JackSprat

Is this how a rating system should work?

41 posts in this topic

If ever any evidence was needed to prove that the current ratings system is flawed you only need to take a look at the just completed 7th at Waimate today.

A race programmed for Rating 40 - 50 horses - so theoretically, up to 10 points inferior to unraced maidens!

Yet the field is made up of 13 race winners (not sure of the specific race conditions, maybe non-winners were excluded), who had won 49 races between them and close to half a million in stakemoney!

I understood that this ratings system was supposed to match like with like, yet all we seem to have is a system that crams everybody into the lowest class race possible.

No wonder as Eljay pointed out in another thread, 48 horses left the country last month, with 40 or more of them permanently.

The way this rating system is being implemented has made for a worse handicapping system that the disaster it replaced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're dead right Tim. Simply logic tells you that you have to have more horses progressing through the system than you have going backwards or you'll eventually end up with a dirty great big heap at the bottom - which is what we have now.

Using todays Waimate meeting as an example of a typical country program - 109 of the 164 acceptors were rated between 40 - 50. The problem with the points distribution is there for blind Freddy to see!

Share this post


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

No.

Having no points for placing means the horses mostly go down. In a 14 horse field 1 goes up 4 stay same and 10 go down.it ain't a rating system.its a stupid no brain points system that anybody could operate.no expertise needed.

That didn't use to be the case. Who were the ones that  lobbied to have the current changes implemented?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggle with handicapper discretion!

The points Shillelagh accrued or had deducted over a month is a classic example:

1st at Manawatu (12/02) - 6 points added (discretion applied) = 82

4th at Manawatu (14/02) - no change = 82

8th at Auckland (01/03) - drops 2 points (discretion applied) = 80

6th at Manawatu (12/03) - drops 3 points (discretion applied) = 77

6th at Manawatu (14/03) - drops 3 points (discretion applied) = 74

The last two 6th's are only one placing away from losing no points at all ..... so why deduct 3 when all of those finishing further back only lost 1 point - and this in fields of 8 and 10 runners respectively? 

Great for connections as gets their horse back down to a competitive rating level quicker, but the only justification I can see in increasing a horses rating by 6 points and then decreasing it by 8 points within a month is to keep it eligible for racing at Manawatu.

How is that a true rating system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the 3rd from Wingatui - a harness racing classic - a Rating 40 which attracted the winners of 39 races in total (on average 3 wins per horse). Not an entirely hopeless bunch with plenty of 3rds, 4ths and 5ths in their recent form, yet they've managed to sink to the bottom of the barrel.

The day isn't far off where we run a whole meeting for Rating 40 horses only!

That'll prove the rating system is working well .... not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the sentiment of extending the careers of horses with lesser ability is great for those with charitable hearts and deep pockets, the reality is that all it does is encourage people to hang on to poorer and poorer quality horses and drag down the overall standard of our "product".

The mid-range horses are being sold simply because there aren't enough comparable horses to allow them to them to regularly race against each other. Once they get beyond say a 65 rating chances are they'll get thrown in a virtual FFA.

This idea that extending the racing life of the no-hopers is somehow benefiting the game is totally flawed. If we don't create a pathway for the average to better horses to follow pretty soon all we'll have left will be the no-hopers.

The goal needs to be to produce better and better horses - that's why people come to NZ to buy.

What we're encouraging at the moment is a "race to the bottom".

Eventually the buyers won't bother coming to NZ if all we have to offer is a giant stockpile of D grade horses that are too slow to race anywhere except against each other!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they are not all no hopers.u don't retire rugby  players coz they aren't as quick as they used to be.they just return a grade they are competitive.40 to 50 rating races at the park are often  run in 2.41 2.42.cant be hopeless.in te case of rugby players they just go to Japan and earn more money than they did as all blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely Tim! They aren't all no-hopers. So why are these horses that are capable of running 2.41/2.42 as you say, finding there way back into the low 40 ratings and beating up on the genuine no-hopers?

In a fair ratings system these horses would be lower-mid tier rated and racing horses of similar stature.

A properly implemented ratings system would create a spread of horses from 40 through to 100 plus, obviously with thinning numbers towards the top of the ratings.

Instead we have probably 2/3 (a guess) of all horses jammed into the  40 - 50 rating band, which means there's only a 1/3 of the horse population to fill the 50 - 100 rated races.

I don't expect you to see it the same way I do Tim as you've created yourself a niche where you've capitalised on this anomaly very nicely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lee270744 said:

Very unusual for Jack Sprat to have negative comments.

I'm surprised he never mention All-Stars wins at Addington last Friday.

Did they win a 40 - 50 rated race? I must have missed that.

Try to keep up with the topic of the thread son! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rating system is designed to make our potentially future good middle grade horses poor (along with their owners). To give an example, last Friday night a 3yo filly having its 2nd ever start won the maiden trot at Auckland and goes to R55. The race for R55 and faster that night was the main trot with open class horses on the back marks. Does anyone really think a novice trotter should be in that field? However, even in the lower grade race, it would have the toughest hcp as the tightest assessed horse. It is not difficult to predict that it could take months for its rating to drop as though it will struggle to win against seasoned horses, it has the ability to get 4th or 5th. As a 3yo in this case, the trainer has the option of mainly racing it in age group races but that option is not available for an older novice horse. Hopefully any 1 win horse with ability would eventually become competitive through experience and maturity. But owners need deep pockets and stamina, and the hope that their horse doesn't have its will broken during this period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The north island would be far better off with 200 extra horses in the 40-50 grade. If they did they would be able to have full fields for a change,providing a better betting product for punters and providing greater driving  and training opportunities.

From a punting perspective the  north island has far too many small fields, The same drivers all the time often from the same family,or employed in the same stable .  They have no john dunn,blair orange,ricky may,williamsons, Junior drivers who drive with confidence,etc,etc who give the punters confidence that they are out there trying for the best possible placing everytime.. So often it seems they are just waiting for next week or for when they have the money on. 

The best driver by far is todd Mitchell,at least you know hes trying all the time.   

The rating system in the past,with its catering to the elite with countless penalty free wins did nothing to keep the smaller players who provided the numbers in the game. 

The north island has far greater issues turning people off and punters away than the current rating system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting comments in this post. Some of you may have forgotten several changes to initial system made due to screams from trainers .for example the dropping of points for placings. Sure we end up mathematically with a large "rear end" but so what. hawera are also running a rating 40 only race. with 1 win horses up againsta 5 win and 2  8 winners.At least 1 horse will get out of the bargain basement .One criteria of new system was to  allow more horses a longer career in NZ to increase the dwindling horse population. Now many are wanting old back . !! Often the weaker graded horses run good times and are competitive before they join the riding schools.:rcfe-smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 1:06 AM, what a post said:

The north island would be far better off with 200 extra horses in the 40-50 grade. If they did they would be able to have full fields for a change,providing a better betting product for punters and providing greater driving  and training opportunities.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously discretion is a word that noone appears to like and as in your post Taku, it is even feared by many. I like others have at times got rather irate at something happeneing to my own horses and have picked up  phone to have a go at  "head Office" only to find a plausible explanation politely given and "humbly" received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2019 at 10:42 PM, Nelli said:

The rating system is designed to make our potentially future good middle grade horses poor (along with their owners). To give an example, last Friday night a 3yo filly having its 2nd ever start won the maiden trot at Auckland and goes to R55. The race for R55 and faster that night was the main trot with open class horses on the back marks. Does anyone really think a novice trotter should be in that field? However, even in the lower grade race, it would have the toughest hcp as the tightest assessed horse. It is not difficult to predict that it could take months for its rating to drop as though it will struggle to win against seasoned horses, it has the ability to get 4th or 5th. As a 3yo in this case, the trainer has the option of mainly racing it in age group races but that option is not available for an older novice horse. Hopefully any 1 win horse with ability would eventually become competitive through experience and maturity. But owners need deep pockets and stamina, and the hope that their horse doesn't have its will broken during this period.

I think a 3yo trotting trotting filly that wins a maiden probably shouldn't go to a 55, and that's where the system needs a few tweaks.
But it's the rating system's fault that ATC run races with rating parameters from 55 to 102. That is truly ludicrous. Can you imagine if they did that for the pacers?
As an aside, Monkey Selfie would have been competitive in that other race, which means the system, in essence, actually works.
But a 3yo filly shouldn't, on principal, have to race seasoned horses over 2700 metres at her second start.
That being said, the trainer would be conscious of this and waited for another week any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 4:44 PM, JackSprat said:

If ever any evidence was needed to prove that the current ratings system is flawed you only need to take a look at the just completed 7th at Waimate today.

A race programmed for Rating 40 - 50 horses - so theoretically, up to 10 points inferior to unraced maidens!

Yet the field is made up of 13 race winners (not sure of the specific race conditions, maybe non-winners were excluded), who had won 49 races between them and close to half a million in stakemoney!

I understood that this ratings system was supposed to match like with like, yet all we seem to have is a system that crams everybody into the lowest class race possible.

No wonder as Eljay pointed out in another thread, 48 horses left the country last month, with 40 or more of them permanently.

The way this rating system is being implemented has made for a worse handicapping system that the disaster it replaced!

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.

Share this post


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

It will be a sad day when discretion is removed. These handicappers are getting right royally fucked over by trainers who are too ignorant or selfish to embrace the system.
What we have now is the furtherest thing from a rating system and it's in no way the fault of the handicappers.

The handicapping sub committee (on which Morris and Smith have little to no power), under the recommendation of the horseman's association, have ruined the system.

As an example, just one that picked off the top of my head right now. Without discretion applied in recent months, The Night Hawk would currently be rated 89. He's an 80. 

Mach Shard is a rating 90. You tell me.

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