FORUMITES RESPOND - HANDICAPPING DEBATE

I think, at this point, I must clear up my thinking on the handicapping debate.
I do not believe that the ratings are being applied fairly by the handicappers. It goes deeper than just the word “fairly” though. It is about the mind-set of the handicappers.
At the outset of the debate, I am just trying to establish some principles and where Karel and I stand on those principles. Once the principles have been established, real examples must be given and debated.

Where I have erred, is by being long winded. We have ended up with long stories instead of just establishing the principles, simply. I apologise, will rectify.

It is also important to be open about the fact that forumites such as Jack Dash, Frodo, Rob Faux and a few others are really jacked up about handicapping. Over time, I have found that they will not hesitate to have a full go at me if they don’t agree. This is vital in this debate, if any good will come of it... I have made no secret of the fact that I have learned a lot on this site and long may that continue. Unlike many of my peers or many in racing, I am prepared to be wrong and to be criticised for that, on this open forum. And as for losing a point or a debate, well, racing prepares you very well, when it comes to losing.

But, there are many forumites, from a wide range of racing activities and involvement, who do not know as much about the handicapping system. Indeed, my own knowledge on handicapping is insular in that I only focus on Gauteng and obviously, the features around the country. For this reason, it is important to explain the line horse, the limitations imposed on handicappers and the implementation of the system on the individual horse, for everybody’s info.

My mind-set is that I believe there is another, much fairer and more viable approach to handicapping that could be used. Again, I hope to learn a lot on this site and from this debate, as to whether I am even partially correct or if I am totally wrong.
My involvement in racing has extended far beyond the training of my horses and the general “job description” of a racehorse trainer. I have put in hundreds, if not thousands of hours of my own time on various issues, without any payment for it. I have done this because of my love of racing and my desire for racing to improve all the time, to seek excellence. At no time have I worked for own benefit or gain nor have I lobbied any issues unless I am convinced that it would be for the benefit of all in racing.

About two years ago, when Matthew Lips joined the handicapping panel, we met as a committee, to decide upon the request of the handicappers, for relaxation of the restrictions placed upon them. The new handicapping guidelines were signed off and since then have been applied. As we look back now, there is a track record or “pattern” to reflect on, since then.

Another event or issue was last year’s raising of the population by 6 points. Two vital points on this issue have stood out since then and have, indeed, rung some warning bells in my mind.

First was the fact that ONLY the ratings of the major centres were raised and not PE and Kimberley. Upon enquiry on this point, the handicapper explained that there was a “creep” factor in PE and Kimberley and that their ratings were too high already, against the major centres. Further, he explained that there were too many horses with similar ratings in the lower categories, in the minor centres.

Second was the fact that the handicapper defended the decision of the 6 point raise to the hilt, without any hesitation or doubt.

This issue and the two aforementioned points were, to my mind, proof in themselves. On the first point, it was clear that the handicapping system had failed, on a national basis. On the second point, it was clear that notwithstanding any direction from any Board or others, the handicapper was in full agreement with the 6 point raise and that ultimately, the handicapper allocates weights, penalties and ratings. The handicappers stance was of major importance.

Since then, I have been taking more specific notice of the application of the system and the allocation of penalties. Often, I have looked at a race result and been disappointed at the ratings allocated after the race. Over a few months it became clear to me that there is a negative mind-set which is prevalent. Too often, the line horse is a poor choice. Too often, the maximum penalty is imposed on the winner, thus penalising the 2nd and 3rd horse unfairly. And then I thought of an alternative, a more balanced and reasonable application of penalties. Either way, the end result is similar, but, I believe that without the hell bent mind-set of “as much as possible, always”, we might have much better racing for owners, punters and trainers and for the horses… Racing would be better served by handicapping.

A point that stands out right now, is Kimberley. We had the handicapper telling us that the minor centre ratings were too high, due to the “creep” factor, which was why they weren’t raised last year together with the major centres. Yet now, after the 6 point raise to the major centres was removed, we have Kimberley winners and placed horses receiving huge penalties. Quite frankly this is a contradiction and again confirms that there is a problem…… I will show you examples.
As far as Trip Tease is concerned, I will use this horse and what the handicappers have done to his turf rating, to highlight my stance on this mind-set and why they cannot be left, unrestricted. I believe Trip Tease could be a 95 on sand instead of 97, but overall, I agree with the handicapper in that he is a decent sort on sand. So, I do not argue with his sand rating.
But the point is that Karel and the handicappers believe that they should have no restrictions or “interference”. Here they have a clause which protects them, in that if in their opinion a horse is equally as good on both surfaces, they may raise the other surface’s rating too.

In Trip Tease’s last of his 5 turf runs, he ran off an 86. After the win, he was raised to an 88, the minimum raise allowed. The second horse, which he beat by a head, was beaten next time in a graduation plate, when a proverbial “racing certainty” on paper/ratings. The rating of 88 was correct, for Trip Tease’s last turf run.

But, after his next two sand wins he was raised from an 88 to a 97 on turf because the handicappers believe that he is just as good on both surfaces. You don’t need me to tell you that this is not the case. The form should do that…..

Our appeal on this issue was dismissed and to make matters worse, the appeal was declared unwarranted and thus the R3200 forfeit. To me, this is a clear message to all and sundry, ‘Don’t even bother to appeal”.

On this one, try and put yourself in the place of the owner…….. After millions invested over years in racing he definitely has a nice, young horse. He has been penalised on sand, which is understandable. But he has just got 9 points (4,5kg’s) on the turf too. To me, the handicappers are wrong. Surely, a horse must earn penalties, not receive additional penalties purely on speculation, after 5 runs on the turf and having received an official rating. And this is why I believe the handicappers cannot be allowed to act without guidelines and restrictions. Not with their mind-set…

And I apologise, again, for drawing out the principles of the debate and will get to the real examples ASAP.

And I honestly hope that the forumites will build on this and come up with real solutions, better than mine. I truly believe that ABC has that potential. And all of us in racing can learn a bit.

Louis , the great thing about the debates is that every one of us will have learnt and have more insight when it's over-that's got to be a win!!

We agree there Rob. I will pull out my 5 examples and stick them up on Monday, if not sooner.

Apologies for the silly question, but how do horses get their first rating eg. how are two olds who have never raced in open company get their ratings?

alterego Wrote:

---

> Apologies for the silly question, but how do
> horses get their first rating eg. how are two olds
> who have never raced in open company get their
> ratings?

Not silly at all IMO-I have often wondered how they do it officially-I know how I do it and will share that later but would like to hear the official version first.

alterego Wrote:

---

> Apologies for the silly question, but how do
> horses get their first rating eg. how are two olds
> who have never raced in open company get their
> ratings?


I have asked this question as well - the answer given was that the ratings produced by juveniles in past seasons are taken into account - so a juv winning a race in Feb 2014 will be rated by taking into account how a winning juvenile in 2013 was rated - obviously this is not ideal, but you have to start somewhere :S Also remember that 2 yr olds ratings' only become 'official'' when they turn 3 - hopefully by then some of them have run against their elders to validate the ratings.

@LG - thanks for the compliment, however I really only dabble a bit in handicapping and would not put myself in the same league as guys like rob faux and JD.

As for your example of Trip Tease, I'm looking forward with interest to a response from the handicapper(s) on why they would up his turf rating - to me he can be no higher than 90 on the turf.

frodo, don't over estimate my handicapping ability........I use factors in my ratings that many would not agree with.
Personally,I create a base by rating 2 yr olds against the older horses on the LBH on formgrids(adjusting WFA)
(I really don't like that official way of comparing horses 12 months apart- does that mean a horse can be rated similar to a Variety Club or a Horse Chestnut because it wins at the same time of the season ???)
That could be why so many 2 yr old one time winners seem to start off overrated.

I must say, I do not trust maiden ratings generally,and also why too many 1x winners end up with incorrect ratings !

Frodo, they have already responded by saying that he is equally as good on Turf as on sand. When I appealed it was dismissed and declared an unwarranted appeal.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> frodo, don't over estimate my handicapping
> ability........I use factors in my ratings that
> many would not agree with.
> Personally,I create a base by rating 2 yr olds
> against the older horses on the LBH on
> formgrids(adjusting WFA)
> (I really don't like that official way of
> comparing horses 12 months apart- does that mean a
> horse can be rated similar to a Variety Club or a
> Horse Chestnut because it wins at the same time of
> the season ???)
> That could be why so many 2 yr old one time
> winners seem to start off overrated.
>
> I must say, I do not trust maiden ratings
> generally,and also why too many 1x winners end up
> with incorrect ratings !


I'm not sure if 'comparing horses 12 months apart' is the 'official' way - if I remember correctly JD responded to my question on this site.

Interesting that you use the 'lengths behind' on Formgrids - so you basically use times - and as juveniles race mostly over 1000 - 1200, this means that the pace of the race is not really a factor - so the method has merit imo

I don't really agree that maiden ratings 'in general' are a problem, however one does find that quite a lot of runners winning as juveniles are often dropped significantly once they reach the second half of their 3 yr-old career - so maybe the WFA scale in terms of 2 yr olds when compared to older horses need a re-look :S Or otherwise the original ratings based on 'history' may be the problem ?

The one thing that has me stumped is why 4 yr old maiden winners are capped but not younger horses -I just don't get it -perhaps somebody could explain that particular anomaly.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> The one thing that has me stumped is why 4 yr old
> maiden winners are capped but not younger horses
> -I just don't get it -perhaps somebody could
> explain that particular anomaly.

Rob, do you want the truth? Can we handle the truth

At the time this was debated, there were some trainers on the panel who argued very strongly that some horses don't make the wfa improvement you would expect from the general population. It was argued that (and apparently this is obvious if you aren't a "purist" I believe) if you had not won a race by the time a horse was 4, it had not made wfa improvement. Some people (me lol) argued that maybe a non winning 4yo might just be kak and maybe it didn't deserve to stay in the game, and the last thing it needed was a subsidy...this is a competition for @#$% sake!. They argued it might be an expensive horse, poor owners etc etc

Whatever, the capping was decided against the opinions of some (the handicappers among others) and I think a horse winning a maiden from the moment it turned 4 was capped at 70.

Wasn't it hilarious when a short time later when one of those trainers stepped out imported horses hitting the track for the first time as 4yo....

Suddenly his argument came into sharp focus! @#$% funny.