Class/form horses

[JennyK]

Having returned to the probables numbers in thinking about Cistus/Swiss Maid, I checked all VDW's claimed "The Golden Years..." selections and every one is a probable on my way of calculating them . I am not too surprised as those selections were very consistent horses but to find 100% working out was unexpected.

I haven't checked the later selections and I know that at least one is not a probable on my way of calculation - Rakaposhi King.

My idea is that the probables were part of VDW's checks at the time of the 1978 Erin until an as yet unidentifed date, on which checking the "The Ultimate ..." and "Systematic Betting" examples may provide an answer. So at the moment I am thinking the most likely reason why Cistus was out of the running in the race where Swiss Maid was the selection was not being a probable, and the idea of probables is one of several ways of interpreting the fourth element of VDW's Consistent form + Ability +etc formula.

I agree with you that it is very difficult to conceive that on his form status rating method VDW viewed Cistus as other than a "form" horse.

 

[JennyK]

Having now looked through later selections, the earliest I have found so far which was not a probable according to my view on how they were identified is Direct Line, December 1984, named in VDW's letter to Mr Spiers and specified as one who "carried my money" (unlike Zamandra the same day).

In later examples, most are probables on my view, but in addition to Rakaposhi King, Billet wasn't. You'll recall that while referring to Billet's positives, VDW concluded: "not clear enough for me on points which should by now be clear". Not being a probable could have been one of the points but I doubt it, given Direct Line and Rakaposhi King and that there were two question marks re Billet in terms of position in the ability ratings ranking and the one VDW mentioned, "raised considerably in class".

There are I think three issues here.

1) Of course everything I've noted depends on my view of how VDW calculated the Erin numbers being the correct one. I think it is, but you have a different view of how they were calculated and there are at least two other views. No way I can see of being sure which if any of the four is correct.

2) Given that on my view, and I think yours and certainly at least one of the other two, the probables numbers are really yet another rating for consistency, and that the overwhelming majority of VDW's selections were consistent in other ways, such as last three race placing totals, it is unsurprising that there is a high correlation between VDW's selections and "probables" on whichever of the four views one applies. Can they - "probables" and other ways we know VDW used re consistency - be said to be independent of one another? I think the answer has to be no.

3) What purpose did "probables" serve? On the shaky basis of just the two examples of which I am currently aware - one weak (Decent Fellow), the other strong (Cistus) - my tentative view is that in the early selections "probables" were at most a check. If an otherwise consistent horse in contention was not also one of the "probables" he was eliminated. One doesn't I think need the lack of "probables" status to prefer Prominent King to Decent Fellow, but I think we are both struggling to find another clear reason for the choice of Swiss Maid over Cistus.

The Direct Line example suggests to me that by 1984 and possibly earlier, VDW had stopped using them as a check, and the fact that many of the later examples meet the probables criteria is on that view because of their correlation with other ways he assessed consistency. But all this speculation turns on (1) above.