FORUMITES RESPOND - HANDICAPPING DEBATE

Louis, your letter to sporting post was only 6 weeks after the 6 point issue had been extensively discussed on this forum.
It was criticized by all including myself. sanity eventually prevailed but as I said in another post DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER. the handicappers were carrying out the rules determined by the BOARD!!!
They were the ones who made the dumb decision-you seem unable to seperate the issues.

Rob, you seem hell bent on this one. As I wrote, the handicapper, Roger Smith defended the decision, vehemently. Ultimately, he is the one who decides on weight allocation.
JAP, that's not the point. The point of Moggy will be made. There's more to it, in the bigger picture. There's the line horse.... its not about one horse, a few are being punished, regularly, in every race...
Richie, Mr H - the publication of the line horse is a huge problem. We called for this two years ago and it was agreed upon. In typical nhra fashion, it now became an Operator problem. Two years down the road, we have it on GC website. The point is that it should be officially published on nhra website, as nhra are the official handicappers. The line horse should be there, as a point of reference. They have just redone their site...... any icon for line horse? Too much trouble? Only after many weeks and coincidently, just after my appeal referred to it, did they announce the new website. And there is no official announcement right now of line horse publication.

However, Raf at NRB is busy finalising the system and hopes to have it up in a week or so. The line horse will be published on the on line form guide/gallop site. I will open a thread with details when done.

I am a supporter of the MR system - I believe it gives horses the opportunity to compete according to their ability in handicaps - enabling their owners to keep them in training and competing for 'longer' periods.

I don't agree with the 'rules' under which the handicapper needs to operate - I just saw in JD's comment above that a winner in a handicap MUST be raised a minimum of 2 points - why? This seems an insignificant point, but for MR handicapping to 'work', one can't have any limits imposed - if the winner wins by a shorthead, give it the appropriate rating using the 'line horse' (and I agree that publishing the 'line horse' is a step in the right direction) - if it wins by 10 lengths, give it the appropriate rating.

The problem with this 'theoretical approach' is that horses are not machines and most will not oblige by conveniently running to their ratings - so the question that needs addressing imo is 'how do we handicap horses correctly' - and that question does not have a simple answer - but there has to be a better answer than 'lets impose some limits'.

I think most of us agree that the 'purest' form of racing is when we have the best competing against the best at level weights - so we need plated races; the problem here of course is that most horses are 'moderate' and no owner will be happy if their horse has to compete against superior animals at level weights - so the 'plated' races do not attract sufficient entries. To solve this, maybe it is an idea (as mentioned on another thread) to make the 'plated' races (and not only feature races) worth (much) more than handicaps - so the 'good horses' benefit; this idea however is probably dead in the water because of the limited monies available in the stakes pot - but maybe a stakes increase next year can exclude maiden and handicap races - I think the purses for maiden races are certainly large enough when compared to 'plated races' :S

So in summary, imo there is no 'quick and easy' solution - but this does not mean that the current situation can't be improved upon.

Frodo

This is how I would distribute stakes at Thursday meeting

Race1 85 000
Race2. 65 000
Race3. 75 000
Race4. 65 000
Race5. 70 000
Race6. 60 000
Race7. 75 000
Race8. 65 000

Frodo, excellent post. JAP said that the minimum adjustment for a winner in a handicap is two points.

It addresses the reality of earnings in racing. If a horse kept on beating another by a head, its reasonable to assume that it could keep on happening. The minimum adjustment of 2 points would allow each horse to have a turn at winning which ultimately is the point of handicapping, ie to not have the superior horse win every handicap race. While its not a purist view it is a practical one.

As for the limits, the trainers argued that without limits there is no opportunity for a good horse to win, and worse, honest horses will be identified quickest. They argued at some point good horses should still win.

Where LouisG is right is we have created a system which really benefits poor horses and that only really top horses escape the handicapper. Like all bad systems, this evolved away from the original good intentions and just became entrenched.

Every race can only have one winner, and if not a level weight race then the outcome is decided by the system year after year. Does a breeding country really want most races (post maiden) to be handicaps where the best horse is penalised by carrying the most weight? What's the point of a superior mare or picking an above average yearling? But trainers also argued strongly that their owners had paid good money for expensive horses and those bad ones needed the opportunity to get some money back or we would kill the goose who paid the golden egg.

The problem is the gambling public would prefer to bet on better horses than a handicap where an entire field is made up from horses who were all beaten 20 lengths in their previous start, some MR55. When we started this, the average colt maiden winner was an 80, some 25 lbs superior to a MR55 we are forced to watch and where a winner is squeezed out against nature. It was a racing world where often you maiden win was your retirement day. We choose to change that, and change a system where a horse could win 5 in a row and capture the imagination.

Handicap racing become prevalent in countries with smaller populations and no real depth. If you have no depth that can often be seen where the same horses win the top races all the time. This country has quite a few top WFA mile races, and we often see the same horses like Freemyheart, Flaming Rock, Jet Master and Variety Club winning successive years. In the end important races run as handicaps, eg July and Summer Cup where the lowest weight or least exposed horses win often at the expense of the best.

Well I got the 'J' right - apologies to both JD and JAP

Frodo and Jack - you are hitting the nail on the head ! I have some really interesting facts to post, which will show both of you to be 100% correct.

As an example of the challenges facing the handicapper, let's look at the DN on Saturday.

For Legislate, Louis the King and Captain America to have achieved their respective ratings, all of Top Jet, Everest and Atomic Rush must have run 8 to 10 points better than their ratings - so which way does one go? I always like to be on the more conservative side, so I'd rather take TJ as the line horse, meaning that Legislate (and Rakes Chestnut) only ran to around 101 (not entirely impossible given that Legislate had to come wide and then did not run straight) - interestingly the same rating that Futura currently holds - and lower than the rating of around 103 achieved by In the Fast Lane (taking Zephira as the line horse) in the Woolavington :S

Looks like Captain A the line horse.

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> Looks like Captain A the line horse.

Which means that Top Jet, Everest and Atomic Rush all ran to around 102 :S

It is a disturbing fact that racing is based on the MR system yet there is not effort to educate the public except a document lying on the nhra website. If a novice picked up that document would they be able to suddenly understand the system? i doubt that.

Racing is dying because the knowledge of the game is not widely distributed to the public. unlike soccer or rugby, racing a is a special skill where the technicalities of the game have to be taught to the uninitiated.

Interestingly a number of jockeys,trainers and owners don't understand the system either....

Jack, we are speaking the same language. The INTENTION of bringing in Merit Rating was to allow the weaker horses a longer career with a fair chance in their division, another win, after the maiden win. You are so correct, when you say that in those days , a horse would win the maiden and be gone the next day. That is what was "sold" to us, upon inception of MR. But, we now sit with a system which RESULTS in the fact that the weaker horses win more races than the better horses. So, whilst we have helped the weaker horse, we have hurt the better horse.... and the Owner.....and made it less of a game of skill than what it was....and, coincidently, turnovers have dropped..

Take the really top horses out of the equation, just for the sake of this one point. The reliable, honest horse, middle division type is on a hiding to nothing. And it is this group of horses which sustain the game, year in and year out. These are the horses which punters like - the honest , consistent sorts, which they follow, which offer a good and proper line of form.

In the racing school in which I was raised, it was fundamentally understood that punters wanted their outsiders just as much as they wanted their good things. In order to have their good things, the consistent ones had to establish and maintain their form. Today, form is very tricky to calculate, as horses keep on earning penalties for consistency. We will be told that these horses "earned" the new ratings, by placing last time out etc etc. But the penalties will keep on coming UNTIL the horse runs badly. And after a few bad runs, the horse will be dropped. So, the secret is to run badly.....????? Or is that now a "necessary skill" ? Is that what we want ??

I have some really good examples.