Class/form horses

[Graeme]

FWIW I was one of the other members on that project - gerry I think you are right in saying it is what you do with the ratings that makes the difference and that is what we were trying to do at the time seek consensus from our own rating methodologies to improve the strike rate.

Any set of ratings will not work all of the time - most claim the top 3 strikes 66% or thereabouts of the time.

In reality any set of ratings needs to be assessed across a lot of other aspects - class of race, number of runners, price of favourite to name but a few to determine how best the ratings are to be used and extract the most potential from them.

 

[gerry]

I have my own way of working them out and just at beginning filtering other things in slowly as i don't want to completely break down what i do so far so good there is good and bad in them and it is know way straight forward.

 

[Kraldrew]

15.15 Cat 2m my take on modern ability with class and form. Fleur De Mer Top Ability (C4) Top adjust Rtg (C5) Top overall Form (C6)

​	​	​	​	0​	​	0​	​
Free World​	65​	59​	1​	41.6666666666667​	57​	98.6666666666667​	​
Karthala​	73​	30​	1​	34.6666666666667​	24​	58.6666666666667​	​
Fleur De Mer​	82​	62​	1​	48.3333333333333​	71​	119.333333333333​	​
Zephlyn​	70​	59​	1​	43.3333333333333​	61​	104.333333333333​	​
Slack Alice​	58​	47​	1​	35.3333333333333​	51​	86.3333333333333​	​
Speechman​	98​	39​	1​	46​	37​	83​	​
Lillistar​	63​	46​	1​	36.6666666666667​	51​	87.6666666666667​	​
Star Of Jupiter​	54​	30​	1​	28.3333333333333​	30​	58.3333333333333​	​
Ruler Of The River​	61​	36​	1​	32.6666666666667​	44​	76.6666666666667​	​

 

[Tufnel]

Having looked at the Spells It All Out ratings compared to Spot Form, I think there isn't too much in it.

The ratings are quite compacted, though a lot of winners seem to be in the top 3 or 4 ratings. And apparently Spot Form used to be adjusted by class of race so each runners rating would change depending on the class of race to be run.

What might hold some promise is looking at what rating the horse showed in it's previous race before the event and what rating the horse it beat or was beaten by had. For example Kenlis had won last time out in a race where he was rated 40 before the race and the horse he gave weight (23 lbs) and a 4 length beating to was rated 44 (top rated in the race). So perhaps VDW viewed it as Kenlis gave weight and a beating to a horse rated on the day 4 spots above him and came up with an adjusted figure that way?

I really don't know, and I guess it's not really relevant anymore as spot form has changed anyway.

The cards from the Mirror are below if anyone wants to have a look and have a go at cracking it. I just think the Mirror's ratings could have played a part in VDW's own sets, especially as he quoted verbatim the line for Gaye Chance's last race from the Mirror's verdict blurb.

 

[Tufnel]

In fact screenshots of spot form ratings for horses such as Wayward Lad and Stray Shot convince me it's a blind alley and hitting reverse was the right thing to do. Interesting to look though, just in case.

While I was there checking Stray Shot and Zamandra I double checked the form confirmation from their last races just as with yesterday's 2/1 winner. It's pretty much the same outcome in respect of where the main players were in the betting as you go back through the form of those involved.

 

[rave154]

Wins at 2/1

Took me less than 5 minutes using that approach.

this is DEEP !!! ( im not even kidding )

 

[JennyK]

"I just think the Mirror's ratings could have played a part in VDW's own sets, especially as he quoted verbatim the line for Gaye Chance's last race from the Mirror's verdict blurb."

Not impossible, T Tufnel, but the fact that both the Mirror and VDW used the words "out of its depth" in its last race re Gaye Chance doesn't really mean a lot - it was an obvious phrase to use, given the respective race classes.

It would be nice to know how VDW compiled his ratings but likely would give us no practical benefit if we did. It is surely virtually certain that whoever was responsible for the ratings in any of the papers in the 1980s won't be doing them now and whoever is will no doubt have their own approaches.

I believe that mick made a most pertinent comment about ratings - he didn't claim his were better than the likes of the RPR, but at least he knew how they were compiled; the same with me and mine. And when one knows how ratings are compiled one can interpret them better, as I hope I do with VDW's ability rating (as discussed on the ability ratings thread).

 

[Tufnel]

"I just think the Mirror's ratings could have played a part in VDW's own sets, especially as he quoted verbatim the line for Gaye Chance's last race from the Mirror's verdict blurb."

Not impossible, T Tufnel, but the fact that both the Mirror and VDW used the words "out of its depth" in its last race re Gaye Chance doesn't really mean a lot - it was an obvious phrase to use, given the respective race classes.

It would be nice to know how VDW compiled his ratings but likely would give us no practical benefit if we did. It is surely virtually certain that whoever was responsible for the ratings in any of the papers in the 1980s won't be doing them now and whoever is will no doubt have their own approaches.

I believe that mick made a most pertinent comment about ratings - he didn't claim his were better than the likes of the RPR, but at least he knew how they were compiled; the same with me and mine. And when one knows how ratings are compiled one can interpret them better, as I hope I do with VDW's ability rating (as discussed on the ability ratings thread).

Yes. Even VDW said he thought the various ratings compilers knew best how to use them.

Whilst digging around for the various paper scans I put some of them into a sheet so that I could see how the form lines went back for various VDW examples.

I know the Stray Shot and Zamandra lines show confirmation. But I hadn't fully checked some of the others from the same day.

Below is River Rhein's form line. It's an interesting one because he'd been running in higher class, and quite well and was forecast an odds on shot with highest ability rating. He won. But VDW said it wasn't one to take.

If you look at the form lines, even though they are higher class, there's not a lot of consistency and expected market performance.

 

[rave154]

Tufnel, send me a PM, if you care, cheers

 

[Tufnel]

Tufnel, send me a PM, if you care, cheers

If you go upto the envelope on your profile at top of the page, click it then click start conversation you can message.

 

[JennyK]

I think there are two things to be learnt from the "Boxing Day six", T Tufnel.

First, after the Righthand Man example, the six are the next races where VDW explicitly referred to named horses as "form" horses, so they are valuable in trying to work out how he rated for "form" status.

Second, VDW later wrote about backing/not backing class/form horses and here we have two he thought should be backed and four not. He never spelt out the criteria used for the <20% that should be backed and the >80% that should be left, so as we try to solve that puzzle and here we have specific examples of both that must satisfy the criteria we deduce. If they don't, we are missing something or doing something wrong vis-a-vis how VDW worked.

In this latter endeavour, which remains work in progress for me, I think "consistency" has a part to play, but how should we define it? Lee, for example, once wrote:

"There are 3 measures of consistency that I use."

Whether VDW used three, the well-known one and, as Lee also put it, "The other two ... to confirm the strength of consistency," is for me an open question.

 

[Tufnel]

I think there are two things to be learnt from the "Boxing Day six", T Tufnel.

First, after the Righthand Man example, the six are the next races where VDW explicitly referred to named horses as "form" horses, so they are valuable in trying to work out how he rated for "form" status.

Second, VDW later wrote about backing/not backing class/form horses and here we have two he thought should be backed and four not. He never spelt out the criteria used for the <20% that should be backed and the >80% that should be left, so as we try to solve that puzzle and here we have specific examples of both that must satisfy the criteria we deduce. If they don't, we are missing something or doing something wrong vis-a-vis how VDW worked.

In this latter endeavour, which remains work in progress for me, I think "consistency" has a part to play, but how should we define it? Lee, for example, once wrote:

"There are 3 measures of consistency that I use."

Whether VDW used three, the well-known one and, as Lee also put it, "The other two ... to confirm the strength of consistency," is for me an open question.

I think with Stray Shot and Zamandra there is a fairly clear case of key horse data helping to confirm results. Something that isn't as clear in the case of River Rhein despite him being the clear class/form horse and dropping a fair way in class.

But also the other differences, for me are that in SS & Z's races, there are no form horses, let alone non form horses who have an AR higher or equal to the class of race being contested (SS apart).

Which is also something that isn't the case in the races involving River Rhein and Castle Warden.

To be fair, I think I would have probably taken the chance with RR in his race anyway as he had been running against mainly better horses than Falkland Palace. But FP had an AR just above the Huntingdon race, was a form horse, also dropping in class and the form lines from his most recent run in higher class rang true to the markets and form of the horses involved.