I have been asked what was the one serious bet I have had so far this month, and the answer is contained in the post I made at 9.24pm on 15 March about the Arkle Chase at Cheltenham the following day:
"Sizing Europe in the 2.05 Cheltenham looks to have a very strong VDW profile. I didn't see the race, but the write ups suggest that Captain Cee Bee might well have beaten SE on 26 December, so I suppose the sensible bet is a book on them both."
ie I backed Sizing Europe and Captain Cee Bee as a book.
The post was made on a by-invitation only forum but it contains some well known VDWers including Oldtimer (who posts regularly on the Kimmypops forum) and Mtoto (who posts regularly on the UK Betting forum), and either will be able to confirm the authenticity of the post and its timing. Oldtimer also selected Sizing Europe.
I didn't set out the step-by-step of getting to Sizing Europe because the members of the forum are familiar with how I work, but it was the same procedure as already demonstrated on this blog, following closely the March 1981 article approach.
First the field of 12 was ranked by ability, which gave the following best to worst order:
Osana
Sizing Europe
Captain Cee Bee
Fosters Cross
Quiscover Fontaine (equal with Fosters Cross)
Woolcombe Folly
Somersby
Sports Line
Riverside Theatre
Mad Max
Kangaroo Court
I'm Delilah
The Post forecast was 3/1 Captain Cee Bee, 4/1 Somersby, 5/1 Sizing Europe, 7/1 Riverside Theatre, 8/1 Sports Line, 10/1 and above the rest (it being a non handicap the concern is initially with the first five in the forecast).
The consistency aggregates for the five were:
03 Captain Cee Bee (the last time out fall is ignored), Sizing Europe
04 Sports Line
05 Somersby
so all five have one of the three lowest totals and all are "automatic" consistent horses.
Potentially five other horses outside the first five of the forecast were discretionary consistent horses: Kangaroo Court and Woolcombe Folly (03), I'm Delilah (05), Osana (06) and Fosters Cross (08), but none in my view met VDW's criteria for such horses.
With five consistent horses the method of reduction used but not explained in the Prominent King letter is applied, but in this case no horse is eliminated, so we have five probables, all in my view probables with form. So then comes the balancing of class, form and the other factors:
Sizing Europe: ability rating 293, last time out won a class 568. Nothing to suggest race conditions unsuitable. And in first four of the ability rating ranking (ARR).
Captain Cee Bee: AR 184, last time out won a class 107. Also within the first four of the ARR.
Somersby: AR 79, last time out won a class 188. Only 6th in the ARR.
Sports Line: AR 78, last time out won a class 460. 7th in the ARR.
Riverside Theatre: AR 62, last time out won a class 188. 8th in the ARR.
Everything straightforward in the sense that of the five Sizing Europe was clearly the best horse (highest AR), with the best form (a win in much higher class than the other four), and no capability concerns, ie the class/form horse. And a potential bet as he was within the first four of the ARR.
However, the work doesn't end there, and three questions in particular required investigation:
1) was the best horse in the race in terms of the ability rating, Osana, any kind of threat? Two points to be made. Although Osana had a higher AR, his was 296 compared with Sizing Europe's 293: the difference is so small as to be meaningless and for all practical purposes they were equal best. Second, on their respective last runs SE beat Osana comfortably at level weights, and meeting again at level weights there was no reason to expect a reverse in placings. Thus Osana no danger;
2) was Sizing Europe's profile one that met all VDW's "winner in the race" requirements? These are slightly different for class rises such as Sizing Europe (last run in a class 568, the Arkle a class 855) than for class droppers like Kaldoun Kingdom yesterday. Rather than the VDW examples I used as a reference for Kaldoun Kingdom yesterday, the ones to use with horses like Sizing Europe are the likes of Little Owl, Sunset Cristo, Cool Gin and Braashee, and unlike KK yesterday SE meets ALL the requirements. Indeed, if we regard him as in practice equal top rated on ability rather than second to Osana, he had the perfect profile for a class rising class/form horse;
3) was the ask realistic? For example, VDW identified Billet as the class/form horse in the 1988 Northern Dancer, but did not back him because of the huge jump in class Billet was attempting - 48 to 227 - which in that case was a concern. In the Arkle Sizing Europe was rising in class from 568 to 855, and had a best win in a class 735, so he was being asked to win in markedly higher class than ever before. However, for a reason that can be found in VDW's discussion of the 1988 Mackeson, there was no "Billet" type concern here.
So a perfect VDW bet. But one potential fly in the ointment. In this last race Captain Cee Bee was challenging Sizing Europe when he fell at the last, and several experienced commentators thought that CCB would have won had he not fallen. Obviously no one can be certain, but as the two were meeting on the same level weight basis, it was obviously prudent to cover both, in case Captain Cee Bee did prove the better horse. Hence my book.
In his March 1981 article VDW showed that he used two sets of ratings as a crosscheck on his selections. I've not been able to work out how VDW derived these ratings and so use my own. For non handicaps I simply work out how well/badly off the class/form horse is with all the other runners compared with if the race had been a handicap. In this case Sizing Europe was better in with all the other runners by between 1lb and 18lb, which very much supported the selection. The horse he was only 1lb better off with was Captain Cee Bee (SE rated 157, CCB 156), and that supported the prudence of backing both rather than Sizing Europe alone.
Had CCB not been in the field, Sizing Europe would have been about as good a VDW single win bet as one can find (he could only have been better had he been well clear of the rest on the ability rating). The book was a rock solid bet.
Unfortunately, from an average of about two analyses a day, focusing almost exclusively on handicaps, I don't find more than about one such bet every 2-3 weeks.
