Class/form horses

[gerry]

There is one race today and it is the first race at york where the field on the face of it you would think had the market as they say correct and the first two do indeed have a chance but i am going to predict that the draw will scubber there win chances and that a horse at double digit draw number and double digit price will deny them, So if that is the case do they still have the correct formed market in the first place.
I do have three horses in this bracket i think could be the horses too but as giving tips is not the way to go i will keep them to myself ,I know if one other horse at those odds and draw win they will say that was not the one but i believe it is to many a shock result.

 

[Sullybomb]

What JennyK is saying is that yes we all know the fav outwards the horses win more likely that is not in doubt and as they go up in odds less likely so not talking rubbish at all for the average punter and you are all not telling any of us something we do not know but no matter how you paint it you still have to bet and pick the correct horses at right time if you bet all six in betting you loose bet the fav you loose right up so horse racing is about understanding the horses to win what normal punters would need .
When you look at all these top syndicate guys they all lost a lot of money to get there systems up and running and believing they could win.
So tell me a ordinary punter the so called graph what would i bet in the graph to show profit worth caring about for pennies and pounds.
One other thing i had one winner out of all my horses yesterday but in my multies i lost pennies total so is not as bad idea as people mentioned.
But i wont give any more horses any more as the man MySportsAI has come on and said its waste of time so took me time to write them out here so why waste my time.

You may find this useful gerry

 

[Tufnel]

I think what MySportsAI is pointing out is that because the odds returned by BFSP is so close now to the actual winning percentage of those runners, finding value is difficult and in effect it's bucking the odds to try and do so on anything than a very selective basis.

Most horses going off at even money will win at around 50% of the time. That's obvious. And if you are regularly finding selections at that price then you need to be getting it right at a rate of more than 50% to show a profit.

The starting price is tied to the win percentage of those runners. That's not to say some of them won't actually have a greater percentage chance to win the race than the odds available.

And that is where the issue lies. One person's idea of a horse having a 70% chance of winning might be totally at odds with somebody else's who thinks it's closer to 40%.

Who is right in these situations? Is it an empirical view or just conjecture?

 

[BC]

JennyK and MySportsAI are talking at cross-purposes. It's painful to watch.

Across all races there is no better assessment of probability, I am surprised you do not know this. If showed you the graph of Betfair V actual wins it barely deviate

I didn't realise it was so closely correlated with the actual result.

You didn't answer an earlier question, which is extremely pertinent: how familiar are you with VDW's writings?

I suspect the answer is "not very familiar" or even "not at all"; And that's fine, but if you were, you would understand JennyK's point of view.

 

[MySportsAI]

JennyK and MySportsAI are talking at cross-purposes. It's painful to watch.


I didn't realise it was so closely correlated with the actual result.

You didn't answer an earlier question, which is extremely pertinent: how familiar are you with VDW's writings?

I suspect the answer is "not very familiar" or even "not at all"; And that's fine, but if you were, you would understand JennyK's point of view.

 

[BC]

MySportsAI - I take it that means you are familiar. In that case, you should be able to see JennyK's point of view. He's making a point directly from a VDW letter.

 

[BC]

One question I would ask is how much have learned this year that you did nor know before with regards horse racing. If you have learned anything has it changed the way you approach horse racing and selecting which horse has a Balance of Probability and Value . For those entrenched in VDW thinking, the final part his Platform states Probability .

I have entered a phase of my life where I just can't be bothered any more. I don't recognise myself from, say, 5 years ago, and have even visited the doctor as I slip deeper into an annoying level of contentment.

Yes, I did mean to write 'contentment'. It's something that has been alien to me up to now, and I don't know whether to fight it or enjoy it.

 

[Chesham]

8.24 Newcastle – Full Field Master Summary Chart​

Class 4 Handicap | 5f All-Weather | Avg OR: 75 | Class Par: RPR 84-92

No. & Horse	TFR	Tfigs (Last 3)	Timeform Snapshot	OR	RPR (Master)	DOD	EP (fps)	F3 (fps)	%Early	Exact Tissue	Target Status
4. Lethal Nymph	88	75, 68, 72	"Ready to cash in on his reduced mark before long"	79	86	+1.5	55.91	50.46	52.5%	3/1 (25.0%)	Primary Target
10. Buzz Box	84	61, 38, 55	"Shaped as if retaining all ability... entitled to strip fitter"	75	88	+1.5	55.05	52.12	51.3%	9/2 (18.1%)	Value Target
9. Little Mi Mi	85	73, 60, 55	"Proven a revelation... possible there may be even more to come"	76	84	+2.0	58.20	55.09	51.3%	13/2 (13.3%)	Pass (Pace Victim)
8. Azuinthejungle	83	51, 63, 67	"Completed a hat-trick... will continue to merit respect"	76	84	+0.5	57.22	54.59	51.1%	8/1 (11.1%)	Pass (Pace Victim)
11. Castan	81	69, 55, 40	"Back down to last winning mark and could well be building up to something"	74	83	+7.0	57.68	53.62	51.8%	12/1 (7.6%)	Pass (Pace Victim)
7. Copper Knight	88	36, 53, 78	"This is more his level nowadays and further success can't be ruled out"	77	87	+2.0	54.05	54.19	49.9%	14/1 (6.6%)	Pass
1. True Promise	88	51, 63, 74	"Had become a tad frustrating so isn't certain to back this up"	81	83	+5.5	57.23	53.23	51.8%	16/1 (5.8%)	Pass
13. Too Much	70	34, 18, 24	"Cashed in on her much-reduced mark... in a reapplied hood"	62	83	-1.0	54.35	50.54	51.8%	25/1 (3.8%)	Pass
5. Duran	84	51, 46, 69	"Was beaten by more than the 6-week absence..."	78	82	FU	55.50	51.50	51.0%	33/1 (2.9%)	Pass
6. Smart Vision	83	53, 67, 59	"Again underperformed kept to 6f"	77	84	+6.0	56.00	52.00	51.2%	40/1 (2.4%)	Pass
3. Changeofmind	89	47, 58, 72	"Found life tougher in a better race than the one he'd won last time"	79	84	+14.0	56.50	52.50	51.8%	50/1 (1.9%)	Pass
2. Star Material	85	-, 50, 73	"Not getting any more professional with experience"	82	81	+6.5	56.10	52.10	51.5%	66/1 (1.5%)	Pass
12. Ice Cold Alex	77	2, 66, 40	"Beaten a long way in the end... better than he could show here"	70	80	FU	55.20	51.20	51.5%	100/1 (1.0%)	Pass

(Total Book Probability: 101.0% - A perfect mathematical baseline to compare against the live exchange).

I have entered a phase of my life where I just can't be bothered any more. I don't recognise myself from, say, 5 years ago, and have even visited the doctor as I slip deeper into an annoying level of contentment.

Yes, I did mean to write 'contentment'. It's something that has been alien to me up to now, and I don't know whether to fight it or enjoy it.

At least you have not lost the motivation to join in on The Forum discussions. One thing that form does for myself, is that I might be asked a question that I dint instantly note answer too. Quite often I had not even considered before the racing subject relating to the question. This can result in finding the answer but also giving me new ideas to explore

This is my Mantra and fortunately the Forum has a few who I like to hang out with

Warren Buffet

“It's better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you'll drift in that direction."”

 

[Leodis]

View attachment 170716

I'm sure you are clever enough to know how to crop a screenshot, MySportsAI

 

[MySportsAI]

What JennyK is saying is that yes we all know the fav outwards the horses win more likely that is not in doubt and as they go up in odds less likely so not talking rubbish at all for the average punter and you are all not telling any of us something we do not know but no matter how you paint it you still have to bet and pick the correct horses at right time if you bet all six in betting you loose bet the fav you loose right up so horse racing is about understanding the horses to win what normal punters would need .
When you look at all these top syndicate guys they all lost a lot of money to get there systems up and running and believing they could win.
So tell me a ordinary punter the so called graph what would i bet in the graph to show profit worth caring about for pennies and pounds.
One other thing i had one winner out of all my horses yesterday but in my multies i lost pennies total so is not as bad idea as people mentioned.
But i wont give any more horses any more as the man MySportsAI has come on and said its waste of time so took me time to write them out here so why waste my time.

I said I find it more beneficial to discuss methods than to post bets. If you find the reverse then go ahead posting bets others will agree with you and not me. What I will say however is that it helps if bet posters bet ongoing PL accounts even if its at the end of each week. One poster is doing this on another thread and I congratulated him for doing this

 

[Nellsman]

York 1:50. I can't believe St Anton is so big here. I suppose I'll find out shortly. I've got 3 horses in here that are on my tracker and it would be absolutely no surprise to see Zennor Storm win after his run at Goodwood. Daydreama is way down the bottom of the handicap, but I'm taking a chance with him win and place.

Good Luck Today.

 

[JennyK]

MySportsAI

Maybe if I knew more about Bentner's work and you knew more about VDW's, our exchanges would have been different. Something you posted this morning very much interested me and maybe it might allow us to understand our respective positions better. Your comment was:

"Well just lower the odds and your strike rate will go up"

If I explain exactly how I proceed, maybe you can show me what that would mean in practice because I'd like to increase my rate as it is well short of VDW's claimed rate and the rate Lee proved with pre-race posts, albeit not over lots of selections.

The most valuable of the three races I am looking at today is the 6.45, which I will use as the example, but I work the same way every time.

After a quick glance through the cards I select the races I'll analyse. Then, using the Life's site (since the Post "improved" theirs) I go to the race page and select the area of the page from the top left hand corner of the blue box where the first few words are 18.45 Hamilton, down to the bottom right, where in this case the words, relating to prize money, are 6th = £302.00. At this stage I have taken no notice of the contents, I am just concerned with selecting the area accurately so my Excel application will be able to read what I paste into it.

I copy the selected area and paste it (using paste special) into the processing sheet of my application, activate a macro and the data I need for the analysis is extracted and put in the order I chose years ago into a second sheet. The data extracted are horse names, date of race, course, win prize money, race distance, weight, OR, race going, age, trainer, days since last run and claims. Other information from the Life website that I do not extract includes jockeys, betting forecast and last year's winner.

Once that data is in the second sheet, I activate a button which then copies the data to a third sheet and adds to it other data about each horse and generates a career sheet for each runner with all their UK runs since 01/01/23. Two more macros fill in further data. I then copy the list of runners, paste it into another application which generates a lot more data, mainly ability ratings, which I copy and paste into the third sheet in the main application. Maybe five minutes after first opening the Life page for the race, all the data I use is in the individual career sheets and the most essential in the third sheet of the application.

That sheet has two grids, the first the main one, the lower one sets out each runner's last three races with the data needed to use my understanding of VDW's way of rating form status, with a yes, no or ? conclusion for each runner, automatically generated through coding and transferred into a column in the top, main grid.

I then work down the second grid, resolving the situations I haven't yet fully coded so that when I've done that the "form status" column in the top grid is clear - each horse is either a VDW "form" horse or not.

With better class races, and by that I mean any race worth at least £10,000 to the winner, I check the highest ability ratings via the Post site in case a horse has a win or more abroad, not in my database, and correct manually as necessary. In the 6.45, the top three ability ratings from my database were Tatterstall 178, Canons House 128 and Eternal Sunshine 112. I have checked the Post's site.They are spot on, but in doing so I find Tatterstall is a non-runner, as indeed is the lower ability-rated Stargazed. So with them now deleted, I can start the serious work.

In this example things are reasonably straightforward. Both the now top-rated Canons House and Eternal Sunshine are VDW "form" horses (though not consistent form horses), and are well enough clear of the next, so my interest is on them. In relation to yesterday's race the question arose in my mind as to whether Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph were close enough to be for practical purposes joint class/form horses. My conclusion today is the same, probably not. The two today have higher ability ratings than yesterday's pair, but the gap is bigger. I think it almost certain that VDW would regard Canons House as the sole class/form horse, with Eternal Sunshine second on class/form, but of course he would be aware that the two come from the same last race, where Eternal Sunshine finished ahead but now Canons House meets him on better weight terms.

Let's assume that after work I have yet to do, I conclude that Canons House is a class/form horse strong enough to back, maybe covering on Eternal Sunshine or even a book. It is, quite literally, only at this point that I am interested in prices. I have just been to the Betfair site and the respective prices are the same, 5.2.

If after the necessary work I judge Canons House a solid-enough class/form horse to be among the less than 20% of such horses VDW thought were strong enough to back, I'd be happy enough with 5.2, though in practice I'd wait until much nearer the off when mostly, though certainly not always, the prices available on horses I am backing are longer than in the morning. And if I decided to cover on Eternal Sunshine, the prices permit it

My question really is what do you mean by "lower the odds"? Are you suggesting waiting to see if Canons House becomes the clear favourite and that if he did it would improve my chance of a winning bet?

 

[gerry]

Interesting how you do it JennyK and laid out i did tell you to get on those two yesterday some how and today i like ETERNAL SUNSHINE also.

 

[JennyK]

Won nicely, gerry.

 

[Kraldrew]

To me in the 1845 Jordons Electric and Eternal Sunshine were the class form horses

 

[Tufnel]

I'm somewhat kicking myself for not going for anything in the Hamilton 6:45 because by far the best recent form on offer was the race won by Corolla Point that was a 3 way close finish involving Eternal Sunshine and Fluorescence in 2nd and 3rd. Both the winner and the 3rd have shown the form in an even better light since too.

But I didn't go for it and instead backed the trainer and jockey in another race on a sprinter with just 1 win from 18 starts. Crazy stuff eh?

Anyway the 6:45 highlights another reason I don't think the ability rating should be the deciding factor on class/form status. Averaging the prize money won over number of races won leads to inflated ratings that can mislead. Both ES and Canons House have won a race each that was far above anything else they had achieved. But because CH had won much less races than ES, his AR rating is higher even though ES has won several races more valuable than CH's other 3 victories and also ES had won in much higher class than the one standout race CH had in his medals display. And her 3 next best wins were all at least double the value of CH's 3 next best.

In VDW's comments on the First Division race from the Roushayd articles, he talks about what sort of campaign both First Division and Greenhills Joy had the previous season and lists the winning class ratings. It was clear who had won the better races. And yet they both had an AR within 4 points of each other (FD 36 to GJ 32).

In order for a horse to be class/form based on form status and ability ratings alone, it means all higher rated AR runners need to be non form horses. As in the very first example.

But is that really the answer? What about Cistus and Swiss Maid and other races where you have to rule out a higher rated AR horse to make the winner in an example the class/form horse.

I know there are cases where the higher rated form horse has unfavourable conditions or a factor against. But even so, something has never looked right about it all.

Surely it might be better to look at a horse's last 6 or less victories and see which races stand out rather than going down the averaging route?

And even then you'd still get Cistus/Swiss Maid issues. Because Cistus had won recently in higher value/class than even the Sun Chariot itself, not to mention higher than any race Swiss Maid had so far won.

How did VDW make Swiss Maid a good thing if ARs were involved in the class/form status and the race wasn't even a handicap either?

 

[Sol Ski]

Chesham wrote,
Personally. I like discovering new ideas , exploring by trying it out for myself, if it has merit then it is another tool in the Tool Book.
For me thats what its about exploring new ideas not gambling, i only place £1 bets.
The thing i enjoy most is playing about on sites like Hrb, Flatstats, racemetrics etc.
That said im off to watch Slow horses on the tv.

 

[JennyK]

Swiss Maid is one of the most tricky VDW examples in my view, T Tufnel, and I've had different ideas about it at different times.

What is quite clear is that Swiss Maid was an almost perfect VDW "form" horse, and a "consistent form horse".

We know that Cistus had a higher ability rating at that point, but one possibility, in principle easily solved, is did VDW? The race that Cistus won before the race Swiss Maid won, was in France and it appears later in the Form Book than the Swiss Maid race. If that win was clearly in either the Mail or the Life on the morning of the race won by Swiss Maid, clearly VDW would very likely have known about it, but if not, he could well have been unaware of it, and without that win, Cistus's AR would have been lower and the sort of question that arose with the ARs of Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph yesterday would have arisen. As I said yesterday, how close ARs have to be at different levels of AR for VDW to have regarded them as for all practical purposes equal, I don't know. (Indeed a further possibility is that VDW did not count the French race, if he knew about it, at face value as French prize money was, I believe, and still is generally higher than UK prize money.)

If VDW did know about the French win, as is probable though not certain, and took the win prize money at face value, we need to look at explanations elsewhere of which there are at least three possibilities, any of which could account for the selection of Swiss Maid.

First, as you know better than most because you've explored it and come up with a solution, VDW seems to have used probability numbers in his first ever example, but never referred to them in terms again. The Swiss Maid race was, like Prominent King's Erin, in 1978. Maybe at that stage he was still using the probable numbers before, I think, discarding them as a blind alley. If memory serves, there are at least four views on how the Erin probables numbers were arrived at. Does your view make Cistus one of the probables, because mine doesn't - on mine the three probables were Be Sweet, Double Lock and Swiss Maid. It is all a bit iffy: were the numbers in the Prominent King example really probables numbers, for how long did VDW go on using them, and which of four known views on their composition is the correct one (in indeed any)? But if the Prominent King race numbers were indeed probables numbers (as we both, I think, believe) rather than erroneous consistency totals, and my view on their composition is the right one, maybe at that stage VDW was only concerned with the ARs and "form" status of the probables.

Second, maybe VDW did not regard Cistus as a "form" horse because of the penultimate run. I have to say that on my understanding of VDW's method of rating form Cistus was, but my understanding may well be incomplete.

Third, I don't know how VDW regarded weight in non-handicaps like the Swiss Maid race. Early in the year Cistus beat Swiss Maid giving weight; in the race Swiss Maid won, Cistus had to give Swiss Maid more weight and VDW could have thought, given the shape of their respective runs in 1978, Cistus couldn't win under that condition.

None of the three makes me think yes, that's it, so it remains at the moment one of the VDW examples I do not fully understand.

 

[Tufnel]

Swiss Maid is one of the most tricky VDW examples in my view, T Tufnel, and I've had different ideas about it at different times.

What is quite clear is that Swiss Maid was an almost perfect VDW "form" horse, and a "consistent form horse".

We know that Cistus had a higher ability rating at that point, but one possibility, in principle easily solved, is did VDW? The race that Cistus won before the race Swiss Maid won, was in France and it appears later in the Form Book than the Swiss Maid race. If that win was clearly in either the Mail or the Life on the morning of the race won by Swiss Maid, clearly VDW would very likely have known about it, but if not, he could well have been unaware of it, and without that win, Cistus's AR would have been lower and the sort of question that arose with the ARs of Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph yesterday would have arisen. As I said yesterday, how close ARs have to be at different levels of AR for VDW to have regarded them as for all practical purposes equal, I don't know. (Indeed a further possibility is that VDW did not count the French race, if he knew about it, at face value as French prize money was, I believe, and still is generally higher than UK prize money.)

If VDW did know about the French win, as is probable though not certain, and took the win prize money at face value, we need to look at explanations elsewhere of which there are at least three possibilities, any of which could account for the selection of Swiss Maid.

First, as you know better than most because you've explored it and come up with a solution, VDW seems to have used probability numbers in his first ever example, but never referred to them in terms again. The Swiss Maid race was, like Prominent King's Erin, in 1978. Maybe at that stage he was still using the probable numbers before, I think, discarding them as a blind alley. If memory serves, there are at least four views on how the Erin probables numbers were arrived at. Does your view make Cistus one of the probables, because mine doesn't - on mine the three probables were Be Sweet, Double Lock and Swiss Maid. It is all a bit iffy: were the numbers in the Prominent King example really probables numbers, for how long did VDW go on using them, and which of four known views on their composition is the correct one (in indeed any)? But if the Prominent King race numbers were indeed probables numbers (as we both, I think, believe) rather than erroneous consistency totals, and my view on their composition is the right one, maybe at that stage VDW was only concerned with the ARs and "form" status of the probables.

Second, maybe VDW did not regard Cistus as a "form" horse because of the penultimate run. I have to say that on my understanding of VDW's method of rating form Cistus was, but my understanding may well be incomplete.

Third, I don't know how VDW regarded weight in non-handicaps like the Swiss Maid race. Early in the year Cistus beat Swiss Maid giving weight; in the race Swiss Maid won, Cistus had to give Swiss Maid more weight and VDW could have thought, given the shape of their respective runs in 1978, Cistus couldn't win under that condition.

None of the three makes me think yes, that's it, so it remains at the moment one of the VDW examples I do not fully understand.

If the Erin probables numbers were indeed a thing, then it would be almost certain he was still using them less than a year later for Swiss Maid and co. And given he was responding as VDW to his own letter by Hall regarding the key before any mention of ARs then that might suggest the probables were still found the same way.

I agree that Cistus only failing in the then equivalent of the today’s Juddmonte shouldn’t really affect its form status in the Sun Chariot.

But maybe there’s a case for saying she went up in class and failed at York, was then rested and dropped in class in France to win narrowly by a head before coming back to the races pretty quickly for a group horse in the Newmarket event, and therefore VDW saw that as decline in the level of form when set against the much more progressive nature of Swiss Maid’s recent efforts?

Dropping in class to win (or not) has less significance in early season outings than after having shown good form in better races. Especially if the key horses involved hadn’t shown much, as was the case as far as I could tell regarding the horses Cistus beat in France.

There are similarities to Beacon Light here too I think. BL had already won 3 races and been 5th in another by the time he dropped in class against Sea Pigeon. Prominent King had run just twice with first run in second over the wrong trip and then also dropped in class of race but against a class dropper from much higher class.

The differences between horses being prepped or going to the well once too often probably needs careful consideration. In fact VDW said there was a difference between a horse being overfaced or putting in a seemingly bad run to one that had blown its top for the season.

I suspect had Cistus romped home in France by a clear margin then perhaps things may have presented themselves differently to VDW. It would have been hard to dismiss her France run in that scenario.