• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune - "From Start to Finish", "Entering the Straight"

J

JennyK

Colt
I should be grateful for any advice from VDWers on two sentences from this article, page 34 in my booklet.

"Although not wishing to confuse anyone, there is exposed form as understood by most and the less obvious form which, although just as exposed, is not seen by the majority.

Following trainers would soon acquaint you with this less obvious form."

I am finding this difficult to get to grips with, and I am wondering whether those VDWers who have could suggest a trainer worth following from this angle.

Today the race that most interested me was the 2.00 at Thirsk, where several horses had what I guess most would regard as exposed rorm, including the unplaced favourite, Maple Jack and the second, Bay Breeze. The winner, Cooperation, had won twice last year and run reasonably twice later when raised in class, but had been well beaten on his only run this year, albeit he had a difficult time in running, according to the Racing Post comments:

"Slightly awkward start, raced near side, midfield, not clear run repeatedly from under 2f out, ridden and kept on inside final furlong, 4th of 11 in group (jockey said gelding was denied a clear run inside the final 2f) (op 25/1)"

I am wondering if those VDWers who understand what VDW meant by less obvious form regard Cooperation as an example, and if so can give any guidance on knowing when such form trumps the more obvious form, as on VDW's ability rating both Maple Jack and Bay breeze seemed to have the edge on Cooperation and were proven in today's conditions whereas Cooperation's ability to perform well on soft was a matter of conjecture.


 
Thanks for your post J JennyK !
I'm not one who understands VDW, despite having looked into it for several years, but, nevertheless, I would recommend choosing a few trainers and learning as much about them modus operandi as possible.

Imo, there is plenty of hidden stuff, but, I'm unable to say exactly what it is.

I don't follow him myself, but, I feel you could benefit by following, say, Andrew Balding.
See what happens to his runners on their third or fourth run. :)
 
If you Look at his 4yr old flat form excluding A/W you will see that he has been facing higher rated horses btn 5'5len in 26k hdcp btn 1.5len 15k hdcp then 2 on the A/W then his last race 2 fur to go could not make his move as he was blocked off all the way to the line which he lost to bay breeze the horse he beat today he went down in class for that 1 so may well have been in it to win that 1 dropped in class again for todays race he has already proved he can come close in better races and is first run met with all sorts of problems and was still full of running so basically check what horses he beat in better class races
 
Thank you both.

I was thinking about trying Andrew Balding. The last year or so I've been following two relatively northern trainers in Ruth Carr and Tim Easterby, as I only look at handicaps and both have plenty of handicappers. A more southern based one could be interesting and Mr Balding and Clive Cox are the two I've been thinking about. The problem is time as keeping an eye on all the stables' handicappers during the summmer takes forever. I don't want to drop RC or TE, now I think I at least partly understand them, but I think I've learnt as much as I am likely to about how they work, so one more with, hopefully, some different strategies, is about as much as I can manage.
 
Yes, J JennyK ,
time is a constraint for most of us, though some seem to put in several days study per week on here.

I'd say all the trainers you mentioned are worth the time.

Vdw is something you'll need help from an expert.
 
JennyK said:
I should be grateful for any advice from VDWers on two sentences from this article, page 34 in my booklet.

"Although not wishing to confuse anyone, there is exposed form as understood by most and the less obvious form which, although just as exposed, is not seen by the majority.

Following trainers would soon acquaint you with this less obvious form."

Click to expand...
I cannot help Re the VDW version of hidden form but this aspect plays a part in the way i work Hcaps. To my mind it mostly comes down to a trainer Gaming the system in order to secure a winning mark or bigger odds for a planned future race. The pundits often talk about prep runs and past trends for a valuable race but the same applies in a 0-60 when price not prize provides the earn.

When the horse of interest off ratings appears to have under performed in its recent runs we as punters should be seeking what i call VEs Valid Excuses and sometimes these can be found. They may be the overt types such as wrong dist - going but there are plenty of more devious ways which can help fox the BHA and the market while still staying within the rules of racing.

Working with older horses provides plenty of ammunition via there profiles to help identify the above and sometimes relating this to the trainers MO can help us feel that we are part of the plan. I also like Tim Easterby and one of his traits is to follow the same or very simular pathway Re its prep runs with a fresh contender for a race he has won previously.

Gleaning the worthwhile finds from the above often necessitates hard work, but as i recall this aspect was mentioned by VDW as part of his formula.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Mick.

I very much agree with your point about VEs. Indeed, your post helpfully focused me on what I am trying to do, which really comes down to adding what you refer to as the "more devious" to the well-known ploys of running a horse over a less-than-ideal trip or on unsuitable going, or pushing it up in class unrealistically.

When focusing on trainers, I started with Mark Johnston, but found myself unable to understand him. Ruth Carr and Tim Easterby, my next choices, operate in ways I can understand (which probably just means Mark Johnson is much clever than I am). I am really looking for someone (a) successful with the sort of races I principally focus upon - sprint handicaps excluding nurseries and 3yo only races and (b) potentially adept at the "more devious".

That led to the thought that trainers with a higher proportiong of sprint handicap winners at longer prices may be the best ones to look at as they may win proportionately more with horses without obvious form.

Checking the last three full calendar years, I find both Ruth Carr and Tim Easterby come out well on this measure, both getting more than half their sprint handicap winners home at 5/1 or higher.

Neither Andrew Balding or Clive Cox prove to fit my bill because, I suspect, they have higher aspirations than run of the mill sprint handicaps. Andrew Balding has comparatively few runners in the kind of races I prioritize, just 80 in the last three full years with six winners, three short priced. Cox had only a few more and 2/3rds of his went off below 5/1, which which suggests they probably had obvious form and are therefore widely backed. Not of course that I've anything against backing a horse with obvious form - providing it wins!

Of several others I've checked, the one now interesting me is Nigel Tinkler. Strike rate broadly similar to Balding and Carr from well over three hundred runners in the last three years, and only about 30% of his winners at short prices, a smaller proportion then either, though probably not significantly different to Carr's. Just maybe, I'll find some of his winners are explicable in terms of the "more devious", ie ploys yet not known to me. I am hoping he proves not as impenetrable to me as Mark Johnson did.
 
J JennyK Re your first para above a few years ago i started writing a list of possible VEs and stopped at 35 not down to running out of ideas but rather because i was starting to frighten myself. You mention raised in class as one but the problem is these days the pundits and market will be all over this and the shrewd trainers will be aware, as a result i think some have reversed the thinking by a placed to lose outing coming from a below class run with the big weight being the stopper and VE.

The top weight in some Hcaps is now 10-2 and climbing but some horses profiles will evidence that they are not good weight carriers. My area is all aged and 4yo+ Hcaps over 5 - 8 fur and as mentioned these provide plenty of profile evidence Re strengths and needs. When you spend a lot of time looking then eventually you start to pick up on VEs for individual horses and sometimes you can then start to glean patterns used by the trainer concerned. The task is never going to be easy but then again if it was there would be no value in the price when you have found them.

PS : Not that it matters but your user name suggests female gender if so this is good to see. :)
 
"Re your first para above a few years ago i started writing a list of possible VEs and stopped at 35 not down to running out of ideas but rather because i was starting to frighten myself."

35 frightens me!

Leaving aside a horse seemingly having significant bad luck in running, I'm inclined to think of the three classic VDW elements: class, form and "the other factors" (which, rightly or wrongly I assume to be conditions such as going, trip and course type").

Class is relatively straightfoward using VDW's twin goals of class of race and class of runners and I think you are right, Mick, and anyone serious abut backing horses is all over that element.

Conditions offer a range of possibilities, with going and trip perhaps the most obvious ones but course type and sometimes time of year or draw seemingly relevant.

Its Form that I find the most elusive from the VE point of view. When a seemingly poor run can't be explained by class or conditions (or, of course, vet findings) the question I ask myself is am I reading the form right? Sometimes a race may be better than the class of race and class of runner measures suggest, and therefore a seemingly mediocre performance may be better than it seems. The prior form of the winner can sometimes help, but that does not seem to be the whole or only answer.

Turning to Nigel Tinkler, it looks as if I am a shade late to be following some of his runners, as two of his regularly winning handicappers have already won this year - Athollblair Boy and Roundhay Park. Maybe either can win again soon, though I rather doubt it. Both are entered this week.

More interesting from my perspective are two who have been out, both recently, but not won. High Security, entered on Fiday and As If By Chance who ran yesterday in the race won by Cooperation.

High Security was dropped in race class lto, and is upped again if he runs at Ripon on Friday, where he won this time last year. Should be interesting.
 
Last edited:
J JennyK Re High Security : His class ceiling appears to be 0-70 grade and Fri race is a 0-75. He has not actually won at Ripon as he fin 2nd in an apprentice hcap and got the race on an objection. He is back down to his last winning mark OR 64 and if i owned him i would be looking for a 0-65 at Beverly where the top weight is set at 9-9 so he would run under 9-8 with perhaps a decent 5lb claimer giving a net 9-3.

I am not a fan of the trainer who imo can be beyond devious, and this makes the profiling of his runners " difficult ". Reading your above you already appear to have a good understanding and best of for your future progress. :)
 
Mick

I agree that the Beverley win is a much better benchmark for HS than the Ripon race.

I think I was overly pessimistic about the prospect of Athollblair Boy winning again soon, as Mr Tinkler has found what seems a realistic opportunity for him in the 8.45 Newcastle tomorrow. That said, looking at the horse's career profile I think I'd have thought the same before the race on 18 February, where he was well beaten with no obvious reason I can see. I imagine the owners did well from his win on 24 March, where on his winning form from 3 February he clearly had a major chance. Maybe the apparent disparity between the 18 February and 24 March performances is an example of why you hold the opinion you do of the trainer.

Tomorrow's race is by my reckoning much the same in terms of class of runner as both those, so neither outcome can be discounted, but if he is anywhere near the 14/1 of his last two wins he'll be a bet for me.

I haven't checked yet, but if he does win, three handicap victories as a 10yo has surely got to be very unusual.
 
Actually, there may be a reason for AB's failure to win on 18 February.

I only have details of his career from being a 4yo onwards but so far in those seven years he has run in 47 handicaps at Newcastle over 6f and 7f with 9 wins (winning over both distances). All 9 wins were from the 33 races where he has started from stalls 4-9, no wins in the 14 runs from stalls 1-3 and 10 onwards. Overall, my draw figures for 6f and 7f at Newcastle suggest the lowest three stalls have less winners than one would expect on a random distribution

AB ran from stall 1 on 18 February (and indeed when he lost in a better race on 3 April). Tomorrow he starts from 4, provided none of those in 1-3 are non runners, so just within his so-far winning range.

On the other hand, the 9/33 v 0/14 may just be coincidence.

Typically, it seems, one handicapper aged 10 wins three or more handicaps each year, with two in 2020.
 
I don't wish to slide into a debate about vdw, J JennyK, but, in the days I looked at it, I remember the early instructions were to find and concentrate on the best class race of the day.
Rightly or (probably) wrongly, that was stressed to me.

Nowadays, I see folk applying the method to moreorless any race, so, I'm glad I no longer bother much with its concepts.
Imo, Nigel Tinkler doesn't go in much for the most valuable race on the cards, but, I also believe he's a very canny operator.

All the very best! :)
 
Sandhog

Yes, in one long article I recall he wrote very much what you say.

That said, for me the only reason to spend time analysing races is belief that, at depth, results are mainly rational.

In one of his early aricles, VDW set out the essence of a potentially rational approach when he wrote:

"Readers who fully understood my previous letters will know it is the balance between class, form and the other factors which shows the good things."

I certainly don't understand all the previous letters and I am not even sure I understand that sentence. Given what else he wrote, I think the phrase "other factors" refers to conditions issues (weight, going, trip, course type, time of year), but I am not sure. Nevertheless, for me analysing a race is a matter of bring together class, form and conditions issues in the expectation that more often than not it leads to the right answer, even if it is that a race has too many who could plausibly win to be a betting opportunity.

If one takes the view that class, form and conditions are, together, the core of a basically rational approach, then it surely follows that potentially they will work with any grade or type of race. And VDW gave examples of lower grade races he'd analysed.

Disappointingly, Athollblair Boy is now a non-runner tonight.
 
Fair enough viewpoint, imo, J JennyK.
I don't follow vdw, but, as far as I can see "consistency" is a sterling quality for successful racehorses.

Whether or no this all boils down to much the same thing, I don't know.
We'll have to look forward to High Security on Friday.
 
The 5.35 Windsor on Monday is interesting as unlike most races (including the two I looked at today as Ascot and the 5.45 Hamilton tomorrow) there are no runners with obvious form. So from a VDW perspective either one finds one or more with what he referred to as less-obvious form or (probably the prudent thing to do) one leaves it as far as betting is concerned.

I think there is at least one runner, maybe two, with what VDW might have described as having less-obvious form.

Level Up's win on 11 April was clearly a form run. In win prize money terms, a class 42. Then raised in class to a 51, when (under very different conditions) he was well beaten. On Monday he is dropped in class again, to a 44. (And the same pattern is equally clear, perhaps more so, when one makes the comparisons by the second measure VDW suggested one needed to use, the class of the runners in the respective races.)

Sarah's Verse might, I think, also qualify. The race she won on 7 April was much higher in class from a win prize money point of view than the one she was beaten in on 24 April, or Monday's, but on quality of the runners it was very much lower in class than either. The race on 24 April was however significantly higher in class than Monday's.

The question, in both cases, is can their last races be reasonably excused, in which case they are worthy of consideration from the form perspective, though at first glance both seem short on ability for Monday's race and Level Up seems, so far, to perform better on the aw than on turf (though the Official Handicapper does not take that view).

I can't yet see a reason why any of the other runners could also be regarded as having less-obvious form.
 
JennyK said:
The 5.35 Windsor on Monday is interesting as unlike most races (including the two I looked at today as Ascot and the 5.45 Hamilton tomorrow) there are no runners with obvious form. So from a VDW perspective either one finds one or more with what he referred to as less-obvious form or (probably the prudent thing to do) one leaves it as far as betting is concerned.

I think there is at least one runner, maybe two, with what VDW might have described as having less-obvious form.

Level Up's win on 11 April was clearly a form run. In win prize money terms, a class 42. Then raised in class to a 51, when (under very different conditions) he was well beaten. On Monday he is dropped in class again, to a 44. (And the same pattern is equally clear, perhaps more so, when one makes the comparisons by the second measure VDW suggested one needed to use, the class of the runners in the respective races.)

Sarah's Verse might, I think, also qualify. The race she won on 7 April was much higher in class from a win prize money point of view than the one she was beaten in on 24 April, or Monday's, but on quality of the runners it was very much lower in class than either. The race on 24 April was however significantly higher in class than Monday's.

The question, in both cases, is can their last races be reasonably excused, in which case they are worthy of consideration from the form perspective, though at first glance both seem short on ability for Monday's race and Level Up seems, so far, to perform better on the aw than on turf (though the Official Handicapper does not take that view).

I can't yet see a reason why any of the other runners could also be regarded as having less-obvious form.
Click to expand...

Had a quick look at the race.

Level Up wears a tongue tie for the first time instead of a visor, which may indicate a reason for a poor run last time.

Sarah's Verse looks more in line for consistency as a VDW type. Spring horse, likes soft and fair run last run and the connections are flying at the moment. Price may be too short...hard to tell right now. (I'd say around 7/4f)

All the runners are coming back in grade to class 5 apart from the veteran Wiley Post.
 
"Following trainers will soon acquaint you with less obvious form"

As Mick said, more likely certain trainers gaming the handicap system, which is probably most of them in some form or other.

One thought crossed my mind though. Some trainers are dab hands at getting horses from other yards and finding improvement. Usually ones that have less obvious form and that the handicapper has dropped to a handy mark. Tim Vaughan was one I recall around 15 years ago. He had/has PTP contacts and would be able to get unfit, quirky types and win sequences of races that were 20lbs_ in hand in some cases.

Martin Pipe was also able to get horses super fit from other yards and win the races from the front. Most trainers have followed suit with his scientific ways of testing blood oxygen levels that indicate how much fitter they can get.

Following the VDW rules to the letter, these races would generally be discounted as they are lower class types. However, I believe there are opportunities in most races, it's just a question of applying modern day stats/data where appropriate.

Paul Nicholls like to focus on french racing and can pick up some cheap but useful types for hurdles/chases.

Nicky Henderson has recently got a rich stream of winners running after a their first wind operation.

Mick Appleby can improve runners better than most and pick up sequences of races on the all weather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top