JennyK
Gelding
T
Tufnel
Obviously I don't know how you work, but in most of his elaborated examples VDW presented tables of data, and I suggest he did this for two reasons. First, so that he had the whole field under his eye and could get a preliminary view of possibilities and second so that he had a starting point for the serious work of analysis.
The table in my previous post is the format I use, for yesterday's 4.00 Thirsk.
The first two columns speak for themselves. The third shows the penalty value of each runner's last race, with the value of the current race in the top cell, so that one can see which are rising in class and which dropping (and visually easier if, as my original is, the column is colour coded).
The AR column nearly speaks for itself, too, the only point being I did not check the figures against the Post's and in a race like this, with most of the field coming from much better races lto, it is likely that some have foreign wins the figures, generated from my UK database, don't include.
The Form column is the result of the application of my understanding of VDW's form status rating approach but could of course be the outcome of any form assessment process one decides to use.
The key horse form column is reasonably similar to that Lee used, based on 3s (ie the key horse ideally finished in the first three and had been in the first three in the betting).
The final column is whatever one chooses to use as the equivalent of the two sets of ratings that VDW showed in right hand columns of some of his tables. I use my own performance ratings but one could use RPR ratings, sfs or whatever.
From such a table one gets an immediate sense both of possibilities and issues. Assuming for this purpose of this comment that the ARs are correct (they likely aren't), on VDW's form status rating for exposed form, there are six "form" horse, which of course visually stand out much more clearly with colour coding. Yes I'm Mali is, provisionally, the class/form horse, well clear of the next "form" horse, Lord Roxby.
As with VDW's tables, it also provides a starting point for the serious work. First, is it right to regard both higher ability-rated horses, We Never Stop and Eye Of Dubai (and probably Manilla Scouse as not far below Yes I'm Mali) as not "form" horses? Do any of the three have what might reasonably be regarded as "less obvious" form which would cause us the change the "n" to "y" in the Form column (and change the provisional view that Yes I'm Mali is the class/form horse)?
Assuming not, the next consideration is Yes I'm Mali's key horse support. It does not meet Lee's criteria, or indeed my own understanding of VDW's. But might it be good enough?
Only then is it clear whether there is a solid class/form horse worth backing. If not, as with me in yesterday's pre race post, that is it as far as betting is concerned. Even if I thought Yes I'm Mali a very doubtful class/form horse, what is there lower down the ability rankings that might tempt? Nothing I can see, though the two 3yo "form" horses might be highly progessive, but I know of no way in VDW's writings to judge that, bearing in mind that he was clear that one should judge on public performances.
The point of this post is simply to suggest the the advantages of VDW's basic way of working; assembling whatever one regards as the essential information for every runner, thus getting an immediate overview and a place to start the serious work of analysis.
re Connaught Bridge, I agree with you, though I'd narrow the final point to not (yet) understanding why VDW preferred CB to Tintagel; CB was in my view, second on class/form.
I'm less surprised than you that this example, and other issues with VDW, weren't queried in the Handicap Book a the time. Not, I think, because of censorship by Mr Peach, but due to the laboriousness of communications then. If one wanted to query something, and wrote immediatly, in all probability it would be printed in the next but one edition as best, so at least three weeks' wait for a response. With current means we can have several back and fros in a couple of hours, never mind three weeks or more. (I think that is why so many politicians get into difficulty with social media. Easy to post an immediate reaction which, on reflection one might regret. When I started one job a colleague advised that if one ever felt the need to write a letter or send a memo with criticism in it, leave it in the desk overnight and see the following day if one still wants to send it, at least as originally drafted.)
Obviously I don't know how you work, but in most of his elaborated examples VDW presented tables of data, and I suggest he did this for two reasons. First, so that he had the whole field under his eye and could get a preliminary view of possibilities and second so that he had a starting point for the serious work of analysis.
The table in my previous post is the format I use, for yesterday's 4.00 Thirsk.
The first two columns speak for themselves. The third shows the penalty value of each runner's last race, with the value of the current race in the top cell, so that one can see which are rising in class and which dropping (and visually easier if, as my original is, the column is colour coded).
The AR column nearly speaks for itself, too, the only point being I did not check the figures against the Post's and in a race like this, with most of the field coming from much better races lto, it is likely that some have foreign wins the figures, generated from my UK database, don't include.
The Form column is the result of the application of my understanding of VDW's form status rating approach but could of course be the outcome of any form assessment process one decides to use.
The key horse form column is reasonably similar to that Lee used, based on 3s (ie the key horse ideally finished in the first three and had been in the first three in the betting).
The final column is whatever one chooses to use as the equivalent of the two sets of ratings that VDW showed in right hand columns of some of his tables. I use my own performance ratings but one could use RPR ratings, sfs or whatever.
From such a table one gets an immediate sense both of possibilities and issues. Assuming for this purpose of this comment that the ARs are correct (they likely aren't), on VDW's form status rating for exposed form, there are six "form" horse, which of course visually stand out much more clearly with colour coding. Yes I'm Mali is, provisionally, the class/form horse, well clear of the next "form" horse, Lord Roxby.
As with VDW's tables, it also provides a starting point for the serious work. First, is it right to regard both higher ability-rated horses, We Never Stop and Eye Of Dubai (and probably Manilla Scouse as not far below Yes I'm Mali) as not "form" horses? Do any of the three have what might reasonably be regarded as "less obvious" form which would cause us the change the "n" to "y" in the Form column (and change the provisional view that Yes I'm Mali is the class/form horse)?
Assuming not, the next consideration is Yes I'm Mali's key horse support. It does not meet Lee's criteria, or indeed my own understanding of VDW's. But might it be good enough?
Only then is it clear whether there is a solid class/form horse worth backing. If not, as with me in yesterday's pre race post, that is it as far as betting is concerned. Even if I thought Yes I'm Mali a very doubtful class/form horse, what is there lower down the ability rankings that might tempt? Nothing I can see, though the two 3yo "form" horses might be highly progessive, but I know of no way in VDW's writings to judge that, bearing in mind that he was clear that one should judge on public performances.
The point of this post is simply to suggest the the advantages of VDW's basic way of working; assembling whatever one regards as the essential information for every runner, thus getting an immediate overview and a place to start the serious work of analysis.
re Connaught Bridge, I agree with you, though I'd narrow the final point to not (yet) understanding why VDW preferred CB to Tintagel; CB was in my view, second on class/form.
I'm less surprised than you that this example, and other issues with VDW, weren't queried in the Handicap Book a the time. Not, I think, because of censorship by Mr Peach, but due to the laboriousness of communications then. If one wanted to query something, and wrote immediatly, in all probability it would be printed in the next but one edition as best, so at least three weeks' wait for a response. With current means we can have several back and fros in a couple of hours, never mind three weeks or more. (I think that is why so many politicians get into difficulty with social media. Easy to post an immediate reaction which, on reflection one might regret. When I started one job a colleague advised that if one ever felt the need to write a letter or send a memo with criticism in it, leave it in the desk overnight and see the following day if one still wants to send it, at least as originally drafted.)
Last edited:
: Led overall, clocking 17.53s opening furlong. Forfeited 0s = 0 lbs.
The Manhattan Output (The Grid Evaluator)