Handicap Class Droppers

[Tufnel]

4th, 6th and 12th to a winner who must have been a different horse to the one Mr Meade trained not so long ago. Won that like a horse rated high 90s.

 

[JennyK]

Thank you, T Tufnel.

Reading Lee's piece, I get a sense of having read it before but it is certainly not in my collection of Lee posts, largely from the Gummy archive. I have no memory of Castle Prince. Checking the Post site, it looks as though the Lee piece may have been written around 2001 or 2002. Do you happen to have its date and indeed its source?

The Lee piece part re the ability rating confirms my initial view that all he was doing was noting that VDW used win prize money as the basis of assessing class/ability.

It probably won't surprise you that I agree the contentions in Lee's piece, but would point out two small errors. In the 2nd sentence of the 6th paragraph Lee probably intended to use some sort of double negative but unfortunately did not complete it so as it stands it is singular and reads the exact opposite of what he meant, as it clear from the rest of the paragraph. Also there is a small error in the weight difference between Billet and Roushayd.

Needless to say, I enjoyed Lee's subtle take down of VDW critics. Even when they posted successful pre race selections on the Gummy thread, both Lee and Guest received more negativity than thanks for explaining as much as they both did. The pathology of those who have failed to make any progress in understanding VDW's main method but can't just leave it alone and sneer at those who have is in itself an interesting phenomenon.

re race comments, as you say, VDW did refer to them in specific cases. I see that as akin to his use of sfs to show improvement. He was making a case based on his only partly revealed method and where is suited him, prayed in aid race readers' comments or increases in sfs. Both irrelevant to the data and tools he actually used. Anyway, that's my view; as with everything else, someone like your self seeking to make progress in understanding VDW's main method must make up his or her mind about that.

More specifically, I am aware of the delightfully old-fashioned comments reprinted in "The Golden Years ..." where VDW mentioned sources of data for Irish and French races. Dressmaking indeed. Still, it was 1981 and Mrs Thatcher had yet to show that a woman would become arguably the greatest peacetime Prime Minister. It may be a case of looking but not seeing, but I can't see any reference to Prominent King or Son Of Love being "mentioned in the letter VDW wrote". Is there perhaps another piece where VDW discussed sources for Irish and French racing?

Incidentally, the very last VDW quote in the Lee piece is, I suggest, worthy of attention. Like the need for key horse support with class droppers, I take that VDW comment on weight seriously. In both cases adherence has meant not backing winners I would have otherwise. But much more often it has kept me from backing losers.

 

[Tufnel]

Thank you, T Tufnel.

Reading Lee's piece, I get a sense of having read it before but it is certainly not in my collection of Lee posts, largely from the Gummy archive. I have no memory of Castle Prince. Checking the Post site, it looks as though the Lee piece may have been written around 2001 or 2002. Do you happen to have its date and indeed its source?

The Lee piece part re the ability rating confirms my initial view that all he was doing was noting that VDW used win prize money as the basis of assessing class/ability.

It probably won't surprise you that I agree the contentions in Lee's piece, but would point out two small errors. In the 2nd sentence of the 6th paragraph Lee probably intended to use some sort of double negative but unfortunately did not complete it so as it stands it is singular and reads the exact opposite of what he meant, as it clear from the rest of the paragraph. Also there is a small error in the weight difference between Billet and Roushayd.

Needless to say, I enjoyed Lee's subtle take down of VDW critics. Even when they posted successful pre race selections on the Gummy thread, both Lee and Guest received more negativity than thanks for explaining as much as they both did. The pathology of those who have failed to make any progress in understanding VDW's main method but can't just leave it alone and sneer at those who have is in itself an interesting phenomenon.

re race comments, as you say, VDW did refer to them in specific cases. I see that as akin to his use of sfs to show improvement. He was making a case based on his only partly revealed method and where is suited him, prayed in aid race readers' comments or increases in sfs. Both irrelevant to the data and tools he actually used. Anyway, that's my view; as with everything else, someone like your self seeking to make progress in understanding VDW's main method must make up his or her mind about that.

More specifically, I am aware of the delightfully old-fashioned comments reprinted in "The Golden Years ..." where VDW mentioned sources of data for Irish and French races. Dressmaking indeed. Still, it was 1981 and Mrs Thatcher had yet to show that a woman would become arguably the greatest peacetime Prime Minister. It may be a case of looking but not seeing, but I can't see any reference to Prominent King or Son Of Love being "mentioned in the letter VDW wrote". Is there perhaps another piece where VDW discussed sources for Irish and French racing?

Incidentally, the very last VDW quote in the Lee piece is, I suggest, worthy of attention. Like the need for key horse support with class droppers, I take that VDW comment on weight seriously. In both cases adherence has meant not backing winners I would have otherwise. But much more often it has kept me from backing losers.

The request for where to find more info on the races involving Son Of Love (French racing) and Royal Bond (Irish racing) was from K.Spiers in a letter in The Golden Years. I also noted VDW assertion amongst that period in a reply to Mr Swann that discovering his methods of rating was not the answer. But given VDW's declared view on the difference of the words rating and ratings it's not clear if he means his 2 sets from the Erin or the 2 sets from Little Owl, etc. I guess we will never know if they were the same or something else.

I'm not going to press the issue further on the "most important" part VDW wrote about on several occasions in the books, not beyond this post because it seems you have your mind settled on the matter. I've said I don't see how it can be referring to who the horses involved at the finish were because to me it's obvious who the horses were in the finish, you just look at the result. No need to consider who did what or not in the last 2 furlongs. Why go to that bother when you can just note who was 1st, 2nd and maybe 3rd and check their form. But the question still remains why did VDW not just say that? Every racing paper at the time showed a similar form page. They showed the first 3 horses home and the runner if it wasn't in those placings. SImple to see at a glance for anyone. No checking on the last 2 furlongs. Unless of course one read the race comments. Though some papers had scant commentary in those little form overviews. But at least it wasn't operating blind to the way the race unfolded.

Of the publications VDW recommended in his letter presumably on his experience in using them, he would have seen the Timeform overview of Prominent King and Drumgora's race. He would have seen the form comments in the French form book on Son Of Love's races. And no doubt the likes of Tintagel too for the '79 Goodwood race. And I really think the fact he used the form comments verbatim in his Roushayd revised article and the Quest For Fame article clearly says to me that he used them and so should we. Unless we are able to watch every race we ever evaluate. How could he have known that Ahoy didn't lose touch until 4f out without the comments he quoted? Why was important for him to point it out to us? He even said for it's first run the horse "went ok for 7f". The formbook simply says "chased leaders 7f" which means the horse was able to stay with them until the last 2 furlongs. At Chester over the extended 1m 4f he notes the horse didn't lose touch in that higher class race until they'd gone almost as far as the distance of his first race. He needed to be dropped in class to last longer still. And that's what happened.

Which of course watching every race is entirely a thing one can do now. And but for that ability I would probably not have noted Alphonse Le Grand back in July at Goodwood without having watched that horse's "effort" at Newcastle in the Plate several times. The Goodwood race merely confirmed to me that he had another target in mind. And so it transpired with the trainer's comments (after the race of course) that the Cesarewitch had indeed been the plan for the season and he nearly messed it up by giving the horse one more outing on heavy at the Curragh recently, but fortunately he said the jockey looked after the horse that day.

I mention that not to toot my own trumpet, simply to illustrate that simply seeing ALG beaten so many lengths at Newcastle, Goodwood and the Curragh would not have led me to the same conclusions. Reading the form comments in the absence of seeing the races might have. But actually watching what the horse did or did not do in the latter part of the race I could see the horse still had ability but just wasn't being allowed to show it yet.

I would wager that given VDW's knowledge of racing, he gained a lot of it in no small part by actually watching what happens in the closing stages of possibly thousands of races over time. I know I've certainly seen many more races in full or part over my time than I'd care to admit. Perhaps that is a hinderance in the pursuit of trying to solve VDW's puzzles. I don't know. Certainly I've seen some strange things happen on the racecourse over time and what a horse did not do last time does not always tell the story.

 

[JennyK]

You are more generous in your views about VDW's energy and attributes than I am, T Tufnel.

You think of him as a Timeform-subscribing, French-literate racing enthusiast who, without the availability of the net or a dedicated racing channel, watched possibly thousands of races while putting in many hours analysing races and writing letters and articles for the Handicap Book, and of course possibly two versions of a not insubstantial booklet. And all this, when not off with his second wife in their caravan or one of numerous cruises he/they took, while holding down his day job in the hosiery industry.

In fairness, the two then major tv channels did show more racing than they do today - so he may well have watched quite a few.

 

[Tufnel]

You are more generous in your views about VDW's energy and attributes than I am, T Tufnel.

You think of him as a Timeform-subscribing, French-literate racing enthusiast who, without the availability of the net or a dedicated racing channel, watched possibly thousands of races while putting in many hours analysing races and writing letters and articles for the Handicap Book, and of course possibly two versions of a not insubstantial booklet. And all this, when not off with his second wife in their caravan or one of numerous cruises he/they took, while holding down his day job in the hosiery industry.

In fairness, the two then major tv channels did show more racing than they do today - so he may well have watched quite a few.

I wouldn’t call it generous. Just somewhat obvious. There is no doubt he wrote the letters and put in the not insubstantial time to at least collate the majority of the data used correct. Either he was someone who just wrote about racing and didn’t really partake in betting or he was someone who was was immersed in it. I think the latter seems more probable given he clearly pinched many of his ideas from books or publications by others. His basic idea of capping finishing positions at 9 and all others to unplaced zero/10 whilst treating last places the same clearly came from the Daily Mail, a paper he obviously read daily. No other newspaper at the time printed their form placings beyond 4 other than zero and certainly not with an ‘L’ for last place. His staking plan lifted also from other publications not to mention other parts of his method from Marvex and similar popular racing books.

So I don’t see that as someone with a passing interest in racing but someone with a passion for it. A probably delusional one at that though.

It could well be that all the elements in his methods are simplistic and not as complex as we have made them. This could also be because he distorted them to varying degrees from example to example to fit his narrative of finding 85-90% winners. A strike rate clearly in cloud cuckoo land in a sport involving people riding large animals around at speed and sometimes trying to negotiate obstacles in their path.

The question has always been was there enough of a cohesive method in there to at least achieve half that strike rate and beat the vast majority who do little better than 20-30% winners backed at best?

If a horse can be excused a failure to win by lengths beaten negated by the difference in weight between the horse and the horse that beat him then the calculation can’t change from race to race depending on if it fits the narrative being presented. Burrough Hill Lad was giving far more in weight than the lengths he was beaten, just as Prominent King was in his LTO race. But only Prominent King is deemed the form horse.

Wayward Lad was only just caught by Earl’s Brig giving that horse some weight but not a huge amount. He had beaten Earl’s Brig on their last meeting in October by a country mile though not to mention finishing a few lengths behind Burrough Hill Lad along the way too.

Most, but not every VDW example outside of the handicap hurdle and best bet selections had clear cases of weight vs distance beaten to negate their finish positions outside of the winner’s enclosure. A horse he mentioned we might care to look at early on was Little Nugget at Sandown. Consistent but not in any forecast as one of the first six. Like Swiss Maid and many others the races not won in their last 3 were races where they gave more or equal weight to those in front than the lengths beaten. Saher is another early example along with Celtic Pleasure.

One could say that is coincidental. But it’s a lot of coincidental occurrences if so.

However in all of the occurrences of this observation the horse had shown it got involved in the last few furlongs in some way. Burrough Hill Lad was beaten 11 lengths giving 2 stone. He didn’t get involved in the last 2 furlongs merely staying where he’d been in 3rd for a few fences before. If his lengths beaten was much less than the pounds given then how else did he fail to qualify in this instance as a form horse?

 

[JennyK]

T Tufnel

You mentioned Swiss Maid which we touched on recently vis-a-vis Cistus, an example I know has been troubling. I then ventured the idea that the by-passing of the higher ability-rated Cistus might be because, unlike Swiss Maid, he was not one of the probables on my interpretation of the Erin numbers.

As a result of recent work, I no longer believe that is the explanation. Rather, I think that while both were "form" horses, with Cistus markedly higher on the ability rating (and neither horse plainly incommoded by capability issues) it is that Cistus was just a "form" horse while Swiss Maid was a consistent "form" horse, which (with similar evidence from other examples) leads me to the conclusion that when determining the class/form horse, consistent "form" horses trumped "form" horses when the latter were higher ability-rated.

I need to check out that idea with a lot more VDW examples before I regard it as sound, but it is the one I am currently working with.

 

[Tufnel]

T Tufnel

You mentioned Swiss Maid which we touched on recently vis-a-vis Cistus, an example I know has been troubling. I then ventured the idea that the by-passing of the higher ability-rated Cistus might be because, unlike Swiss Maid, he was not one of the probables on my interpretation of the Erin numbers.

As a result of recent work, I no longer believe that is the explanation. Rather, I think that while both were "form" horses, with Cistus markedly higher on the ability rating (and neither horse plainly incommoded by capability issues) it is that Cistus was just a "form" horse while Swiss Maid was a consistent "form" horse, which (with similar evidence from other examples) leads me to the conclusion that when determining the class/form horse, consistent "form" horses trumped "form" horses when the latter were higher ability-rated.

I need to check out that idea with a lot more VDW examples before I regard it as sound, but it is the one I am currently working with.

That could well be a significant factor. My first thought though is that I'm not sure that Cistus should necessarily be considered just a form horse given the only blip was in much higher class against the colts in the B&H Gold Cup (today known as the Juddmonte). Would VDW viewed that as a race she should have done better in?

Because on a class basis the Sun Chariot was a Group 2 class 134. Her 3rd last run was a win class 142. Then she ran 9th of 10 up to class 492 a race far above the Sun Chariot and any other she had contested. She was rested 40 days and was dropped back to a class 166 and down in trip by 1.25 furlongs for the head victory at Longchamp. So her last win was in a higher class race than her 3rd last race. I'm not sure being raised above one's ability can render them inconsistent. Gaye Chance springs to mind in this respect. As VDW said there is a difference with his comment on GC "..form shows it was out of it's depth, otherwise super consistent.."
If we make allowances in establishing form for horses having their seasonal debut, should they not get the same pass if they are put into a race beyond their capabilities?

Love From Verona often springs to mind because it's one of those handicap examples where they are way down the AR's and it can be argued the middle run in his last 3 races was not good in light of a class 39 race. But compared to the class movements and form shown by Killwarren and indeed the type of races Killwarren had been running in, it's not a surprise LFV was given favour over that horse. I've noted before how little faith VDW seemed to place in conditions race form carried through to handicaps. Many top class handicappers have gone on to greater things in group company after. Very few who normally run in conditions races through to low group company seem able to carry weight in handicaps to any significant levels of success. These horses are often stuck in a no man's land in respect of finding races they can win. But I'm digressing.

Back to Cistus/Swiss Maid there was of course the 7 lb penalty that Cistus had for her group wins that Swiss Maid did not have due to Swiss Maid largely showing her best form recently in non group races.

But also there was the fact that whilst Swiss Maid had not run since her last win on Aug 28th, Cistus who had run down the field on Aug 22nd had also been rested until winning the Prix de L'Opera just 6 days before the Sun Chariot by a hard fought head on soft ground (which the trainer described as heavy) over 9.25 furlongs.

Swiss Maid won her last race by 1 and a half lengths leading 1f out and running on well under pressure over the same distance and going as the Sun Chariot.

In the absence of race comments I did a search on what the racing journalists reported on the Prix de L'Opera result and the general consensus was that it was a game effort, bravely rallying to regain the lead by a head on what the trainer described as heavy rather than just soft going. Was that the ideal prep for a run over further less than a week away compared to a nice 40 day rest tha Swiss Maid had?

 

[Tufnel]

Handicap Hurdles are back today. As ever the method is under constant review and I find myself looking again at what I see as 3 distinct types of qualifier. They are oddly enough very similar to something I spotted in the Rivage Bleu/Valiant Warrior/etc 6.

Anyone looking at the 6 examples VDW gave for the HH method should be able to spot them with the form being kindly made available by I think Pitmatic on the forum somewhere. It's just a case of collating it and putting it into a spreadsheet so you can see it more clearly.

What I will say is that of the 3 distinct types I noted there are 3 of one type, 2 of another and just 1 of the 3rd type in the 6 examples. Some of my bets in these races haven't adhered to those types as often as they should have.

Today at Hereford there are 3 handicap hurdle races to consider. At Southwell 1 and at Punchestown another 4 races.

Hereford
2:20 No More Bolero
4:05 Miracles Do Happen / Siorai

Southwell
5:23 Luminaries

Punchestown
3:20 I don't want to confidently split the 4 probables in Milan Forth, Pilgrims Walk, Live To Laugh and Warmer Days Ahead.
4:30 Bossy Bird
5:07 No Big Deal / Soldier Saint

Seeing as I can only get 3 races down to 1 selection I'll stick with them for the wagers.

Hereford 2:20 No More Bolero
Southwell5:23 Luminaries
Punchestown 4:30 Bossy Bird

 

[JennyK]

Another good day with the HHs, T Tufnel. You seem to have found your metier. Very well done.

 

[markfinn]

Handicap Hurdles are back today. As ever the method is under constant review and I find myself looking again at what I see as 3 distinct types of qualifier. They are oddly enough very similar to something I spotted in the Rivage Bleu/Valiant Warrior/etc 6.

Anyone looking at the 6 examples VDW gave for the HH method should be able to spot them with the form being kindly made available by I think Pitmatic on the forum somewhere. It's just a case of collating it and putting it into a spreadsheet so you can see it more clearly.

What I will say is that of the 3 distinct types I noted there are 3 of one type, 2 of another and just 1 of the 3rd type in the 6 examples. Some of my bets in these races haven't adhered to those types as often as they should have.

Today at Hereford there are 3 handicap hurdle races to consider. At Southwell 1 and at Punchestown another 4 races.

Hereford
2:20 No More Bolero
4:05 Miracles Do Happen / Siorai

Southwell
5:23 Luminaries

Punchestown
3:20 I don't want to confidently split the 4 probables in Milan Forth, Pilgrims Walk, Live To Laugh and Warmer Days Ahead.
4:30 Bossy Bird
5:07 No Big Deal / Soldier Saint

Seeing as I can only get 3 races down to 1 selection I'll stick with them for the wagers.

Hereford 2:20 No More Bolero
Southwell5:23 Luminaries
Punchestown 4:30 Bossy Bird

11/10 W 3/1 W 9/2 3rd. Excellent afternoon - hope you had them all