T
Tufnel
"you can devise different ways to get the right figures, without actually getting the process right."
You are spot on, but don't seem to be drawing the appropriate conclusion.
I am open to being corrected, but to the best of my belief the 1978 Erin was the one and only time VDW explicitly used what those who think the figures weren't consistency totals with some mistakes refer to as probables or Erin numbers.
If that is correct, first, we don't know if VDW used them throughout or just in the Erin example, or maybe something in between, ie for some months or years before abandoning them. Second, given that there seem to be several methods of getting to the numbers, there is no way of knowing which, if any, is correct. For those of us who have a solution, it would be nice to know whether ours is right, but that is a gratification (or a corrective) we are unlikely to get.
Much more to the point, in his article setting out the first numerical picture, VDW used consistency figures in the sense of the sum of the last three placings (adjusted when necessary as he explained in various letters and articles, eg Mr Kildare, Uther Pendragon, Gaye Chance). And he did so in other examples including the 1988 Mackeson where he presented a (I think
the) second numerical picture. Whether or not he used probables figures as well as a means of underwriting the consistency figures is an open question, but for sure they are not necessary for the identification of
any of his selections (including Prominent King if one takes the "Guest" view about Decent Fellow).
A study of VDW's examples (not sure about the handicap hurdles ones which I've not looked at) up to but not including Travado etc, shows several things:
how he assessed which horses were form horses and which were not
the profiles he looked for in his selections - different for class risers (the majority) and class droppers - and what shortcomings from the ideal he was willing to accept, and why
why sometimes he by-passed the apparent class/form horse for a form horse with a lower ability rating, as with Jim Thorpe/Pegwell Bay (basically, what he meant by the "other factors").
These are all very much more important in my view than how VDW calculated the probables numbers (which we will likely never know for sure). I am also interested that in reply to one of my posts a week or so ago you said that the probables numbers - one, unproven, version of them - did not seem to be necessary to find the selections in which they were illustrated. It is a consciousness as to whether a horses is rising or dropping in class, the consistency figures, the ability ratings (including for some Flat races the speed/merit alternative to the win prize money rating) how VDW assessed form and when (and when not) to be concerned about one or more of the "other factors", which explain the examples, not the probables nunbers.
