Class/form horses

[Tufnel]

Based on the data provided for the 1989 'Coral' Autumn Cup Handicap, this race offers a masterclass in how tactical execution can perfectly exploit an extreme track bias while punishing an overly aggressive early move.

Here is the breakdown of exactly why Braashee was able to defeat Cossack Guard in a race where both had massive positional advantages.

Tactical Front-End Mapping & Execution​

Reviewing the early pace scenario against the 'Analiese Blueprint' and 'Lone Speed Anomaly' criteria:

The early pace was forced by Great Relations (Stall 18), who led for the first 9 furlongs before fading badly, and Holy Zeal (Stall 6), who took over with 4 furlongs to go.

• Verdict: No horse qualifies for the green tactical advantage highlight. The early lead was highly contested, meaning no front-runner received a free pass.
• The Deciding Factor: The race was won and lost in how the two favorites utilized their track position. Cossack Guard (drawn in Stall 4) raced prominently ("3rd straight") and moved aggressively to take the outright lead over 3 furlongs out. In a grueling 1m5½f staying handicap on Good To Firm ground, hitting the front that early essentially turns a horse into a sitting duck.
• Braashee (drawn in Stall 2) executed the perfect counter-strategy. Pat Eddery anchored him at the back ("held up"), conserving energy while Cossack Guard did the heavy lifting on the front end. When Braashee finally made his move over 2f out, he had a massive stamina reserve to sweep past the exhausted leader.

Draw Bias Analysis​

The Draw Bias Index (DBI) metrics reveal a massive "Punter's Goldmine" scenario. A severe, hidden track bias heavily favored the horses drawn against the low rail.

• Low Stalls [1-5] — DBI 79 (SP% 28%): This group utterly annihilated the field. Despite only holding a 28% share of the market expectation, they produced the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 8th, and 10th place finishers. The ground on the far rail was playing significantly faster than the rest of the track, giving Braashee and Cossack Guard a massive tailwind.
• Middle Stalls [6-11] — DBI 49 (SP% 44%): This group carried the bulk of the market expectation (44%) but ran exactly to the neutral 50 baseline. They performed adequately, supplying the 3rd and 7th place finishers, but were fighting an uphill battle against the low rail bias.
• High Stalls [12-18] — DBI 22 (SP% 28%): An absolute graveyard. With a 28% market expectation, scoring a 22 DBI indicates a total collapse. Every horse drawn 12 or higher (including Great Relations, who forced the early pace) completely folded, finishing 5th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, and 16th.

View attachment 171211View attachment 171212

Race Summary & Performance Chart​

(Note: Timeform Master Ratings (TFR) and raw speed figures (Tfig) were not natively tracked in this 1989 dataset format; however, Top Speed (TS) and Official Ratings (OR) serve as the historical proxies below. PR% and CCR lock are maintained per standard output).

Pos	Horse (Stall)	SP	PR%	OR	Top Speed (TS)	RPR	CCR Rating
1st	Braashee (2)	7/1C	12.5%	95	102	102	-
2nd	Cossack Guard (4)	11/1	8.3%	95	102	99	-
3rd	Shoot Ahead (9)	7/1C	12.5%	91	95	91	-
4th	Indubitable (7)	16/1	5.9%	78	81	78	-
5th	Gaasid (12)	14/1	6.7%	86	89	86	-
6th	Aim To Please (3)	20/1	4.8%	90	91	89	-
7th	Fly By Knife (10)	8/1	11.1%	92	83	-	-
8th	Daily Sport Soon (1)	33/1	2.9%	70	61	-	-
9th	Hauwmal (8)	14/1	6.7%	66	56	-	-
10th	Bush Hill (5)	12/1	7.7%	78	67	-	-
11th	Great Relations (18)	25/1	3.8%	100	87	-	-
12th	Milton Burn (15)	33/1	2.9%	59	46	-	-
13th	Murango (14)	7/1C	12.5%	93	-	-	-
14th	Holy Zeal (6)	14/1	6.7%	83	-	-	-
15th	Go Forum (13)	9/1	10.0%	74	-	-	-
16th	Springs Welcome (11)	7/1C	12.5%	70	-	-	-

Interesting as that is. I suspect VDW was basing his assertions on one horse confirming the form with another depending on where both horses came from prior to their meeting.

When Billet and Failiq were meeting again at Epsom 3/6/88 VDW said "Failiq was second to Billet last time but had been dropped a long way and had not got enough from the distance. There's nothing to show possible reversal this time."
Failiq's previous 3 runs before that first meeting with Billet at Newbury Class 48 over 1m 3f when carrying 8-10 (3/1) beaten 1 length having led over 1f out were:
LTO 2nd Class 76 1m 6f Newmarket 8-6 (4/1) beaten 3 lengths by Private Audition 7-13 (13/2)
2LTO 3rd Class 55 1m 6f Newmarket 8-8 (9/1) beaten 8 lengths by Faux Pavillion 7-9 (10/1)
3LTO 6th Class 126 1m 6f York 8-11 (14/1) beaten 13.75 lebgths by Ivory Fields 8-13 (11/4F)

Billet 9-1 (15/8F) beating Failiq by 1 length when "Held up, steady headway on inside over 1f out, quickened and led inside final furlong, pushed out" showed previous 3 runs were:
LTO 2nd Class 39 1m 4f Ascot 8-7 (11/4F) beaten a neck by Roubayd 8-8 (16/1)
2LTO 1st Class 49 1m 4f Goodwood 8-9 (4/1) by 2 lengths ahead of Betty Jane 8-5 (9/2)
3LTO 5th Class 292 1m 4f Epsom 7-11 (2/1f) beaten by Gorgeous Strike 9-1 (6/1)

And then looking at Cossack Guard's previous 3 runs before first meeting Braashee at Newbury Class 202 1m 5.5f carrying 9-5 (11/1) beaten by a neck "3rd straight, led over 3f out until over 1f out, ran on well" were:
LTO 6th Class 693 1m 6f York 8-7 (8/1) beaten 5.5 lengths by Sapience 8-4 (15/2)
2LTO 1st Class 41 1m 4f Newbury 9-0 (11/2) by 7 lengths ahead of Young General 9-0 (9/1)
3LTO 6th Class 242 1m 4f Haydock 8-5 (14/1) beaten 6.25 lengths by Nickel Plated 9-7 (14/1)

Braashee 9-5 (7/1CF) beating Cossack Gaurd by a neck "Held up, headway over 2f out, led over 1f out, pushed out" showed previous 3 runs were:
LTO 1st Class 25 1m 2f Windsor 8-11 (8/13F) by 3 lengths ahead of Danbury 8-11 (9/4)
2LTO 2nd Class 17 1m 4f Doncaster 8-9 (6/5F) beaten 0.75 lengths by Child Of The Mist 8-7 (5/2)
3LTO 2nd Class 15 1m 2f Windsor 9-0 (10/1) beaten 1.5 lengths by Timourtash 9-10 (6/4F)

Both Failiq and Cossack Guard had dropped in class against Billet and Braashee respectively whilst both those winners had won those races going up in class with more weight.

Seems more than coincidence.

And I suspect his comment that Billet "was reaching a bit high" was in reference to both class and weight. Especially if you look at his 3rd LTO which was the previous year's Northern Dance Handicap where he was 2/1 Fav but ran 5th with just 7-11 rather than the 9-1 he was set to carry in the '88 running.

 

[Chesham]

Draw Bias Analysis​

Unlike the severe low-rail bias seen at Newbury seven days prior, the metrics for this Ascot layout indicate a much fairer track geometry, with a slight disadvantage to those drawn very wide.

• Middle Stalls [7-11] — DBI 59 (SP% 25%): This group was the most efficient, outperforming their 25% market expectation to score a 59 DBI, headlined by the winner, Braashee (Stall 10), and the 6th place finisher, Black Monday (Stall 8).
• Low Stalls [1-6] — DBI 52 (SP% 33%): A perfectly neutral return. Carrying a third of the market expectation, they produced a 52 DBI by supplying the 2nd (Free Sweater at 25/1) and 4th (Roushayd at 25/1) place finishers.
• High Stalls [12-17] — DBI 39 (SP% 42%): This bracket heavily underperformed. The 42% market expectation was largely carried by the 2/1 favorite, Run Don't Fly. Because he failed to win and the rest of the high-drawn runners completely bombed out (finishing 5th, 13th, 15th, and 17th), the group's DBI sank to 39.

The Braashee vs. Cossack Guard Rematch: Why the Form Held​

Analyzing this race in direct correlation with the 'Coral' Autumn Cup Handicap run exactly seven days prior (September 23, 1989) reveals exactly why Braashee was able to defeat Cossack Guard a second time.

The 7-Day Turnaround "Bounce" In the Autumn Cup at Newbury, Cossack Guard ran a gut-busting, highly aggressive race, taking the lead 3 furlongs out in a gruelling 1m5½f staying test before getting caught late. Running that hard on the front end takes a massive physical toll. Bringing him back to Ascot just one week later to contest another high-class handicap was a recipe for a "bounce" (a severe physiological regression). He drew perfectly in Stall 2 but was completely flat, finishing 7th and never getting near the leaders.

The Value of Energy Conservation Braashee, on the other hand, was given a beautiful, patient, ground-saving ride at Newbury by Pat Eddery. Because he didn't empty his tank fighting on the front end the week before, he came into this Ascot race significantly fresher despite the short turnaround. Eddery deployed the exact same closing strategy here—anchoring him mid-pack before making a sweeping run 2 furlongs out to catch the leaders.

Tactical patience won Braashee the Autumn Cup, and the preserved energy from that patient ride won him the Tote Festival Handicap a week later.

Race Summary & Performance Chart​

(Contextual Note: Braashee achieved an incredible Racing Post Rating of 114 here, confirming an elite Class 1/Group level performance. The PR% and CCR lock are maintained below).

Pos	Horse (Stall)	SP	PR%	OR	Top Speed (TS)	RPR	CCR Rating
1st	Braashee (10)	8/1	11.1%	99	114	108	-
2nd	Free Sweater (4)	25/1	3.8%	104	117	110	-
3rd	Run Don't Fly (13)	2/1F	33.3%	90	103	96	-
4th	Roushayd (5)	25/1	3.8%	96	106	100	-
5th	Bush Hill (12)	20/1	4.8%	72	79	73	-
6th	Black Monday (8)	8/1	11.1%	95	101	95	-
7th	Cossack Guard (2)	10/1	9.1%	92	98	92	-
8th	Solo Act (7)	20/1	4.8%	93	93	-	-
9th	Aim To Please (11)	33/1	2.9%	90	85	-	-
10th	Timothy's Toy (16)	14/1	6.7%	88	83	-	-
11th	Gaasid (1)	20/1	4.8%	86	81	-	-
12th	Bay Bird (9)	16/1	5.9%	97	84	-	-
13th	La Rosette (17)	20/1	4.8%	99	-	-	-
14th	Nashid (3)	6/1	14.3%	95	-	-	-
15th	Quinlan Terry (6)	9/1	10.0%	83	-	-	-
16th	Nickle Plated (14)	20/1	4.8%	96	-	-	-
17th	Gulf Palace (15)	25/1	3.8%	87	-	-	-

 

[nagwa]

Did Roushayd have a similar profile Tufnel same race as billet lto

 

[JennyK]

"Seems more than coincidence."

Not necessarily. Leaving aside the occasional situation when a horse runs in the same class (win prize money basis) in consecutive races, a horse either comes into a race from a lower class or a higher class. I don't know - or even care - what the actual stats are, but I see it as about evens. So in any races, it is crudely a 50% chance any runner will be going up, or down in class compared to its last run. IN two races, with a horse from each, there is approximately a 25% chance both will be rising in class, and a 25% chance both will be dropping in class.

I've been there - drawing assumptions from one or two VDW examples and thinking I've found part of the method. That is why any situation needs to be considered in the wider context; VDW's other examples.

A simple illustration. In the Kenlis example, VDW included Brown Barman's ability rating but in the form and ratings columns simply put "Off course too long".

Even if we assume there was no significance in him including Brown Barman's AR (not an assumption I make), how long is "too long"? And is "too long" a matter of a specific number of days since last run, or does it vary in different circumstances? We know, for example, that VDW was happy to back a Flat horse on its first run of the season, which prior to the all weather usually meant off the course five or six months.

How to answer the "too long" question and everything else pertinent to VDW's approach? Consider any specific such as "too long" in the context of all examples and hopefully spot not just one instance but regularities across dozens of races. We still can't be sure we are not reverse engineering a "rule" that never even occurred to VDW, but it offers greater confidence than, for example, looking up the days since Brown Barman's last run prior to 07/03/81.

It is easy to make assumptions about why this, or that X means ... But in the context of VDW's examples as a whole such assumptions might be supported by the evidence, or found to be a lazy ones which do not take full account of the situations from which they are drawn.

It is a long flog, and happily most give up early and try to find comfort in the undeniable facts that VDW was a fantasist and never pre-race posted any of his selections. As if either is decisive in a proper evaluation of his approach.

 

[Tufnel]

Did Roushayd have a similar profile Tufnel same race as billet lto

Roushayd was dropping in class at Haydock and the only horse he was meeting again from LTO was Vouchsafe who was behind him at Epsom and had already run again since when dropped to win at Ascot but was now going up in again in class at Haydock. So Roushayd was dropping from a race won by a fancied probable who was also form horse and vouchsafe was going back up in class having had to be dropped to win lto.

VDW highlighted all of the above in the article.

 

[Tufnel]

"Seems more than coincidence."

Not necessarily. Leaving aside the occasional situation when a horse runs in the same class (win prize money basis) in consecutive races, a horse either comes into a race from a lower class or a higher class. I don't know - or even care - what the actual stats are, but I see it as about evens. So in any races, it is crudely a 50% chance any runner will be going up, or down in class compared to its last run. IN two races, with a horse from each, there is approximately a 25% chance both will be rising in class, and a 25% chance both will be dropping in class.

I've been there - drawing assumptions from one or two VDW examples and thinking I've found part of the method. That is why any situation needs to be considered in the wider context; VDW's other examples.

A simple illustration. In the Kenlis example, VDW included Brown Barman's ability rating but in the form and ratings columns simply put "Off course too long".

Even if we assume there was no significance in him including Brown Barman's AR (not an assumption I make), how long is "too long"? And is "too long" a matter of a specific number of days since last run, or does it vary in different circumstances? We know, for example, that VDW was happy to back a Flat horse on its first run of the season, which prior to the all weather usually meant off the course five or six months.

How to answer the "too long" question and everything else pertinent to VDW's approach? Consider any specific such as "too long" in the context of all examples and hopefully spot not just one instance but regularities across dozens of races. We still can't be sure we are not reverse engineering a "rule" that never even occurred to VDW, but it offers greater confidence than, for example, looking up the days since Brown Barman's last run prior to 07/03/81.

It is easy to make assumptions about why this, or that X means ... But in the context of VDW's examples as a whole such assumptions might be supported by the evidence, or found to be a lazy ones which do not take full account of the situations from which they are drawn.

It is a long flog, and happily most give up early and try to find comfort in the undeniable facts that VDW was a fantasist and never pre-race posted any of his selections. As if either is decisive in a proper evaluation of his approach.

I agree in relation to horses only able to go up down or sideways in class movements. But I’m pointing out specific circumstances that VDW mentioned in relation to those horses. He made a point of saying Failiq had been dropped a long way in class in relation to Billet confirming the form next time. He did likewise with Roushayd and Vouchsafe at Haydock making specific reference to the class movements of both for Haydock and Ascot.

And of course I pointed out the weights carried in the races I posted to show that the horses involved were all form horses but arriving at the races they met in under different routes of class and form.

Billet gave weight to Failiq when carrying more weight than he did LTO.
Roushayd gave weight to Vouchsafe at Epsom.
Braashee had same 9-5 when beating the class dropping Cossack Guard. He wasn’t receiving a stone. He was carrying a proper decent weight for a good handicap.

So it’s not just about class movements in isolation. No one factor works in isolation as Hall pointed out.

 

[JennyK]

"And of course I pointed out the weights carried in the races I posted to show that the horses involved were all form horses"

But on my reading of how VDW assessed "form" status, T Tufnel, they weren't.

When Billet and Failiq met on 14/05/88, Failiq was a "form" horse though not a consistent horse.

Billet was both: a "form" horse and a consistent horse.

When they met on 03/06/88, Billet was also a "form" horse and a consistent horse. But Failiq was neither because he "had not got enough from the distance" in their last race.

The fact that one was dropping in class and the other rising is true but incidental, and that in essence was the point I made earlier. It is easy enough to find reasons which appear to explain a result, or commonalities between results. But from a VDW perspective, the key issues are respective "form" and consistency status and of course ability. (And if my numbers are correct, for the 03/06/88 race, Failiq had a higher ability rating than Billet, by some way.)

 

[Tufnel]

"And of course I pointed out the weights carried in the races I posted to show that the horses involved were all form horses"

But on my reading of how VDW assessed "form" status, T Tufnel, they weren't.

When Billet and Failiq met on 14/05/88, Failiq was a "form" horse though not a consistent horse.

Billet was both: a "form" horse and a consistent horse.

When they met on 03/06/88, Billet was also a "form" horse and a consistent horse. But Failiq was neither because he "had not got enough from the distance" in their last race.

The fact that one was dropping in class and the other rising is true but incidental, and that in essence was the point I made earlier. It is easy enough to find reasons which appear to explain a result, or commonalities between results. But from a VDW perspective, the key issues are respective "form" and consistency status and of course ability. (And if my numbers are correct, for the 03/06/88 race, Failiq had a higher ability rating than Billet, bu some way.)

No, you misunderstood. I was saying the were form horses when they met prior to their 2nd meetings. That's the point.

Why would he point out that Failiq had dropped in class against Billet at Newbury if it wasn't important?
Why would he point out that Vouchsafe had dropped in class to collect after running behind Roushayd and was going back up in class again, whilst Roushayd was dropping?

He said he never wrote anything for the sake of it.

If a horse has shown form and drops in class and cannot beat another horse who was going up in class, then that has to be a negative for that horse's chances of turning the form round next time they meet without a substantial weight turnaround or some other major factor. Drumgora dropped to beat P King getting lots of weight. But he was facing P King in the Erin on very much worse terms.

 

[JennyK]

"when they met prior to their 2nd meetings.

If we are both referring to the race on 14/05/88 we are in agreement - both Billet and Failiq were "form" horses, though only the former also a consistent horse.

I thought you were also saying that both were "form" horses when they met again, on 03/06/88, which would not have been correct, on my understanding of VDW's "form" status rating method.

"Why would he point out that Failiq had dropped in class against Billet at Newbury if it wasn't important?"

It was important and the primary reason Failiq was not a "form" horse for the 03/06/88 race.

 

[Tufnel]

"when they met prior to their 2nd meetings.

If we are both referring to the race on 14/05/88 we are in agreement - both Billet and Failiq were "form" horses, though only the former also a consistent horse.

I thought you were also saying that both were "form" horses when they met again, on 03/06/88, which would not have been correct, on my understanding of VDW's "form" status rating method.

"Why would he point out that Failiq had dropped in class against Billet at Newbury if it wasn't important?"

It was important and the primary reason Failiq was not a "form" horse for the 03/06/88 race.

Yes, I was just referring to their first meetings.

I think VDW pointed it out in the case of Failiq to being our attention to the significance of Billet's form in being able to go up in class and give weight to a horse dropping in class having run very well when giving weight to the winner in a better race.

Because had Failiq had come from a similar stance as Billet did, perhaps he wouldn't have been so confident in the form being confirmed next time.

There are only 3 movements a runner can make from one race to the next (on a class of race basis) up, down or sideways. But the permutations involving weight carried, given or received, distances beaten, pace, market factors, course and race distances, going and how they performed in the latter stages makes those 3 movements far more informative than simply up, down or sideways.

 

[Tufnel]

On the same card that Ascencia won, the other indicated races to evaluate were won by two 5/2 favourites that had both won LTO but had very different routes to those victories.

Jacko was, like Acencia a 6lb penalty carrier. 3LTO run he had fallen in a class 17 handicap chase. Then went up in class to a 24 handicap chase finishing out of the place. Next was dropped to a class 10 handicap chase weights raised a massive 30lb and won very well with top weight of 11-9. The Leicester race was same class 10 and he was carrying top weight of 11-5 (weights raised 6lb) in which he won.

Pile It High had been running over hurdles for his 3LTO & 2LTO in class 13 in which he fell, then class 7 when out of the first 4 home and then switched to chases at Leicester LTO up in class winning a 16 Nov Chase. The Jan 7th Leicester race was a class 19 Novice Chase were he was set to carrying 7lb more.

So all 3 of the races were won by form horses, but it seems VDW only backed Ascencia.

If there were mitigating circumstances for Ascencia's 2nd and 3rd LTO runs on a consistency basis, it also seems to me that there were different but relevant ones for Jacko and Pile It High.

Jacko had been dropped in class to win from a race much more valuable than the Leicester race which was same class as the LTO win and he was set to carry less weight.

Pile It High had improved for the switch to chases, though it's fair to say the extra weight and the fact he fell recently in a hurdle race probably worried VDW to the point of rejection.

I thought it interesting, especially Jacko related to Ascencia who were kind of doing the same thing with their penalties. And I'm surprised VDW didn't at least claim Jacko as a selection.

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

I don't have the means to work out ARs, but simply from the 1979/80 Form Book it is clear that you are right to say that, like Ascenia, both Jacko and Pile It High were "form" horses.

Leaving aside that there might have been higher ability-rated "form" horses in the races concerned, I don't think VDW would have backed Jacko or Pile It High because although "form" horses, they weren't "consistent form horses", which I believe VDW regarded Ascenia as being.

 

[gerry]

Well i have took a couple of weeks of no betting and just playing a little poker which i doubled bank so just enjoyed the break if honest but this is what i am going to tell all of you on this thread i have read it for last two weeks just there the now every post i think i did like one Chesham wrote so did give it like.
But here my point i watched something two nights ago a clip and watched it very carefully for a reason and some thing that we all do and i understand it but when i watched this and seen it i had no choice but to take note of it and not just take note but put it above everything else and when i have came back today and just read this for last two weeks i was amazed no shocked to see that it is not mentioned once in all your chat.
So once i watched what it was i mulled it over for couple days as have been under the weather and today i put it to test and have backed 6 winners so far today and i believe this should be your first go to in the puzzle.

 

[Chesham]

Hope that you are feeling better gerry

 

[gerry]

Thanks Chesham i could message you what i seen if you like i think there all missing it.

 

[Chesham]

Thanks Chesham i could message you what i seen if you like i think there all missing it.

Please do

 

[Leodis]

Well i have took a couple of weeks of no betting and just playing a little poker which i doubled bank so just enjoyed the break if honest but this is what i am going to tell all of you on this thread i have read it for last two weeks just there the now every post i think i did like one Chesham wrote so did give it like.
But here my point i watched something two nights ago a clip and watched it very carefully for a reason and some thing that we all do and i understand it but when i watched this and seen it i had no choice but to take note of it and not just take note but put it above everything else and when i have came back today and just read this for last two weeks i was amazed no shocked to see that it is not mentioned once in all your chat.
So once i watched what it was i mulled it over for couple days as have been under the weather and today i put it to test and have backed 6 winners so far today and i believe this should be your first go to in the puzzle.

Sounds interesting, gerry

 

[gerry]

I will see what Chesham thinks sent it to him.

 

[Tufnel]

I will see what Chesham thinks sent it to him.

Interesting but I’m definitely missing what this clip could possibly be that you’re referring to, let alone see what we are all missing.

I know VDW threads are a puzzle but whatever this “clip” is based on your post earlier is a complete mystery.

 

[Tufnel]

T Tufnel

I don't have the means to work out ARs, but simply from the 1979/80 Form Book it is clear that you are right to say that, like Ascenia, both Jacko and Pile It High were "form" horses.

Leaving aside that there might have been higher ability-rated "form" horses in the races concerned, I don't think VDW would have backed Jacko or Pile It High because although "form" horses, they weren't "consistent form horses", which I believe VDW regarded Ascenia as being.

In Jacko's race his AR was 12 and Another Prospect (a LTO winner but too long ago) 10. The Spud Centre and Master Upham both were on 7 with High Prospect 5.

Pile It High had an AR of 9, Regal Command also 9 but 3rd in the betting Monte Ceco had 22.