The reader who emailed me following Palace Moon's disappointing run last Saturday (the class/form horse then, in my view, but finished last but one of 28) has emailed again, having seen on a forum that three different horses were identified as the class/form horse in an eight horse race today, none of which won. He asks, firstly, how can there be disagreement about the class/form horse and, second (I hope ironically) does the class/form ever win?
The answer to his first question is that there are different levels of understanding of VDW's work (it is safe to say that very few have studied more than a small proportion of his examples), and some are simply unaware of how he put into practice some aspects of the method. This inevitably leads to different conclusions.
In fact, if one applies all the aspects of the method, the 2.50 was straightforward. As always when following the main method, the first requirement is to identify the probables, and the first part of that process is to identify the consistent horses. I use the Post's forecasts, and the first five (the race being a non handicap) were 4/1 Les Fazzani, 5/1 Distant Memories, Green Moon, Rio De La Plata, 11/2 Class Is Class.
The "automatic" consistent horses are those from the first five (and any equals if there had been any) with the three lowest consistency totals, in this case:
Distant Memories 2/1/2 = 5
Green Moon 1/1/5 = 7
Les Fazzani 2/1/4 = 7
Rio De La Plata 0/1/1 = 12
Then it is necessary to check whether there are any "discretionary" consistent horses (like Prominent King in VDW's first discussion of a specific race). There are two types:
horses within the first five (6 of course had the race been a handicap) of the forecast and with a consistency aggregate 4th or 5th lowest in the field. In today's race there is one possible here, Class Is Class (7/0/1 = 18 and 5th lowest in field), but he doesn't meet VDW's requirements for "discretionary" consistent horse status;
horses with one of the five lowest consistency totals in the field but not within the first five of the forecast. In today's race there were two: Fallen Idol (1/1/5 = 7, 2nd lowest) and Icon Dream (2/4/0 = 16, 4th lowest). But neither meets VDW's requirements.
So we have just the four consistent horses. As there are more than three, VDW would have applied the rating method he demonstrated in his Prominent King example, where Decent Fellow was eliminated leaving three probables. But in this case none of the four is eliminated by that rating method so we have four probables, in descending order of ability rating ranking:
Rio De La Plata - ranked 1
Les Fazzani - ranked 3
Green Moon - ranked 4
Distant Memories - ranked 6
Next we need to establish which are "form" horses in order to identify the final shortlist - the probables with form:
Rio De La Plata - well beaten in a class 926 race (miles above today's class 324), then wins at class 100 and class 157. The class 926 can safely be overlooked, and she is a form horse due to her two subsequent wins.
Les Fazzani - a second in class 369 followed by a win in class 227 and a decent fourth in class 522. Most certainly a form horse.
Green Moon - wins at class 218 and 227, followed by a decent showing in class 929. Again, undoubtedly a form horse.
Distant Memories: a second in class 106, followed by a win in class 175 and a close second in a class 210. A progressive profile and another form horse.
Thus neither the probables rating method nor the form horse check eliminates any of the four consistent horses: all are probables with form.
So we next have to assess the four, balancing class and form. VDW's examples strongly suggest he had clear rules for doing this (his Clayside and Von Trappe examples are helpful in discovering them), and there is no doubt whatsover on these rules that Rio De La Plata is the class/form horse - UNLESS on checking she should be found to fail on weight or capability (going, distance). She didn't and so was the class/form horse.
Then, of course, arises the question is the class/form horse one of the less than 20% that should be backed (if one wants to emulate VDW's claimed 80+% strike rate)? Or put another way, has Rio De La Plata all the "winner in the race" characteristics?
She certainly qualifies on position in the ability rating ranking. However, even disregarding her third last run (as I did), Rio De La Plata lacked a key characteristic of a VDW bet (which Lee has usefully termed "ultra consistency"). So not a "winner in the race" class/form horse/80+% horse.
Turning to my reader's second question, in one letter VDW claimed to have had 29 winning bets from 32 placed, which for the period concerned would have been perhaps 2-3 a week (item 13 of "The Golden Years of Van der Wheil"). He also wrote, in an article dated 18 January 1986 article (in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune"): "I would estimate that I wager on less than 20 per cent of horses I consider potential winners". Taking these two together, it would suggest VDW was analysing at least 10-15 races a week. Although if his claims are to be believed, the very large majority of the 2-3 a week win, there is nothing in his writings of which I am aware to suggest how many of the other 8-12+ class/form horses a week can be expected to win. The real point here is that the ONLY claim VDW makes is that if the main method is properly applied (ie the correct class/form horse identified and then found to have all the "winner in the race" characteristics), one should find at least 80% winning. As far as I am aware, nothing VDW wrote would enable one, pre race, to put a precise number on the probability of either Palace Moon last week or Rio De La Plante today winning, except that in both cases it was clearly below 80%.
ps
I noticed late last night another comment of VDW's which is surely relevant here, and which I must have read many times before without it fully registering. It comes from the 26 January 1985 article in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune":
"Practically every race demonstrates the lack of that essential factor "temperament" and I can assure everyone that until they acquire this indispensible asset real success in punting will elude them."
Insofar as I had registered the passage previously I probably just put it down as another reminder about temperament, something on which VDW had written often before. But the first few words surely help us in getting a sense of how many bets we can expect (if, of course, we want to limit ourselves to "winner in the race" types). Construing VDW's writing can be as tricky as finding some class/form horses, but the interpretation I put on the first eleven words of the quote are that one should only be betting in a very small minority of races. And when one considers the advice VDW gave about how to select races for analysis, ie sometimes not more than one from a card, and that from those races he did analyse he backed less than 20% of the class/form horses, it is obvious that that must be right. And it reinforces an earlier comment he made that "Strange as it may seem, the fewer bets you make the more likely you are to be on the winning side" (2 April 1983, also in "The Ultimate Wheil of Fortune").
