- This topic has 23 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
‘Whether we like to admit it or not, 90 per cent of horses are in the handicapping system and I would scrap it althogether. I used to sit in the pub in Middleham and you would hear people talking about how a particular horse had not been busy and today was the day. It’s a mug’s game and they never won.
‘And I recognised early on how it would drive owners mad to take time off to go and watch their horse only to get there and be told “not today”. It is to the ruination of our sport that jockeys don’t want to win by too far and, while things are better than they used to be, a large share of the integrity budget goes on people abusing the handicap system.’The problem with grading is that it is just handicapping without the granulation.
MJ seems to think the problem is trainers giving horses the odd run out the back, mid-career, to get them down a couple of pounds.
In reality, the main issues are with the first few runs before horses are handicapped/graded, where non-trying is most rife, and with strings of moody efforts mid-career to get the horse down in class. These problems remain in a graded framework.
I agree with Mr J, although I don’t think bookmakers would!
Has he put forward an alternative?
I agree with Mr J, although I don’t think bookmakers would!
Has he put forward an alternative?
I agree as well and have no reason why bookmakers would object, the races would be just as competitive, probably more so.
Glen refers to what it would be above, graded racing, the better you are the more money you run for, would be similar to classified racing.
The big handicaps would still be run but the majority of handicaps could be run as graded racing.
In the US the majority of races are claimers so you get to choose your own weight but risk losing your horse for the value you place on it.
A member of the board of the BHA has pointed out that the current system under which a large proportion of horses compete does not reward honesty.
Glen refers to what it would be above, graded racing, the better you are the more money you run for, would be similar to classified racing.
But that’s pretty much the case now, the
better you are*
the higher grade handicap you run in and the more prize mnoey you run for. Grading is not a huge amount different from handicapping and surely there would still be the same problem of trainers trying to get their horses into an easy grade. Easy money rather than big money?
The alternative of a claiming system is fine but it would take an age to introduce and I’m not sure there would be much of a welcome for it. The US system works because most of the horses are trained at or near the track and trainers are able to watch other horses in a training environment, and indeed regularly on the track.
* Could perhaps be ‘the better you are judged’?
Rob
Glen refers to what it would be above, graded racing, the better you are the more money you run for, would be similar to classified racing.
But that’s pretty much the case now, the
better you are*
the higher grade handicap you run in and the more prize mnoey you run for. Grading is not a huge amount different from handicapping and surely there would still be the same problem of trainers trying to get their horses into an easy grade.
Rob
No, much larger bands in handicaps than there would be in graded.
An example yesterday was a 76 rated horse winning £8000 in one of the handicaps at Ponty while a 93 rated horse finished 3rd and received only £1000.Why should the better horse by over a stone receive less money? it should be running against similar rated horses for better money while the 76 rated horse should be running against similar rated horses for less money until it’s earned it’s right to run against better class.
Claimers would never work here on a large scale, they are largely uncompetitive and the prize money is much better for them in the States, there is also little appetite for claiming horses here.
Personally I get totally fed up with hearing people whinging about handicaps all my betting is done handicaps and it’s profitable but like everything else in life you have to work at it.
Instead of whinging about them simply bet in the non handicaps and claimers if you don’t like the system then struggle with cramped prices and huge over rounds.
BTW I never listen to inside information, tips or any of the rubbish from commentators, journalists or tipsters it’s all just hard work work with a great sense of satisfaction in getting it right. Some of you should try it!And I recognised early on how it would drive owners mad to take time off to go and watch their horse only to get there and be told "not today".
Then the owners should tell the trainer to go ****-off and take their horses elsewhere. If they don’t, then presumably they’re happy with the trainer’s M.O.
Is trying to get a horse off a winnable mark in a handicap "abusing" the system" any more than, say, a card player trying to bluff an opponent into mis-judging his hand?
Punters (if they take the time), can find out a horse’s pedigree (and thus get some handle on its optimum trip, maybe ground preference). They can also, if they are diligent enough, try and suss out a trainer’s m.o. The draw and jockey booking is also there for all to see. That’s half the fun of studying form surely!
"Manipulation" is a more accurate term than "abuse".
Nobody forces an owner to use a particular trainer, and nobody forces punters to back in handicaps. Leave things as they are.
Crikey, next someone will be calling for all horses to go flat-out from the very start to make sure they’re all trying! Sheesh.And I recognised early on how it would drive owners mad to take time off to go and watch their horse only to get there and be told "not today".
Then the owners should tell the trainer to go ****-off and take their horses elsewhere. If they don’t, then presumably they’re happy with the trainer’s M.O.
Is trying to get a horse off a winnable mark in a handicap "abusing" the system" any more than, say, a card player trying to bluff an opponent into mis-judging his hand?
Punters (if they take the time), can find out a horse’s pedigree (and thus get some handle on its optimum trip, maybe ground preference). They can also, if they are diligent enough, try and suss out a trainer’s m.o. The draw and jockey booking is also there for all to see. That’s half the fun of studying form surely!
"Manipulation" is a more accurate term than "abuse".
Nobody forces an owner to use a particular trainer, and nobody forces punters to back in handicaps. Leave things as they are.
Crikey, next someone will be calling for all horses to go flat-out from the very start to make sure they’re all trying! Sheesh.People never seem to use a poker anaolgoy correctly.
Plotting a handicap mark if you delibaretely worsen a horses performance to manipulate it’s percieved ability/rating is clearly very different to bluffing in any particular hand of poker. One is blatantly trying to manipulate the system, the other is working clearly within the system. Bluffing is simply one avenue for winning and is done if villain’s assumed range is weak enough versus your percieved range to work. One is trying to win, the other is not.
I don’t have a problem with trainers manipulating the handicap system. Why would you? However, it is not remotely comparable with the anology of bluffing in poker.
More related to the topic at hand, i’ve always found the handicap system somewhat bizarre. It unfairly restricts horses after a certain point. You don’t make athletes run with extra weight, so why do so with horses? I don’t pretend to be intelligent enough to create a better working system, but the current handicapping system is definitely intellectually bemusing to me.
Thanks for your observations J17. You may have noticed though that I started the sentence that had the word "poker" in with an "Is" and included "say" and ended with a question mark. I was not making the statement that it WAS the same, merely throwing a possible comparison into the ring.
http://www.markjohnstonracing.com/mjr-pdf/straight_talking/2012_05_Straight%20talking.pdf
This stopping horses to get them down to decent mark is nowhere near as rife as MJ would have you believe.
"Not today" can simply mean a trainers opinion is your horse isn’t good enough to win or isn’t in the best of form. Trainers have been known to bullsh!t to owners and keep them interested by saying they are lining a horse up for a touch when the things actually useless.
To deliberately stop a seasoned handicapper is nuts because all that happens is everyone spots it and when it is "off" the owner gets no price about them as the bookies have seen it all before.
Connections will get a much better price and a lot more on if they run them on their merits.
Not only does a horse need to be on a winnable mark he has to show something extra at home before a good trainer will say have your sheckles on.
Most of these gambles that come off are not planned over along period of time they just happen and it’s the horse who tells the trainer today’s the day.
Yes Sir Mark P plays silly buggers running middle distance horses at 5 furlongs but it’s not like we don’t know when one is trying but like Barney Curly he does not break any rules and anyone who thinks they can do what these two guys can do are welcome to try.
Mark Johnson himself is unreadable 9o% of the time which IMO makes him more dangerous than those two fellas put together.
Thanks for your observations J17. You may have noticed though that I started the sentence that had the word "poker" in with an "Is" and included "say" and ended with a question mark. I was not making the statement that it WAS the same, merely throwing a possible comparison into the ring.
My apologies. I took it as more of a rhetorical question and a held view rather than a sincere question.
Maybe I have missed the point here, but surely every horse is supposed to run on its merits, I thought that was what the stewards are supposed to ensure along with trainers.
However the thread and MJ seem to suggest that horses do not run on their merits all the time.
Surely that is cheating/corruption as if the ordinary punter is unaware that a horse is not running on its merits because the owner/trainer don’t want it to win then surely a fraud/criminal offence is taking place as the punter believing it is running on its merits is being conned and cannot win.
Thats probably why they say gambling is a mugs game.
LOLHow would these "graded" races work?
Why would any connections of a horse who was NOT rated at the top of the ratings allowed – want to take part?
eg
If there was a race for those rated 80 and lower, why would a horse rated 76 take part?
Are there enough horses rated exactly 80 for there to be enough runners in such a race?
Surely a horse rated 76 would just wait for a race for those rated 76 or lower?Would these "Graded" races go up by a difference of 5? 4? 3? 2? or just 1? ie races for 80 or under, 75 or under 70, 65 etc… for a difference of 5.
If they did not go up by 1 then it would be unfair on those with a consistent profile and also encourage manipulation of ratings in the same way as handicaps currently do.Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.