KENILWORTH - WEDNESDAY

could punters please explain to me if you dont understand how the merit rating system works from a to z how do you actually study form and make selections?

Thats why we ask question here Pirates, so we can broaden our knowledge on the merit rating system... sorry we not all as clever as you...

Maybe you could publish a book on the a to z of merit rating??

Greg,Laurie's Gold is the best handicapped horse on the card...........what's putting you off?...........................LOL

But don't blush....even Magic hasn't banked it!

Sorry,just stirring.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Greg,Laurie's Gold is the best handicapped horse
> on the card...........what's putting you
> off?...........................LOL

Seen too many of the so called ''best handicapped horses'' been beaten of late Rob... ()

gregbucks Wrote:

---

> Thats why we ask question here Pirates, so we can
> broaden our knowledge on the merit rating
> system... sorry we not all as clever as you...
>
> Maybe you could public a book on the a to z of
> merit rating??


for the tenth time its on the nhra website and if you can read and write you can understand it ...its been there for years

gregbucks Wrote:

---

> But then you still use the merit rating (if you
> agree with the official rating) for a guide, make
> your selections in the plate race??

To a large extent, yes. However, we all have a different opinion of how good a horse is or isn't. That really is the basis of trying to back/tip winners, isn't it? Furthermore, as much as I believe strongly in merit rating handicapping in principle, I have increasing concerns about the way in whch our handicappers are applying the system. To an extent their hands are tied by things like the maximum 8 pound penalty for winning a handicap rule or no penalty for placing in a plate race (other than a maiden plate) rule, but when Super Elegant can find herself rated 104 (compared to Princess Victoria on 105 and Thunder Dance on 97) then something is rather badly off somewhere.

I think that a big part of the problem is that too much emphasis is perhaps placed on always having to find a "line horse" for every race. Common sense flies out the window. Super Elegant may have improved over 1800m, but there is nothing in her record that makes her rating remotely accurate viz-a-viz the two other horses I mentioned. Simply put, they have both proved superior to her at level weights in the Choice Carries Championship and again in the Fillies Guineas, races which (conveniently for handicappers, I'd have thought) produced virtually identical results including an identical Trifecta. Yet, by literally taking Super Elegant's defeat of Beach Beauty in the Victress Stakes and using Beach Beauty as the line horse (presumably), we get this situation.

And that is just one example. I ask again - do we really need to be married to the "line horse" idea, and can we not handicap horses and races in a more general sense to arrive at ratings which are more in line with what horses have actually achieved? The idea of handicapping on "merit" rather than "performance" is sound in principle, because the crucial flaw with the old race figure system is that it effectively used races won as an indicator of a horse's true ability. However, the system will continue to lose credibility if we come up with scenarios like the Super Elegant case. She may one day truly deserve a rating of 100 plus, but that day has not come yet.

pirates Wrote:

---

> could punters please explain to me if you dont
> understand how the merit rating system works from
> a to z how do you actually study form and make
> selections?


I take it you have complete faith in the way the MR's are applied . I do not, so I study form purely on how the horses run , ran and how I believe they will run. THEN I use MR as an additional guide... but I have posted many times before ... I think the MR system is flawed or too subjectively applied.

Actually, I often think it isn't applied subjectively enough. Too much pure maths and not enough flexibility is exactly what led to the Super Elegant scenario I wrote about, and many others like it.

If the MR system was flawless, Lauries Gold would be a penalty kick, without a GoalieX(

Magi Wrote:

---

> pirates Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > could punters please explain to me if you dont
> > understand how the merit rating system works
> from
> > a to z how do you actually study form and make
> > selections?
>
>
> I take it you have complete faith in the way the
> MR's are applied . I do not, so I study form
> purely on how the horses run , ran and how I
> believe they will run. THEN I use MR as an
> additional guide... but I have posted many times
> before ... I think the MR system is flawed or too
> subjectively applied.


not the point of having faith or not as a punter owner or trainer you have to understand the principles of hcaping ...i do my own hcaping and do my own betting and when compared to the OFFICIAL HCAPING AND BETTING it creates oppurtunities...of course its flawed mainly down to trainers owners authorities meddling in it and putting ridiculous caps on...

Patent...

Afore the Flow
Rush For John
Brown Penny

IMO,the problem is that there would appear to be an iconsistent definition of what a MR really is......the NHA handicappers guide states that it is an ability rating.....which makes a mockery of it going up and down like a yo-yo,or of a fitness discount for rested horses!.
I would like to see a horse have 2 ratings.....1).an ABILITY rating being a pure calculation and 2) a RACE rating adjusted for all the "rules".At the moment the MR is a nonsense mixture of the two.
I would also like to see the ABILITY rating only ever reduced if it was clearly to correct an error,and then once a horse is 5 yrs of age,it's RACE rating can never be dropped below it's ability rating,preventing it from winning races on it's way down,and depriving young horses on their way up.