I have been taken to task by a former forum colleague because of my failure confidently to identify the class/form horse in the 7.30 Southwell yesterday (my previous blog entry refers). He asks surely the identification of the c/f is a straightforward part of the basic VDW procedure?
In response, it is first worth pointing out that VDW himself made it clear that the identification of the c/f is not always straightforward: in his article of 26 January 1985, reprinted in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune", he wrote:
"To isolate the "class/form" horse can often prove a tricky problem, but some stick out like a sore thumb ..."
For me, the 7.30 Southwell yesterday was one of those races where the c/f didn't stick out like a sore thumb, and the issues were as follows.
Disregarding the non runner, who was entirely peripheral to my pre-race analysis, there were ten runners and the first six and equals in the Post's forecast were Invincible Lad, Captain Carey, Confessional, Lucky Numbers, Baby Strange, Bonnie Prince Blue and Imprimis Tagula.
The horses with the five lowest consistency totals were:
08 Lucky Numbers
10 Confessional, Mon Brav
12 Captain Carey
13 Baby Strange, Invincible Lad
15 Bonnie Prince Blue
The horses within the first six and equals of the forecast with the three lowest consistency totals are automatically consistent horses, ie Lucky Numbers, Confessional and Captain Carey.
We then have to consider the horses among the first six and equals of the forecast who have the fourth or fifth lowest consistency totals, as some can be "discretionary" consistent horses. In this case two - Baby Strange and Invincible Lad - met VDW's criteria but the third, Bonnie Prince Blue, didn't.
Finally with regard to consistent horses, we have to consider whether any horse with one of the five lowest consistency totals but not one of the first six and equals in the forecast, meets VDW's criterion for being a consistent horse. In this case the horse to be considered was Mon Brav, and he plainly didn't meet the criterion.
In sum, we end up with five consistent horses - the three "automatic" ones and two "discretionary" ones.
Because there are more than three, we then need to assess which of the consistent horses are "probables" as per VDW's Prominent King article. In this case the "probables" filter eliminated Invincible Lad, and left four probables, in descending order of ability rating ranking:
1 Baby Strange
2 Confessional
4 Captain Carey
7 Lucky Numbers
Starting with the highest ranked, Baby Strange had come 7th in a class 65 before winning a class 68 and running down the field in a class 206. Given that the race under consideration was a class 71, the failure at class 206 can be disregarded and in my view BS was a form horse.
Confessional had come 3rd in a class 112 before being raised in class to 130 and running down the field. He was then dropped in class to 93 and came a decent second. Given the class of the race under analysis, he can also be regarded as a form horse.
Captain Carey and Lucky Numbers had straightforward last three race profiles, the former entirely progressive the latter progressive for his penultimate run and then a winner when dropped in class, and are undoubtedly form horses.
All four probables with form were fine at the weights.
So the question then became which of the four was the class/form horse, on the balance of class and form. Following VDW's rules on the matter, the answer is Baby Strange. However ...
Baby Strange won his maiden over 5f but ever since has showed himself to be a 6f horse, so it is open to question whether he could be considered the class/form horse when his last three runs which gave him his consistency total were all at his favoured 6f and the race yesterday was over 5f.
IF we eliminate Baby Strange as a probable because of the race distance, we then have something of a conflict: Confessional would be the top ability rated probable with form, but Captain Cary had arguable the better form (his close 5th in a class 478 last time to a previous winner being a better performance than Confessional's 2nd in a class 93, also to a previous winner).
So my dilemma in identifying the class/form horse was first, was it appropriate to eliminate the ostensible c/f, Baby Strange, due to distance (something of a parallel here with the VDW example of the 1988 Mackeson), and if so was Confessional or Captain Carey the class/form horse? I wasn't sure of the answer to the first when I analysed the race yesterday morning and am still not sure: which I took as a clear indication that none of the three was a win bet.
