JackSprat

Is this how a rating system should work?

41 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Toblerone said:

Is this is a pisstake? Why would maidens be in a R40-50 race?
They would be in an M40-50 race.

Please, do not comment, or bag the system, if you have no fkn idea what you are whinging about.

Feel free to re-read the original post. Try your best to get the gist of it, and then have another crack at an informed response.

Clue: The post took aim the stupidity of ranking multiple race winners lower than unraced maidens, and how such a system is doomed to fail. The race in question was on at the time and merely used for illustration purposes. If you needed a better example I'm sure your "superior knowledge of the ratings system" will have no problem finding plenty of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the age old problem you have always had in harness racing.  Other than the Purden lot, trainers seem to hate winning races as they are petrified at the thought of their horses having to race in a higher grade. The winner of a harness race now only gets 50% of the stake, with money taken off the winners and placegetters to subsidise the also rans. In a $10,000 race at Addington for instance the second horse only gets $1,400; years ago they would have got $2,000. Down in deepest darkest Southland maidens race for more than winners. The rating system encourages horses to miss a place altogether if they aren't a winning chance. How a winner can be rated lower than a maiden is lunacy. You could learn something from the gallops there. The system is also very confusing to the public, but no one seems to care about that.

You certainly need to allow horses to be competitive as you need decent size fields to encourage betting and to keep owners in the game, but this shouldn't be at the expense of a suitable and sensible class structure that encourages horses to flow through the grades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove discretion and it ain't a rating system.we can get rid of the handicappers.a points system can be run by an 8 year old.save some dosh but bad idea. Might as well go back to the old system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Toblerone said:

I disagree. What is needed is an extra 50 horses in the 60-80 bracket.

The north island need more horses ,whatever the ratings. Each is just as important as each other.  

All these people decrying the current handicapping system need to point to facts and figures to back up their arguments if they are to be taken seriously.

Have field sizes increased, have starts per horse increased   Have the number of trainers not renewing their licences continued at similar rates to previous years,or has the new handicapping system helped slow down the drop off in participation. Is the  return to the club, after taking into account stakes paid and turnover,, greater for the full field rating 40-50 races compared to say the rating 90 and over races like the 7 horse field they have at addington on Saturday. 

Is the reason no one points to any of the above when making their statements because, if  the figures were produced ,they would not support their argument,o r do they just not know?

Why aren't those who designed the current handicapping system silencing the detractors with facts and figures.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that discretion is a useful tool - just as discretionary hcps were back in the old class days. I follow the open class trotter Everybody Knows who last won in 2017. Since the start of 2018,  he's had just two 3rds but only dropped from R112 to R96 in 16 months. That is mainly due to an extra 8 discretionary points being deducted in the few times he didn't get at least 5th.  His form shows he's still not paying his way but at least the handicappers are  doing their job in trying to keep the horse (and his owners) in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this whilst reading the ODT. Is it just me or are we going round in circles and never achieving what handicapping is about- fairness to all participants  in Ratings based races.

Harness racing trainers from across New Zealand have slammed the country's handicapping system, and claim it has been ruining the careers of young horses.

 

Mark Jones, Phil Williamson, Mark Purdon and John Price all told the Otago Daily Times (ODT) the careers of young horses were being hindered because the current handicapping system favours multiple race-winning, older horses too much.

Williamson said that extra opportunities to race those older horses came at the expense of developing young stock.

"The older stock can keep racing, but it is probably at the expense of the younger horses coming through."

The Oamaru trotting ace said there were only two options to protect young horses from racing battle-hardened horses that have won multiple races.

"The young horses - the 2 and 3yr-olds - it is hard to race them in this system.

"Because if you win a race, [the horse is] put in to such a tough rating that you can't race them.

"It's either sell them or you can't race.

"A champion can probably overcome it, it probably won't hurt them, because they are just star horses.

"But for the most part, most of the young horses [that] come out at 2 and 3, if they get in the rating system past a maiden, it is just crazy tough."

 

Mark Purdon
Mark Purdon

Purdon knows plenty about training champions, and that means his horses are rated much differently to the bulk of New Zealand trainers and those who spoke to the ODT on this issue.

 

Despite that, he still had the same concerns his training counterparts did.

Purdon has been so appalled by the state of the current ratings system he nominated Princess Tiffany for the Easter Cup to demonstrate how it treated young horses.

"She has won two races as a 3yr-old filly, and her assessment dictated that she had to race in the Easter Cup.

"That is how appalling the system is.

"It is not bad, it is actually appalling.

"You would wonder how many brains they have got to come up with a system like that where you really hurt young horses."

Purdon agreed with his training colleagues and said the current structure of the rating system effectively promoted the sale of young horses overseas.

Jones said the lack of pathways for up-and-coming horses to learn their trade against like competitors has developed into a sad situation for harness racing.

"When I go to the races now, probably the happiest person I see is the person that has run second in the maiden trot.

"The most disappointed one is the winner, because they think `where the hell do I go now?'.

"They are actually disappointed to win a race that and that is not the way it should be.

"If you have a one-win trotter rated 55, you could be racing horses that have won seven or eight races."

Williamson said that it was clearly a fault of the system when so many young horses become instantly uncompetitive after winning their maiden.

"A horse that wins a maiden race, it then becomes non-competitive at its next start, which I think is not a good thing.

"If you are in winning form you should be able to go to your next start and be competitive, but you are not.

"The owners get a win and think their horses are going great, but I have to say to them hold on, next week if we race we won't be competitive."

Jones said the handicapping of 2yr-olds was so dire that he was advising owners to turn their horses out.

"I have 2-yr-olds now that I am telling my owners to turn them out, because if they win a race they are not going to be racing one-win races.

"I could have an average 2yr-old win an average maiden race and it would be rated higher than a horse that had won eight races.

"Why would you win a race at 2? If you do, you are buggered now.

"I am for a system that caters for lesser horses, because we have all got one of them."

Price said that running a horse down the track so that it could find a rating where it could be competitive was not an option every trainer or owner wants to take.

"The handicapping sub-committee say just race your horse until it drops back to where it is competitive.

"A lot of trainers and owners don't want to do that - you don't want to line up six or seven times to get it back to where it is competitive."

Williamson said running horses until they find a competitive rating goes against what he stands for as a trainer.

That meant horses were kept at home, instead of being out and racing.

"I like to go out there and win and win every race.

"It is hard enough to do, but the aim has got to be there, and the mindset has got to be we have got to be the best we can be.

"If you start driving those young ones that have only had two or three starts in that aggressive manner against horses that have had 60 starts, you are going to come undone."

Each of the trainers that spoke to the ODT said older, experienced horses coming down the ratings created a log jam in the 40-60 rating bracket.

Jones said that has been made worse by the removal of points for placings.

Penalising runners for running placing is considered a vital part of ratings-based handicapping systems used in horse racing codes across the world.

"Our system was designed to get placings," Jones said.

"But at the moment one is going up, four are staying the same and the rest are going down.

"I don't like a system that supports mediocrity and has an incentive to get beat, because it still costs owners money.

"I think the system they have bought on encourages you to be a hobby trainer and have a full time job.

"Us professional trainers are trying to get young horses up and get owners returns, but you can't even do that for them now."

Harness Racing New Zealand chief executive Peter Jensen told the ODT earlier this month that office was open to changing the ratings-based handicapping system for the betterment of the industry.

Jensen said he was aware of concerns trainers from across New Zealand had about the treatment of young and up-and-coming horses under the handicapping system.

The chief executive said improvements to the ratings system that allowed as many horses to race competitively was something to strive for.

"There is a process for reviewing the ratings system, so I don't think it is in a situation ... for good.

"We should be looking at where the opportunities are to continue to improve it.

"In my mind, the ratings system should be, as much as possible, about creating opportunities for horses to race.

"But also, creating even betting fields."

Jensen said concerns trainers and drivers had about the current system could be raised through their representation on the handicapping sub-committee.

The chief executive said any changes to the ratings system could not sacrifice one of its key aims - to provide even betting fields.

"If the ratings system can assist that, that makes good sense, as long as we are creating even betting races when we are doing that.

"What we don't want is dominant favourites as a result of changes to the ratings system.

"Part of the change in Australia - moving towards a ratings system - is because of the predominance of too many short priced favourites.

"None of us want that, it is not good for the industry and for turnover and margin."

 

https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/racing/trainers-unhappy-handicapping-system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the above i was just looking up the Handicapping guidelines and came across this

5.No 2YO trotter shall be rated in higher than R65.

6.No 2YO pacer shall be rated in higher than R75

7.No 3YO trotter shall be rated in higher than R85

8.No 3YO pacer shall be rated in higher than R95.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever designed the current system obviously failed basic maths at school.

With 1 horse's rating going up in each race, 4 staying the same, and up to 10 going down, who could possibly have predicted the day when the majority of horses would be rated lower than an unraced maiden?

Anybody with half a brain, that's who!

Did anyone party to creating the current system actually pass School Cert/ NCEA Level 1 maths?

Apparently not, because they seem to be shocked that that's exactly whats happened!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JackSprat said:

Whoever designed the current system obviously failed basic maths at school.

With 1 horse's rating going up in each race, 4 staying the same, and up to 10 going down, who could possibly have predicted the day when the majority of horses would be rated lower than an unraced maiden?

Anybody with half a brain, that's who!

Did anyone party to creating the current system actually pass School Cert/ NCEA Level 1 maths?

Apparently not, because they seem to be shocked that that's exactly whats happened!

From memory wasn't John Lischner on the last review panel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the  big difference in racing numbers exists between the two islands it is really almost mission impossible to assess horses on a level playing field between the two.     The big problem is the 'intermediate" band of horses where the larger fields allow for more horses  per race to drop.   Those at the bottom tend to stay there and similarly the top ones stay up but in between those horses in the north to get a run have to so often race horses 20 points ahead of them where this is not very common in the south.     Also in the south where stands are more "fashionable" than in the north the variance can be somewhat offset by handicapping .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack little fish,, I usually like your comments and analysis. However in this case be careful being a hash critic of the Handicappers. Kevin Smith has tried hard to get a system that works. It was altered by trainers not thinking it through. All it needs is the 2 and 3 year olds to get win concessions and even less points outside metro clubs(ie Ak and Ad) and this where discretion comes in.A chief handicapper worked with me many moons ago and I can assure you his responsibilities were such that a degree in chemistry or similar would have been a necessity.(and he has been a successful trainer as well)  USA has many variations including money won say not won $10000 last 10 starts regardless of lifetime. But everytime a new idea pops up it can be helping some horses and tough on others !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My criticism was of the overall logic (or lack thereof) behind the current upgrade/downgrade system, rather than how the handicappers are implementing it.

For a ratings system to work it needs to progress the better horses through the grades, and "tweak" the ratings of the rest. Not send 10 wins horses back to the maidens.

The current system is designed to drive the vast majority of horses down the grades. That simply compounds the shortcomings of the previous system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 2:46 PM, JackSprat said:

Whoever designed the current system obviously failed basic maths at school.

With 1 horse's rating going up in each race, 4 staying the same, and up to 10 going down, who could possibly have predicted the day when the majority of horses would be rated lower than an unraced maiden?

Anybody with half a brain, that's who!

Did anyone party to creating the current system actually pass School Cert/ NCEA Level 1 maths?

Apparently not, because they seem to be shocked that that's exactly whats happened!

Any system that has any winning horse rated lower than a maiden is crazy. A winner should not be able to drop back to a lower rating than the highest rating possible for a maiden.

Share this post


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

 

It is a well written article and good to see someone doing such good work in the mainstream media. The ODT deserves a lot of credit for a lot of its content.

One of the major objectives of the revised rating system was to offset the drop off in breeding numbers,with increased retention and participation of the existing racehorses.  Is it not working?

Personally I think the current rating system has overall provided a better betting product than what existed prior to its implementation. 

As to the all stars.This year the all star udr is currently .4799,last year it was .4762.    Prior to the new handicapping system in 2015 their udr was.4406 and in 2016 .5063.

The figures indicate they are just as successful under the current system,as they were under the  previous one. 

As I've said  before,decisions should be based on facts and figures, not on personal opinions based on whats best for those expressing them,or who can generate the most media coverage to push their agenda.

Why didn't the person writing the article quoted above give us facts and figures to back up the opinions being expressed. I'm guessing its because he never even thought to ask them. Pretty average researched article in my opinion. It would have been  interesting to know what the answers were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, what a post said:

One of the major objectives of the revised rating system was to offset the drop off in breeding numbers,with increased retention and participation of the existing racehorses.  Is it not working?

Personally I think the current rating system has overall provided a better betting product than what existed prior to its implementation. 

As to the all stars.This year the all star udr is currently .4799,last year it was .4762.    Prior to the new handicapping system in 2015 their udr was.4406 and in 2016 .5063.

The figures indicate they are just as successful under the current system,as they were under the  previous one. 

As I've said  before,decisions should be based on facts and figures, not on personal opinions based on whats best for those expressing them,or who can generate the most media coverage to push their agenda.

Why didn't the person writing the article quoted above give us facts and figures to back up the opinions being expressed. I'm guessing its because he never even thought to ask them. Pretty average researched article in my opinion. It would have been  interesting to know what the answers were. 

Outstanding  bit of research. Best post this season on here for authenticity

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