gerry
The 2.50 was one of the races I analysed today, without finding a bet in any of them.
I attach my charts for the first two home in the 2.50. They are based on my ratings, which I use in preference to the Post's not because I have any evidence that they are better but because obviously I know exactly how they are compiled, which I don't with the Post's. I attach the charts because I think they show the significanace a factor I did not get from my study of VDW's writings, though it may be there, but which I find is actually often very pertinent: age.
The charts, like the one I posted re Dutch Decoy, are completed on the hypothetical assumption that the horse concerned won, so that I can see its progression/regression curve and thus judge how likely it is to win.
With the 3yo, Angel Shared, very few runs (I only include handicaps) and the slope of the green line shows that she would need to be very progressive to win today (which in the event she showed she was). Before the race, and despite the obvious pluses for her, I was unwilling to back her to show that degree of improvement because 3yos in broadly her situation often show improvement it is not often that much so quickly. (Her margin of victory on 24/04/24 suggested she would indeed show improvement but even factoring that in I wasn't confident she would show enough today.)
With the 7yo, Elegant Erin, much more data of course and I've focused on runs from 2022 when she was a 5yo. The chart shows good progression in winning performances in 2022 but in the eleven handicap runs prior to today since the win on 14/09/22 she has really only been involved towards the finish once (05/08/23). I won't be at all surprised if she wins a race this year but my difficulty with this sort is spotting when that is likely to be. Hence I didn't back her today either.
Actually, I think VDW was positively unhelpful on this matter. In response to a Mr F Chester, who wrote that "ability however has its peaks and troughs. What's more a horse's ability fades in due course," VDW replied:
"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."
Mr Chester, I think, was confusing ability with performance. Performances do indeed have peaks and troughs (impossible to prove, of course, but for example I think Dutch Decoy would have shown more today had the going been good/firm rather than good/soft). Mr Chester was certainly right, though, in saying that ability fades over time, as it does with us and all living creatures. VDW chose to respond from a very particular perspective - that of his ability rating. There, because it is an average, the pattern is often as he describes. But it does not mean that as a horse gets older, it can run to its "average ability" over previous years as suggested by the ability rating. On the Flat, 3yos and 4yos are usually progressive, as are many 5yos and some older horses. If a horse is kept in training long enough, though, it will always become evident that it can no longer run to the ability it had two or three years earlier, just as, for example, we can all see the decline in Andy Murray's tennis ability (largely for the same cause - age-related physical deterioration).
I have found factoring in age when assessing ability has overall been helpful in avoiding losing bets. Not infrequently I am put off a winner like Angel Shared because I take a conservative view about what degree of improvement a horse is likely to be able to achieve. But much more frequently I am put off older horses because they seem to be fading in ability terms and it is difficult to judge when their fading ability, placing in a lower class race and the right conditions all come together.