Class/form horses
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
Buckbe presents a perhaps small issue though.
The 5th placing beaten almost 13 lengths with 10-13 at 4/1 was when upped a long way in class (99) at Ascot in a G2 2m Novice chase from an 8/11 victory on chase debut at Exeter in a class 18 nov chase over 2m 1f with 10-9 by 5 lengths.
The victory before Kempton was a class 55 race following a fall when making headway in the race prior to that.
The Kempton race was a class 64 race which is obviously lower than the Ascot race and not much higher than her last time out win. Could it be that VDW expected a LTO winner to do better when raised in class given it was a 4/1 chance in that Ascot race? Because if not then the inconsistency award doesn't seem fair given it was a 50% higher class race than the Kempton one.
One thing I noted was that Buckbe's jumping during her LTO victory was cited as "slip shod" by Spotform in the Mirror and perhaps that was one of the other factors VDW might have had against Buckbe.
Last edited:
JennyK
Gelding
T
Tufnel
I've had a couple of exchanges on the forum over the last three years on the Roushayd example, and posters have identified why they disagreee VDW's conclusion that he showed improvement on his last run before the 1988 Old Newton Cup and judgement that he was a certainty in the race. The points raised are, from their point of view, perfectly valid. But from my point of view as someone trying more fully to understand VDW's approach they are irrelevant.
It is the same with Buckbe. One can perfectly reasonably have different views about Buckbe's performances, including runs before the 3rd last before 27/12/84 and one might reach different conclusions than VDW did. But from the perspective of trying to understand his approach more fully, we simply need to take his comments re Buckbe's class/form status not being consistent as givens and work out why. With ability, we use all a horse's last wins, however long ago. But for "form" and issues such as what constitutes class/form status and consistency, all the evidence suggests that VDW considered just the thre most recent races. From that perspective only one was a "form" run as I understand it, and explains the "form" part of class/form. I think that the other two were not "form" runs explains the not consistent comment.
I've had a couple of exchanges on the forum over the last three years on the Roushayd example, and posters have identified why they disagreee VDW's conclusion that he showed improvement on his last run before the 1988 Old Newton Cup and judgement that he was a certainty in the race. The points raised are, from their point of view, perfectly valid. But from my point of view as someone trying more fully to understand VDW's approach they are irrelevant.
It is the same with Buckbe. One can perfectly reasonably have different views about Buckbe's performances, including runs before the 3rd last before 27/12/84 and one might reach different conclusions than VDW did. But from the perspective of trying to understand his approach more fully, we simply need to take his comments re Buckbe's class/form status not being consistent as givens and work out why. With ability, we use all a horse's last wins, however long ago. But for "form" and issues such as what constitutes class/form status and consistency, all the evidence suggests that VDW considered just the thre most recent races. From that perspective only one was a "form" run as I understand it, and explains the "form" part of class/form. I think that the other two were not "form" runs explains the not consistent comment.
Last edited:
I'd agree with the last 3 runs conclusion but for the fact that non completions were dealt with by going to the last completed start and Buckbe fell in her 2nd last race. Surely her last 3 runs to check the form on were her 2 wins and the 5th in between?
I can't see how anything else but that 5th placing in class 99 over the shorter distance of 2 miles could be the reason for him labelling her with lack of consistency.
But usually, an unplaced run in higher class than the race being contested can be forgiven, especially if surrounded by form runs. Perhaps it wasn't forgiven because she was just 4/1 in that class 99 and he viewed that as let down in finishing 5th by some 13 lengths? Had she been a 33/1 shot (as Gaye Chance was when down the field in much higher class) then that would have been a run to expectations?
So what I'm saying is, if VDW says she was not consistent and we have to accept that, we still need to be able to define why along the same lines as Ryeman for starters.
With Ryeman he actually tells us it was the race where Ryeman was dropped in class and finished last of 4 when the race, in his words "should have been no problem".
With Buckbe he didn't give us much to go on. Other than a similar (unintended) red herring that it was to do with the consistency figures, despite both being a reasonable total of 7 but not being the top in a field of 3 or 4 runners.
At the moment I tend to think her failure when just 4/1 in the class 99 race was considered below par. And interestingly Cistus was just 5/1 3rd fav in that much higher class race at York when she finished 9th of 10. And with that between the 2 wins would make her not consistent or consistently in form.
Incidentally, whilst going through those 84/85 and the March 81 Spells It All Out examples, it finally dawned on me that the points gap between the class horses from the first 3 or 4 in the betting and indeed the first 5 or 6 in the betting, is not necessarily the same as the point gap between the class/form horse and the 2nd class/form.
For example the gap between Stray Shot and the 2nd on class/form is not 3, but 8.
And in the Spells It All Out letter the gaps between the class/form and 2nd class/form in the 4 shown examples are:
Little Owl to 2nd class/form is 13
Sunset Cristo to 2nd class/form is 5
Gaye Chance to 2nd class/form is 3
Kenlis to 2nd class/form is 1
Maybe there's something in that from the choosing of which ones to take/wager on and which ones to leave?
For example the gap between Stray Shot and the 2nd on class/form is not 3, but 8.
And in the Spells It All Out letter the gaps between the class/form and 2nd class/form in the 4 shown examples are:
Little Owl to 2nd class/form is 13
Sunset Cristo to 2nd class/form is 5
Gaye Chance to 2nd class/form is 3
Kenlis to 2nd class/form is 1
Maybe there's something in that from the choosing of which ones to take/wager on and which ones to leave?
JennyK
Gelding
T
Tufnel
At the moment - until I've been through all relevant examples - my working assumption is that the last three runs all "form" runs = consistent. The work is to identify circumstances where, for clear reasons, this seems not to have been the case, where the ones that may help most are probably Gaye Chance and Beat The Retreat.
With those two we know that VDW specifically referred to them as the class/form horses in their races. Neither had their last three runs as all "form" runs. I think only two conclusions are reasonable - either a class/form horse did not have to be a consistent class/form horse, or in their particular circumstances VDW regarded them as consistent. I don't think one can be sure which solely from those two examples but when one knows (as I don't yet) whether the possible reasons have been applied consistently through all relevant examples. What makes this a laborious matter is that Gaye Chance and Beat The Retreat were not the only examples where the last three runs were not each "form" runs, and Connaught Bridge/Tintagel and Swiss Maid/Cistus were not the only examples where VDW selected a lower rated "form" horse over a higher rated one, so there is a lot of ground to revisit.
Does it matter? It may seem a bit like the number of angels on a pin head, but I think it does, for two very practical reasons. If we were sure, it would open up additional and more solid grounds for other less than entirely straightforward VDW examples. Second, it would be a lead, possibly a decisive one, in the <20%/>80% question, an understanding of the answer to which, if we take VDW's claimed strike rate at all seriously, is plainly of the essence.
I am certainly not saying that in considering the issue of consistency one should discount the idea that in some cases VDW went further back than the last three runs. I am however sceptical as to whether he would with an example like Buckbe where from my understanding of "form", only one of his last three runs was a "form" run.
At the moment - until I've been through all relevant examples - my working assumption is that the last three runs all "form" runs = consistent. The work is to identify circumstances where, for clear reasons, this seems not to have been the case, where the ones that may help most are probably Gaye Chance and Beat The Retreat.
With those two we know that VDW specifically referred to them as the class/form horses in their races. Neither had their last three runs as all "form" runs. I think only two conclusions are reasonable - either a class/form horse did not have to be a consistent class/form horse, or in their particular circumstances VDW regarded them as consistent. I don't think one can be sure which solely from those two examples but when one knows (as I don't yet) whether the possible reasons have been applied consistently through all relevant examples. What makes this a laborious matter is that Gaye Chance and Beat The Retreat were not the only examples where the last three runs were not each "form" runs, and Connaught Bridge/Tintagel and Swiss Maid/Cistus were not the only examples where VDW selected a lower rated "form" horse over a higher rated one, so there is a lot of ground to revisit.
Does it matter? It may seem a bit like the number of angels on a pin head, but I think it does, for two very practical reasons. If we were sure, it would open up additional and more solid grounds for other less than entirely straightforward VDW examples. Second, it would be a lead, possibly a decisive one, in the <20%/>80% question, an understanding of the answer to which, if we take VDW's claimed strike rate at all seriously, is plainly of the essence.
I am certainly not saying that in considering the issue of consistency one should discount the idea that in some cases VDW went further back than the last three runs. I am however sceptical as to whether he would with an example like Buckbe where from my understanding of "form", only one of his last three runs was a "form" run.
Last edited:
I agree it matters to investigate any possible areas or factors that may have been missed or misunderstood with VDW’s approach. That is logical.
What I’m not so sure about is the idea that if VDW clearly told us how to deal with non completions, whilst also warning us to make an effort into evaluate the circumstances of those performances, why would he not do the same for assessment of form status?
As he said there’s a world of difference between a slight mistake in a race and just blundering at fences. He used Uther Pendragon as an example. And of course gave Strombolus as a definite selection. Both horses had non completions in their last 3 races.
Are you saying that for Buckbe you used the Fall as one of its last 3 performances or that you used only the 1st 5th 1st runs?
Btw I have checked dozens of his examples and in the process of doing more in the ability rating related to form status.
So far using just a runner’s 2 most recent wins for the calculation didn’t change a single selection’s dominance.
And interestingly whilst it raised the rating for a few others in some races, they were either not form horses or were already higher than his selection using all wins anyway.
Of course some of the selections had their rating increased using just the 2 most recent wins.
On one occasion during the Roushayd example he mentioned just the previous season’s victories for 2 horses in a race. First Division and Greenhills Joy.
And in his re edited version of that article he did the same for others including Roushayd.
I showed some data that puts using the whole career for wins over just more recent wins in a clearer poorer light regardless of form or other factors. Though I also did tests using last time out placings which only confirmed conclusions.
And whilst applying this to at least half of VDWs examples didn’t change any horses from being the VDW selection, it did in some cases increase their rating by some margin to make them clear of the field. Kenlis being one that sprung to mind. That race picture changed from a blanket of ability to a genuine forecast favourite who was also clear on ability based on recent wins, not historical ones.
Obviously that’s a different issue, but I’m confident in the data checked so far. I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t ring true for all examples.
Ok thanks.
Which leads me to your earlier post.
This seems to imply to me that we are defining a form horse in quite different ways. If you only see Buckbe's 3rd last race as a form run and her next 2 runs don't negate that status (higher class and then a fall) thus making her a form horse, why do those same two runs make her an inconsistent form horse?
Ryeman showed form, then was dropped in class but did not show form. At that stage form status is negated if he went straight to the Brave George race. But Ryeman had run again since that no form run, going up in class to win and redeeming his form status. At least that's how I see it based on VDW's examples studied. The inconsistency in the form is shown by a below par run in "a race that should have been no problem" not a race that might have been above the horse's ability or a race where the horse fell when making headway.
In the way I am (wrongly or rightly) establishing a form horse in the way I think VDW was, Buckbe still comes out as a form horse. But the inconsistency in the form is not as easily explainable as Ryeman's. Though I do think there may be something in the betting market compared to the performance in respect of higher class races a horse has run in. Buckbe was just 4/1 for that class 99 race but didn't run anywhere near to market expectations. That's a measure of consistency, which I think Lee often alluded to.
If you compare to the Kumbi and Lucky Vane runs in the Newbury race where they finished within a head of each other. Kumbi was 50/1 and 5th but Lucky Vane was 12/1 and ran 6th. The question could be was Kumbi belying his odds more favourable than Lucky Vane not really doing so?
But even that situation is clouded in their case by the fact Kumbi had run again since and won, regaining any form status that might have been lost.
These are all just questions I feel need posing because I agree there has to be a cogent thread as to why horses were labelled form horses, inconsistent, etc for everyone to have the same horses as he had, given that he made that statement early on.
Yes of course. I don't know why I referred to it as the 3rd last run, which obviously explains a lot.
Though the point I was making a point earlier about if we include a 4th last run in the consistency form figure totals due to a non finish run then why not the form establishment process?
And I still think it somewhat illogical to dismiss her form as inconsistent, when the other completed run was in much higher class than any of her recent runs and indeed the race at Kempton itself.
Unless as I suggested the class 99 run was seen as inconsistent from a market expectation angle?
Brighton 6:45 race I see 3 form horses in Serenity Dream, Dion Baker and Tattie Bogle.
Respective ARs are 50, 36, and 40.
Using just last 2 wins shows 47, 36 and 43 so little changes there other than the gap between the top 2 is narrowed.
Serenity Dream has to be seen as a consistent form horse. And the class/form horse.
Tattie Bogle 2nd on class went up in class last time, higher than this race also, but ran 8th of 10 at 10/1 4th in the market. But noted as suffering some ill luck in running. Should that run be classed as not a form run in respect of consistent form?
Dion Baker has 2 runs either side of a form run both in higher class than today's and one significantly higher. The 3rd last run was at 25/1 down the field. The latest in a 21k race was 9th of 16 though only beaten 2 and a quarter lengths at 11/2 2nd fav. On that basis should either be a form run? And if not then they make DB an inconsistent form horse.
My initial thoughts on this race were that Serenity Dream looked a genuine forecast fav. But the actual market thinks differently with Tattie Bogle currently 13/8 and Shaw Park 2nd fav with Serenity Dream 3rd fav around 7/2.
Shaw Park ran in slightly better class last time when 4th beaten 3 and a quarter lengths at 125/1 on the AW. The 2 previous runs do not look like form runs to me. But is the latest run a form run?
Even if it is it would still leave Shaw Park as an inconsistent runner. But a form runner with an AR of 45 or 51 if just using the last 2 wins.
Is Serenity Dream a good bet? Or is this a race with conflict and best left alone?
I suspect it's the latter scenario and I'll just watch what happens without any money down.
Respective ARs are 50, 36, and 40.
Using just last 2 wins shows 47, 36 and 43 so little changes there other than the gap between the top 2 is narrowed.
Serenity Dream has to be seen as a consistent form horse. And the class/form horse.
Tattie Bogle 2nd on class went up in class last time, higher than this race also, but ran 8th of 10 at 10/1 4th in the market. But noted as suffering some ill luck in running. Should that run be classed as not a form run in respect of consistent form?
Dion Baker has 2 runs either side of a form run both in higher class than today's and one significantly higher. The 3rd last run was at 25/1 down the field. The latest in a 21k race was 9th of 16 though only beaten 2 and a quarter lengths at 11/2 2nd fav. On that basis should either be a form run? And if not then they make DB an inconsistent form horse.
My initial thoughts on this race were that Serenity Dream looked a genuine forecast fav. But the actual market thinks differently with Tattie Bogle currently 13/8 and Shaw Park 2nd fav with Serenity Dream 3rd fav around 7/2.
Shaw Park ran in slightly better class last time when 4th beaten 3 and a quarter lengths at 125/1 on the AW. The 2 previous runs do not look like form runs to me. But is the latest run a form run?
Even if it is it would still leave Shaw Park as an inconsistent runner. But a form runner with an AR of 45 or 51 if just using the last 2 wins.
Is Serenity Dream a good bet? Or is this a race with conflict and best left alone?
I suspect it's the latter scenario and I'll just watch what happens without any money down.
Chesham
Sire
A granular examination of every runner's past winning races reveals key insights when comparing their Winning OR, the Median OR of those winning races, their winning Timeform Speed Figures (Tfig), and today’s race conditions (Brighton 7f, Class 5, Today's Median OR: 70, Avg OR: 68).
Winning Race Granular Audit
| Horse | Winning Date & Track | Won Off OR | Race Median OR | Winning Tfig | Winning TFR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shaw Park | 14.May.25 (Yarmouth 7f) | 68 | 72.5 | 60 | 78 |
| 04.Mar.25 (Southwell 7f) | 65 | 66.0 | 50 | 70 | |
| 20.Aug.24 (Brighton 7f) | 69 | 64.5 | 65 | 76 | |
| 25.Jun.24 (Brighton 7f) | 65 | 74.0 | 68 | 74 | |
| 07.Jun.24 (Brighton 7f) | 62 | 57.0 | 16 | 70 | |
| Serenity Dream | 06.Aug.26 (Brighton 7f) | 70 | 71.5 | 59 | 80 |
| 16.Jul.26 (Chepstow 6f) | 68 | 60.0 | 77 | 76 | |
| 14.Jan.26 (Kempton 6f) | 68 | 78.5 | 55 | 75 | |
| 22.Aug.25 (Goodwood 6f) | 66 | 69.0 | 62 | 75 | |
| 06.Jul.23 (Kempton 7f) | Novice | — | 74 | 87 | |
| Dion Baker | 07.Jul.26 (Brighton 7f) | 63 | 57.0 | 75 | 76 |
| 02.Jul.26 (Yarmouth 7f) | 59 | 58.0 | 71 | 72 | |
| 22.Jun.26 (Brighton 7f) | 55 | 53.0 | 67 | 67 | |
| 05.Jun.26 (Bath 5.5f) | 55 | 45.0 | 59 | 63 | |
| 29.May.26 (Brighton 7f) | 47 | 57.0 | 52 | 61 | |
| 25.Aug.24 (Yarmouth 7f) | 67 | 59.0 | 60 | 80 | |
| 11.Aug.24 (Leicester 7f) | 62 | 57.5 | 71 | 74 | |
| 21.May.24 (Brighton 7f) | 63 | 63.0 | 66 | 76 | |
| 12.Jul.23 (Yarmouth 7f) | 66 | 62.0 | 70 | 75 | |
| Tattie Bogle | 23.Jun.26 (Beverley 7.5f) | 68 | 70.5 | 73 | 79 |
| 29.Apr.26 (Musselburgh 7f) | 66 | 71.5 | 65 | 76 | |
| 23.Nov.24 (Newcastle 6f) | Maiden | — | 40 | 73 | |
| Station Bar | 26.May.26 (Bath 8f) | 62 | 59.0 | 62 | 68 |
| Fai Fai | 27.Jul.24 (Salisbury 6f) | 46 | 60.5 | 44 | 55 |
| 28.May.24 (Lingfield 6f) | 46 | 63.0 | 47 | 50 |
Key Handicapping Takeaways
1. Shaw Park is Operating in His Optimal Class Window
- Winning Marks vs Today's Mark: Shaw Park runs today off an OR of 67. He has previously won off OR 68 and OR 69. He is the only runner in the top tier of the market competing below his proven peak winning mark.
- Race Median OR Benchmark: Today’s race Median OR is 70. Shaw Park has won handicaps featuring Median ORs of 72.5 (Yarmouth) and 74.0 (Brighton Class 4).
- Track Specialist: 3 of his 5 career wins have come over this exact C&D (Brighton 7f), recording Tfigs up to 68under identical track and distance parameters.
2. Dion Baker's Rating Ceiling Exposure
- Inflated Mark: Dion Baker is set to run off an OR of 73, yet his highest winning mark across 73 career starts is 67(a full 6 lb lower).
- Low Median OR Dependencies: All 9 of Dion Baker's victories came in races where the race Median OR was 63 or lower (averaging ~57). Facing a race Median OR of 70 off a career-high mark places him under severe class pressure.
3. Serenity Dream's Burden
- Career-High Mark: Serenity Dream is pitched in off OR 74, whereas his recent C&D win came off OR 70. While he proved he can handle a race Median OR of 71.5, carrying top weight (10-0) off 74 leaves him vulnerable to a well-treated track specialist.
Adjusted Ability & Suitability Ranking (Class & Weight Grounded)
| Rank | Horse | Today's OR | Best Winning OR | Winning Races Median OR Range | Value / Ability Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shaw Park | 67 | 69 | 57.0 – 74.0 | Outstanding Class & Mark Advantage: 2 lb below his highest winning mark, proven in higher Median OR fields (74.0), and a 3-time C&D winner. |
| 2 | Tattie Bogle | 73 | 68 | 70.5 – 71.5 | Solid Ability Ceiling: Proven at Median OR 71.5, though 5 lb above his highest winning mark (68). |
| 3 | Serenity Dream | 74 | 70 | 60.0 – 78.5 | Classy but Maxed Out: Has the highest raw ability, but runs off a career-high mark (74) under top weight. |
| 4 | Dion Baker | 73 | 67 | 45.0 – 63.0 | Pace Threat / Vulnerable Class Mark: Thrives on the front end, but has never won a race with a Median OR above 63. |
| 5 | Station Bar | 66 | 62 | 59.0 | Unexposed 3yo: Sole win came in a weak 3-runner Class 6 (Median OR 59). |
| 6 | Fai Fai | 55 | 46 | 60.5 – 63.0 | Outclassed: Highest winning mark is 46; runs 9 lb above that level today. |
The result looks a positive for the top 2 on class/form as they ran the 1-2 in reverse order.
And just using last 2 wins brought them closer together. Tattie Bogle was the youngest horse in the field so less restricted by OR boundaries than perhaps the older horses were.
If we known how the market would move then there would've been a case for a dutch, but by the time the changes happened it was too late.
I've been checking more VDW examples to see how just using a runner's last 2 wins would affect the class/form picture. And so far, I can't see that it does. In fact it made Kenlis look like a selection he perhaps should have backed because there was no blanket in ability based on each runner's last 2 wins. He was clear, more so than Sunset Cristo was in his race too.
Actually I went over to my own database well over a year ago now.
I saw the form horses from the top of the card as Mr Cool, Ancient Times and Diomed Spirit.
Using just last 2 wins had Ancient Times class/form, Mr Cool 2nd and DS 3rd.
But on all wins it would have been Ancient Times class/form, DS 2nd and MC 3rd.
But weight can change all that as we know. Especially in handicaps.
There's one factor that VDW mentioned more than any other in his Prom King letter beyond the initial numerical picture. He mentions weight carried both last run and for the race to be run, weight given and better weight terms.
And that wasn't even a handicap race, though of course made the distinction quite clearly.
I think there are too many examples he gave for handicaps where it needed more than a higher AR rated horse to be simply not a form horse or other conditions against. As he said weight is a great leveller.
And none more so than in a handicap race.
Chesham
Sire
Hi
T
Tufnel
It was the low weight and the Booking of Saffie Osbourne that drew my attention to research Diomed Spirit
This quote from JiB makes Plenty of sense, sometimes you can have the best rated horse in the Race (Wether it be your own ratings, VDW Ratings or any other ) but if the Trainer has not placed it to win, then the result is not what was expected
It was the low weight and the Booking of Saffie Osbourne that drew my attention to research Diomed Spirit
This quote from JiB makes Plenty of sense, sometimes you can have the best rated horse in the Race (Wether it be your own ratings, VDW Ratings or any other ) but if the Trainer has not placed it to win, then the result is not what was expected
Last edited:
Anyone else ever notice that in addition to Prominent King not being one of the 3 lowest form figure placings from the first 5 of the forecast (unless you award a 10 for Decent Fellow's last of 3 beaten 25 lengths, for which VDW hadn't yet explained at that point), Parkhouse and Crown Matrimonial on the same card at Wincanton in handicaps were actually both the 4th lowest consistency totals from the first 6 in the forecast in their races?
Now in the first of those races only Crown Matrimonial and Aalco look like being consistent form horses, so that seems no problem.
And in the other race Scroggy had been pulled up LTO in the race Parkhouse was 4th in, a much higher class race than the Wincanton event though. Even so it was Scroggy's first run of the season so it fits into the bracket VDW suggested to view negatively with Pulled ups in respect of being a fitness issue. And as such Scoggy can be viewed as not a form horse leaving just Parkhouse, Royal Charly and Shermoon as the consistent form horses.
Also noted that Crown Matrimonial must be the handicapper with the largest weight carried increase from it's LTO performance that VDW ever gave. Carried 10-0 to victory then 12-1 at Wincanton. The drop in race class with a penalty must have been the reasoning.
Now in the first of those races only Crown Matrimonial and Aalco look like being consistent form horses, so that seems no problem.
And in the other race Scroggy had been pulled up LTO in the race Parkhouse was 4th in, a much higher class race than the Wincanton event though. Even so it was Scroggy's first run of the season so it fits into the bracket VDW suggested to view negatively with Pulled ups in respect of being a fitness issue. And as such Scoggy can be viewed as not a form horse leaving just Parkhouse, Royal Charly and Shermoon as the consistent form horses.
Also noted that Crown Matrimonial must be the handicapper with the largest weight carried increase from it's LTO performance that VDW ever gave. Carried 10-0 to victory then 12-1 at Wincanton. The drop in race class with a penalty must have been the reasoning.
Leodis
Gelding
Very similar to what I raised on the other thread.
I am taking time out to develop the JIb ratings, as I have more or less worked out what makes them tick now. My aim is not only to find well-in horses, but to always keep one foot in the door of the trainers mind before laying down the money - like the above message is suggesting, it's ok having private ratings, etc, but if the trainer does not know about them then they will only take you halfway of the journey.
Regards
JennyK Regarding looking again at Connaught Bridge in light of the consistent form factor, I noticed that although some dailies had Tintagel as form figs 3-11, the Daily Record had Tintagel as 30-11 and actually showed in their form section the run where she was unplaced in November of 78 in a £13k at Saint Cloud over 7.5f. I checked on Paris Turf's website and she actually placed 6th in that race. So her consistency total should have been 8 not 5.
I make the 3 lowest consistency totals from the first 5 in the forecast to be Connaught Bridge 6, Tintagel 8 and Odeon 10.
I'd say that Odeon could not be considered a form horse, certainly her 3rd was inferior to CB's 3rd. And I'd say even she was a form horse she'd be in the inconsistent bracket anyway.
So that leaves CB and Tintagel. And surely the big WFA advantage has to be a major factor in splitting them?
But also the opposition they both faced LTO has a bearing. Conte Santi and Bold Shot were consistent form horses at York, as was CB. And both were dropping in class at York, unlike CB who was going up.
Cameo Shore who was 2nd to Tintagel in her last run had for figs of 421 before that meeting. And the 1st, 2nd and 4th appear to have been in much less valuable races than the Tintagel 13k race. So it seems Cameo Shore was a less consistent opponent than the 2 CB faced.
And whilst the question of the extra furlong for Connaught Bridge was there, she had shown both a mile and 9f to be within her capabilities at 2, so the mile first time out at 3 against better horses was perhaps not far enough for her. 2 year olds who can win at a mile or more generally need at least that distance at 3 and older.
Apart from that, I can't fathom any further roads to look down on this example.