Computaform sprint Merit ratings 8 May 2018

Zietsman Oosthuizen wrote: No ...no wfa penalty ....

so the fact that he was racing under sufferance he doesnt firstly pick up those points considering he ran in the first 5?

Pirates we on the same page ....Wish all the big shots would leave this horse alone and continue worrying about there own shit .We are very Lucky to have such a Top horse in our Yard .We took our chances and think it was worth it .we have spoken to Roger Smith and although we would rather not have got those points we understand why
Thanks Mark

Now then tell me how only 1 horse ran to his rating he had coming into this race . ???? On the ratings given after race only rock valley ran to his rating ....out of 16 horses with first 12 horses finishing within 5 L?????? Give me a break. If any horse was suppose to be linehorse it surely is Queen Laurie and that confirms that 6 horses in the first 12 ran within 2 points of their ratings coming into the race.

Roger is a nice guy and matthew is topclass and lennon also great but if this was my horse i will go object . Too many wrongs doesnt make a right and its horses with exposed form and with most at their correct ratings before the race.
I dont know much but one thing i know is how handicapping works...

Did only 1 horse ran to his rating or did 6 of them ran to their rating???

Asking for a friend

pirates wrote:

Zietsman Oosthuizen wrote: No ...no wfa penalty ....

so the fact that he was racing under sufferance he doesnt firstly pick up those points considering he ran in the first 5?

Depending who you use as linehorse .....if rock valley is used only one out of 16 horses ran to/or within 2 points of their rating!!!!!!!! First grade 1 race ever that this happened with 12 horses finishing within 5l of the winner.

Queen lawrie(4th place) got 5 points sex allowance that make her running from a 100 rating and not a 95 .... go do the handicapping and you will find that the 2nd 3rd 4th 8th 10th and 11th placed horses ran within 2 points of the ratings they earned before the race.

Enough said. If it was my horse i will fight and probably win .thats how strong i feel about these ratings given .

For what it's worth, I agree with Ziets ..... this is not the easiest race to rate, but imo it makes most sense to assume that in order to arrive at the most accurate ratings, one should as a starting point assume that as many as possible horses ran close to their rating, and not that one 'line horse' ran to his rating and all the others need adjustments,

Yip


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Frodo wrote: For what it's worth, I agree with Ziets ..... this is not the easiest race to rate, but imo it makes most sense to assume that in order to arrive at the most accurate ratings, one should as a starting point assume that as many as possible horses ran close to their rating, and not that one 'line horse' ran to his rating and all the others need adjustments,

That makes sense in context of this particular race. However, you could then argue that in many other sprint races that logic was not applied, resulting in possibly unfair penalties.

I am not debating the ratings per se for this race but overall view is:
Attenborough--run number of times against Sgt Hardy/Bishops Bounty. Never been too much between all 3 at Lvl weights but overall SgT Hardy on top. Attenborough 1.5 to 2.25 L off Sgt H in recent Cape races which is probably been the consistent measure of the 2 .
Attenborough now wins G1 confirming his ability but the other 2 mentioned run below form.
Attenbourough rated 114 vs 117 BB and 123 Sgt Hardy....
That fine for the context of the Computaform but any lower rating for Attenbourough for the G1 win would seem unreasonable in context of the sprint ratings overall because a 4.5kg difference
Between SgT H and Attenborough seems reasonable on almost all form between the 2 but more than that does not. So at least Attenboroughs rating looks fair , both overall and in context of the race

Just my thoughts

On a related subject, I see the ratings for the Champion Challenge were adjusted, with Coral Fever now at 118 (with the effect that all the prospective weights for the July will go 1 kg) and Abashiri at 115 - not sure I follow the reasoning, but it's related to Sylvan Star havong received a sex allowance - surely imo opinion a rating is a rating so you can't now say she should for the purposes of this race be 103, but for other races 108

On SP they are re; thinking the race

Dave Scott wrote: On SP they are re; thinking the race

Already done as per Tabonline

I thought sex allowances were built into the rating?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mac wrote: I thought sex allowances were built into the rating?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree - a rating is a rating - imo you cant have a filly running to one rating if she takes on males, but another if she takes on her own sex - any way I'm open to argument