why punish the losers mr Handicapper

Federico wrote: Point Taken.
To prevent engaging in debate I will just say that I am in agreement with Louis and Ken and the bulk of trainers that daily express there concerns around this system

Sorry if I came across abruptly!

Just imo the system works fine

Because my mate Louis and many many others would rather own/train a 30 time winner than

a maiden that ran

2nd in its debut
2nd in the Sa Nursery
2nd in the Dingaans
2nd in the Queens Plate
2nd in the Met
3rd in the July
2nd in the summer cup
2nd in the Al Fahidi Fort
2nd in the Breeders Cup Turf

and retires a maiden but under their system is rated

0

or the real world

134

The whole thing is imperfect. Everything is vague, horses are not exact, riders make mistakes of judgement and pace, the luck of the draw, etc etc.

But we already decided to be "unfair" by having a handicap at all. But when I was introduced to the game Millard would have these horses from USA and ARG with bottomless ability, he was probably a genius at training as well, and he would win a maiden, novice, graduation and progress all odds on. He would then enter the handicap system with a 4x winner receiving weight and proceed to commit murder for his owners.

The LGs of that time knew they may as well stay in the box.

Now the system doesn't punish the losers as the subject line says. It in fact punishes "good" horses systematically. You now need a very good horse to win a good few races. I'm too tired to look it up and prove it now.

So if you want to debate this, it's best to actually have a few facts rather than just opinions which as we know is like an arsehole.

On the day that the handicapping changed, only 10% of racing was affected, although all horses got a rating.

Here is the simple truth, in every plated race there is one horse that will be " best in at the weights". Therefore everything else would have been better off if it had been a handicap. That is why Graduation Plates often have the runners up in group races in the field. That is why some Progress Plates could be black type.

All these problems have solutions if the people who have the facts get around a table and apply their minds with a systems analyst. It's not rocket science, it's involved arithmetic.

Trainers bitching about individual horses who have sometimes been caught out by their own consistency do not prove or disprove a complicated system, they are just exceptions.

The day we go back to race figures the big yards with depth will come alive and the rich people will be unleashed like never before. A small trainer will a poorly bred but useful runner still had a chance 20 years ago, I can name reams of horses. Nowadays grade 1 races are almost totally dominated by stallions in the top 5 and imports. I remember cheap and home bred grade 1 winners. Those days are over.

I'd like to see race figures come back just to watch the chaos reign. Let's get them back, someone put it up at the next NHA annual meeting. I dare you. Common Louie.

Frodo wrote: OTA, are you seriously suggesting that if Horse A beats Horse B at level weights by a short-head and Horse C beats Horse B at level weights by 8 lengths, then Horse A and Horse C are of the same ability ?

Frodo you just don't get it. I am not saying that they are the same ability at all, ability does not come into the picture when horses are rated in the Race Figure system. What I am saying here, is when horse C runs against horse A, in theory, I have my banker for the day depending what the rest of the field looks like, and this is what punters are looking for.

Another point I have is subjectivity. Here we have a system, particularly with younger horses and horses with unexposed form, where the handicapper gives a rating on what he THINKS a horse ran to. Utter rubbish and this has definitely punished those horses who win early.

easy wrote: Because my mate Louis and many many others would rather own/train a 30 time winner than

a maiden that ran

2nd in its debut
2nd in the Sa Nursery
2nd in the Dingaans
2nd in the Queens Plate
2nd in the Met
3rd in the July
2nd in the summer cup
2nd in the Al Fahidi Fort
2nd in the Breeders Cup Turf

and retires a maiden but under their system is rated

0

or the real world

134

Ludicrous example that in the real world can not exist. Tell me something Easy, have you never had a good horse get handicapped out of contention? How did it feel when that sand horse of yours in the groot gat got beat by horses because of the weight? Horses you beat by double figures 4 wins back now beating you. Is this what we believe is the answer?

Easy show me where in life, in any avenue, where in a competitive environment, all participants are handicapped equally. The nature of a competition is such that the best athlete should win. Apply this stupid format to nature and we would all be vegans.

Bob Brogan wrote:

Federico wrote: Well said Ken,
I am surprised that this subject would ever raise debate. The undeniable truth is that a thorough that does not win should not be penalised. This is a disservice to the horse, the trainer and the owner.

If you don’t want to be penalised, don’t run in handicaps

Bob I speak under correction but I seem to recall that when MR was introduced, the agreement was that handicaps and plate races would be provided on a roughly 50/50 basis. So outside of maidens we would have equal amount of races for trainers to aim their horses at. Now if you look at the current program, MR handicaps count for 95% of the program because the operators want fields to be a certain size for turnover purposes. So your statement is 100% in theory. In practice you could wait months between Conditions races to race your horse again.

Under this system, its no wonder that trainers run their horses no good and I for one, can not blame them for doing so. The problem I have is those trainers can not make the declaration that the horse is not trying and punters are the inevitable losers.

Over the Air wrote:

Frodo wrote: OTA, are you seriously suggesting that if Horse A beats Horse B at level weights by a short-head and Horse C beats Horse B at level weights by 8 lengths, then Horse A and Horse C are of the same ability ?

Frodo you just don't get it. I am not saying that they are the same ability at all, ability does not come into the picture when horses are rated in the Race Figure system. What I am saying here, is when horse C runs against horse A, in theory, I have my banker for the day depending what the rest of the field looks like, and this is what punters are looking for.

Another point I have is subjectivity. Here we have a system, particularly with younger horses and horses with unexposed form, where the handicapper gives a rating on what he THINKS a horse ran to. Utter rubbish and this has definitely punished those horses who win early.

Now I 'get' it, it is all about the punter, bugger the horse and the owner. But I do agree that it is not easy rating younger horses, but having an educated guess about the ability of Horse A vs Horse C has to be better than giving them the same race figure

I disagree that "it has to be better" - why? Frodo I unashamedly view this from a punters perspective. Here's an interesting one - from a breeding point of view whats more valuable, an eight time winner highest MR 75, or a 1 time winner highest MR 90. For the sake of this argument lets say they are similarly bred in terms of perceived commercial breeding value.

Over the Air wrote: I disagree that "it has to be better" - why? Frodo I unashamedly view this from a punters perspective. Here's an interesting one - from a breeding point of view whats more valuable, an eight time winner highest MR 75, or a 1 time winner highest MR 90. For the sake of this argument lets say they are similarly bred in terms of perceived commercial breeding value.

the forward thinking lionel cohen actually had in his sales catalogue the highest merit ratings achieved by the dam and unfortunately this was done away with.the highest NET rating achieved by the offspring and dam should be in the sales catalogue ...

Ludicrous example that in the real world can not exist.

It might be impossible to exist BUT without handicapping there is no other system to RATE this situation



Tell me something Easy, have you never had a good horse get handicapped out of contention? How did it feel when that sand horse of yours in the groot gat got beat by horses because of the weight?

Why assume weight, maybe he had an off day, never ate up, stood on a stone.

Horses you beat by double figures 4 wins back now beating you. Is this what we believe is the answer?

As above they are not machines so anything could have happened

Easy show me where in life, in any avenue, where in a competitive environment, all participants are handicapped equally.

Horse racing hopefully



The nature of a competition is such that the best athlete should win. Apply this stupid format to nature and we would all be vegans.

Correct BUT WE are not taking Usain Bolt and letting him pomp Zola Bud in order to create and middle distance speedster. In horse racing we need to rate them so that we can judge what is best based on what they beat , by how far and in what time. So we have to have a system that says that

Lebeoana is handicapped correctly at 101 on the sand
and
Lebeoana is handicapped correctly at 59 on the grass

That allows many things to develop from that point including betting, breeding and most importantly it creates a hierarchy on both surfaces.

easy and 95 percent of other owners will only own very few leboanas but plenty more squibs in their lifetime so why cant his squibs also have the oppurtunity of winning multiple races running against other squibs for obviously a lot less prize money leboana raced for ...

introduce the race figure system and you can retire 90 percent of horses on the spot plus those owners will no longer want to own and the whole industry will go belly up ...lets see the likes of haddington take on other 3 time winners with classic form of level weights he will finish a furlong last