Here is what we are seeing :
Attachment 23716
Attachment 23717
Per the BL/BL screen, the #2 and #6 are VDC ranked 1: the #2 gets its rank 1 from its BL/BL rank 1 and the #6 from being the rank 1 on the underlying VDC factor. In fact, the #2 has the worst VDC number ( = 2.1% worse than the best VDC number of the #6). So the #6, despite having the worst Total Energy (rank 5) has the best VDC and deserves to be treated equally as a contender (off the chosen paceline) as the #2 with the best Total Energy. We happen to call this #6 horse a '
Binder Improver' because its better VDC value
improves its rank on the BL/BL screen sort.
Richard, I hear you reporting that you find that horses having tied VDC ranks but with the better VDC number should be considered superior to the other one(s) in the tie. I accept the evidence of your recent short-term study, but I'd caution against accepting this as a long-term truth. I'd actually recommend (in general) treating them as equals and breaking ties based on bet-time odds (or Morning Line, if you must).
The #3 has a better (i.e. lower) VDC% than the 2 (1.9% versus 2.1%) but has a lower VDC rank - because, as stated above, the #2's VDC rank 1 is because of it's BL/BL rank.
If it turns out that significant strength (and usefulness) is being found in the actual VDC number (represented by the VDC% differential from best), distinct from the traditional merged BL/VDC ranking, I might have to think about relabeling that original VDC rank # to something like BL/VDC (perhaps similar to how we have a rank for TS/F3), so we can treat the actual VDC number as an independent entity.
I have to say, that this new RDSS2 VDC% column (on Segments and Primary screens) has turned out to be rather confusing for a number of folks, solely because it has never been broken out before from the merged BL/VDC rank.
Ted