Point: Top-tier company (Open handicaps, Weight-For-Age)
- 2 Points: Mid-tier company (Midweek open horses)
- 3 Points: Lower tier (All other classes)
- 1 Point: Horse holds a distinct weight advantage against the field
- 2 Points: No distinct advantage or disadvantage
- 3 Points: Disadvantaged at the weights
- 1 Point: The horse's most recent race indicates it can effectively run today's distance against its own class.
- 2 Points: The horse's condition is questionable, or it has not raced recently.
The Strict "Good Horse" Filters
Dowst did not rate every horse on the card. Before a runner could even be considered a viable bet, he applied a rigid set of mechanical filters to eliminate unreliable runners. If a horse didn't pass these, it was thrown out:- The 33/50 Baseline: The horse must have won at least 33.3% of its career starts and finished in the money at least 50% of the time.
- Experience: The horse must have had at least 10 career starts.
- Recent Form: The runner must have finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in its most recent outing.
- Distance Proven: It must be a proven winner at today's exact distance.
- Exclusions: Never bet on Maidens or 2-year-old races, as they lack the data required to prove consistency.
- Ground Conditions: Exclude races run on slow, soft, or heavy tracks. Dowst preferred firm/fast going where form was less likely to be upended by the surface.
Dowst's Staking Approach
Because his strict filters isolated only highly consistent horses, Dowst found that long losing streaks were incredibly rare (he claimed his longest personal losing streak using this method was just nine races).Due to this consistency, he was a strong advocate for progression betting rather than level stakes. He recommended gradually increasing bet sizes after a loss (using a scale like 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 units). The logic was that because you were strictly betting on "good" horses, a winner was statistically inevitable in the short term, and the progression ensured you would turn a profit once the consistent horse finally crossed the line first
gerry
Mare
Yep that good
Chesham solid way to bet good horses in good races on good or better ground. As i have said many times on here i was a lot better when you got good fast ground for three months in summer before the watering all came to be which i still strongly disagree with as horses have four legs and are breed to run in all sort of going and natural weather was perfect but all those horses breed for speed where ruined by going even for breeding, so now there adding sprinters into all breeding to get speed in to pedigree, There is a few horses even come to my head who loved fast ground yet they got breed and ended up horses who liked soft going two top of head i know for fact are sharpo and gunner b both loved faster ground but horses of them loved soft. and remember great old horse sole power loved fast ground and used to sit last in sprints till final furlong but as long as pace was furious it flew home.
Chesham solid way to bet good horses in good races on good or better ground. As i have said many times on here i was a lot better when you got good fast ground for three months in summer before the watering all came to be which i still strongly disagree with as horses have four legs and are breed to run in all sort of going and natural weather was perfect but all those horses breed for speed where ruined by going even for breeding, so now there adding sprinters into all breeding to get speed in to pedigree, There is a few horses even come to my head who loved fast ground yet they got breed and ended up horses who liked soft going two top of head i know for fact are sharpo and gunner b both loved faster ground but horses of them loved soft. and remember great old horse sole power loved fast ground and used to sit last in sprints till final furlong but as long as pace was furious it flew home.
Chesham
Sire
Not sure how this will work out using Dowste
gerry as it is the first time that I have tried Dowste Rating method. Tried several races and this is the first one that passed the first stage
For the first time today, Robert Saunders Dowst would keep his racing program open and head to the betting window.
When applying the strict mechanical filters of his Consistency Method to the Grade 1 Celebration Chase, a true "good horse" finally emerges from the pack.
Export to Sheets
gerry as it is the first time that I have tried Dowste Rating method. Tried several races and this is the first one that passed the first stageFor the first time today, Robert Saunders Dowst would keep his racing program open and head to the betting window.
When applying the strict mechanical filters of his Consistency Method to the Grade 1 Celebration Chase, a true "good horse" finally emerges from the pack.
The Strict "Good Horse" Filters
Before rating the field, Dowst would eliminate any horse that fails to prove its reliability. Here is how the field fares:- The 33% Win Filter: Jpr One (30.4%), Edwardstone (26.8%), and Brookie (17.2%) fail to meet the minimum 33.3% career win rate and are tossed out.
- Recent Form (Top 3 Last Out): Jpr One (4th) and Brookie (Unplaced) fail this check.
- Proven at the Exact Distance: A horse must have a proven win at today's exact distance. Solness (0 wins at 1m7½f), Thistle Ask (0 wins at 1m7½f), and Mirabad (0 wins at 1m7½f) fail to prove absolute certainty at this specific trip.
The Dowst 5-Minute Ratings Applied
Even though Jonbon is the only strict qualifier, here is how the entire field scores using Dowst’s 5-point evaluation system (where the lowest score is the top selection).| Horse | Win % (Pts) | ITM % (Pts) | Class (Pts) | Weight (Pts) | Form/Dist (Pts) | Total Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonbon | 71.4% (1) | 100% (1) | Grade 1 (1) | 11-10 (2) | 2nd / Proven Dist (1) | 6 |
| Thistle Ask | 42.8% (2) | 64.2% (2) | Grade 1 (1) | 11-10 (2) | 2nd / Unproven Dist (2) | 9 |
| Solness | 33.3% (3) | 58.3% (2) | Grade 1 (1) | 11-10 (2) | 2nd / Unproven Dist (2) | 10 |
| Mirabad | 33.3% (3) | 53.3% (2) | Grade 1 (1) | 11-10 (2) | Won / Unproven Dist (2) | 10 |
| Jpr One | 30.4% (3) | 43.4% (2) | Grade 1 (1) | 11-10 (2) | 4th / Unproven Dist (2) | 10 |
| Edwardstone | 26.8% (3) | 48.7% (2) | Grade 1 (1) | 11-10 (2) | 3rd / Proven Dist (2) | 10 |
| Brookie | 17.2% (4) | 37.9% (3) | Grade 1 (1) | 11-10 (2) | Unpl / Proven Dist (2) | 12 |
Breakdown of the Point Allocations:
- Win Consistency: Jonbon achieves Dowst's ultimate benchmark, cresting the 70% win barrier to earn a rare 1-point score. Thistle Ask secures 2 points for falling in the 40%–69% tier. The rest of the field drops into the 3-point (20%–39%) or 4-point (<20%) categories.
- Money Consistency (ITM): Jonbon is mathematically perfect. He has placed in 28 of his 28 career runs (100%), effortlessly securing 1 point. Brookie falls below 40% (11 places in 29 runs = 37.9%) to take 3 points, while the rest sit in the middle tier for 2 points.
- Class: This is a Grade 1 championship race. All horses receive 1 point for top-tier company.
- Weight: It is a level-weights race with the entire field carrying 11-10. Because no horse holds a distinct weight advantage or handicap disadvantage, they all receive a neutral 2 points.
- Current Form & Distance: Jonbon earns the elite 1-point score here because he arrives in top form (2nd) and has thoroughly proven he can win at both Grade 1 level and the exact 1m7½f distance (5 wins). The rest of the field is penalized with 2 points due to either questionable recent form (Jpr One, Brookie, Edwardstone) or stepping into an unproven distance profile.
Chesham
Sire
I will stick to Bowers as the Prices are much better and Dutching opportunities are often possible. Dowste was working the American Flat races so unknown how his Rating method will work out in a NH Race.I can see how that would give you shorter prices but also a very high strike rate
I’m not a fan of awarding points and Fineform had a similar approach. If I remember correctly Sad Ken used that type of approach too.
With Bowers Ratings you are start with a reduced number of runners. I think Bowers found using RSB that it trapped the Winner in 78% of handicaps analysed.(Remembering that he was not backing in every race he analysed)
With much better data available it is easy to add metrics like RaceIQ, my own Class Ratings for the last 3 races (CCR) PR% (performance ratings based on the finishing position compared with Sp) the Timeform Data TFR, Tfig ,IPS and full TF perspective race comments
Final piece of the Jigsaw is the Head To Heads data
The algorithm that I have constructed takes all that into account
gerry
Mare
Well in what i have done today
Chesham your idea with little twist to see if more winners on the day could arise still jonbon sticks out massively as the main bet nothing comes close to it actually and that would be expected as top class race. This is my sandown card marked out for the day.
LA LUNA ARISTA 1 13.
KOCKTAIL BLEU 1 45.
BLOW YOUR WAD 2 20.
JONBON 2 55. NAP
ASK BREWSTER 3 30. JOINT NEXT BEST E/W
GO WEST 4 40 .
LISTENTOYOURHEART 5 15. JOINT NEXT BEST E/W
Chesham your idea with little twist to see if more winners on the day could arise still jonbon sticks out massively as the main bet nothing comes close to it actually and that would be expected as top class race. This is my sandown card marked out for the day.LA LUNA ARISTA 1 13.
KOCKTAIL BLEU 1 45.
BLOW YOUR WAD 2 20.
JONBON 2 55. NAP
ASK BREWSTER 3 30. JOINT NEXT BEST E/W
GO WEST 4 40 .
LISTENTOYOURHEART 5 15. JOINT NEXT BEST E/W
Chesham
Sire
runs).
Export to Sheets
| Horse | Bowers | HRB CCR (Last 3) | PR% (Last 3) | TFR / Tfig | RaceIQ: Lengths Gained Jumping / FSP% | Full Timeform Comments & IPS (Most Recent First) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Resplendent Grey | 13.0 | 141.0, 152.0, 138.5 (Elite class / Poor jumping) | 0%, 100%, 0% | TFR:102, 151, 135 Tfig:100, -, 122 | -8.55L, ?, ? (86.52% FSP) | IPS: 2, 3r, 5xs 1. lacklustre display in first-time blinkers... hampered 3 out, outpaced from there. 2. outpaced briefly 3 out before rallying to claim second. 3. reverted to looking sluggish... effort when blundered 3 out. |
| 7 In D'or | 22.0 | 135.0, 133.5, 126.0 (Consistent / Lacks elite gears) | 100%, 100%, 0% | TFR:138, 131, 129 Tfig:92, 122, 74 | +4.65L, +3.10L, +8.78L (Solid, efficient) | IPS: 3, 5k, 4 1. continued his good start for his new yard, though without suggesting he's anything other than averagely treated. 2. just in need of the run after 9 months off. 3. outpaced after 3 out, no impression after, plugged on. |
| 4 Road To Home | 22.5 | 136.5, 120.0, 131.0 (Elite tracker / Stayer) | 100%, 0%, 100% | TFR:135, -, 133 Tfig:111, -, 131 | +8.39L, +0.46L (PU), -0.59L (105.69% FSP) | IPS: 2pj, 3, 4ro 1. served up a career best in defeat; prominent, jumped fluently. 2. (Hurdles) found the test too much... pulled up. 3. keeping on when switched between last 2, finished well. |
| 9 Havaila | 23.5 | 134.0, 125.5, 106.0 (Unexposed closer / Jumping freak) | 100%, 100%, 0% | TFR:130, 123, 106 Tfig:129, 113, 109 | +15.21L, +18.83L, ? (99.17% FSP) | IPS: 5k, 4kj, 5p 1. basically having too much speed for his rivals on this sharp track, really thriving now. 2. impressing with how he completed the task... jumps well for one that started out on the Flat. 3. disappointed considering how he'd shaped on his return. |
| 11 Montregard | 24.33 | 132.0, 129.5, 118.0 (False Favourite / Massive OR deficit) | 100%, 100%, 0% | TFR:131, 130, - Tfig:132, 84, - | +14.59L, +5.20L, -7.40L (104.32% FSP) | IPS: 3k, 3, 4 1. went one better than last time thanks to another improved display. 2. wasted no time getting back to form, running better than ever in fact. 3. shaped as if amiss and was reported to have an irregular heartbeat. |
| 10 Ask Brewster | 25.5 | 134.5, 124.0, 126.5 (Apex Dictator / Lethal jumper) | 100%, 0%, 100% | TFR:132, 121, 125 Tfig:108, 91, 122 | +17.43L, +8.70L, +17.20L (105.36% FSP) | IPS: 1r, 1, 1jr 1. proved most progressive... no sign of the jumping errors he made at Sandown this time... seen to maximum effect typically ridden from the front. 2. couldn't complete the 4-timer but ran creditably... led again 3 out, mistake next, headed, weakened. 3. progressing at a rate of knots and completed a hat-trick... driven clear. |
| 3 Rock My Way | 27.0 | 136.0, 133.0, 119.0 (Erratic jumper / Liability) | 100%, 100%, 0% | TFR:136, 133, 119 Tfig:136, 124, 94 | +1.64L, -16.92L, -13.37L (Bleeds massive ground) | IPS: 1j, 2x, 3x 1. couldn't be faulted at all in terms of jumping this time and ran a cracker from the front. 2. jumping to hold him back, this time due to waywardness over the obstacles... jumped left from there. 3. shaped as if still in good form and probably found some mistakes taking their toll. |