I've not had much time lately but looked at the Totesport today, which worked out easily enough, with just the three consistent horses, therefore all probables, and all form horses: Side Glance, Kakatoshi and Sarasota Sunshine. Of these, as per my forum post before the race this morning in response to one by Oldtimer:
"Like you, I have Side Glance as the class/form horse but (a) a little low in the AR rankings and (b) the "Billet" issue - is he being raised too far in class?"
So, a good outcome for the method - a horse clearly identified as the most likely winner, but without the full "winner in the race" characteristics, coming a decent second.
Much more important to me this week, though, is a letter I have received which just might lead to the definitive resolution of some of the controversial issues in understanding the VDW method that bug VDWers to this day, starting with the notorious numbers in the first VDW example, the 1978 Erin. Are the numbers, as some believe, intended to be consistency totals but with some errors or, as I believe, the product of a different method of rating used to identify the probables from the consistent horses where there are more than three?
The author invites me to contact her as she says she may be able to help me, and provides a solid reason for me to think she may very well be right. I hope to have a telephone conversation with her on Tuesday, so am keeping my fingers well and truly crossed 'til then.
