Class/form horses

[nagwa]

Thanks Tufnel I don't have those form books covering these examples

 

[JennyK]

It is by comparing those VDW explicitly stated were "form" horses, such as Righthand Man, and those he was explicit weren't, that one starts to make progress on how he rated "form" status. And it is by comparing the class/form horses VDW stated were bets, like Righthand Man, and those like Buckbe which weren't, that one hopefully makes progress in identifying what led to the different conclusions. Buckbe is important because there he tells us quite explicitly what one of the factors was - ie Buckbe was not a consistent horse.

Studying races from the 1970s and 1980s may seem eccentric, but if one wants to get close to understanding VDW's methods, as both Guest and Lee pointed out long ago, it is essential. A matter of working through the many VDW examples and looking for what, through regularity and logical soundness, suggest intentionality rather than coincidence.

 

[Tufnel]

It is by comparing those VDW explicitly stated were "form" horses, such as Righthand Man, and those he was explicit weren't, that one starts to make progress on how he rated "form" status. And it is by comparing the class/form horses VDW stated were bets, like Righthand Man, and those like Buckbe which weren't, that one hopefully makes progress in identifying what led to the different conclusions. Buckbe is important because there he tells us quite explicitly what one of the factors was - ie Buckbe was not a consistent horse.

Studying races from the 1970s and 1980s may seem eccentric, but if one wants to get close to understanding VDW's methods, as both Guest and Lee pointed out long ago, it is essential. A matter of working through the many VDW examples and looking for what, through regularity and logical soundness, suggest intentionality rather than coincidence.

Agree, the research has to be done otherwise it's just assumption.

I do think though that as VDW said different types of races required different approaches and in that respect I think for example a novice handicap hurdle winner such as Ascencia (or a second season hurdler such as Love From Verona) will never fit the same mould as Buckbe or Ryeman in being a non consistent or the consistent traits of a horse like Righthand Man or Wayward Lad. Because when a horse is being handicapped so that it can run in handicaps, they are rarely showing their real ability for obvious reasons. So they are not necessarily going to have form runs before their first win in a handicap. I'd be very confident VDW knew plenty about all that and took appropriate steps when dealing with such horses. He sometimes remarked that certain factors, such as market position when compiling a list of horses to follow, was only to there to help readers who perhaps didn't have the wider knowledge of form, etc and he determined final selection on a basis of having that knowledge.

I do think Ryeman is much clearer example of an inconsistent horse despite having a low cons total than Buckbe is. Perhaps he just didn't like the jumping of the horse who was noted as making mistakes even when winning LTO. The horse did in fact fall at Kempton in the event, as he pointed out. I can't see a lot wrong with it's 3rd last run which was class 99 not 80, but perhaps it was too close for VDW's liking. And just because a horse falls in one of it's last 3 runs it doesn't mean it can't be consistent. The LTO win was when raised in class, so it's not as if it was a drop to win which would have been a more obvious concern.

So I don't know with that horse. He said it wasn't consistent and it was nothing to do with the consistency totals. Perhaps VDW just didn't think it's jumpig was consistently good enough, but we are into the realms of race reader comments there and it's been opinioned that they played no part in form analysis, which as you know I disagree with.

The form status part I am happy with now. I've settled on a way that conforms with all of the runners he said were form or it was implicated by way of selection or example. The consistent form part for me is down to odd discrepancies such as Buckbe. Provided a run can be excused for legitimate reasons then I think 2 good runs or another equally excused run amongst the last 3 should not prevent a horse being a consistent form horse.

Philodantes is another case in point. Only through distance and class considerations can Phildodantes fit a consistent form horse status. And those factors don't even need to be methodical because they could easily be coded as binary decisions. Likewise a novice hurdler winning in his first handicap. They are all binary yes/no decisions. I'm not sure Buckbe could be though other than perhaps text searching the in running comments of the last 3 races for evidence of mistakes or sloppy jumping.

 

[JennyK]

"I do think though that as VDW said different types of races required different approaches and in that respect I think for example a novice handicap hurdle winner such as Ascencia (or a second season hurdler such as Love From Verona) will never fit the same mould as Buckbe or Ryeman in being a non consistent or the consistent traits of a horse like Righthand Man or Wayward Lad."

But they do.

 

[Tufnel]

"I do think though that as VDW said different types of races required different approaches and in that respect I think for example a novice handicap hurdle winner such as Ascencia (or a second season hurdler such as Love From Verona) will never fit the same mould as Buckbe or Ryeman in being a non consistent or the consistent traits of a horse like Righthand Man or Wayward Lad."

But they do.

The only way I see that working is the latest run is always higher in class than the 3rd last run.

 

[JennyK]

From a strictly VDW point of view, the question must surely be was the performance in each run better (or equal) to the previous one. Often this will be because the race is higher in class than the previous one, but not always.

I've been having another look at the Boxing Day six, and Kevinsfort is interesting. In his last three he came 2nd in a class 17, won a class 13 and was then 2nd in a class 12. Yet VDW saw him as a "form" horse for a class 15.

 

[rave154]

From a strictly VDW point of view, the question must surely be was the performance in each run better (or equal) to the previous one. Often this will be because the race is higher in class than the previous one, but not always.

I've been having another look at the Boxing Day six, and Kevinsfort is interesting. In his last three he came 2nd in a class 17, won a class 13 and was then 2nd in a class 12. Yet VDW saw him as a "form" horse for a class 15.

i "could" reply to your answer there with a logical response Jenny, but i fear i would be shot down in flames

 

[Tufnel]

From a strictly VDW point of view, the question must surely be was the performance in each run better (or equal) to the previous one. Often this will be because the race is higher in class than the previous one, but not always.

I've been having another look at the Boxing Day six, and Kevinsfort is interesting. In his last three he came 2nd in a class 17, won a class 13 and was then 2nd in a class 12. Yet VDW saw him as a "form" horse for a class 15.

There's class of race and then there's class of opposition. Or more precise, class of where the opposition came from. It's like the branches on a tree.

In Roushayd's race he was coming from a higher class race, though the opposition in that race at Epsom had not been running in much class themselves prior to the event.

In Prominent King's race he was coming from a much lower class of race, but of course we all know where the winner of that race was coming from.

State Case was coming from a considerably higher class of race and Kevinsfort on the back of his LTO win made more of a race of it than their previous meeting.

 

[JennyK]

"Kevinsfort on the back of his LTO win made more of a race of it than their previous meeting."

Exactly so. In this particular example, that the most recent race was, in win prize money terms, lower than both the previous ones (and he didn't win it) is not the essential point to why "one performance is better than another". And it is that phrase which drives VDW's way of rating "form" status.

 

[Tufnel]

"Kevinsfort on the back of his LTO win made more of a race of it than their previous meeting."

Exactly so. In this particular example, that the most recent race was, in win prize money terms, lower than both the previous ones (and he didn't win it) is not the essential point to why "one performance is better than another". And it is that phrase which drives VDW's way of rating "form" status.

But with that in mind why does Buckbe fail as a consistent form horse when it was raised almost double in class to win LTO? Though lower class than the race it was well beaten in 3rd last race, that 3rd last race was a higher class than Kempton.

Love From Verona went up in class 2nd last run and finished down the field and was then dropped in class to win albeit higher class than the 3rd last run but obviously lower than the 2nd last race.

Why under those similar movements and form is one a non consistent horse and the other a consistent one?

 

[JennyK]

Unlike with Buckbe, VDW didn't say LfV was a consistent horse or a "form" horse, Tufnel, but despite there being several higher ability-rated horses in the field it was his selection. So, we have to develop hypotheses and as with much else in VDW's work, see how they look in the context of other examples.

I have mine and continue to check that they are consistent with all the other examples; in my view LfV was a "form" horse, a consistent horse, and the consistent class/form horse in the race.

You might be interested in Lee's comments in April 2002 on the Gummy thread:

"Again on the face of it Love From Verona looks to be up against things, towards the bottom of the pile on ability, coming out of the 2nd lowest class race last time, but a study of the form that it is the best amongst it's rivals, and of course meets the pre-requisites of the consistency method."

“Lee. Do I take it that, for you, Love from Verona was what VDW would have termed the class/form horse in the race (on the lines of Wing and a Prayer, Canny Danny and Cool Gin)?”

"Fulham. No, there's a difference, and that being that EVERYTHING doesn't go LFV's way, but the price compensates for this. Wing And A Prayer is the ultimate balance of class and form, just like Little Owl, Canny Danny has everything there but for the weight negative that VDW mentioned, and Cool Gin has almost everything in his favour. The Wing And A Prayer types are the ones that I go for.

May I say that, it is my view from what was written that VDW had a knowledge of racing that far surpasses most that play the horses, past and present. And to be able to select a high percentage of winners at prices LFV returned at calls for a knowledge and understanding (and patience) far beyond that of the main factors that VDW didn't quite spell out. For me personally understanding the examples such as Love From Verona was like running the London Marathon in preparation for competing in a 3-mile fun run. I generally stick to the sore thumbs. Now and then I'll get sucked in to the more complex situations, where some win and some lose, but I've no need to. The majority of my bigger price winners come from the Roushayd method, which still calls for an assessment of the unexposed form before studying the exposed form; Improving speed ratings etc.

I must say though that since being a member of this board it has been great to listen to what others have to say on the subject. I'm sure that some have gone a lot further than myself, Guest for one from what I can make, and each to their own, but for me I'm more than content with what I have and the lengths I go to find my winners.

For those that are still at it, Every time you get peed off or hit the next brick wall, just remind yourself that when you discover what you are looking for, you'll seriously wonder how on earth you ever passed it by, and how it could be so simple."

That was some years before Lee's two runs of 100% winning pre-race posted selections, so it is reasonable to assume that his understanding of VDW's method progressed. I have not found a later Lee post specifically about LfV, and if he had been addressing the same example several years later I think he would have written his opinion slightly differently. That said, LfV is one of the most difficult VDW examples, and I think Lee's athletics analogy far from inappropriate.

Given how complimentary Lee was about Guest, you might also find five short posts by him, some before, some after Lee's April 2002 ones, helpful:

1. "The first point regarding Strombolus/LFV is that both races were handicaps. An obvious point that may seem, but a very relevant one with regard to how we evaluate form associated with the respective races run. Yes there were higher rated ability horses in the fields but were they in form and were they capable of performing under the prevailing conditions?

The 1979 Lanzarote handicap hurdle was similar in some respects to the 2002 running in which the classy Copeland was unable to give the weight to the second season novice, Majalis. Persian Crown and others found this same factor beyond them when the lightly raced Love From Verona landed the spoils 23 years ago. Note LFVs seasonal debut at Lingfield when down the field in a race qualifier."

2. "Remember, consistency is not form. The consistency part though provides us with the probables, hence VDW bringing our attention to Weth Nan and Spartan Missile."

3. "Barney - The paragraph you refer to is just one reason why I also consider the 3 most consistent in the entire field, as VDW had suggested from the beginning. The study of form will show if any of them are outclassed or not capable. Love From Verona was just one horse who didn't feature in the forecast, but was one of the 3 most consistent from the field."

4. [addressed to Mtoto who, wrongly in my view, thought sfs were the answer to almost everything and weight was irrelevant] "As far as Love From Verona goes, you will have already noted that he had no speed figures worth speaking of.

To some others, I will say that it is so easy to just sit on the sidelines and heckle when you haven't even put in any worthwhile effort to read or understand VDW's work. The only way to learn is by ones mistakes or through others assistance based on their understanding or skills in the required area. VDW taught me how to find winners for profit, though I never met or spoke directly to him. The easiest thing in the world would have been for me to just scoff and proclaim him a trickster and waste more time following the so called experts who actually know nothing, that is why they have to be paid by tv companies or newspapers to tip winners or charge unsuspecting mugs for their tipping services."

5. "Fulham - Bear in mind that in handicaps, VDW was ruthless with his definition of a form horse. It took some time to figure this out, but it was only possible through such selections as Desert Hero, Battlement, Kings Ride and Love From Verona. They don't have to be overall top rated, but top of the form horses."

While both Lee and Guest remain for me the two who had made most progress in understanding VDW's work, from whose Gummy posts I've learnt so much, I also believe it is possible to sharpen up and improve on their takes.

 

[Leodis]

JennyK / Tufnel ,

I am studying the 17.30 Nwc and was wondering which runners you consider form/non-form horses

These are my top four on ability:

King's Crown [9-2]​

Frantic [9-4]​

Jenever [9-8]​

Herakles [9-6]​

King's Crown would be the class/form horse the way I assessed it (Yj/Y/Yj)

Jenever, I would lower in my estimation as it is +2 years older than field average* and not a form horse (last two runs)

* MySportsAI, I was just wondering if you had studied horses that are older than field average by X amount of years and over different distances.

Regards

 

[JennyK]

Leodis

In my view the VDW "form" horses, in ability rating rank order, descending, are Secret Guest, Dragon Spin and Go Victor.

 

[Tufnel]

Unlike with Buckbe, VDW didn't say LfV was a consistent horse or a "form" horse, Tufnel, but despite there being several higher ability-rated horses in the field it was his selection. So, we have to develop hypotheses and as with much else in VDW's work, see how they look in the context of other examples.

I have mine and continue to check that they are consistent with all the other examples; in my view LfV was a "form" horse, a consistent horse, and the consistent class/form horse in the race.

You might be interested in Lee's comments in April 2002 on the Gummy thread:

"Again on the face of it Love From Verona looks to be up against things, towards the bottom of the pile on ability, coming out of the 2nd lowest class race last time, but a study of the form that it is the best amongst it's rivals, and of course meets the pre-requisites of the consistency method."

“Lee. Do I take it that, for you, Love from Verona was what VDW would have termed the class/form horse in the race (on the lines of Wing and a Prayer, Canny Danny and Cool Gin)?”

"Fulham. No, there's a difference, and that being that EVERYTHING doesn't go LFV's way, but the price compensates for this. Wing And A Prayer is the ultimate balance of class and form, just like Little Owl, Canny Danny has everything there but for the weight negative that VDW mentioned, and Cool Gin has almost everything in his favour. The Wing And A Prayer types are the ones that I go for.

May I say that, it is my view from what was written that VDW had a knowledge of racing that far surpasses most that play the horses, past and present. And to be able to select a high percentage of winners at prices LFV returned at calls for a knowledge and understanding (and patience) far beyond that of the main factors that VDW didn't quite spell out. For me personally understanding the examples such as Love From Verona was like running the London Marathon in preparation for competing in a 3-mile fun run. I generally stick to the sore thumbs. Now and then I'll get sucked in to the more complex situations, where some win and some lose, but I've no need to. The majority of my bigger price winners come from the Roushayd method, which still calls for an assessment of the unexposed form before studying the exposed form; Improving speed ratings etc.

I must say though that since being a member of this board it has been great to listen to what others have to say on the subject. I'm sure that some have gone a lot further than myself, Guest for one from what I can make, and each to their own, but for me I'm more than content with what I have and the lengths I go to find my winners.

For those that are still at it, Every time you get peed off or hit the next brick wall, just remind yourself that when you discover what you are looking for, you'll seriously wonder how on earth you ever passed it by, and how it could be so simple."

That was some years before Lee's two runs of 100% winning pre-race posted selections, so it is reasonable to assume that his understanding of VDW's method progressed. I have not found a later Lee post specifically about LfV, and if he had been addressing the same example several years later I think he would have written his opinion slightly differently. That said, LfV is one of the most difficult VDW examples, and I think Lee's athletics analogy far from inappropriate.

Given how complimentary Lee was about Guest, you might also find five short posts by him, some before, some after Lee's April 2002 ones, helpful:

1. "The first point regarding Strombolus/LFV is that both races were handicaps. An obvious point that may seem, but a very relevant one with regard to how we evaluate form associated with the respective races run. Yes there were higher rated ability horses in the fields but were they in form and were they capable of performing under the prevailing conditions?

The 1979 Lanzarote handicap hurdle was similar in some respects to the 2002 running in which the classy Copeland was unable to give the weight to the second season novice, Majalis. Persian Crown and others found this same factor beyond them when the lightly raced Love From Verona landed the spoils 23 years ago. Note LFVs seasonal debut at Lingfield when down the field in a race qualifier."

2. "Remember, consistency is not form. The consistency part though provides us with the probables, hence VDW bringing our attention to Weth Nan and Spartan Missile."

3. "Barney - The paragraph you refer to is just one reason why I also consider the 3 most consistent in the entire field, as VDW had suggested from the beginning. The study of form will show if any of them are outclassed or not capable. Love From Verona was just one horse who didn't feature in the forecast, but was one of the 3 most consistent from the field."

4. [addressed to Mtoto who, wrongly in my view, thought sfs were the answer to almost everything and weight was irrelevant] "As far as Love From Verona goes, you will have already noted that he had no speed figures worth speaking of.

To some others, I will say that it is so easy to just sit on the sidelines and heckle when you haven't even put in any worthwhile effort to read or understand VDW's work. The only way to learn is by ones mistakes or through others assistance based on their understanding or skills in the required area. VDW taught me how to find winners for profit, though I never met or spoke directly to him. The easiest thing in the world would have been for me to just scoff and proclaim him a trickster and waste more time following the so called experts who actually know nothing, that is why they have to be paid by tv companies or newspapers to tip winners or charge unsuspecting mugs for their tipping services."

5. "Fulham - Bear in mind that in handicaps, VDW was ruthless with his definition of a form horse. It took some time to figure this out, but it was only possible through such selections as Desert Hero, Battlement, Kings Ride and Love From Verona. They don't have to be overall top rated, but top of the form horses."

While both Lee and Guest remain for me the two who had made most progress in understanding VDW's work, from whose Gummy posts I've learnt so much, I also believe it is possible to sharpen up and improve on their takes.

Thanks. I've read a lot of that before, especially Lee's take on it.

I have no issues with LFV myself as to me the context of a second season lightly raced hurdler and the ins and outs of handicap qualification are very clear to me. They had no choice but to run LFV in that qualifier first time out unless they wanted to stay carrying penalties in novice hurdles. And whilst the 2nd horse home in LFV's first handicap win had a row of duck eggs with 10-0 to carry, that horse did win a reasonable handicap on it's very next run before LFV went to Kempton and the 3rd horse behind LFV had been in good form too. The weights carried by all involved had much significance as did the manner in which LFV won that race at Huntingdon.

So I've no concerns about excusing the middle run. My concern is why did VDW not excuse Buckbe's race where it fell at just the 4th fence before anything got serious in the contest?

 

[JennyK]

"My concern is why did VDW not excuse Buckbe's race where it fell at just the 4th fence before anything got serious in the contest?"

Why do you think he didn't excuse the fall? I assume he did.

 

[Tufnel]

"My concern is why did VDW not excuse Buckbe's race where it fell at just the 4th fence before anything got serious in the contest?"

Why do you think he didn't excuse the fall? I assume he did.

Well it can't be going up in class winning next time as the fault so it has to be something about the 3rd last run. I know that was higher than LTO and the fall but it was also higher than the Kempton race, albeit by around 20% higher.

 

[Tufnel]

deleted

 

[Leodis]

Leodis

In my view the VDW "form" horses, in ability rating rank order, descending, are Secret Guest, Dragon Spin and Go Victor.

Thanks JennyK ,

I am not betting in it, just continuing my study of cracking the handicaps.

From your three, Secret Guest has less to find at the weights than the other two mentioned.

Would you agree with my form status assessment of King's Crown?

Regards

 

[JennyK]

"I am not betting in it"

Nor me, hopefully.

I should perhaps have included in my last post that, apart from the three I named, in my view none of the others is a VDW "form" horses.

Kings Crown may have what VDW referred to as "less obvious form", in that at this time last year he ran over 6f at Newcastle before being dropped to 5f, again at Newcastle, and winning.

We see a similar pattern now as lto he ran over 6f at Pontefract, in my view the toughest 6f course in the country, and was noted in the Post as: "Led narrowly or disputed lead, headed and weakened over 1f out". So today's 5f at Newcastle should be a breeze by comparison and he is running off 5lb less than when he won a year ago.

I will try to trade KC but don't want to risk a win bet.

 

[Tufnel]

I think there are good grounds for skipping class/form Kap Vert and siding with Here Comes Georgie at Aintree 3:35. Big improvement last time and less weight to carry today dropped in class a little too.