quote:

Originally posted by boozer:
I wish it was that easy JD

The race is over but
would you have backed lovelace to beat Laa rayb

It isn't easy Boozer, but that doesn't detract from the simplicity of the approach. Some 'unexposed' horses aren't nearly as unexposed as they would first seem.
I didn't back Lovelace today as there was a slight doubt which I'm not going to detail on here. Having said that, the finishing position of Giganticus (btn 1.75l) suggests that Lovelace, who was a similar distance in front of him lto and was 3lb better in, would have certainly been amongst the principals.
I wouldn't have backed Laa Rayb with someone else's money, and his victory holds down the form of the whole race for me, but there is no denying that he ran the race of his life on his previous run, which is very much in line with what VDW said is where we should be looking.

Vincent

Further to my response to your post yesterday, I've now seen some of your earlier posts re mirrors and realise what you mean. The evidence of my checking through of the Van der Wheil examples thus far is that it is horses in front for losers and, necessarily, horses behind for winners.

GJ

That kind of thinking won't get you very far when you get to horses like Baronet & Braashee.

Johnd

On the contrary, it helps solve both. Which probable had beaten better horses than Braashee and which probable had been beaten by better horses than Baronet?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: George Johns,

Are you following Camps Bay today JIB? (off in 2 minutes)

Which probable had beaten better horses than Braashee and which probable had been beaten by better horses than Baronet?

George,

Doesn't this beg the question, are you working from just the last race, best of the last three, or over all form? For example with Baronet, I think the three probable would have been Petronisi, Baronet, and Dasman (I do accept you may have a different three, it would be interesting to know what they are). For me I look at my three, two of whom have won their last race, and the selection had finished 3rd in his. Do I take winning form as being the strongest and the ones to work with? If I don't know, how do I decided whom has the strongest form? All three are in the forecast all three are consistent, their A/R's are P = 39, B = 17 and D = 15. I can't see how mirrors help here, they would have shown B behind P twice in P's last two runs.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I believe there were four probables in the race for which Mr Hall made Baronet a selection and Van der Wheil said it was a "good thing": Town and Country, Petronisi, Evesboy and Baronet. Of these only Petronisi had won lto, and he had beaten very little. Of the other three, Evesboy had been beaten by even less than Petronisi had beaten, but the other two had both been beaten by winners lto. Of these Baronet's winner (Petronisi by coincidence) had won a much higher class race than Town and Country's.

What this adds up to, as far as I can see at present, is that when considering their last races, Baronet's was better than the bare win prize money; Town and Country's I'm not sure how to judge; and Petronisi's and Evesboy's were poorer than the bare prize money suggests. In other words, looking front (if a loser) and back (if a winner) seems to me to give an additional perspective on the basic class of the race as measured by win prize money.

And of course one can treat each run of each horse in the same way.

I haven't yet worked it all out, but I think the evidence is almost totally conclusive that, as regards consistency, probables and form, Van der Wheil was normally only interested in a horse's last three runs, though obviously more when a run was incomplete, as per item 15 of "The Golden Years". That is not of course to say that was all he was interested in, as the ability rating picks up all winning performances in a horse's career (seemingly nh only for nh races, flat only for flat races). And in a revised version of Roushayd evaluation I've found in "Racing in My System" Van der Wheil described how to draw on a horse's whole history to get a sense of what suited him.

Whether, for relative merit purposes, Van der Wheil used data for all three of the consistency aggregate races, the best performance among the three, or the last race, is something I'm still wrestling with, and suspect the answer may be different for different aspects of the analysis. I have in mind here that some horses "come to the boil" over their consistency runs (Sunset Cristo is a good example), whereas others show what they can do and then just tick over, as it were, in much lower class races (eg Righthand Man). So with Sunset Cristo it would make sense, when comparing with other probable horses, to consider his last race, whereas with horses like Righthand Man that might not be the answer.

did vdw use profits from weights right ratings best of last three runnings at todays weight in the timeform style

Les

I've no idea. From time to time I spend yet another half hour on those final two ratings but have got nowhere with them.

think that it may help explain a thing i dont get when discribing canny danny he said he was 3lbs better on handicap these ratings would show if it was moving down in class and had been close up in one of its last 3 races?

I believe there were four probables in the race for which Mr Hall made Baronet a selection and Van der Wheil said it was a "good thing": Town and Country, Petronisi, Evesboy and Baronet.

George,

Looking at your four and I think possibly understanding the logic, I have to ask why four? If your four are based on their A/R's isn't B trailing by a fair amount? I have to ask is he only there because you know he was the selection so had to be one of VDW's probable's?

Of these only Petronisi had won lto, and he had beaten very little.

Afraid the logic fails here for me. P has beaten B every time they have meet this season, P has beaten very little, but a horse he has
beaten is good enough to win this major race.

What this adds up to, as far as I can see at present, is that when considering their last races, Baronet's was better than the bare win prize money;

While I can see and agree with that I can't understand how it can be better/stronger class for one horse, and weaker for the other. It is the same prize money for both horses to win. while the prize money may not reflect the true class of a race it is the same for all the runners.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

We can safely deduce from item 8 of "The Golden Years" and the Little Owl example in the March 1981 article that Van der Wheil's approach to identifying probables has nothing to do with ability ratings.

Regarding the mirrors issue, at least as I currently understand it and tried to describe it earlier, it seems to be only one small part of a much bigger concern - how Van der Wheil assessed form. As far as I can see at present, it does no more (but no less) than what you say - provides another perspective on class.

GJ
You are building castles in the air, with little or no real logic to support them.
How could Baronet possibly be the selection based on horses he had in front of him when one of them was running in the same race, and how could Braashee be the selection based on horses he had behind him when one of those horses was only a neck behind him and meeting him on 7lb better terms?
As I advised you previously, you are trying to make the selections fit the method, the same mistake that hundreds have made before you and (coincidentally or not) often come to similar conclusions. You may find some sort of answer in this way, but unless it stands the test of cold and unemotional logic then it is highly unlikely to be the right one.
It is the method that must be found first (A far simpler and more logical way to approach it anyway) and then checked to see if the selections fit. If they don't, without any manipulation or outlandish assumption, then the understanding of the method is wrong in the first place.
As a shortcut, I suggest you get to understand fully why Roushayd was considered a good thing, apply the same logic to the above 2 and, when you come up with a common sense and sustainable answer that fits all 3, you may find yourself much nearer home.

Incidentally, VDW always took a horse's last run into consideration, how else could he have judged them consistent, or poised to win?

Johnd

quote:

How could Baronet possibly be the selection based on horses he had in front of him when one of them was running in the same race, and how could Braashee be the selection based on horses he had behind him when one of those horses was only a neck behind him and meeting him on 7lb better terms?

With respect, the above shows that you have not understood my responses to Mtoto in which I tried to made it clear that my current view is that the "mirror" business plays a small part in a much bigger picture.

I'm puzzled by your comment about making the selections fit the method, which seems to me again to be based on a misunderstanding. As I see it, we have Van der Wheil's writings including the examples they contain, some of which were selections, and need to work out the approach(es) from the totality of the material.

GJ

quote:

As I see it, we have Van der Wheil's writings including the examples they contain, some of which were selections, and need to work out the approach(es) from the totality of the material.

Which I'm saying is the wrong way to approach it.
First, find, from the material that VDW emphasised, the kernel of his method, (SIAO and Roushayd), and when that is understood correctly, check it against other selections.
What is the point of going backwards and forwards through his selections until you can grasp that which he told us himself is paramount? If your car won't start, do you check the tyres and the wipers?

We can safely deduce from item 8 of "The Golden Years" and the Little Owl example in the March 1981 article that Van der Wheil's approach to identifying probables has nothing to do with ability ratings.

George,

While I agree item 8 has nothing to do with the A/R, do you think it is just coincidence the three probables are the horses that come out best in the "other" ratings? With the Little Owl example I find it hard to understand why you think the A/R nothing to do with the A/R's when it clearly states.............."Always mark off the four highest ability ratings and three most consistent from the forecast. In the illustrations this is done with an asterisk ("¢*)". Closely followed by .............."At this stage do not make any automatic assumptions. The required data has been put together and it is now necessary to establish if any of the three probables have good claims for support. Always start appraisals by looking at the horse with the highest ability rating and check how it balances with the other data" Surely this can only mean the probables are the horses marked with an *, if not he has missed out a vital procedure in an article headed SIAO?

*************

Incidentally, VDW always took a horse's last run into consideration, how else could he have judged them consistent, or poised to win?

JohnD,

While the above is indubitably true, is the same importance placed on that last run with every selection? I can see the last run in the cases of Roushayd and Braashee is all important, but I can't see it in the case of Baronet. Also have to say following the advice you give to George about linking the thinking up with these three horses, they all work for me, but you say my understanding is wrong.

Be Lucky

Johnd

I am sure you mean well but with due respect you write like an enthusiastic amateur rather than someone with a training in research methods. Applying the techniques we use in our main field (health economics) is already producing useful results from the Van der Wheil material.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: George Johns,

Mtoto

Re-reading the Little Owl example I notice a possible ambiguity which may be causing confusion, due to there being three * figures in two of the columns. The three probables are Little Owl, Wayward King and Fairy King, and as with the Erin illustration in item 8 a higher ability rated horse has been by-passed in honing in on the three probables. I hope that helps.

Mtoto

While the above is indubitably true, is the same importance placed on that last run with every selection? I can see the last run in the cases of Roushayd and Braashee is all important, but I can't see it in the case of Baronet. Also have to say following the advice you give to George about linking the thinking up with these three horses, they all work for me, but you say my understanding is wrong.


It is equally important in Baronet's case. I hadn't realised myself until Lee pointed it out some time ago but, in all the examples the selection has (relatively) the best lto form in the race.

GJ

I am sure you mean well but with due respect you write like an enthusiastic amateur rather than someone with a training in research methods. Applying the techniques we use in our main field (health economics) is already producing useful results from the Van der Wheil material.

Where do you get off?
Hundreds of people, from enthuastic amateurs to smart-arses who think they know the answer to everything, have been producing useful results from VDW material for decades. 99% of all of them are now doing something else. Go figure!

A quote for you, from someone who truly was smart:
The difference between an enlightened man and an ignorant one is the enlightened man is aware of his ignorance.
Good luck Sherlock.

Johnd

I've named the four probables in the race for which Mr Hall selected Baronet, and the numbers which match them are 5, 4, 6 and 3, as members who have resolved that particular aspect of the Van der Wheil puzzle will of course be able to confirm. Care to reciprocate by naming the probables, and giving the numbers, for any other race in "The Golden Years" (except of course the Erin!)? Then we'll all know where we stand.