Have another look at how Van der Wheil assessed consistency and identified what he called probables. Obviously we don't have access to his research data (the second paragraph of the "Form Can Mislead" section of item 39 in "The Golden Years") or know whether he relied on its face validity or applied tests of significance. But checking both on quite a number of contemporary races suggests they represent an intelligent meld of simple arithmetic and understanding of probability.
Nice one, Walter. Notebook horse Flawed Genius runs today (5.50G), and looks to have everything in his favour, though he won't be anything like the price of Gulf Express.
Mtoto
I will ask though can you make the idea fit for Ekbalco 9th last time out
Without doubt, when all the circumstances are taken into account as VDW prescribed. Even using your own criteria, that run, after a 2 month break, rates considerably better than his previous such run, his seasonal debut.
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.
JohnD,
I have posted your wording again so you can see why I may have misunderstood you. I have taken this to mean the selection has the best last time out form of any of the other runners in said race. In Ekbalco's case I can see no way that idea holds up. If however you are only talking about the selections form I have to say this also gives me problems. I can see it is possible his last run maybe better than the first run of the season, but is that important when we are trying to confirm the statement " in all the examples the selection has (relatively) the best lto form in the race". Even if his last run is better than the first after a break, how does it fit if he has run much better races in the mean time?
With all due respect, I would suggest you are giving the man a lot more credit than he deserves, something that is fairly normal in this subject. Based on the examples given it takes a great leap of faith to suggest that, "Van der Wheil seems to have been at home with numerical analysis". The danger is that you start to look for things that aren't there. I'm sure that if you ever find the answer it will be a lot simpler than, at present, you appear to believe.
As I said, it is all relative, and the mid-season break is only a part of the circumstances; a necessary part though, as he had improved in each of his races prior to that break.
ps I abhor dusting off old form books to answer ancient queries, any chance of you discussing a coming race?
Have you fully understood Van der Wheil's way of identifying the probables? Frankly I doubt it, given your comment about him. As someone who regards himself, and more importantly is regarded by his clients, as competent with all the basic forms of statistical analysis, I could not share your view.
My checks on contemporary Flat races (skewed by too many being at Wolverhampton) suggest that probables win a shade over two thirds of races. But I'll need to look at many more races, over a full range of courses, and of course NH races, before I feel comfortable with such figures. The probables/field ratio for the sample is 0.34.
My checks on contemporary Flat races (skewed by too many being at Wolverhampton) suggest that probables win a shade over two thirds of races. But I'll need to look at many more races, over a full range of courses, and of course NH races, before I feel comfortable with such figures. The probables/field ratio for the sample is 0.34.
No sh*t, Sherlock!!! I neither have any statistical bent, nor my head so far up my own rear end that I can't see the wood for trees, but even the great unwashed should know that percentage is almost identical to the first 4 in the betting, which tells us exactly sfa.
That may well be the case, but so what? Van der Wheil, remember, was looking for "a winner in the race", and being a probable (on his definition) was a step on the path. For those interested in trying to emulate his success, if indeed his claims stand up, being able to identify the consistent horses properly, and then the probables, is clearly part (and of course only part) of what is required
If you understood those early stages of the Van der Wheil approach, you wouldn't be fooling around with the likes of Flawed Genius, which was not one of the consistent horses. These were Firestreak, Kay Es Jay and We'll Come, and I see one of them won.
Please do not let the likes of johnd put you down,he's type always become abusive when they are feeling insecure , especially when someone more intellectual comes along and they are learning at a much quicker rate then they ever could.
