Jump to content
RaceCafe
Sign in to follow this  
TOM(the other Molloy)

How does this work?

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Trump said:

Who ran 2nd?

I was going to tell you to look it up, but instead here it is: Dijon Bleu. 

Tom, it’s simple really. Each horse is re-rated (after the event) to what the handicapper thinks is a fair rating. 

Dijon Blenheim was already highly rated because of her excellent record in the NI. 

Because those around her (in the finish) ran well above where they were previously rated they all had to move up accordingly. 

Tom, I like you, but that was one of the more silly questions asked, as was some of the responses to you, or at least their comments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Insider said:

I was going to tell you to look it up, but instead here it is: Dijon Bleu. 

Tom, it’s simple really. Each horse is re-rated (after the event) to what the handicapper thinks is a fair rating. 

Dijon Blenheim was already highly rated because of her excellent record in the NI. 

Because those around her (in the finish) ran well above where they were previously rated they all had to move up accordingly. 

Tom, I like you, but that was one of the more silly questions asked, as was some of the responses to you, or at least their comments. 

Well Insider why does Prom Queen not drop massively since she was clearly 'outclassed'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, N1MUE said:

Winner (by 4 lengths) is now on 88 points, runner-up on 80 points, 3rd horse on 77 points and 4th horse on 74 points

Seems about right based on the way that race played out.

Well Prom Queen on that basis should be say 65?  If you want to play the know all tell me why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insider said:

I was going to tell you to look it up, but instead here it is: Dijon Bleu. 

Tom, it’s simple really. Each horse is re-rated (after the event) to what the handicapper thinks is a fair rating. 

Dijon Blenheim was already highly rated because of her excellent record in the NI. 

Because those around her (in the finish) ran well above where they were previously rated they all had to move up accordingly. 

Tom, I like you, but that was one of the more silly questions asked, as was some of the responses to you, or at least their comments. 

Come on, I have seem many sillier comments on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

The winner of the 1000 Guineas goes up 17 rating points the third horse 14 points and the fourth horse 11 points.  The second horse stays on the same rating. ??

Bit tough on the 4th horse who picked up miles less money than it would have got for winning a maiden race at the meeting and doesn't even have the bonus of a first three placing in a group race. Still, when you consider the highest rated horse in the 2,000 Guineas came off a win in an $11,000 race at Motukarara strange things can happen in NZ racing, and SI horses tend to be disadvantaged' picking up ratings points rather than stakes money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, We're Doomed said:

Come on, I have seem many sillier comments on here.

I'm waiting for them to come back and explain why Prom Queen's rating didn't drop through the floor WD.  After all they seem to think it fair that horses who ran well got hammered(with one notable exception) so why don't ones who run poorly get enormous benefit ratings wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

If you want to play the know all tell me why not?

Always amused at how you share your opinion on here and if it's contrary to someone else's they will often take it personally and start this sort of nonsense. 

Mate, get over yourself - I was simply responding to your question about the first four placegetters.

Handicappers are on a hiding to nothing - always someone with a contrary view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

Well Prom Queen on that basis should be say 65?  If you want to play the know all tell me why not?

Must be something to do with the name Nimue

A question was posed, you put forward a possible answer and get slagged off for your trouble:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, N1MUE said:

Always amused at how you share your opinion on here and if it's contrary to someone else's they will often take it personally and start this sort of nonsense. 

Mate, get over yourself - I was simply responding to your question about the first four placegetters.

Handicappers are on a hiding to nothing - always someone with a contrary view.

Well come on explain it.  You explained to us that the placegetters were re-rated to reflect their performance in that race so why were the also rans not re-rated to reflect their poor performance?  I haven't taken it personally just asked a question of those who profess to know all about these things.

If you are not ready for a legitimate reaction and question then don't come on here telling us how much you 'know' 

The reality is that in particularly the case of the third and fourth horses the re-rating is a vast over-reaction.  For the same reason that Prom Queen's rating should not be dropped like a stone those two should not have their ratings massively bumped up until they show a consistent ability to meet the standard of the opposition they are facing.

And given that Authentic Paddy and Mime both beat Consensus easily last start how come they are not now above her in the ratings?  Using your logic they should be.  Carnval ought to have sailed past Scapolo in the ratings based on the Stewards too surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hesi said:

Must be something to do with the name Nimue

A question was posed, you put forward a possible answer and get slagged off for your trouble:rolleyes:

Exactly Hesi.

You express a view in a relatively benign sort of way and it's interpreted as telling how much you know.  I actually know bugger all about handicapping - I'll leave that up to the handicapper and the armchair experts like Tom here, but what I believe is that a rating of 74 seems fair for The Sparkle who ran 4th in the 1000 Guineas and 4th in the listed lead up race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hesi said:

Must be something to do with the name Nimue

A question was posed, you put forward a possible answer and get slagged off for your trouble:rolleyes:

He never got slagged off.  He jumped in with an explanation as to why the re rating of those horse was all legitimate then when I asked an equally legitimate question about why the reverse did not apply he went all defensive.  

And he has still not explained why in particular The Lustre and The Sparkle should be bumped up heavily based on one good run yet Prom Queen should not be significantly reduced for what, on the face of it, was a poor effort(I personally believe she had a lot of excuses  and hoped she would win the race for Kenny but maybe the other two got perfect runs and all the breaks - I haven't studied the race and do not intend to).

The second last paragraph of my previous post sums the situation up and don't I remember Berri(I think so - forgive me if I am wrong) bemoaning the quality of this years 1000 Guineas field a couple or weeks back.  Even more reason not to over react to the result.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insider said:

I was going to tell you to look it up, but instead here it is: Dijon Bleu. 

Tom, it’s simple really. Each horse is re-rated (after the event) to what the handicapper thinks is a fair rating. 

Dijon Blenheim was already highly rated because of her excellent record in the NI. 

Because those around her (in the finish) ran well above where they were previously rated they all had to move up accordingly. 

Tom, I like you, but that was one of the more silly questions asked, as was some of the responses to you, or at least their comments. 

Then if that's you're opinion, here's a question for you. The 2nd horse gets no increase in rating but if it had "won", what rating increase (points) would it have got (in your opinion) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pam Robson said:

Just ask Pitty,  he can explain  much more eloquently than me.

He understands the ratings system well - and no,  I'm not poking the borax.

It works to a system, it isn't hard to understand and it baffles me how few people get it.

 

Thats a good point.  Compare Savvy Coup who won two at the Cup Meeting and probably similar if not better money to the two Dennis  Bros horses but ends up well below them in the ratings. Admittedly one of the two now has black type but Savvy Coup's rating is significantly lower.  Pitty is a master at it all right.

Anyway while they run in set weight three year old races I guess it is irrelevant but when they step out at four the double whammy of dealing with older horses and higher weights might well come home to roost.

Bottom line is it is easy to go up the ratings and bloody hard to go back down.  There is something not quite fair in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pam Robson said:

Just ask Pitty,  he can explain  much more eloquently than me.

He understands the ratings system well - and no,  I'm not poking the borax.

It works to a system, it isn't hard to understand and it baffles me how few people get it.

 

Oh do fuck off FFS.

I was on the handicapping review committee, and I still couldn’t understand their interpretation and implementation of it.

I absolutely understand the model, and I’m really bright, but when you ask them to explain case A or B they can’t, and they have no idea.

I’m the one who introduced the handicapping review panel, to keep the scum honest, that panel is basically just Bruce Sherwin, and he’s very bright too, but we still have to endure this warped corruption whereby certain trainers horses are treated differently ( Son Of Maher, was I corect there ? ) and the thick fuckwit calling the shots in Petone still does not and can not understand when a horse is out of the handicap or understand how to bring a winner into the handicap.

What is more the morons masquerading as his bosses don’t have a fucking clue either and that’s why a shithead like Quirke, the bent accountant, can pretend to be a handicapper and in doing so commit major transgressions and get away with it, and why a very very average immigrant jumps jockey who couldn’t ride, and who has the IQ of a root vegetable, is pretending to be a handicapper now, and why all the aged geldings are being forced out of the game, at the industries expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×