Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #210 on Feb 3, 2009, 5:06pm »
The machine has been out of action for the last few days. I have been able to log in and read what has been going on but not respond.
George,
IF the horses listed in Walters post are the first picture (as stated by VDW) why doesn't WFL register? I think the list is the initial probables NOT the first picture.
As I said the other day I have had to start re thinking the value/importance of these probables. As shown on Saturday only using the probables I would have had the winner in Singtheblues. What I'm having to do now is go back through the old examples working using ONLY the probables. I know before I start this is going to give me a problem because I can't make Son Of Love a probable the way I think it works. I think you said you have no problem with him, would you care to give a clue as to why?
I'm also surprised you say you haven't found any reason to think pace plays a part in solving the puzzles. Can I ask have you ever looked at it from this angle?
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #212 on Feb 3, 2009, 5:42pm »
Walter
I think it is a matter of stages: Smart Tar doesn't make the first cut - simply not a consistent horse. The evaluation was not set out in full (none of his were), but from the consistent horses he'd have eliminated first Townley Stone (not a probable) and then Bishops Yarn and Comeragh King (not form horses) equally ruthlessly. That gets him to the stage of considering probables with form when in interpreting the numerical picture he would have in front of him, he would have considered the non numeric factors (course, going and, although not specifically mentioned in the relevant para. of the March 1981 article, surely also distance) before concluding which was the class/form horse. All the work before getting down to the probables with form is, I think, what he regarded as a statistically sound way of quickly getting down to a manageable number, often containing the winner, who were then looked at in some detail.
Mtoto
No, I can't get anywhere with pace as a factor. I appreciate that Van der Wheil suggested using it as an ancillary ability rating for younger Flat horses, but that covers only a minority of the selections. He also demonstrated how he used sfs as a means of assessing whether a horse was showing improvement race to race, but although that works out nicely in some examples it doesn't in many. I just can't see how pace features in all the examples, except maybe as Blackcat suggested - added to a feeling of confidence about performances in a good time and concern about those where the race in question was run in a particularly slow time.
As regards Warner for Leisure, had he featured in the first six in the forecast he would have been a consistent horse and marked with an *.
As regards Son of Love, using the numerical device illustrated in the Prominent King example we get Reprocolor, Scorpio and Son of Love as the probables from the four consistent horses. Reprocolor not being a form horse, we get down the two, with Scorpio the higher ability-rated. Actually I am not certain why Van der Wheil then plumped for Son of Love - if indeed he did. The more I look at this race the more it joins a couple of others - the ones where Van der Wheil named Connaught Bridge and supported Mr Hall's selection of Baronet - where I can easily get down to two but can't see a clear cut reason (consistent with the other examples) for getting down to one. Maybe these were races where Van der Wheil made books.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #213 on Feb 3, 2009, 6:12pm »
As regards Warner for Leisure, had he featured in the first six in the forecast he would have been a consistent horse and marked with an *.
George,
If not being in the forecast is the problem why does Bishops Yarn register?
we get Reprocolor, Scorpio and Son of Love as the probables from the four consistent horses.
If the probables are found from the consistent horses BEFORE anything else is taken into account why are there only four consistent horses? Taking the lowest five c/r's I make ten consistent horses.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #214 on Feb 3, 2009, 6:41pm »
Mtoto
With respect, your questions re Warner for Leisure, Bishops Yarn and the consistent horses in the Son of Love race suggest you haven't got to grips with Van der Wheil's view of consistency (in the sense of isolating an initial subset of the field) as I understand it.
What can we say with confidence about consistency? That:
1) the horses with the three lowest consistency aggregates within the first five (non handicaps) or six (handicaps) in the betting forecast are almost always consistent horses;
2) Van der Wheil also treated as consistent horses "highly consistent" horses not in the first five/six of the betting forecast.
The task is therefore to use what else Van der Wheil provided to find out precisely when horses who almost always qualify under (1), or may qualify under (2), actually qualify. If you take the guidance given in item 42 of "The Golden Years" and examine all the main method examples Van der Wheil gave from this perspective, paying particular attention to how horses open to question (such as Warner for Leisure, Welsh Oak, the Argonaut and Smart Tar in the Pegwell Bay race) are treated, a fairly objective picture emerges. Whether that picture comprises the rules Van der Wheil used, or is merely a coincidence, I can't see how we can be sure, but like other aspects of Van der Wheil's method the picture applies across such a large number of examples as to persuade me that the former is the case.
If anyone would like to start their own thread to log their own selections and profit/loss etc, then please feel free to do so. You have a choice of a number of locations - here in VDW, or Systems or the Horse Racing board.
Or join the Tipping competition!!
BC
BC With regards to Flash In The Pan, can you explain the rules please
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,628 Location: Scotland
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #217 on Feb 3, 2009, 11:27pm »
George wrote:
Walter
I think it is a matter of stages: Smart Tar doesn't make the first cut - simply not a consistent horse.
..................................................................................................... George reading through some of my printed out archives this evening not one of Lee or Guest rules out Smart Tar through consistency.If he`s running under the wrong conditions recently he is perhaps not being placed to be consistent which is slightly different.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #218 on Feb 3, 2009, 11:27pm »
2) Van der Wheil also treated as consistent horses "highly consistent" horses not in the first five/six of the betting forecast.
George,
As said before I have no real problem eliminating WFL as a probable, the problem is I can see no way he isn't a consistent horse.
Looking again at the SOL race I can't see how/why when looking at the consistent horses outside the forecast Stetchworth is ignored. That is he has more in common with all the other selections from outside the forecast. I can see he would be eliminated on form in the next procedure. I can see no reason VDW would have selected SOL as a probable based on all the other examples.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #219 on Feb 4, 2009, 8:39am »
Mtoto
Of course I understand what you say.
A member on Gummy - Trypod - described what I think is necessary: setting out the data on all the Van der Wheil selection races and using that to find the answers. That's what I spent a lot of time in the Summer doing, and as I've said earlier some findings emerge I regard as convincing (because of the uniform way they apply across so many races). Among these are findings on consistency which explain not only the consistent horses Van der Wheil gave us in the Pegwell Bay example but all the other examples (including the 1978 Erin which is far from straightforward from the consistency angle - Prominent King himself not of course having one of the three lowest consistency aggregates from the first five in the forecast) and on probables. It is tempting to believe the figures Van der Wheil gave in his Erin letter were consistency aggregates including mistakes, but there is an alternative explanation for them which works across the rest of the examples.
Walter
I don't know whether either Guest or Lee had fully solved the consistency problem. Judging by his results on Gummy and the comment Johnd made recently about him having left the game, it seems likely that Guest at least hadn't.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #220 on Feb 4, 2009, 12:01pm »
Hi GeorgeJohns
Alan B/Fulham gave an example of how some see how Consistency figures were probability figures and not mistakes.
i.e Add the rank of the LTO race to the runers position in the betting. PK, LTO race was the 3rd highest Rank (prize money) of his LTO race meeting and was 2nd fav 3+2=5 which is the figure that was published for the ERIN
Of courseAlanB appeared to be sceptical when it is applied to other Races that VDW covered and I agree.
With regards to Smart Tar it this horse that Guest suggested was the Key to Pegwell Bay being the horse with the strongest form line.
In the VDW Sunset Christo example it was "The form is impressive and note not only how it ran but what it had behind it, Silver Buck, Another Captain etc." Silver Buck and Another Captain gave this runner the Strongest Form Line.
Roushayd had the Strongest form line through Billet and Vouchsafe.
Now why was Pipstead superior to Gorgeous Strike for example.
LTO GS had ran in a higher class and achieved a better speed figure than Pipstead.
Now start to look at the race in the same way that VDW did with Pegwell Bay
From the three most consistent ratings (first numerical picture)
Kruthoffer 3 Lake Erie 7 Georgeous Strike 7, LTO race class 192, Split Second =79 Island Set 10 Pipstead 12, Lto Race Class 113, Split Second = 65
Pipstead is not in the first 3 consistent ratings.
So could it be that the form line for Pipstead is stronger and that is why VDW made him the certainity?
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #221 on Feb 4, 2009, 12:31pm »
Monster
Yes, there are at least three ways of deriving the relevant numbers in the Erin table, but only one of the three works across all the other examples.
I disagree with Guest re Smart Tar being the key to the Pegwell Bay example. In fact, I think Smart Tar is absolutely irrelevant to the Pegwell Bay selection as he disappears at the very first stage and is not relevant to assessing the quality of Pegwell Bay's form. Billet (but not Vouchsafe) is very relevant to assessing Roushayd's form, but as Lee has pointed out the direction of travel in that race, class-wise, is the opposite of that of most of "The Golden Years" selections and of course Pegwell Bay in the 1988 Mackeson.
Today's 8.20 Kempton offers a race where the class/form horse, Opus Maximus, has the same direction of travel, class-wise, as Roushayd, but unlike with Roushayd his equivalent of Billet does not support the form. Not that the lack of support for the form is the only negative with Opus Maximus, who in my view is not a horse Van der Wheil would have come anywhere near backing. Now watch him win by 3l unencumbered by any of my money!)
With the Pipsted race, on my understanding of how Van der Wheil assesses consistency (and assuming he used the Daily Mail forecast) the consistent horses were Gorgeous Strike, Kruthoffer, Lake Erie and Pipsted, and in this case the probables device does not eliminate any of them. But Gorgeous Strike is not a form horse (from his posts, I doubt Guest would have agreed with me here), leaving Pipsted as the highest ability rated probable with form, and with the best form of the three, so the class/form horse.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #222 on Feb 4, 2009, 1:41pm »
Hi Georgejohns
Sometimes you and I arrive at the same VDW horse. I was not a member of Gummy but was I was made aware of your views on this race. At the time you were taken to task as aftertiming and unfortunately not being a member I could not offer to support that you were correct. The horse in question was Atlantic Sport.
I posted the following before racing on the Forum run by Reom.
Sandown 3.30 11/09/08 Lead (Wed, 10-Sep-2008 11:42 PM) • Reply • Quote • More o My Recent Posts Atlantic Sport
Strong form line and dropping in class. Mick Channon trained his half brother Zafeen, out of the same mare. Both are from the Mr |Prospector-Raise A Native male tail line
My Personal speed ratings
Atlantic Sport 102.8 Dijeer 88.16
Good Luck
Monster
Fulham1000
(Thu, 11-Sep-2008 7:40 AM) • Reply • Quote • More o My Recent Posts o Message Me o Connection o Blocking o Invite Monster
To me Dijeerr looks a solid class/form horse and he is better off compared to handicap terms with all his rivals. But Atlantic Sport is a year younger and less exposed, and may well show improvement today. And normally I wouldn't be concerned about a 6yo in this company, but there is no doubt that Icelandic's last run was impressive.
I wouldn't want to oppose Dijeerr here, and I think he is by far the most likely winner, but I'm not sure I want to back him so probably won't.
sonofmonster
(Thu, 11-Sep-2008 10:53 AM) • Reply • Quote • More o My Recent Posts Hi Fulham
Its a good chance to discuss pre race, especially as we have different horses. I looked at the form of the the 3 that have been mentioned and who they beat or were beaten by. Dijeer, beat Drumfire and Icelandic beat Caldra. Atlantic Sport was beaten by River Proud (Atlantic Sport finished 4.5 lengths in front of River proud as a 2yr-old in a grp 2 race won by McCartney) I have attached a google link for the above data. http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p3s9QcfHzuSUorXF1wVWgcQ My personal speed ratings (See start of thread) also confirm that the class of runner in the Atlantic Sport race was superior to that the other two encountered.
Good Luck
Monster
I have pasted your own comments on this race and the response that it brought. For what its worth the person posting the comments should have taken notice of what you were pointing out to them.
Posted September 11, 2008 06:11 PM Hide Post
"If consistency is different to form, the profile you are suggesting is that of a consistent horse not a form horse. This then raises the question how do you measure form as I think you agreed the A/R doesn't do that?"
1) Consistency is different to form - see Van der Wheil's comment re Burrough Hill Lad;
2) I agree that the AR does not measure form - it measures what it says it measures, ability;
3) How do you measure form? To establish whether a horse is, or is not, a form horse, it is not necessary to measure form, merely to see if the profile is that of a form horse. To compare the form of two probables with form to see which has the better form, no measurement is need, just simple comparison against ability. (That is of course why Atlantic Sport was the class/form horse in the 3.30 Sandown today, not Dijeerr. And of course, contrary to Johnd's comment, neither was Dijeerr the class horse in the race - that was Captain Marvelous, though neither a consistent horse nor a form horse today and therefore not a contender from the Van der Wheil perspective.)
I'm sorry George..but if you think AS was the class/form horse..in any way you read form..then there is something wrong with your decision process.
Firstly..talking after the event in that manner is so bollox mate.
I will say this...I have every respect for your postings..but if you try and pull this crap when I'm reading posts on here..I'll always pull you up
lets be looking at AS shall we then?
he is running in a listed race today
his last run AT 7f was in a poor Class C event..he was 4/6 fav and beaten by a horse that is unable to win at listed level
his last run was again below winning listed level form...albeit at further than he wanted
neither run makes him any class/form horses..either VDW or any other W.
please do not aftertime such rubbish..it's very annoying...
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #223 on Feb 4, 2009, 3:32pm »
A member on Gummy - Trypod - described what I think is necessary: setting out the data on all the Van der Wheil selection races and using that to find the answers.
George,
I agree with the above, but have to ask why you think I haven't done this? I have no problem with ANY of the other VDW selections from outside the forecast EXCEPT SOL.
If I'm reading Monsters last post correctly you are quoted as saying...3) How do you measure form? To establish whether a horse is, or is not, a form horse, it is not necessary to measure form, merely to see if the profile is that of a form horse. To compare the form of two probables with form to see which has the better form, no measurement is need, just simple comparison against ability. Can I ask how you go about this? VDW said..This means there has to be at least two elements to jointly equate when judging the relative merits of one performance against another. If as you say class (the A/R) is the ruling factor why did VDW say....The alarm bells should start ringing as soon as you look at this race. Fauloon with the highest ability has conflict with other ratings and form not exciting. That reads to me VDW thinks class doesn't reflect form. It also suggest to me the only way to do as VDW says you have to combine class and form, to do this meaningfully you have to be able to pinpoint a race that shows BOTH elements together.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #224 on Feb 4, 2009, 4:34pm »
Mtoto
You ask why I think you haven't done what Trypod suggested. I inferred it because of your questions re Warner for Leisure, Bishops Yarn and the consistent horses in the Son of Love race, but of course you may well have done so but not yet spotted all the common factors.
Re-reading the post of mine from the Gummy thread that Monster has re-posted, it is rather compressed and in so doing does not make an appropriate nod in the direction of capability issues which are occasionally decisive, as in my view with Pegwell Bay.
How do I go about comparing two probables with form? I think the best way of answering that is to draw your attention to two of Van der Wheil's examples - Clayside and Von Trappe - and to say I follow the line of reasoning I think is in those two. (Obviously plenty of other examples need to be examined before, in my view, one would be justified in concluding there is a line of reasoning, rather than coincidence, at work.)
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #225 on Feb 4, 2009, 6:39pm »
I inferred it because of your questions re Warner for Leisure, Bishops Yarn and the consistent horses in the Son of Love race, but of course you may well have done so but not yet spotted all the common factors.
George,
You referred me to article 42 in TGY. On reading it I notice exactly the same wording as found in the Pegwell Bay example. Namely.. "most consistent rates". Some of the horses listed in 42 are NOT in the forecast but they are still considered as the most consistent?? So does this mean there are two different versions of the most consistent rates, or as I suggested the horse listed for the PB example have been moved on a stage? Making them the probables and not the most consistent?
Also in this article it states.........The final two columns in the illustrations are my own ratings and were, like the ability ratings, evolved by myself, so will not be found in any publication, etc. The object of the exercise is to balance ability with form and there are many ways to cross check the method as outlined. This says to a simple country boy like me even VDW needed, and used a separate method to measure form. How else can a balance be achieved, if it can be done by just reading the form why the need?
IF these ratings had PK in front of an in form BL they surely must be worth investigating? I believe this is were pace comes into the equation.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #226 on Feb 4, 2009, 7:53pm »
Mtoto
No, I think the heading in the relevant column of the Pegwell Bay table makes it clear that they are the consistent horses (and not all are probables).
As always, construing Van der Wheil's words is a matter of interpretation. All the comment about the two crosscheck ratings suggests to me is that, once he was clear about the class/form horse, Van der Wheil liked the added assurance of ratings support.
I've spent quite a bit of time trying to crack the two ratings but beyond noting a marked similarity between one set and the Daily Mail ratings I've not got anywhere with them.
As to the Prominent King selection, I am comfortable about knowing what Van der Wheil meant when he said he had Beacon Light well out of it by two methods of rating, bearing in mind that later he distinguished between rating and ratings (item 35 of "The Golden Years"). In the Prominent King/Beacon Light discussion he was talking about rating; elsewhere, including the final two columns of the Little Owl etc tables, he was deploying ratings.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #227 on Feb 4, 2009, 8:13pm »
Rating and Ratings.
Ratings in my view are commercial ratings and are used as a guide.
Rating in my view is when a horse goes up in class and performs well, also if the horse tries a different trip and improves it may well be rated as a very good performance. Likewise if he drops in class and runs below his best form he would viewed as not rated so good.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #228 on Feb 4, 2009, 8:51pm »
Downey
With just the additional thought that ratings can be one's own creation as well as commercial ones (and Van der Wheil said he generated his own), I think that is right.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #229 on Feb 4, 2009, 11:34pm »
GEORGE You said that you have identified the figures for consistent rates that fit with all of the horses vdw put forward for evaluation. Please can you tell me what was the highest figure any horse had actually acheived before winning.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #233 on Feb 5, 2009, 12:23pm »
GARSTONF The figures you have given , are they consistent rates just has George says he has worked out, or are they the last 3 form figures added together.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #235 on Feb 5, 2009, 4:24pm »
Arkle
Consistency ratings ARE the last 3 form figures added together. 13F0-67 Pagan Sun 23 P087-03 Windbreaker 20 001816 Philodantes 15 52-3042d Park Express possibly 16 All placings were extracted from the form book but Park Express, being an Irish horse, may not be entirely accurate. I believe George has a theory that probability ratings exist, which are different to consistency ratings. I can’t see it myself.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #236 on Feb 5, 2009, 4:24pm »
Arkle
I may have misunderstood your earlier post - as far as I know the consistency figure is the aggregate of the placings in the last three [completed] races. The highest aggregate for a main method selection is 16 (The Old Fellow), though as Garston says there are some higher ones for some of Van der Wheil's selections found by other means. The aggregate for Prominent King is 8 (4/2/2). (The 5 in the Prominent King letter for that horse is a probables rating, not a consistency aggregate.)
If I've misunderstood what you are asking and you can clarify it, I'll have another shot at answering.
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #238 on Feb 5, 2009, 4:32pm »
EC
I've spent time on the Van der Wheil examples to try to discover the means he used to put into practice the four terms of his winner-finding formula. Insofar as I have found what I think are some of his means, they apply across all his examples - Flat and NH. I prefer the Flat, partly because my selections hardly ever fall or fail to finish and, if I'm honest, as I've got older I've begun to have doubts about the morality of NH racing (as indeed about angling, something I enjoyed very much for many years but now only pursue with much modified techniques).
Re: What Is the Second Numerical picture « Reply #239 on Feb 5, 2009, 4:50pm »
George
From my experience NH and Flat require very different types of analysis
I think you will find it a damn sight harder to produce winning VDW selections over jumps than on the flat
One reason for that is that the AR will put many horses in the frame to back that are no longer capable of producing their best level..due to the fact that NH horses carry on longer and thus deteriorate on recent form but still show a high AR.
So using NH examples...and then applying it to the flat won't bring you success
I know...I am a loser...but I know a bit an all you know
I find it really odd that you persist with old NH examples but then don't touch NH racing...even with that very thin reason you give for not bothering with it
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Members]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/members.gif)
![[Admin]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/admin.gif)
![[Profile]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/profile.gif)
![[Logout]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/logout.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Add Bookmark]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/bookmark.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[send pm]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/message_sm.gif)
![[Quote]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif)
![[Modify]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/modify.gif)
![[Delete]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/delete.gif)
82.46.101.166![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/KennethMore.jpg)
![[image]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/star.png)
2009 Tipping Challenge Winner 11,449.71 pts profit.... 10 months played. ![[avatar]](http://blackcat-racing.co.uk/avatars/99.jpg)
![[image]](http://clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif)
![[avatar]](http://www.freewebs.com/kimmypops/horseyindex1.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[Move Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/movetopic.gif)
![[Remove Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/removetopic.gif)
![[Unlock Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/unlock.gif)
![[Sticky Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sticky.gif)
![[Make Announcement]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/makeannouncement.gif)
![[Bump Topic]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/bump.gif)