The PETRUS brief

You have to just love this:

PETRUS, a 5yo Rakeen gelding (half to the famous Forecast) makes his debut over 1400 at Flamingo Park on Aug 31.
He wins by 5.25 L winning very comfortably. The runner up is NAMIB a 4yo rated 62.

PETRUS, receiving the maximum rating of 60 for his 5.25L win.

With this clever assessment of 60, the PETRUS is nominated for an Appy 1600m hcp at the Vaal on Sat Sep 26. Amazingly he touches 5/1 and eventually starts 3/1.
The favourite is the co-owned GIANT'S FOOTSTEPS (MR74) who gets beaten into 2nd by 1.50 L giving PETRUS a whopping 9.5Kg.

Now the Handicapper (smarting somewhat? at the 'everything has a fair chance in a hcp") rates PETRUS 68 for his second win, some 4 points more than the 'unofficial' Maiden win rating. Why was the unofficial rating only 64 when it beat a 62 by 5.25 lengths you might ask? Well, another Kimberley quirk seems to be that one halves the winning distance. So what should have been say 74, is 64 but actually 60.

Peter Miller takes one look at the new 68, and objects
And wins (quite rightly if you follow the rules), and so PETRUS is the 64 he was (not really) in the beginning.

Now given that merit ratings are just figures given to horses to fairly allocate weights should the horse opt to run in an event structured as a HANDICAP, one has to wonder exactly which idiot thought of capping a rating? Is it to have an unfair advantage in a handicap race, and contradict the very essence of what a handicap is?

It's unbelievable that the NHRA let these arbitrary rules beat them, when their own rulebook defines a handicap as:
47.4.2 a handicap, which shall be a RACE in which the weights to be carried by the
HORSES are allocated by the handicapper for the purpose of equalising
their chances of winning.

Perhaps Vee Moodley can comment how they let these rules sneak in, where one rule contradicts another?

Love posts like this,just wish i started punting by form earlier.

Jack,you are absolutely correct,but for selfish reasons,these rule anomolies are great for the dilligent form studiers/handicappers cos they create opportunities to back well handicapped horses,and god knows,those are few and far between.
I must say that ,in an industry rife with incompetence,I think that the handicapping is an area that is generally well managed...the only "iffy" areas,as a generalisation,being
1)when rules dictate (as above)
2)IMO eastern cape may be a bit overrated compared to rest of country
3)I think that maidens,as a group,are also generally overrated as most do not run
close to their rating next time out &/or when in open company(there are
obviously exceptions)

Question..
IS my theory correct?

with trainers picking races and courses for horses, can MR still be considered for punting reasons..

clever trainers can get his horse into a race with less 10 MR, while not so clever trainers can get his horse into the same race at plus 10 MR..

MR seem to be there....... to be manipulted...
hence most MR's are not true..................
hence MR should be scrapped...................it's not true in any case...

hence MR should not be considered at all..as it blinds the punter..
average time recorded over the distance, irrespective of weight carried is a more true reflection of the horse's ability..????

The clever punter can turn the MR system to his advantage, exactly as Rob Faux pointed out. So can a clever trainer. There are anomalies in the system which are unloved by purists but which undoubtedly can quite often be converted to $$$ if understood properly.

Andrewwest doesn't have a clue about MR.
MR works.
Average time doesn't = just think about moveable false rail - times are meaninglesss.

Type of tracks, left hand bends, right hand bends, short run ins, long run ins, run ins with inclines, run ins going downhill, soft going, heavy going, sand tracks, headwind, tailwind. Time won't work.

Not forgetting pace, bubby. Sectional timing would be infinitely more useful than just the winner's time.

Karl writes...

...Andrewest doesn't have a clue about MR....

I agree..

only understand

1. draw................Vaal sand + Turfontein inside track + greyville
2. weight..............1600meters and up
3. time................tells a story of its own
4. athletic ability....how big was the field

so, for a guy that is clueless on merit rating..how would one explain my success, given that I also said this :

herewith a few lessons..free of charge..been punting for 29 years..

Lesson 1 - dont listen to trainers
Lesson 2 - dont listen to jockeys
Lesson 3 - dont listen to USO
Lesson 4 - dont listen to tipsters

Lesson 5 - pick your own selections from using your own selection model
Lesson 6 - when they loose, you can fix your own selection model..


CALL ME LUCKY....???
OK..

Magiclips,

Once again you are spot on the button!!

Sectional timing is vital for the better understanding of how a horse performes in a race. I really don't see the big deal about letting us have this UNDENIABLY NECCESSARY tool. If you don't believe in timing of a race then don't look at the times!!!!

Give us who try to have a clue the tools we need!!

Merit Ratings are definitely not manipulated, but sometimes a handicapper just has to make a choice in the absence of proof, and wait to see if he is right or wrong. An example would be Oceans Way in PE on Friday.

The handicapper had put the horse up by 10 points from 70 to 80.

Due to a slightly different interpretation of the same facts (the handicapper ignores the appy allowance while I figure weight and gravity are what they are and whether a particular appy needs it or not is beyond me to calculate),
so I increased Oceans Away by 13 points, and therefore had it to win again.

Happily the conversation here may have contributed to the drift from 2/1 to 3/1 late

Even if Oceans Away had got beaten, it's not to say that the new MR was wrong as many factors could contribute to a horse subsequently not running it's (correct) rating.

Perhaps Magic, who sat on the PETRUS objection, has an opinion on the rules:

PETRUS was given a merit rating of 60, irrespective of the merit he showed in his debut. I understand that the maximum rating given to a maiden winner in Kim/Flamingo is a 'nett' 60. (mocking laughter here).

Now IF this is a concession to the state of racing IN Kim/Flamingo, I guess clever people have decided that.

But why would you then allow that concession to be used OUTSIDE of that dominion, after all it does amount to theft and it's just a blatant 'up yours' to the whole game? Or do we "owe" it to our special friends from Kimberly? Isn't it time that merit was applied to merit handicaps...all of it?

---

Clearly it's time for owners of a few horses to get their maiden wins with trainers in Kim, and as soon as they win, ship them back to their centre of choice. This would work especially well for a decent horse that didn't fire as a 3yo who is on the comeback trail. So Charles, if you sitting on something decent, ship it out to PAC, collect MR60, go straight to the bank thereafter

And as a special bonus, if you have a rating of say 75, a maiden win in Kimberly will reset you to 60 (thats 7.5Kg better off and remember to stay in hcps and object if you get punished by more than 4 lbs). Isn't that just a kick in the arse ?

Make use of rules created by people who clearly never considered the implications of their genius. I love this game.