FORUMITES RESPOND - HANDICAPPING DEBATE

Louis, following from your sticky thread I think you need to summarise your facts and figures on performances about good horses and post-maidens. I feel you are creating doubt by putting words into my mouth. I hope you see this as constructive criticism.

All in good time, Mac....

Justanotherpunter Wrote:

---

> @ Louis,
>
> You say it isn't as much about the system as it is
> about the application.Your statement on tv after
> Negev's victory in the Syringa was along the lines
> of let's see now if the handicapper can stop Negev
> like he has Moggytwoshoes.
>
> So lets look at Moggy's career.
>
> She wins her 5th start rated 73 by 2,75L,but does
> not get any penalty(she worked out a cert on
> form),so thus starts her 'handicap career' off a
> mark of 73.
>
> A few runs and then the whole population is raised
> 6 points,so her next victory off a 79(in her 11th
> start) amounts to a victory off her original
> handicapping mark of 73.This is her 1st victory on
> the inside track,and subsequent results show that
> this is probably where she 1st showed her liking
> for this course.It is a novice and she picks up no
> penalty as she is the nett highest rated horse in
> the race.
>
> In December the 6 points are reversed for the
> whole population,so Moggy reverts back to a 73.
>
> On the 25-02-2014 she wins her 3rd race,off a mark
> of 73.It is a handicap,so the handicapper
> according to the rules has to give her a mandatory
> minimum 2 pound penalty.He gives her 3.
>
> On the 20-03-2014,her next subsequent start,she
> wins a pinnacle plate at Turffontein.She is a nett
> 84 in this race,and the highest rated horse is
> Festival Of Fire who is a nett 96.She therefore
> wins from 12 pounds out at the handicap.The
> handicapper gives her the maximum penalty of 6
> pounds,I mean what else must he do if her trainer
> puts her in a race where she is badly in but she
> still wins.She has clearly taken to the conditions
> that the inside track at Turffontein provide,and
> is improving run to run each time she runs on this
> course.
>
> She picks up a 2 pound penalty for her next
> start,which is a 2nd placing.
>
> On the 10-05-2014 she wins her 5th start,again on
> the inside track,off her new rating of 84.This
> time the handicapper does take the view that she
> is clearly still underrated and gives her a 7
> pound penalty.
>
> Her new rating is now 91.
>
> She then runs 3rd in the Syringa,where you the
> trainer state in the winning interview for Negev
> that she was unlucky as she got baulked at the
> rail and should have finished much closer than the
> 2,75L behind that she did.Her new rating of 91 is
> clearly not too high.
>
> I therefore say to you,how can you make a
> statement that the handicapper has stopped this
> horse,especially on tv.
>
> If you were the handicapper please explain how you
> would have rated her differently through her
> career,as from my point of view I reckon he's got
> her pretty spot on.


Lg, still looking forward to your response on the above....

I'm following the Great Debate.

LG says "a)How many Owners will agree to not only spend the R100k at Sales, but will be happy to stay in racing, paying their monthly keep, without results....."

Who knows how many ? Does it matter though ? There will always be results, here I mean of a race and not promises of trainers to their owners.

I owned some horses, I was disappointed when they were crap and happy when they were above average. I never cared how much the stakes money was, I just cared to have some of it as often as possible. Only a few ever broke even or made a profit.

I hope the debate stays on topic, which I understand to be who we expect should win races, or be the winners, or win the money. LG will want every good horse of his to have the maximum opportunity to earn, and every bad horse to earn as much as it is able for its owner. Being a decent fellow, his business model is to do the best for his owner. But can he show a system that is good for his owners, and at the same time for other owners. I look forward to see if one can speak NOT from ones own pocket and still accommodate everyone.

help me here if my train of thought is off-track/remind me please again? - so the current model helps or is geared towards ROI for the owner, but not necessarily horse merit (ability brilliance). The current model came into place about a decade ago. What was wrong with the model before this one that it needed to be changed - what were the reasons?

Going to be a long, long debate...from the little I have read on the other thread...()

Don Wrote:

---

> help me here if my train of thought is
> off-track/remind me please again? - so the current
> model helps or is geared towards ROI for the
> owner, but not necessarily horse merit (ability
> brilliance). The current model came into place
> about a decade ago. What was wrong with the model
> before this one that it needed to be changed -
> what were the reasons?


IMO the main reason was to have 'proper' handicaps - the RF method 'penalised' a horse by 3kg's for a win, whether that win was by a short-head or 10 lengths, or whether it was winning a maiden plate or the 'July' handicap

as predicted lg getting a hiding and not answering the questions ..lg you need help phone gerrie nel or put up the white flag

The Line horse is something that interests me - I throw out a suggestion that the line horse(proposed as it is the most consistent horse in the field at it's current rating) should be published before the race - If this horse does not run to form for any reason(perhaps it did not jump, was bumped etc) then the next best horse is used - I wonder what you guys think as this might also be a point of departure for the NHRA if that horse runs way below form for no valid reason.

Found this on the BHA site.....actually very very true.

"For most owners, handicaps offer their best chance of winning a race. Without them, the top horses would almost always win and there would be no point in owning anything other than a top horse."

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> The Line horse is something that interests me - I
> throw out a suggestion that the line
> horse(proposed as it is the most consistent horse
> in the field at it's current rating) should be
> published before the race - If this horse does not
> run to form for any reason(perhaps it did not
> jump, was bumped etc) then the next best horse is
> used - I wonder what you guys think as this might
> also be a point of departure for the NHRA if that
> horse runs way below form for no valid reason.

Then I think one may just as well go in the order of the betting

What I would first like to know is how does the NHRA select the line horse?

Does it select subjectively eg the opinions of the majority of the handicappers? or

Does it select objectively eg through a formula or some algorithm?

How does the Sporting Post select its line horse?

And likewise the British and Irish NHRA?