- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Do the BHA calculate, record and keep an indivdual performance rating for each individual run a horse makes?
If they do, why isn’t this data readily available? I know master ratings and weekly updates to these are available, but these are not what I’m inquiring about. I know you can chase down the winner of the race and work back but…
When you get those snazzy pdf documents that the HKJC make each year for their international festival, they have graphical representations of british horses with indivdual race performance ratings. Are these just made up by HKJC handicapper, have they got them from IFHA or did they get them from the BHB?
eg Maraahel from 13/8/05-14/10/06 ran 110 119 119 103 110 108 120 118 121 112 according to HKJC brochure, during this time the BHB master rating was always either 120 or 121. So you can see it is the existance of individual BHB race ratings I’m inquiring into the existance and availability of, not their master ratings and weekly updates. Tx.
Funnily enough I was wondering the same thing just the other day.
With a bit of effort you can reverse-engineer the ratings based on the updates but its definitely something that should be easily available.
Probably shouldn’t get involved in this one, but just a quick observation.
Performance ratings in some races are all but meaningless without context. I’m thinking small-field conditions races, most claimers – any type of contest that regularly produces a result that makes little sense in terms of the ratings.
I wouldn’t want some of the performance comments I make for the benefit of my colleagues to be put into the public arena.
How would you go about reverse engineering the ratings?
Look for horses who have been put up after a race, apply their new marks to the result of the race and then work out the rest of the horses from those.
There’s some obvious issues with this, e.g. winners might be put up by more than the raw result suggests, and some races don’t see any rise in the marks of any of the horses involved.
I wouldn’t want some of the performance comments I make for the benefit of my colleagues to be put into the public arena.
Could you not make them available to the stewards aswell!
Probably shouldn’t get involved in this one, but just a quick observation.
Performance ratings in some races are all but meaningless without context. I’m thinking small-field conditions races, most claimers – any type of contest that regularly produces a result that makes little sense in terms of the ratings.
I wouldn’t want some of the performance comments I make for the benefit of my colleagues to be put into the public arena.
You absolutely should be involved if you want to. It’s a fairly straightforward query that you’d know the answer to. I understand what you are saying about certain races but that is beside the point of my query really. Reading between the lines it sounds like you do make individual ratings for all runs by all horses. Given that this is publically funded why ought they not be made available for public use.
Reading between the lines it sounds like you do make individual ratings for all runs by all horses.
Yes, we do. I forgot to answer that one – it’s not a secret. I beg your pardon.
Given that this is publically funded why ought they not be made available for public use.
Dunno. One of the advantages of being a lowly member of the team is that I can say ‘dunno’ to questions of policy like this one. It’s worth discussing, though. We don’t have many meetings as a team but we will have one next month and one in the New Year. (I don’t think that’s a secret either).
You have put the case very eloquently and I suggest that write to the Head of Handicapping or Director of Racing, making the points that you have made in this thread. PM me if you need any more information.
Could you not make them available to the stewards aswell!
Funnily enough this has been discussed recently, and looks like it is going to happen in some form. We also do have a handicapper present at about 40% of meetings (probably less this year due to increased fixture list and not having a full team all year round).
Marcus,
Could you also add to the agenda Nick Mordin’s recent Weekender article of 10-14 October that makes several very pertinent point in that despite attending IFHRA meetings we still do not seem to be able to pick up any of the best racing regulation or any other customer friendly practice that occurs in other countries. Examples were that Gemany can actually use the penetrometer to give reliable going readings, whilst France and UK cannot. USA moves starts to compensate for rail movement so that races are run over the correct distances (correct distance is a BHA rule of racing but seemingly never enforced). York, however, do this on own bat – so good for them. The rigorous and effective policing methods used in South African racing. These all effect the data upon which you handicap. Ask them also who they think the customer is that they serve if it is not the persons that fund the levy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.