In this Discussion
- Brubaker February 2011
- carey February 2011
- Rodent February 2011
- super.impose February 2011
Who's Online
0 Members & 19 Non Members
Can Someone please help explain!!
West Australian Racing
Buddy
18 posts
Comments
the problem is the handicappers have no idea of the average true class difference from one jurisdiction to the next.
if they don't know the average 'true' class difference between say geraldton and ascot then how can they weight them appropriately?
their mindless solution was to have 2 ratings, but that's the clayton's solution you have, when you don't know the real one.
it also makes a mockery of transparency, because they only ever have one or the other rating on cris.
But.... back to the original thread. Yes, the ratings system is in tatters because one man has complete control over allocation of points. Far too much "discretion" is left in the handicappers hands. There are so many variations between adding, subtracting or leaving them at the same rating, it is ridiculous.
Reasons I have heard are.... we think the horse will win soon. (then give us the cheque now) Dont take points off stayers in sprint races. (But they get them if they win) Dont take points off stayers second up. (Ditto to previous) Horse finished close up behind placegetters. (but didn't get any money mate!) Horse won in commanding fashion. (Gets extra points)
WTF??? :x
And giving them more (extra) points when they win a race in the country/ provincial is not the answer. It merely creates another log jam in a particular class race.
:(
if you last raced in bush and now want to come to city, you are guessing about what weight you get.
the idea of the templates and all that was TRANSPARENCY.
transparency went out the door when the clayton's solution was enacted.
the obvious reason being, if you put the ratings up, side by side it, would be there in black and white for all to see the stupidity of it.
but the rest of your post i won't argue with.
to see how idiotic the system is, you only need look at the theoretical class of race 7 this coming saturday.
scaled as a met hcp +5 kg, and pigs fly too.
mr hunter, wfa and hcp don't mix.
you can't possibly treat a wfa race in the same fashion as a hcp, for the simple reason it WAS NOT A HANDICAP in the first place.
i fell off chair laughing when i noticed the scaling for the cyril flowers.
perhaps the recent job advert that announced a free car space :lol: should have been for a new chief handicapper.
No.... they usually have both on CRIS. Just depends if they have raced in both country and city recently.
no, they don't have both CURRENT ratings up.
if you last raced in bush and now want to come to city, you are guessing about what weight you get.
Look up Dance on Board, Rich Success, Hudson Hawk, (just some examples.)
All have dual ratings listed. I admit there are some who have raced in city and country that don't have dual listings. No answers for that one. :?
no, they don't have both CURRENT ratings up.
if you last raced in bush and now want to come to city, you are guessing about what weight you get.
Look up Dance on Board, Rich Success, Hudson Hawk, (just some examples.)
All have dual ratings listed. I admit there are some who have raced in city and country that don't have dual listings. No answers for that one. :?
steve(me) below:
ok you half correct!
every one i have looked for has one or the other, regardless of if it has raced both places recently.
there are even examples of horses that have raced their entire career in the city, bar the last run, and it will only have a country rating there.
and those 3 pointed out by you, are perfect examples of the stupidity of the clayton's system.
they are all relatively different city/country.
another interesting aspect of why they are not accurate nor transparent is.......
several months ago when i first noticed this stupidity, i pointed it out on here that horses had widely differing ratings relative to each other between bush and city.
the reaction of those people that are in control, was to change the ratings on cris, of those horse i had mentioned.
never mind that the horses had not had a subsequent run to justify these changes.
it was simply them reacting to criticism rather than anything the horses had done, and thus forever removing any semblance of credibility that they once may have had.
horses like Northerly and Kingston Town etc???
hadewhatitsname won this race last year with 53.5.
that race was scaled 3kg higher than a normal handicap.
this years version has it on 60kg, but the race is scaled 5kg stronger than a normal handicap.
therefore the horse is now up 8.5kg relative to the race last year.
in the ensuing year it has won once.......it just happened to be a very weak wfa race that had ridiculously high prizemoney for the lowly standard of race that it was.
kkk was second and while there is no doubt it is a nice horse(finally!), it surely is not top class.
while it's true you have to rerate from wfa races, it's also true that you can't do it the same way as you would handicaps.
for one, the hadicapper had no say in the weights in the first place and thus the weights do not reflect the ratings of the horses involved
it is also possible and indeed likely(especially in wa) that there is going to be horses in these wfa races with far more weight than they would carry in handicaps of same grade.
therefore whytf is he rating wfa as stronger than handicaps when anybody with half a brain can tell you that almost always hcp is stronger than wfa?
or to put it in simpler terms.....
kkk went up 11 points for running 2nd, and the winner went up 14 points.
so if you were to say it was a 2 horse race.
kkk is now up 5.5kg and h is up 7kg.
the assumption being that both these horse have somehow miraculously improved that huge amount in one day! not bad for 6y+ horses!!
the truth is the race was never the standard(nor close to it) that the handicapper believes it was, or they never would have run 1,2 to begin with.
altho you may have to explain to me how handicaps are always stronger than wfa - perhaps im missing half a brain
well for instance just assume the winterbottom was a hcp.
now give every horse a weight relative to its rating at that time, and almost without exception they will all be carrying less weight than they did in the winterbottom.
there may be an exception or two but that will more than likely be because their high rating was from an earlier wfa race and thus unwarranted too.
therefore if weight is the measure of class it is supposed to be, then by virtue of them having more weight at wfa than a hcp then that itself insinuates that the wfa is weaker.
of course when you have horses of the calibre of northerly or kt, then these horse are favoured by wfa because they would get far more in a hcp, and only have to be meet inferior horse on the same weight terms.
if kk and h had beaten horse of that calibre at level weights then of course they would warrant the ratings increase, but all they did was beat handicappers that like themselves should have had less weight.
in this case they have copped huge penalties for winning the race because of its name rather than the quality of the opposition.
there is another reason i know why it is true too, but that has to go unsaid.
personally I thin WFA are stronger because the best horses target those races
whatever, you can bet your last dollar that handicappers generally, and the wa one in particular, handicap by rote, rather than the in depth way they would have you believe.
whitfriars is key in race.105 in wintbottom when 3rd,now 110 here in vic after win at mv in g2
you can't base it all from one horse only, it does not work like that.
perhaps you can apply for the free car space job!
i don't believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor....unless of course it was stolen off the poor in the first place.
something that a good many rich people excel at.
if you're rich from your own efforts and have hurt or cheated nobody to get there, then in my book you deserve to be rich.
don't believe in socialism either......now that's stuffed you up hasn't it!! 8)
i believe it's having the effect of making wa racing weaker than it already is, because, in one fell swoop the handicapper makes it that much harder for them.
it's high rating was also courtesy of a wfa race.
it was probably the best of good things beaten.
5th run fine was fine, as was 1st and 2nd, but they just ran up to their normal ability rather than something that gets them whopping big penalties.
in other words 1st, 2nd and 5th are just demonstrating what i already knew!!
it was not a g2 in anything other than name.
6th place was from a horse that is but a shadow of it's former self, so why would you bring that up?