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.