Handicapping Change

[rdytdy 5,343]

Handicapping changes from 1 November

28 October 2016, 10:22 a.m.

At the most recent meeting of the Handicapping Review Group, it was decided the handicappers should have more flexibility to provide weight relief to horses not rated at the top of a particular rating band but are nevertheless the top rated horse and therefore allocated 60kg.

It was the view of the Review Group that this situation has a particularly negative impact on three year olds, mares and maiden winners coming into the Rating 65 grade and finding themselves at the top of the handicap.

This situation arises more common as the season progresses and the three year old allowance reduces.

It was resolved that the simplest solution is to allocate the weight a horse would receive in accordance with the Handicapping template, subject to a minimum top weight of 59kg.

In simple terms, this means a male 4yo and up rating 65 horse will be allocated 60kg in a BM65 race as is currently the case, however, if the highest rated 4 year old and up male happens to be 63, that horse will be allocated 59kg.

In order to implement this change NZTR have amended Standard Regulation 8.13 which now reads as follows:

All Benchmark Rating races are Handicap races in which horses with a handicap rating equivalent to the nominated benchmark, after the application of any applicable age and/or sex allowances, will be allocated 60kg. Horses will receive an additional 0.5kg for each rating point above the nominated benchmark. In the event that the highest rated horse nominated for the race has a rating below the nominated benchmark, the top weight of 60kg will be reduced by 0.5kg for each point below the nominated benchmark, subject to the provision that the top weighted horse must be allocated a minimum of 59kg. In determining the highest rated horse in the race, the handicapper will take into account any relevant age and/or sex allowances. For example, a 76 rated mare would be considered to be rated 72 (as it is entitled to a 2kg sex allowance) for the purpose of determining the highest rated horse in the field.

[Leggy 4,084]

Great. Further advantage the higher rated horses when they already had a significant advantage. And still refer to it as a handicapping system to provide competitive racing? Those that want a system that advantages the best horses (the breeders?) will be loving it.

[Midget 4,489]

Trainers invariably argue for weights to be lowered, and I know this because I was on that committee.

The same trainers will be keen students of the pie warmer and tend to gravitate toward the buffet rather than the library, however, if they did bother to read all the available data they'd find that Leggy is correct, and that as weights are scaled up the higher weights horses obtain a slight mathematical advantage .

 

 

[Leggy 4,084]

Yes, trainers are also guilty as charged as I understand it and the pie warmer and buffet are probably relevant analogies. Goodson, who at least partly understood the issue, reported to me that there was "no appetite" from them to make the necessary changes in the weight scales to create a competitive handicapping system.

They obviously are happy to continue to kill the goose that lays the golden wagering egg that provides the revenue. Sad, really.

[uneasy 497]

What a load of shyte. Goodson who at least PARTLY understood the issue, very correct statement.

Does not matter what system you have, all horses are born the same, it is what you do, often with those with limited ability, that counts, the same applies to athletes, scholars, in fact everything

Leggy please explain your last statement, how are trainers killing wagering?

Personally I believe we should have a weight scale from 53kg (or52) to 60kg that is a 7 or 8 kg spread that may make for more competitive racing in all handicaps

I am a member of the Handicapping Review Committee and welcome any positive suggestions, not just criticsm for the sake of doing so.

[Guest 2Admin2]

Remove the female allowance for a start.

[Leggy 4,084]

51 minutes ago, uneasy said:

Personally I believe we should have a weight scale from 53kg (or52) to 60kg that is a 7 or 8 kg spread that may make for more competitive racing in all handicaps

I am a member of the Handicapping Review Committee and welcome any positive suggestions, not just criticsm for the sake of doing so.

Michael, I completely agree with you. You no doubt saw the analysis we did on this a couple of years ago. A positive suggestion would be the one we made then, which is to apply a 7.5kg weight spread across each 10 rating point band instead of the current 5, maybe in line with what you are suggesting? My feedback at the time from Goodson was that there was no appetite from trainers (or jockeys) for that, which suggested to me that trainers were not interested in creating a more competitive wagering product. Perhaps that was wrong, or perhaps it has changed. The current move though seems to be counter to that. My number is in the Calendar if you wish to discuss that further.

That said, it would perhaps be more transparent if you would share your thoughts and ideas on this in an open forum available to all stakeholders such as Racecafe and explain the rationale for the decision in the headpost and how that could lead to a more competitive wagering product.

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

please explain why a colt/gelding will never carry less than 55kg unless it races out of it's grade?

[Midget 4,489]

Pitty how about you explain why so many horses are not even being bought into the handicap when they perform outside of their grade.

Thanks.....and good luck.....because there's no more compelling evidence of a failed model than that !!!!

Don't go shy on us Pitty, help us understand the model they're using when First Serve and Kinagat can keep winning races and not be brought into the handicap, in other words once you factor in things like sex allowances they're winning without a rehandicap and racing penalty free, well near enough to penalty free.

Is this because you're on the handicapping review committee ?

Thanks.

[uneasy 497]

Thanks Leo

I'll disregard your last pathetic personal comment or maybe I should thank you for giving me so much credibility

Any way my reply

First Serve is a non stakes winning  4 yr old mare who has won 5 races now on rating 90 name me a  higher rated 4 yr non stakes winning mare That has won only 5 races. The 5 point penalty FS got for winning was plenty. Well that's what I tried telling the handicapper

kinagat is a gelding not a mare and has also won only 5 races he is also on a 90 rating. When winning at Riccarton Kinagat 54kg was in receipt of 6.5kg from the top weight The Knight 60.5kg when they next meet in a similar field the diff will only be 4kg The Knight will have 60kg Kinagat will have 56kg. Kinagat does not get mares allowance being a gelding. After all he only beat an average field when winning, the second horse in that race had only won 3 races and hasn't won in 13months but is the winner of $283k Do you still believe that Kinagat was not brought into the handicap he went up from the minimum to 2kg above it the horse that ran second will stay on the minimum and get 2kgs off Kinagat if it is the same field

So hardly getting penalty free racing, even you will agree to that

One must always remember handicappers are allowed an opinion just like you have. Fortunately they limit their opinion to horses not people

 

[Midget 4,489]

Shall I post their records to prove my point Pitty.

When a horse wins an open sprint off a mark below that at which the open grade commences that horse has historically been "bought into the handicap", in other words adjusted to an 86, and then penalized depending on what it beat and with what authority.

Youve often shared the view on Trackside that First Serve is a super mare, but she's winning these superior races, not being bought into the handicap, gets her 2 kilo sex allowance, goes back to the minimum in an open company as a result, so she's effectively had no penalty.

Of course all her opposition are penalized because she's still racing at the bottom of her new grade.

Tell me how that's fair, talk to me about integrity and transparency Michael.

Shall I do Kinagat now ? and if you wish I'll bring up a dozen other examples for you to comment on.

Thanks.

[Huey 2,037]

11 hours ago, uneasy said:

What a load of shyte. Goodson who at least PARTLY understood the issue, very correct statement.

Does not matter what system you have, all horses are born the same, it is what you do, often with those with limited ability, that counts, the same applies to athletes, scholars, in fact everything

Leggy please explain your last statement, how are trainers killing wagering?

Personally I believe we should have a weight scale from 53kg (or52) to 60kg that is a 7 or 8 kg spread that may make for more competitive racing in all handicaps

I am a member of the Handicapping Review Committee and welcome any positive suggestions, not just criticsm for the sake of doing so.

I know this probably doesn't fit in with most peoples ideology of handicapping but anyway...

Has there ever been any thought given to having races for 1 win horses only in the R65 grade or these 4,5 or 6 win horses that drop back in grade to the R65 grade in particular given a penalty based on their wins?

 

[uneasy 497]

I have suggested one win only races Have also suggested rating 60, 70 and 80 grade races at some industry days. If penalties were given for amount of wins then we should revert back to set weights and penalties. The idea of allowing drop backs is to utilise the horse population we have, that is working, as despite falling horse numbers those racing now have more starts due to the system we have. 

Leo

as far as FS goes there is merit in what you say but at the end of the day she is a five winning SI non stakes winning 4 yr old mare. Both my horses are fairly highly rated for horses that have won only 5 races with no Group or Listed wins between them

Why don't you give the handicapper a ring he can explain where they are at in the ratings better than me. His job is to handicap them, mine is to try and win races to do that I have to place horses well. 

I guess by you highlighting these two horses I must be doing something right, THANKS MUCH APPRECIATED

[Midget 4,489]

No point in me ringing the handicapper because I invariably get a mumbled but non compliant response along these lines 

"if they met again tomorrow XXXX would be 2kg better off ".....but the identical field never meets again tomorrow so the argument is facile.

or

"I didn't do that race, GS did and I don't know what he's thinking "

or

" that's how we do it now, we don't worry about the rules, or the official model, or about horses being bought into the handicap, the truth is we've driven so many old horses out of the game that the ratings grades are irrelevant and we've been told to ignore the rules and just blend everything into one now and hope it works...and trust me it will, well it might..I hope ..."

That's pretty standard Pitty, and I have sympathy with the handicapper, but they should tax you and Baker every time you call them, $1 a phone call, and give the proceeds to the Salvation Army.

There'll be no starving or homeless this Christmas. 

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

2 hours ago, Huey said:

 

Has there ever been any thought given to having races for 1 win horses only in the R65 grade or these 4,5 or 6 win horses that drop back in grade to the R65 grade in particular given a penalty based on their wins?

 

classic example today at Awapuni in R65 1200m - 2 last start winners

Rayas last start Maiden winner - won $4375 now rated R63

Mr Darcees Gold last start R65 winner - won $81,535 now rated R62

proves to me that under this rating system that Rayas is rated on potential not what has been achieved.

 

[dock leaf 142]

Interesting thread, the handicapping system makes it very hard to follow form for the average punter. Placement of horses and working the system seems to be more important than the actual training of a horse.

Really like the way Southern Sav has been prepared this campaign. Look out for him in the penalty free Metropolitan next week.

cheers

[Midget 4,489]

It's easy to cheat if the handicapper works "with you & for you", using a broken model, that was written by an unemployed Australian handicapper, and that has no relevance to NZ, particularly when the current system is designed to drive older male horses out of the game.

Seeing as First Serve has been used as an example I'll show you how they cheat the system, and what happens when you're on speed dial to an unqualified handicapper who wasn't even good enough to make an impression as a jumps jockey.

 

So on June 3 she won a R75 race and got 3 points.

She was racing out of the top of the handicap as a 76 so went to 79, but of course she gets 4 points relief for being a mars so she still carries a net 75 in the same race tomorrow, in other words no penalty.

 

Next start she's off a 79 and wins an open sprint easily.

Instead of bringing her into the open company band (starts at 86) then penalizing her they give her only 6 points which leaves her in the 85 grade, less her 4 points for being a female, so she's had no penalty again and would get the minimum in any open sprint next start.

 

Then she runs in another open sprint and trots up again. This time they give her 5 points so she's now a 90.

If they run her in an open company race she gets 4 points relief for being a female so she'll get either half a kilo above the minimum, or if there was a male in the race rated 98 or higher she's get the minimum on a 6kg spread, so no penalty again.

 

I'm telling you now Pitty will run her in the Pegasus the first day, she'll get the minimum, she should win, the bloke who is to handicapping what Trump is to diplomacy and charm will spend quite some time talking to Pitty on the phone, he'll give her a very low penalty, then Pitty will run her in the Stewards off say a 94, she'll get her sex allowance, say then a net 90 rating, and there'll be a male horse like Scapolo in the race and she'll carry the minimum again.

 

That's how you do it. All it requires is a fucked up model being manipulated by a trainer who likes making phone calls, to a handicapper who's not much good at his job.....and whammo....you go through the grades winning whatever without getting a real penalty.

 

Get On !!!! Where's Denis Quirke ? !!!!

[Midget 4,489]

15 minutes ago, Midget said:

It's easy to cheat if the handicapper works "with you & for you", using a broken model, that was written by an unemployed Australian handicapper, and that has no relevance to NZ, particularly when the current system is designed to drive older male horses out of the game.

Seeing as First Serve has been used as an example I'll show you how they cheat the system, and what happens when you're on speed dial to an unqualified handicapper who wasn't even good enough to make an impression as a jumps jockey.

 

So on June 3 she won a R75 race and got 3 points.

She was racing out of the top of the handicap as a 76 so went to 79, but of course she gets 4 points relief for being a mars so she still carries a net 75 in the same race tomorrow, in other words no penalty.

 

Next start she's off a 79 and wins an open sprint easily.

Instead of bringing her into the open company band (starts at 86) then penalizing her they give her only 6 points which leaves her in the 85 grade, less her 4 points for being a female, so she's had no penalty again and would get the minimum in any open sprint next start.

 

Then she runs in another open sprint and trots up again. This time they give her 5 points so she's now a 90.

If they run her in an open company race she gets 4 points relief for being a female so she'll get either half a kilo above the minimum, or if there was a male in the race rated 98 or higher she's get the minimum on a 6kg spread, so no penalty again.

 

I'm telling you now Pitty will run her in the Pegasus the first day, she'll get the minimum, she should win, the bloke who is to handicapping what Trump is to diplomacy and charm will spend quite some time talking to Pitty on the phone, he'll give her a very low penalty, then Pitty will run her in the Stewards off say a 94, she'll get her sex allowance, say then a net 90 rating, and there'll be a male horse like Scapolo in the race and she'll carry the minimum again.

 

That's how you do it. All it requires is a fucked up model being manipulated by a trainer who likes making phone calls, to a handicapper who's not much good at his job.....and whammo....you go through the grades winning whatever without getting a real penalty.

Where it becomes corrupt is that whilst First Serve is not getting a penalty every other horse you race against is, especially males, because they're meeting you on unfair terms every start. That's why all the older males are being forced out of the industry.

Moral of story, get on First Serve.  !!!! Where's Denis Quirke ? !!!!

 

[Turny 1,224]

Not cheating - astute placing by the trainer - congrats not brickbats

[Midget 4,489]

2 minutes ago, turny said:

Not cheating - astute placing by the trainer - congrats not brickbats

Every horse you run against when you're not being penalized is being cheated of a fair opportunity, that's cheating 

[trakdap 390]

6 minutes ago, turny said:

Not cheating - astute placing by the trainer - congrats not brickbats

Its called using the system. But it seems a very bad system. So call it what you will.

 

[barryb 2,064]

3 minutes ago, trakdap said:

Its called using the system. But it seems a very bad system. So call it as you will.

 

Using the system?, phoning and  influencing handicappers if what Midget says is correct is totally unacceptable.

 

[Midget 4,489]

Just now, barryb said:

Using the system?, phoning and using influence handicappers if what Midget says is correct is totally unacceptable.

 

Pitty is not the only one with the handicapper on speed dial so I don't consider that a crime.

Cambridge is hard wired ( using blue & yellow fiber optics), and I've been known to keep in touch too ( with the intelligent handicappers, so that eliminates a few ).

 

[trakdap 390]

1 minute ago, barryb said:

Using the system?, phoning and  influencing handicappers if what Midget says is correct is totally unacceptable.

 

I agree it is unacceptable, but it is still using a system that can be manipulated.

[Midget 4,489]

Let me make this absolutely clear.

There is nothing wrong with anyone ringing the handicapper to discuss ratings.

Where it becomes a problem is if certain individuals get preferential treatment, or certain individuals get unfairly treated.

Many examples exist to suggest this happens.

The second area of concern is when the handicapper is inept, or malleable, and / or acquiesces to the wishes of the complainant, if the complaint has no basis in fact or substance.