Charles Faul on MR

Tell me ONE person who read this start to finish. It's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

heinrich wrote: I've said this before and will say it again....MR ratings is all balls!!!! The majority of the racing public is form studiers who rely on MR as the corner stone of their analysis...hence the majority of punters are and will always be on the losing end!!! Having said that,it was nice to read what Mr Faul is saying...and IF he is correct,I guess it can be used to get certain results...but never make it the holy grail.

If merit ratings is all .... How do you determine which horses are Grade 1 quality and at the lower end of the spectrum ? Without a rating you do be in the dark!!!! So how do you determine which horse is better without a rating ?

And another thing majority of the racing public are NOT form studiers, majority are using newspaper pullouts...

There are no MR's printed in the Freetabsheet (oh my)

yasnaya wrote: Tell me ONE person who read this start to finish. It's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

I read it a few times (from start to finish) - couldn't find any 'mumbo jumbo'

Mac wrote: There are no MR's printed in the Freetabsheet (oh my)

So we have established that the 'majority of punters' use either the newspaper or the 'free tab sheet' - no MR shown anywhere on these publications - so then no surprise that the 'majority of punters' are losers .... not saying that by using MR exclusively one will automatically become a winner (and I don't claim to be one) - but using MR in form study certainly gives one an advantage over the 'majority'

naresh wrote:

heinrich wrote: I've said this before and will say it again....MR ratings is all balls!!!! The majority of the racing public is form studiers who rely on MR as the corner stone of their analysis...hence the majority of punters are and will always be on the losing end!!! Having said that,it was nice to read what Mr Faul is saying...and IF he is correct,I guess it can be used to get certain results...but never make it the holy grail.

If merit ratings is all .... How do you determine which horses are Grade 1 quality and at the lower end of the spectrum ? Without a rating you do be in the dark!!!! So how do you determine which horse is better without a rating ?

And another thing majority of the racing public are NOT form studiers, majority are using newspaper pullouts...

I'm at my tote a few times a week. There's only 3 guys in there that buys Sporting post and 2 who buys computaform.You are very correct...most use newspapers. When I mentioned majority...and when I talk abt 'majority' I actually mean(t) those of us who want to make real money from racing...or at least those trying to win. As far as indicated which horses are gradd quality ect....for those I normally use my own eyes!!! Also,I never said racing should be banished but its crap and should not be used as anyone's cornerstone.

@Frodo...I'm sure all those like Vee moodley and co would agree with you.but that advantage,if any will be very small...but than again,in this business we need all the leverage we can get.

Frodo wrote:

yasnaya wrote: Tell me ONE person who read this start to finish. It's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

I read it a few times (from start to finish) - couldn't find any 'mumbo jumbo'

My question would be to our knowledgeable posters that do fully understand the MR system do u feel more confident punting a horse to a normal punter (check odds, study a bit form , get info, like the looks etc)

for sure. Horses are quite reliable in their performances and therefore the ratings are a reliable benchmark. But it does require committed study...

Not often I agree with Heinrich, but I have been beating this tired old drum for years now. MR's are a load of poppycock and should be treated as such, or as a guide similar to SP's rating, Computaform ratings etc.

Magi are you referring to the NHRA 'ratings'? or true merit ratings as outlined by Mr Faull above?

In the 1996 July, London News, won the July a handicap race beating the likes of National Emblem, Sleek Machine, Teal and Counter Action. A month later London News could not beat none of them in the Weight For Age Champion Stakes. On Ratings and WFA terms one could have deduced, London News could have been beaten.

I don't think anyone understands MR 'fully' (and the article by Mr Faull illustrates that - the point about the WFA scale for example)

Even Heinrich agrees that using MR in form study could be advantageous (we just differ on the degree of the advantage); Magi says they are 'poppy-cock', but also to be used 'as a guide' - so which is it ?

Imo MR (or the SP's AR) in theory is the only way to accurately establish ability - and if applied correctly (which in SA we are not) is the only way to go to establish handicaps

But arguing about MR is pretty much like arguing capitalism vs communism - some swear by one or the other, others say it either (or both) is poppy-cock - and neither camp will ever convince the other