I need help

[tim vince 985]

A horse wins 133k and get 7 points and on old horse wins 4.5 k and gets 8 points..is this a good plan to encourage longevity and stay competitive.and to keep owners in the game.

[what a post 811]

No

[frankie 119]

Obviously a crazy situation and indicative of a lot of issues in H R these days - in Chch head office and locally in Auckland 

[JackSprat 947]

Talk about making a simple task difficult! HRNZ are ninja level at screwing things up!

Here's a ratings system that would work 10x better than the current one.

• The minimum rating is 0
• 2yo's start as a rating 10
• 3yo's start as a rating 20
• All older horses start as a rating 30
• One point penalty for each $1k of winning stakemoney - up to a maximum 10 points per win.
• One point penalty for each $2k of 2nd or 3rd placemoney - up to a maximum of 5 points per race. (Will only effect $15k+ races)
• Unpenalised 2nds & 3rds, plus 4th & 5th placings - No change to points.
• 6th, 7th & 8th one point reduction per race.
• 9th and further back two point reduction per race.
• Junior drivers races, or when a junior driver used in an ordinary race - half penalties.
• Amateur drivers races - special handicaps ... because they are friggin special!
• Once you reach 100 points you're Open Class. No further handicaps unless you drop below 100.

No discretion.. All ratings adjustments happen automatically. Still room for discretionary handicaps to be programmed..

There you have it. A total of 10 minutes to think up, and and even less for a complete moron to understand!

[tasman man 11 979]

2 hours ago, tim vince said:

A horse wins 133k and get 7 points and on old horse wins 4.5 k and gets 8 points..is this a good plan to encourage longevity and stay competitive.and to keep owners in the game.

Is there an ombudsman ....to challenge these 'unfair' decisions ?

In recent times I've heard of a few who challenged points increases at the Gallops and got some relief !

[tim vince 985]

I've won a couple but only for a point or 2.i know they have a high point matrix but it's still hard for me to figure u win at Cambridge and get more points than winning at Auckland. I would think the powers at Cambridge would be pushing for lower points for less money.when Auckland stakes go up 40k a meeting in march the disparity will be even more..surely this puts Cambridge at a risk of smaller fields.i would have thought they would be kicking and screaming to get fairer point for winners of less money. 

I have yet to hear a good argument why lower stakes don't get lower points.if u win your golf club twilight tournament u get a few golf balls.if u win a pga tour event a million dollars plus.aint 8t similar. All it means is more exports and lless owners the opposite of the intention of  a rating system.of course we don't have a real rating system.u would also think the Auckland t.c. would be pushing for it.same points at Cambridge makes you uncompetitive at Auckland so impacts on their numbers.

The gap is made bigger with no points for placing it means if u had 10 full races at Cambridge 10 horses go up.80 go down and 40 stay the same.is that what was intended.or when they bought in the rating system did they have any idea what they were doing.u would have to say by the number of adjustments they didn't.

[lamour 673]

3 hours ago, tim vince said:

A horse wins 133k and get 7 points and on old horse wins 4.5 k and gets 8 points..is this a good plan to encourage longevity and stay competitive.and to keep owners in the game.

The rating system is a minor improvement on the old system but doesn’t address the major problem, known in other circles as Peters Principle.  That is that people, or in this case horses, keep getting promoted until they reach their level of incompetence.  The new system is meant to keep like racing against like but is failing in this regard.  If it was working we wouldn’t see so many sales abroad.   

[tim vince 985]

Ha ha well done u explained via Peter's principle what I have been struggling to do.once you reach a level of incompetence hard to go backward why the fark  didn't u apply for ceo job

.

[eljay 1,720]

Does the handicapper have full power in these matters - i.e. could his decision be queried/overturned  by a board member of HRNZ.     

[eljay 1,720]

And also if a trainer/owner didn't agree with the points he given for winning a particular race, could he ask for a review by the JCA 

[tasman man 11 979]

3 hours ago, eljay said:

And also if a trainer/owner didn't agree with the points he given for winning a particular race, could he ask for a review by the JCA 

Like an Ombudsman ,mr Eljay !!!!

Board members should be for Governance and Strategic Planning ,not Operations [ Handicapping]

They set the plan....so can have an influence there.

 

[lamour 673]

5 hours ago, tim vince said:

Ha ha well done u explained via Peter's principle what I have been struggling to do.once you reach a level of incompetence hard to go backward why the fark  didn't u apply for ceo job

.

I’m way too disorganised for that lol.  But when you have a system where you get 8 points for a win and only loose 1 point when you run last, well the maths just don’t work.  I was part owner of a really nice 4 year old mare. We didn’t want to sell, but we were offered really good money and were in a position where we couldn’t race anywhere where she could be competitive.   Stake money wasn’t important, we would have been happy to race in 12k races, but instead had to battle with Dream AboutMe & Co. 

[lamour 673]

This is what I don’t understand. At Nelson today there are  13 pacers with a rating 40 - 44.  Why not card a race with that rating band so you have like racing like?.   They could race for a lower stake and say a 3 point rating if you win.  Instead we have r40 horses in with up to R 57 in one race.  It seems to me someone somewhere is trying awfully hard to make the rating system mirror the previous class system with all the faults included that we were trying to overcome. 

[tim vince 985]

There is an appeal system but 1 or 2 points here and there don't solve the problem.it goes a lot deeper than that.

[lamour 673]

What is the point of having a system where horses can drop to R40 if, when they come to race, they get put in with horses rated up to R50?  Defeats the reason  for the rating system. 

[Hayden Sefonte 42]

You do need help Tim..... Not just on how the rating system works either.

It’s better than the old system, whether it’s good enough is another question. Like the idea of capping horses at 100 as mentioned above. It would mean Turn It Up gets 5 points which is irrelevant given he is already open class. Could have given him 107 points and it would make no difference short term. 

[Nelli 434]

While the intentions of the rating system are good, but not taking into account money won is a major flaw. I agree with a differential needed between Auckland and other NI clubs. I also think place stakes over some level should count. Look at the open class trot tonight at Cambridge. Everybody Knows has had poor form since his last win in Dec 17. His rating has dropped 9 points over 12 months to 105. He is preferentially drawn outside another who also hasn't won since early last season. However, its form has been good, earning $66K since his win. The rating system implies the out of form EK is a 10+ better horse than the other but I'm pretty sure the punters tonight will read the form line far better than the handicapper.

[tim vince 985]

The point is Hayden if the rating system was supposed to encourage longevity and like with like why do we have small fields and programmed races with 20 point bands.