AC

And if you believe that selling platers would have featured in such valuable races, not only do you not understand VDW, you are missing the whole point about how he saw ability.

JohnD,

Whilst 'selling platers' may be over-egging it slightly, if you believe that all horses entered in a race have suffiecient class to win it then you're very misguided.

Next you'll be tring to tell me that Wayward Lad's class 71 last race was better than Little Owl's class 68 because it was more valuable

Class of race (prizemoney) IS very important but I'm afraid if you take it purely in isolation then you're on the road to the poorhouse. The class and form of those involved at the business end of the race is far more relevant.

Walter

Thank you.


Andy Capper

Thanks, that horses to watch for idea is an interesting thought.

With Pegwell Bay, the piece isn't dated but with the Mackeson on 12 November and Pegwell Bay's next race exactly four weeks later, and a big race at that, Van der Wheil could well have known at the time of writing exactly what Pegwell Bay's next target was. A comfortable win by 10l in a class 221 certainly seems a good basis for thinking he had a good chance of following up over the same course and distance even though raised 10lb by the Official Handicapper.


Mtoto

The ability rating is a measure of a horse's average winning form, and Van der Wheil's underlying assumption must surely be that a horse capable of winning races of average class 50 is better than a horse capable of winning races of average class 20. I must say that that seems logical to me. But I can't see that it is necessary for a horse to have won any of his last three races, and in both Prominent King and Roushayd we have examples who didn't.

With Roushayd, surely his win in a class 621 in 1987 was his best performance? With Prominent King the picture is a bit less clear, but it must presumably have been his placing at the Cheltenham Festival or his 4th in the 1977 Erin.

Assuming Van der Wheil assessed the 1978 Erin as he did the races in the March 1981 article, and I accept that that is an assumption, what the last race before the Erin told him was that Prominent King was coming into form. After a decent first run of the season (where he came 2nd to a horse which had fallen last time out but had won the time before), Prominent King came second again, giving 19lb, to a horse that had just come 3rd in a class 117. That surely shows he was coming to hand for a race Van der Wheil probably assumed was a target, given that the horse had come 4th in it the year before.

The horse that won the class 117 was of course Decent Fellow and you ask why he didn't figure as a probable. As far as I can see, there were four consistent horses in the Erin: Decent Fellow, Prominent King, Beacon Light and Mr Kildare. The probables ratings seem from that and other examples (eg Little Owl) to be the means by which Van der Wheil reduced lists of consistent horses to, wherever possible, three for detailed consideration. And as he showed in the letter about the Erin, Beacon Light and Mr Kildare both scored three each on rating method, Prominent King 5 and Decent Fellow 7, so clearly a scale where lowest was best.

I don't fully follow your last point. On the way I see things at present, one ends up with, usually, three or four probables and one then has to assess their form and balance that with the ability ratings. Some fall out quickly because Van der Wheil did not regard them as form horses, but with others it seems to have been a case of assessing form, taking note of capability issues such as going and distance, and weighing form against ability ranking. On the capability points, the examples suggest to me that Van der Wheil was principally looking for negatives - eg in the Pegwell Bay race, Jim Thorpe viewed as running over the wrong trip on ground too firm for him. There are several selections described in very warm terms, eg "certainty" or "outstanding bet" which had not positively proved they could manage the conditions (Rifle Brigade and Ascenia are good examples).

The ability rating is a measure of a horse's average winning form, and Van der Wheil's underlying assumption must surely be that a horse capable of winning races of average class 50 is better than a horse capable of winning races of average class 20.

George,

How does the A/R measure the form, it only measures the class of the race won? I also have a bit of trouble following your thinking re a 50 rated horse is more likely to win a race than a 30 rated horse. If we look at PK and Baronet, PK only has an A/R of 17 running against other consistent horses with A/R's ranging from 45 to 39. Baronet is even worst an A/R of 17 against consistent horses ranging from 51 down to 26.

The point I was trying to make about DF and D, is DF is consistent and has a good A/R. If PK's last race is the clincher as to the form being acceptable, why isn't DF one of the probables using a line through D? DF beats D 3.5 lengths giving him 17lbs, whereas D beats PK 5 lengths receiving 19lbs. Based on that form isn't DF stronger than PK?

quote:

With Roushayd, surely his win in a class 621 in 1987 was his best performance?

Without a doubt it was his best WINNING performance. VDW said PK didn't have a WINNING class rating and I think the same goes for R, before, and after the Epsom race I don't think he had a WINNING class rating. What did the Ascot race lack when you look at the form requirements VDW listed in SIAO?

Be Lucky

Mtoto

But as I said in an earlier post, I don't think the ability rating is meant to measure form, rather ability. One of Van der Wheil's measures of the class of a race was its win prize money, and thus winning higher class races on average suggests a horse is better than one which on average wins lower class races. Obviously there are other ways that could be used, but that seems to be how Van der Wheil saw it, and if we believe that achieving his strike rate is plausible it surely behoves us to try to understand what he did and apply it.

And the same applies to Van der Wheil's probables rating. If I am right in seeing its purpose as being to reduce shortlists of consistent horses from 4 to say 8 to, ideally, 3, there is any number of ways that could be used, some including the kind of comparison you make. My understanding of the numbers in the Erin example suggests the way Van der Wheil chose made no use of the comparison you make, and obviously it is his way that is of primary interest.

In the March 1981 article Van der Wheil wrote that "each element [of the method] was selected after a great deal of research and when used as intended will place the odds strongly in the backers' favour". At the moment I am interested in trying to understand each of those elements and how he intended them to be used, rather than in exploring possible alternatives.

Two specific points:

1) I did not say that a horse with an ability rating of 50 was more likely to win a race than one with 30. Rather, that from Van der Wheil's perspective the former had more ability than the latter. Which horse was more likely to win a given race involves additional factors, especially consistency and form;

2) had Decent Fellow's last race prior to the Erin been his win in the Irish Sweeps, it is for certain that Van der Wheil's analysis would have been different. But of course it wasn't.

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

A horse's performance, and hence an indication of it's true ability, can only be judged by the quality of horse's it has raced against.

Its not just the horses it had behind it (winning), it can also be the horses it had around it (tight finish), or the horses it had infront of it (beaten).

Of course not all performances can be considered as being of a revealing nature as sometimes luck played its hand or the horse wasn't really trying etc etc. The secret is to isolate the performances that are 'key' indicators.

Key races for me tend to have several of the following considerations, big fields, no big price winners and/or placers, upped in class, not unduly pushed out, and career high or near high ratings.

A horse with this sort of profile usually takes a decent prize before too long.

But as I said in an earlier post, I don't think the ability rating is meant to measure form, rather ability.

George,

We seem to be going round in circles, I expect it is because I'm not explaining myself properly. I agree that the A/R doesn't measure form, but that's why I don't think it is the measure he used. If you are correct and there is no numerical measure for form, the whole form element is subjective. If this is so we are never going to agree with each other, and VDW saying we will come up with the same horses as him. Here I take that to mean the same probables, and not the same bets.

This is brought home with a vengeance when I see folk struggling to agree on which horses are form horses, probables, etc. Everything I read suggests form and class are interwoven, and can't be separated. Form is what they did, class is the level it was achieved at, they can't be split.

And the same applies to Van der Wheil's probables rating.

To be honest I'm confused as for me the only horses that can possibly be probables are the best/top few consistent horses. If you don't agree could you explain what you think they are, and why bother to rate them for ability if you are going to ignore the rating at this stage? I say at this stage because capability hasn't yet come into it. Also I think the "stray" numbers have nothing to do with probability, they are just a ranking of the consistent horses as previously explained. I also think being a probable has little to do with probability, probability comes into play after capability.

quote:

In the March 1981 article Van der Wheil wrote that "each element [of the method] was selected after a great deal of research and when used as intended will place the odds strongly in the backers' favour

I have no problem with that statement as I think it is referring to the basic formula. Consistent Form + Ability + Capability + Probability + Hard Work = Winners. I just think the ability in the original formula was measured in a different way. I also look at that formula and wonder how form is measured if ability doesn't do it, because to me it is quite clear when VDW says consistent form he is talking about the form figures and consistency is no measure of form.

quote:

2) had Decent Fellow's last race prior to the Erin been his win in the Irish Sweeps, it is for certain that Van der Wheil's analysis would have been different. But of course it wasn't.

While I can see the analysis may have been different the selection of PK wouldn't. He was still the best consistent horse in the race.

Be Lucky

Mtoto

I don't think I've said that there is no numerical measure for form, and if I have I apologise for inadvertently giving a misleading impression of how things seem to me. While I can't see that there is a single numerical measure, the whole approach to form seems to me to be based on numbers.

Let's take Roushayd. On the assumption, which I suggest is there is all Van der Wheil's writings but especially in the Roushayd evaluation in "Systematic Betting", that we should mainly concern ourselves with a horse's last three runs, in the most basic terms we have the following:

14/04/08: class 51, 3rd, beaten 4l
14/05/08: class 78, 4th, beaten 3l
03/06/08: class 227, 6th, beaten 9.5l

Ignoring the dates (although of course in reality we can't, as Van der Wheil's comment about Brown Barman in the race where Kenlis was the selection makes clear), we have there nine numbers which, if I am right, provided Van der Wheil with the basic objective framework for making his judgement. Had, for example, any one of the class numbers in particular been substantially different, the judgement would have been different. For example, suppose those numbers had been:

14/04/08: class 51, 3rd, beaten 4l
14/05/08: class 78, 4th, beaten 3l
03/06/08: class 22, 6th, beaten 9.5l

do you imagine he would have selected Roushayd for the class 171 Old Newton Cup?

I am not suggesting that those nine numbers in themselves always give the answer, because they plainly don't, eg with Prominent King.That is because, as Andy Capper has said and John in Brasil clearly agrees, it is not just the class of the race in win prize money terms that is relevant, but also the opposition. But I think they provide the basic numerical platform.

Now let us look at Decent Fellow. His actual last three runs were:

17/12/77: class 29, 3rd, beaten 12l
27/12/77: class 117, won, 1.5l
28/01/78: class 22, 3rd, beaten 25.1l

Compare this with the three runs had his last race before the 1978 Erin been the class 117:

26/11/77: class 30, won, 5l
17/12/77: class 29, 3rd, beaten 12l
27/12/77: class 117, won, 1.5l

A very different picture. Instead of a horse who had peaked and had gone off the boil, as it were, we would have had a horse who was bang in form last time out.

In terms of the analysis of the race, there would still have been the same four consistent horses, and of course no changes to their ability ratings. But now, if I've sorted it out correctly, Decent Fellow would have been a probable as well as Prominent King, and in fact the probable with form (and indeed the best form) with the highest ability rating - the class/form horse. Whether Van der Wheil would then have selected Decent Fellow as a bet is another matter. Contrary to your view, under those circumstances Decent Fellow would have been the best (because he had the highest ability rating) consistent FORM horse in the race. (I add and emphasise form, because Beacon Light had a higher ability rating than either Decent Fellow or Prominent King and was also a consistent horse.)

I don't mean to be disrespectful to someone who has obviously been studying Van der Wheil's work for a long time, but it does seem to me that, for whatever reason, you are both discounting important bits of what he wrote (eg how he measured a horse's ability) and thinking what you would have done if trying to solve the problems Van der Wheil was addressing rather than accepting that Van der Wheil came to his own solutions and trying to work out what they were (eg your comments on what you refer to as the "stray" numbers). I agree with you that the kind of way of reducing lists of consistent horses you suggest would make sense - but if I am right, that is irrelevant. What we need first to establish is the way Van der Wheil actually used, which generated those "stray" numbers.

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

quote:

Boozer,

The increase in s/f is only one part of the equation. The class of the race is the other, so using the class of the Epsom race it was an improvement as he equalled the s/f of the last (lower) class race. Right or wrong this is the only way I can make BOTH horses improving.

Mtoto

You have a point
After all if Vouchsafe hadnt have been eased he would have finished well in front of Roushayd where as they are both down as finishing the same dist from billet (9.5 Lghths)

Pity that Roushayd ran after Vouchsafe Won
Could have seen a case for Roushayd being a benchmark for Vouchsafe
Maybe not

George,

Whilst I agree with a lot of your last post, your analysis still falls into the trap of accepting everything at face value without due respect to the how and why those numbers were achieved.

You have to look at the opposition in these races to get the full picture. I'm sorry if this seems obtuse and I'm not really prepared to go any further on this but only by careful study of this will the penny finally drop as to how VDW saw form.

Once you do this then as VDW said (and John D likes to repeat) everything will appear so simple you'll wonder how you missed it.

You are obviously putting a lot of work into the old examples and I respect that so I'll hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended. A warning though, once you've spotted what's there there is still work to be done as I know to my cost.

Andy

I hope I have taken on board your point, and the paragraph in my last reply to Mtoto where I refer both to John in Brasil and your good self was meant to convey that, as I see it, it is't just the data I showed for each horses's last three runs. It is also data relating to the opposition, which can change the picture. But I do see the data as I set it out as being, as it were, the first numerical picture as regards assessing form.

Obviously neither of us knows whether the other is factoring in the opposition in the same way, but from your comments to Johnd relating to the last races of Little Owl and Wayward Lad prior to that for which Van der Wheil gave his first table in the March 1981 article, I doubt if we are. However, I am only too conscious that there is a lot more study to do before I can expect to have the whole thing sussed, and in approaching the task I am trying to keep those bits I think I understand as provisional and subject to revision as I learn more, rather than as safe anchor points.

George,

Don't read too much into my remark re WL/LO, it was a bit of a throwaway remark but much as VDW asked which is the better, the SF 86 at Redcar or the SF 79 at Epsom, I'd also ask which is better, a class 100 novice chase at Taunton or a class 90 handicap chase at Ascot.

Regarding the 'stray' numbers in the Erin, there are (to my knowledge) 2 different ways of generating these (there may be more). If you've solved that puzzle then I'd guess there is at least a 50% chance that you're well on your way

Andy

Thanks. My answer - both to Van der Wheil's question and yours - is that one can't say which is the better from the data given. The runners are a key factor which neither the numerical picture I set out in my reply to Mtoto, nor the questions posed in yours, cover.

As regards the probables, we found several ways of generating the numbers, and there are sure to be others. I stopped looking when one of those we found worked with all the examples (except of course those where van der Wheil explicitly used a different approach to narrowing the field, eg the Sporting Chronicle selection box approach). The others failed before we got through all the 1979 examples.

quote:

Originally posted by George Johns:
As regards the probables, we found several ways of generating the numbers, and there are sure to be others. I stopped looking when one of those we found worked with all the examples (except of course those where van der Wheil explicitly used a different approach to narrowing the field, eg the Sporting Chronicle selection box approach). The others failed before we got through all the 1979 examples.

Good work

quote:

Originally posted by Andy Capper:
George,

Don't read too much into my remark re WL/LO, it was a bit of a throwaway remark but much as VDW asked which is the better, the SF 86 at Redcar or the SF 79 at Epsom, I'd also ask which is better, a class 100 novice chase at Taunton or a class 90 handicap chase at Ascot.

AC

Rather strange you didn't apply the same logic in this case:

quote:

Next you'll be tring to tell me that Wayward Lad's class 71 last race was better than Little Owl's class 68 because it was more valuable

Boozer

Vouchsafe's improvement was almost identical to Roushayd's (even disregarding s/f). No coincidence then, that in the same way he was placed to win on his next run, though it's wrong to think the class drop the only reason - in either case.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to someone who has obviously been studying Van der Wheil's work for a long time, but it does seem to me that, for whatever reason, you are both discounting important bits of what he wrote (eg how he measured a horse's ability) and thinking what you would have done if trying to solve the problems Van der Wheil was addressing rather than accepting that Van der Wheil came to his own solutions and trying to work out what they were (eg your comments on what you refer to as the "stray" numbers). I agree with you that the kind of way of reducing lists of consistent horses you suggest would make sense - but if I am right, that is irrelevant. What we need first to establish is the way Van der Wheil actually used, which generated those "stray" numbers.

George,

Be sure I don't look on your posting as in any way disrespectful, and I have heard the same things said before, often not as polite. I think my main problem is I work with the understanding VDW's approach to his methods has to be logical. Many, and here I'm still not sure where you stand have to make BL a none form horse to make the first example work. I have tried many times but I can't accept that thinking as it just doesn't hold water for me. The only reason these other folk come to the conclusion BL is out of form the drop in class in his last three races ending in a defeat. If this profile stood up with other examples I could just about accept it, even though I would have grave doubts about it. The long and short of it is it doesn't, and without looking at other examples to find the proof, it is right there in that first example in the shape of PK. PK is excused because the argument is then put forward in his case the penalty value of his last race doesn't reflect the true worth of the race, fair enough. The same can be said for BL's last race, and I have no doubt is just as valid. BL was trying to give weight under unsuitable conditions to a better horse.

I agree I have doubts about the A/R used, but it isn't as if I have gone out and used something VDW hasn't shown or talked about. I have found a rating that puts PK in front of BL as VDW said (something no other rating I've seen does) using this rating I can solve most but not all of his examples, can that really be coincidence? More importantly it clears the air about how VDW really looked at form and class, no fancy form reading until the race has been narrowed down to the 3/4 probables. No scratching of heads wondering if a horse is a form horse in or out of form, this goes along way in helping me believe it is possible you arrive at the same horse to seriously consider as VDW.

I used the expression "stray" numbers because that's what I think they are. They have done nothing but cause confusion, this is shown by the folk that think they are probability ratings. However I do agree they are irrelevant at this stage of the proceeding. I would also say I don't for think showing them was a deliberate attempt to confuse on VDW's part, I think it was the only mistake (showing them) in the Erin letter.

As said before I do admire the work and resources you are putting into trying to solve the puzzle. I'm just trying to point out there maybe another answer to this puzzle.

Be Lucky

quote:

Originally posted by johnd:

quote:

Originally posted by Andy Capper:
George,

Don't read too much into my remark re WL/LO, it was a bit of a throwaway remark but much as VDW asked which is the better, the SF 86 at Redcar or the SF 79 at Epsom, I'd also ask which is better, a class 100 novice chase at Taunton or a class 90 handicap chase at Ascot.

AC

Rather strange you didn't apply the same logic in this case:

quote:

Next you'll be tring to tell me that Wayward Lad's class 71 last race was better than Little Owl's class 68 because it was more valuable

Perhaps you'd care to explain why the logic isn't the same, John D.

WL - Class 71 Novice Chase at Ayr
LO - Class 68 Pattern Chase at Cheltenham

Of course there is more to it than that but I fail to see how that contradicts any logic from my previous statement but I'm sure you'll enlighten me

Mtoto

I am trying to keep an open mind, but obviously the more the pattern one creates as a possible solution fits the examples, the more difficult it is not to think one is at least partly on the right track.

I do agree that there is more than one way of looking at both Prominent King and Beacon Light's last performances prior to the Erin. What we need to do, it seems to me, is not to worry about how we might personally view those performances but rather to try to identify from the conclusions he reached, and other examples, the criteria Van der Wheil used to assess them.

AC

It should be fairly obvious, even to a comparative novice, that gd1 tracks near the major training centres will generally attract better horses than similar value races at farflung gaffs.