so a punter who does not use MR looks at his paper - He sees My Friend Lee 5 wins in 8 months (rated 78 - brilliant placing by Lucky) and Safe Harbour 3 wins in a year- not in the first 4 last 2 (rated 108) - If both are say in the Classic at levels he deserves to lose his money if he relies on wins and not on MR and backs My Friend Lee...
Don wrote: Magi are you referring to the NHRA 'ratings'? or true merit ratings as outlined by Mr Faull above?
NHRA ratings. My term 'poppy cock' was used lightly, but I honestly believe in form study there are far more diversecreasons y a horse may or may not be competitive. If every horse in the race is 100% fit, 100% C&D suited, jockeys of equal calibre and the pace is run to suit EVERY runner (yeah right) ......then MR would be a useful tool.
mr hawaii wrote: so a punter who does not use MR looks at his paper - He sees My Friend Lee 5 wins in 8 months (rated 78 - brilliant placing by Lucky) and Safe Harbour 3 wins in a year- not in the first 4 last 2 (rated 108) - If both are say in the Classic at levels he deserves to lose his money if he relies on wins and on MR and backs My Friend Lee...
Punters using form sheets or newspaper cannot be described as ' form studiers' ...so MR surely does not apply to them. Just a thought
I had a person ask me to explain the MR system to them (not a punter or horsie person) and after about half an hour of me in my best layman's terms trying to explain the system he turned to me and asked. Why would any system penalize the best horse ? I said to level the playing fields and to make it fair. He asked me, in what other sport do you penalize the best so that the "crap" would be equal ? I said golf, to which he replied only in the amateur ranks. Makes one think. I am a firm believer in the MR system has contributed to killing the "hero horse" in SA combined with the pathetic stakes we race for.
Like someone previously said, it will be hard to convince the nay sayers that merit ratings work and conversely, to persuade a believer in merits ratings, that it is a load of hog-wash.
Like all things in life, even horses do not have the same or equal ability, some are better than others. Personally I think they work and have been a benchmark in the racing industry for a long period of time.
Like someone once said, if you have some sort of understanding of how merit ratings work, either the handicapper has got it wrong or the market is wrong, either way useful betting opportunities arise.
Guessing has never been widely acclaimed as a good gambling strategy.
Well said Bayern it's great for exactly that!. When studying everything and then identifying which side you think has got it wrong presents good punting opportunity or not. Just my opinion.
MR is probably not the most accurate term. It more of. "Handicappers Guide" when trying to weight horses running in a field.
It's also not ever supposed to be anything like the be all and end all as the handicappers job is to try give every horse a chance, not actually make them finish in a straight line, which is impossible.
Whilst I agree with MR Faul in many respects, every argument I read about MR is based on a few individual discrepancies, or deals with the top horses in features. The problem for the handicappers is they have to have some system that they can use for the whole racing population racing in varied conditions and marked difference in abilities. I constantly disagree with the MR but that's what helps me win some bets when I'm sure they have got it wrong.
The other arguments that usually come up are usually biased towards someone's opinion on a performance...I've a trainer wanting less penalty, or the reverse....a fan insist in a horse is World Class . The nature of the game is that you can dredge up the particular evidence to support either side if you so wish.
Even The articles author uses "Let Legal Eagles MR be 123..." As a starting point for the rest of an argument ....
