Louis & Karel - talking Merit Ratings

Claiming races only suit owners and trainers imo

Punters hate them

I would like to comment on a few points raised ....

Firstly, personally I don not believe that the system as proposed by LG can work - seems much too complicated to me - but others may of course see it differently

Secondly, the article from SP makes a lot of sense IN THEORY, however I think most will agree that in practice things are not so straight forward - 'guidelines / restrictions' have been placed on the official handicapper leading to inaccurate ratings

Thirdly, I am yet to be convinced (by anything I read on this thread) that applying 'Merit / Ability' is the wrong way to go in determining the weights to be carried in a handicap. If the 'good' 3/4/5 time winners are being unfairly 'penalized' by the application of the current system, we must correct the application (and not throw the baby out with the bathwater)

The problem is 'how do we correct the application of MR' - and imo a very important starting point is to establish certain simple guidelines when giving a first / second / third timer a rating - and this is very important, because as many have stated on here, a 'starting MR' is not always adjusted timely or correctly, so rather try and start off with the most accurate rating.

Ive now also read and re read my China's suggestion. I could not disagree more with Louis on this matter and now so even more.

We were blessed enough to buy Lebeoana which ended up winning 8 races and we got a bit of cash along the way.

I would trade Lebeoana (8 time winner) in ANY DAY and TWICE on Sundays for the following 1 time winners:

www.formgrids.com/subscriber/fgHorseHist...hs=GLIDER%20PILOT,ZA

www.formgrids.com/subscriber/fgHorseHist...=SECRET%20CAPTAIN,ZA

The latter being a case in Point for the very argument. I stand corrected but my mate Goosen would rather have this horse now as a 3 or 4 time winner?????

I disagree completely, he is a 1 time winner and racing properly against his peers.

I salute the owner and trainer. They probably could have "farmed" a race or 2 along the way but he has been well campaigned and I'm sure given them loads of fun. I would have him as a 1 time winner any day ahead of a horse like Lebeoana

@Easy the two horses that you have chosen who are one time winners are both impeccably bred horses. It's no co-incidence then that Secret Captain and Glider Pilot half brothers have both won the Daily News 2000 in their Classic year namely Rabiya and Rabada respectively.

Len Sham wrote: So OTA thinks that we must not cater for plus minus say 70 percent of the horse population because they are mediocre and suit trainers like Ziets ... I say thank the owners / trainers that continue to pay and keep these horses going month in and month out to have a win or place otherwise we will have only top end horses racing each other every week.. the pools in P/e on any day are big and that's mediocre horses racing against each other. Vested interest or not we need these races to help betting volumes.

Len there are none so blind as those that can not see. You should send your CV to Bell Pottinger, they would surely have use for apologists like they have for the Zuma campaign. I am unapologetic in saying that we have too many bad horses and too few paying owners. You praise those owners that pay their bills, and I too salute them. What you fail to praise is the real problem of owners stopping paying for slow horses. If what I read on here and other media is correct, trainers are blighted by bad debts because of non-paying owners. I also know that bad horses go to poor centres on deals and there are no winners. You are from PE. Let me remind you of Arthur Miller. Died penniless. Every second horse in his yard "a deal". The ex champion trainer in the fleapit, Jaap "the trainer" Visser, every second horse "a deal", look how that worked out. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Owners numbers are decimated and continue falling year after year, its not hard to figure out why.

Thank you Louisg for your responses. Its appreciated. Wishing your runner all the best this Saturday at Greyville. I see you have yet another 3yo filly, Bonnie Dawn running. I do hope one of your 3yo fillies can go to the top.

This thread was first created to talk about the merit rating system. We are deviating from the original thread with a whole host of other issues like non paying owners, etc. That does not create healthy debate....

naresh wrote: This thread was first created to talk about the merit rating system. We are deviating from the original thread with a whole host of other issues like non paying owners, etc. That does not create healthy debate....

You correct Naresh

Bob
Could u perhaps post my Handicapping Suggestions again, BUT PLEASE,can you post it slowly, so that Easy can maybe then understand it...

It is the SIMPLEST solution in that the following applies -
1)The current MR system stays exactly as it is.
2)All that changes is that every horse has 3 runs in a category before it is dropped.(up to 3 wins)
3)Once a horse is proven to be below the rating of a 1 , 2 or 3 time winner's category as per this system, it goes back into the current MR system, by being dropped.

Two things will happen, for example -
1) A 1 time winner (filly)who runs third in the Nursery and then fourth in the Alan Robertson will be able to go back to the handicaps as a MR 65. (GREAT for Punters)
2) Consistent horses are not punished. Weaker horses are dropped.

We can now get rid of Novice plates and Graduation plates, which are under subscribed. After 3 wins and 3 further runs, the horse is in the hands of the Handicapper. Very simple. The weaker horses are dropped as per current.

So I do not see any complications to this simple system. What I do see is that the Owners will benefit when they find a good one and the Punters will be able to find the good things more often than now.
Time is money for Owners. Why spread the 3 wins of the good ones over 3 years when it should be achieved in 6 months ?

lg the filly you talk about would be great for its owners but how about the rest of the owners in the race?they have their horse in a handicap which by definition is meant to give every horse an equal chance of winning and this is not the case ..

And why should a filly running 3rd in the Nursery automatically come into the handicaps at 65 - her rating has to depend on whether she was beaten 10 lengths by a filly rated 80 or a length by a filly rated 90

lg why are these novice grad plate races etc so underscribed as you get only given a penalty if you win the race up to 6 pounds and zero if you place even if you run 20 pounds above your rating?if there are so many so called good horses out there and they cant win handicaps because the trainers say their ratings are to high which is a contradiction in itself then surely they should be lining up in plate races