FORUMITES RESPOND - HANDICAPPING DEBATE

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> 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.


royal Zulu warrior trained by mr racing tony rivaland

Thanks Jack,always wondered!

Trip Tease sand/ turf rating.
As I understand it, a horse should only be given a different rating for the two surfaces if there is clear evidence that it performs differently on sand and turf. Trip Tease is a good, progressive young horse. He appears to be equally effective on sand and turf. He has improved his last couple of starts, which happen to have been on sand. The question is whether the improvement is due to the surface, or whether it is natural progression/ improvement in his ability. In my view the official handicapper has done the right thing by assuming the latter. If his future runs on turf prove to be below his current mark, then his turf rating can be reduced and he can be accorded separate ratings. Louis wants him to be given a soft opportunity to run on turf at his old rating from three runs ago- ie he would have us believe that the horse has not improved. If I had a horse in a turf handicap and had to run against Trip Tease off that lower rating, I would be highly annoyed.
The same principle was applied when he returned to sand after a few good, improving runs on turf. By extension of Louis' arguement, he should have been accorded his maiden rating when he returned to the sand, and not his actual rating earned over a few good runs on turf. That would have been a ridiculous mistake, and seems absurd, but in effect that is the principle that is implied in Louis' current view of reverting to his previous turf rating.
The objection against the rating had zero chance of success on the evidence to date.

The requirements for good, accurate handicapping are:
1. Understanding the WFA scale
2. Understanding the arithmetic of relative weight carried and the effect over the different race distances
3. A decent database of past performances of the whole horse population over a number of years
4. A decent IT system to allow back- testing and experimentation
5. The ability to read a race and to then apply judgement to the mechanical arithmetic result.
6. The ability to benchmark against other racing countries if we want our ratings to be meaningful internationally
7. Willingness to go back and correct past mistakes when these become apparent.

I believe that our official handicappers are fine on 1-3 above. I am not sure about 4.
Most of the mistakes are made in 5 above. In particular, false paced races, races which are affected by weather and going, and races where there has been interference or poor jockeyship will distort handicap outcomes if adjustments are not made.
Sectional times are an essential tool to assess races correctly, and without these, handicapping is made more difficult.
7 is an area if weakness. It is not good enough to fix one horse's rating when it's future runs show that a mistake was made- many mistakes arise from the analysis on one particular race, and as soon as that becomes apparent, then there is a need to go back and fix all the horses impacted by that error.

Rating of juvenile form is highly problematic. There are two main types of juvenile winner:
A) Good horse
precocious horses.
The former go on to build on their juvenile form; the latter peak early and often end up with much lower ratings when mature.
We have a plethora of horses that are over- rated as juveniles and it takes far too long for their ratings to be corrected.

PeterD Wrote:

---

> Trip Tease sand/ turf rating.
> As I understand it, a horse should only be given a
> different rating for the two surfaces if there is
> clear evidence that it performs differently on
> sand and turf. Trip Tease is a good, progressive
> young horse. He appears to be equally effective
> on sand and turf. He has improved his last couple
> of starts, which happen to have been on sand. The
> question is whether the improvement is due to the
> surface, or whether it is natural progression/
> improvement in his ability. In my view the
> official handicapper has done the right thing by
> assuming the latter. If his future runs on turf
> prove to be below his current mark, then his turf
> rating can be reduced and he can be accorded
> separate ratings. Louis wants him to be given a
> soft opportunity to run on turf at his old rating
> from three runs ago- ie he would have us believe
> that the horse has not improved. If I had a horse
> in a turf handicap and had to run against Trip
> Tease off that lower rating, I would be highly
> annoyed.
> The same principle was applied when he returned to
> sand after a few good, improving runs on turf. By
> extension of Louis' arguement, he should have been
> accorded his maiden rating when he returned to the
> sand, and not his actual rating earned over a few
> good runs on turf. That would have been a
> ridiculous mistake, and seems absurd, but in
> effect that is the principle that is implied in
> Louis' current view of reverting to his previous
> turf rating.
> The objection against the rating had zero chance
> of success on the evidence to date.


I am an impartial observer - for me to give a horse a rating that he might achieve is wrong - there is no proof that he can reproduce his sand rating on the turf - so in my view the objection certainly was warranted

Frodo Wrote:

---

> PeterD Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > Trip Tease sand/ turf rating.
> > As I understand it, a horse should only be given
> a
> > different rating for the two surfaces if there
> is
> > clear evidence that it performs differently on
> > sand and turf. Trip Tease is a good,
> progressive
> > young horse. He appears to be equally
> effective
> > on sand and turf. He has improved his last
> couple
> > of starts, which happen to have been on sand.
> The
> > question is whether the improvement is due to
> the
> > surface, or whether it is natural progression/
> > improvement in his ability. In my view the
> > official handicapper has done the right thing
> by
> > assuming the latter. If his future runs on turf
> > prove to be below his current mark, then his
> turf
> > rating can be reduced and he can be accorded
> > separate ratings. Louis wants him to be given
> a
> > soft opportunity to run on turf at his old
> rating
> > from three runs ago- ie he would have us
> believe
> > that the horse has not improved. If I had a
> horse
> > in a turf handicap and had to run against Trip
> > Tease off that lower rating, I would be highly
> > annoyed.
> > The same principle was applied when he returned
> to
> > sand after a few good, improving runs on turf.
> By
> > extension of Louis' arguement, he should have
> been
> > accorded his maiden rating when he returned to
> the
> > sand, and not his actual rating earned over a
> few
> > good runs on turf. That would have been a
> > ridiculous mistake, and seems absurd, but in
> > effect that is the principle that is implied in
> > Louis' current view of reverting to his
> previous
> > turf rating.
> > The objection against the rating had zero
> chance
> > of success on the evidence to date.
>
>
> I am an impartial observer - for me to give a
> horse a rating that he might achieve is wrong -
> there is no proof that he can reproduce his sand
> rating on the turf - so in my view the objection
> certainly was warranted

I agree - The Vaal sand is like no other surface and year after year you find horses that have a high sand rating but cannot run to the same on the Turf(If there was not such a phenomenon then why would you need two ratings to start with - Surely one for both surfaces would be sufficient? A perfect example CINNAMON SUGAR - Sand Champ - MR 100 but could not ever win a race on grass even with a rating of 77)

Trip Tease has had enough runs on both surfaces to have different ratings and the Turf rating in my book is 90.
To rate the horse at 97,based on Turf performance, to date, is complete nonsense IMO.

I respect the opinions above so I wont express mine on the ratings.

You will notice that this horse has won 3 Hcps in-a-row, each time favourite to win. Unbeaten on the sand 3/3 and 1-2 in two Turf features for 3yos.

In fairness to the handicapper, their JOB is to make all the runners competitive, so if TRIP TEASE is favourite again, and wins again, I will think they being bullied into keeping a "top" horse to a lowish rating. To be fair to TRIP TEASE, he's not winning or losing by far but his last run was different.

Already with 5 wins from 8 starts this horse doesn't look like a horse from the working class, but a bit gifted runner. A 5 time winner like this is already easily better than 90% of the population. Half of the population never win 1.

It's NOT about stopping him from winning. It's about him running with good horses like himself and not stealing lollipops from the athletically challenged. Or to put another way, it's time to run with listed and grd3 horse, go run with the manne. Even good horses should have to earn it. Maybe especially good horses should.

Jack,is that not merging 2 systems?.............Rating of runs but adjusting for number of wins.
Using number of wins to anticipate how good a horse might turn out to be would seem to set a dangerous precedent.
On that basis Futura should probably be a minimum of 108 already.
My problem with the rating of Trip Tease is, the horse is being penalised for being placed well by the trainer...........have to agree entirely with Louis on that example!
It's why it's not an exact science I guess.

Personally i think Jack is spot on....

IMVHO Tripe Tease is a very very decent 1000m horse, and should be competing against better horses by now...and i think he will, hold his own.


The Futura thing is interesting.....MOST people think he is a JULY horse, i certainly do. Yet there is a chance he won't get into the July , NOW had he followed a different campaign (not so risk averse) and had he been pitched in at a higher level we would now not be in doubt....


The MR 67 and 80 that he took make NO sense had he competed in tougher / better races in one of those he would have been higher rated and we would not be hoping he gets into the July

Now the issue might be that he is a late developer, in that case i suppose its tough for the trainer....to get runs into the horse.

Be interesting to see if it does not get into the July what Crawford says......

easy Wrote:

---

> Personally i think Jack is spot on....
>
> IMVHO Tripe Tease is a very very decent 1000m
> horse, and should be competing against better
> horses by now...and i think he will, hold his own.
>
>
>
> The Futura thing is interesting.....MOST people
> think he is a JULY horse, i certainly do. Yet
> there is a chance he won't get into the July , NOW
> had he followed a different campaign (not so risk
> averse) and had he been pitched in at a higher
> level we would now not be in doubt....
>
>
> The MR 67 and 80 that he took make NO sense had he
> competed in tougher / better races in one of those
> he would have been higher rated and we would not
> be hoping he gets into the July
>
> Now the issue might be that he is a late
> developer, in that case i suppose its tough for
> the trainer....to get runs into the horse.
>
> Be interesting to see if it does not get into the
> July what Crawford says......

Watching his last run I think he's still learning to race(Futura) - perhaps that's the reason he was taken through against lower types instead of him learning to lose because of competitive immaturity not a lack of ability

Easy,if you are right and Trip Tease is a "very very decent" horse,why should he not be allowed to win the races whilst earning his proven rating

He has not once benefitted from the capping rule which tends to annoy so much,(labelled as manipulation),so why would we be happy to impose the capping error in reverse (and equally manipulative) by imposing a rating anticipated, but not yet earned!