FORUMITES RESPOND - HANDICAPPING DEBATE

LG you aren't sticking with one thread, and it looks like this whole debate is going to be about making a point about TRIP TEASE.

I would like to ask you a question and I'm hoping for a proper answer, not some trainer bullshit.

If we can agree that horses are not machines so they do not perform exactly as we expect. Sometimes a horse can run badly which does not mean anything, but you can't fake winning. We have previous form, we have horses that have met. The job of the handicapper is to equalize all the differences the best they can by manipulating the weight that must be carried by monitoring a score to keep track of the relative weights and beaten distances. If there is nothing in this paragraph which is too disagreeable then:

So what is it that you want in a handicap race that you are not getting? Maybe we can use a race like the July as an example as we are all familiar with the form etc.

harry hotspur Wrote:

---

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

Mr Louisg needs to stop deflecting statements into his own opinions. For example, louisg flippantly suggests the handicapper may not be doing his job properly. If he believes that is so then that needs to be dealt with on another stage not this one.

"And likewise the British and Irish NHRA?"

Well if you look at the BHA site they employ 11 handicappers which in turn SPECIALISE in code and distance.....

Yes, I was hoping the debate would stick to a single point and clean it up properly.

It doesn't help if you just toss in points by-the-way because it destroys the logic. If your argument is "the handicapper is making mistakes"...then you build THAT case. If you arguing the measurements is wrong, then you build that one. If you do both, how does anyone follow. Did no one watch Oscar's trial....one thing at a time please. (lol, and I should follow my own advice)

My input on the 'line horse' issue is that the 'line horse' is often found by looking at others in the race who could also be referred to as 'secondary line horses' - the more horses are used to identify the applicable 'primary line horse', the more accurate the rating of the runners will be - always taking into account that horses are not machines and that some in the race will always throw up ratings outside of their 'normal' range. And for what it's worth I think the handicapper(s) are doing a good job s far as identifying the 'line horse'.

I personally look for 2-3 horses that run comparatively consistently against each other (if they have run together) and then work the ratings of others relative to those 2-3 horses that are in a narrow band in relative performance...

The debate has just become pointless ..............Louis has a mindset and his vision just blurs when he is on a crusade.......he is not debating

If the MR system means that every horse has a rating which fairly represents its ABILITY then that's OK with me, except that we also need to balance the fairness so good horses win more races than mediocre horses who in turn win more races than poor horses..
That will not happen when 75% of the races ,other than maidens, are MR handicaps (which are,by definition,tantamount to equine roulette!)
We also need to remain aware of the need for increases in the punted Rand (by number of punters and by Rands.)
South Africa has no shortage of a gambling culture and that includes the youth................the poker explosion bears testament to that.
So why has Poker taken off and horseracing battling to get new blood? Poker sells itself as a game of skill and that you play against each other(as opposed to the organisers or the house) utilising a facilitator ,so it's trusted.
What we have is race after race where every horse has an "equal chance"????? except the ratings are open to manipulation (and they are) and that will continue for as long as ability is perceived to come and go, and ratings go up and down, accordingly..........particularly if there is absolutely no regulation of the consistency rule! - how can you trust that?
If racing wishes to compete for new gamblers it needs to be able to show it can be trusted and has a fair level of predictability and the present situation is not even close!
If handicaps constituted less than 50% of the open races there would also be no need for the capping and restrictions to offer some sort of protectionism..........rating could fairly reflect the ability.

I think that is the sort of balance racing needs as it caters for everybody's mind set...........everybody gets a bit of what they like!
A lot of this issue is about that perception.(I realised this the other day when I read why Frodo likes the MR system................every reason he likes it is the reason I don't...........interesting that we both agree on what it is,, but completely differ on what it achieves)

How will we get reasonable fields? - it would probably require narrow banding to avoid horses being too much under sufferance and incentivised stakes,as suggested by Jack!

rob f says 'A lot of this issue is about that perception.(I realised this the other day when I read why Frodo likes the MR system................every reason he likes it is the reason I don't...........interesting that we both agree on what it is,, but completely differ on what it achieves)'

As you say, I think one's view of the MR system is based on from which side of the fence you are looking at it.

From an owner's point of view one has to like the theory behind it - I think we can agree on that ?

From the point of view of 'increasing the punted rand', you seem to suggest (if I understand correctly) that the inconsistent results often thrown up in handicaps are (mostly?) as a result of the application of the MR system. I would suggest that (as horses are not machines) 'inconsistent' result are part and parcel of racing (although I agree that the application of the MR system does indeed contribute to these 'inconsistent' results - but even if we have no handicaps, we will still have some inconsistent results - so the question is: how much does the 'incorrect' application of the MR system increase the number of 'inconsistent' results? And will we end up with enough 'consistency' to increase the 'punting rand' by just getting rid (or substantially reduce) MR handicaps?

Your suggestion is that we have fewer handicaps (and more plated races) which would lead to more consistent results and increasing the 'punter rand'. Apart from not being sure (maybe it would, maybe it won't) that having fewer handicaps will in fact achieve the desired result, the other problem I see with this is, how do we get owners to run their moderate horses against superior opposition (in plated races)? If there are not 'enough' handicaps, owners who do not get the opportunity to run their horses on handicap terms, will just get rid of those horses - and eventually after having to retire their 'moderate' horses, some (how many?) will get out of the game. And the breeders will sell less horses (because there are less owners around to sell to). So we end up with fewer (but 'better') horses, fewer owners and eventually fewer breeders - all for the sake of hopefully 'increasing the punting rand' which benefits only one group - the punter (and the operators ?)

Now I'm not suggesting that the punter is not important - they are and it's their money that fill up the pools and thereby provide the stakes. BUT I feel there has to be a better way to keep everybody 'happy' AND grow the pools - getting the application of the MR system correct (or as a start just get rid of some of the things that stand in the way of improving it - like limits) will go at least some way towards that Utopia.

Enough rambling for a Thursday morning

Frodo Wrote:

---

> rob f says 'A lot of this issue is about that
> perception.(I realised this the other day when I
> read why Frodo likes the MR
> system................every reason he likes it is
> the reason I don't...........interesting that we
> both agree on what it is,, but completely differ
> on what it achieves)'
>

A very important point here!!!!

And this is precisely the point karel made in his post. It all depends on who you are!

An EG:
LG will be incensed if his "better" horse is beaten in a handicap (and here better can only mean it gave weight).

However, whoever won it will be saying, why did it take the handicapper sooo long to drop me, or give me the weight allowance, to make me competitive enough to beat that horse who is obviously better.

Maybe Louis G will finally just take cognisance of this single point...it all depends who you are and who crossed this line first.

Once we can agree on this, the debate can move onto so what do we want should happen...but not until we agree that we understand the rules.

Frodo,my wish for racing is that it becomes trusted and generally regarded as a game of skill because it is ,in the main ,predictable.
I believe that it is the only basis for successful marketing.
I realise that there is a natural inconsistency because they are animals,and just as well otherwise punting would be pointless!!
However,for as long as MR's can be reduced,they are open to manipulation,and,when there are vast sums of money available,if it can be manipulated ,it will be!!!
My point is that the handicapping system,working together with strong regulation needs to make every effort to eliminate the opportunity of skulduggery.
Horseracing has always struggled to shed the "crooked" tag and the ability to manipulate results doesn't help.

When the system was introduced I was at a function, with a trainer with a large yard,and his exact words were "if they let me handicap my own horses I will be doing so" Even Louis mentions that trainers will do what it takes to make horses competitive..............surely that is no surprise to anyone.
I believe that the key to the survival of racing is trust in it's integrity!

A comment you often hear in previews on Tellytrack is "he/she has come down in the Merit Ratings" but I have never heard " he or she has lost it's ability"........just an interesting observation!

Karel has it right.
The MR system has been gerrymandered to such an extent by people with influence and alterior motives that it has become almost pointless in this country.
The system works best where there is a big pool of horses. ie: the UK
The best don't run in handicaps but they don't have to because the pattern looks after them.
The July and the Met are joke races.
If the MR system was applied correctly these races should be long handicaps - that or WFA.
If long handicaps, the operators have the right to invite who they wish.
They may take flak as to the final fields but, hey, that makes for great debate and a few pissed off owners and trainers. No longer can you "practice" and rely on reputation. Show form or you out.