- This topic has 523 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thursday’s Qualifiers
NOT LEFT YET
PIPPA GREENE
STERNENZELTwould qualify with another chase run for what it is worth.
Workforce, Phil Smith might be the "Special One" if he allows for a week like "Week Four" every week.
Welcome anyway.
I think this will actually prove more interesting with NH racing, although that has not been the case so far.
Tomorrow’s racing looks bad enough. The handicapping of many horses, as usual, is strange.
Friday’s Qualifiers
PEVENSEY 93-80
FUL OF GRACE 87-72
ORPEN WIDE 115-98
DIAMOND DAISY 70-60
ON THE CUSP 65-51
ROYAL PATRIOT 62-47
CRIANZA 60-48And some others who nearly qualified
and
both strangely make chase débuts off revised (Phil Smith style) handicap marks.
was assigned a rating of 63. Now down to 48 for being thrashed, but two of those thrashings were in set weight maidens.
The following question was put to Phil Smith during the Q+A.
I know Silvoir both reads and contributes to this forum, although I doubt he reads this thread, but this post should be of some interest.
It is an open post to the BHA.
As the above suggested, why do the BHA not publish "performance ratings" for each race?
I do not know if this has happened as a direct result of that question, as I don’t use the Sporting Life Website, although it is much improved, but the Sporting Life Website now has a list of official ratings via their race cards. And, for example, Stolt’s last 6 ratings are apparently 65, 69, 73, 75, 80 and 82. Now, no horse who is beat by 17.69 lengths in a class 5/6 handicap over 5f is running to a mark of 69. That would place the winner as a 104 rated animal when using 3lb per length if the winner carried the same weight – not true, not happening. As such, they are not "Performance Ratings." They are just what the horse was rated before it ran on the day. All information available elsewhere.
I’m openly requesting for the BHA to publish "Race/Performance Ratings." Call them whatever you want to call them. That means what rating a horse performed at in each individual race.
1st 70, 2nd 68, 3rd 59…. all the way down to the horse who ran last beaten 20 lengths in a sprint race, 10.
This thread has clearly proven the current handicapping system is a nonsense. Well, actually the nonsense was proven here, here and when the horses listed on the front of this thread made a mockery of the handicapping system.
Individual "Race Ratings" – the performance detailing what each horse has performed at on the day as a rating – exist with both the RP Ratings system, which is arguably as illogical as BHA towers own handicapping system in some ways, and Timeform.
This thread, after the Q+A, was set up by myself to analyse a certain area. I do not base its success around profitability too much, because a handicappers job is not to frame a market but to rate horses, although it does have some relation. The thread, though, does campaign for an end to "illogical" handicapping that sees "unrateable" (much easier word even if it does not exist) performances rewarded with strange rating drops.
"Unrateable" exists in the context of a horse, (Sarah Park) and in the context of a race. No horse that has been beat 40l+ at Wolverhampton in any race in the tracks history should then be dropped 3lb. The best ever performance at the track since Polytrack was installed was probably by Gitano Hernando. Any horse beat 40l that night probably ran to a mark between 35-40. Still what I would describe as “unrateable” in the context of a handicap mark.
Of course the story does not end there. Despite these strange, BHA orchestrated drops, a horse can go and win via these drops, followed close after by the raceday stewards questioning connections about improvement in form. And can you imagine it?
The best excuse to explain any improvement…..
If the BHA published "Race Ratings," we could have the illogical drops highlighted. We could have the randomness of a drop after an absence pointed out before our eyes. The system, like Eddie Fremantle hinted at, is 100% flawed. Worst of all, the system is clearly damaging integrity.Come to think of it, if the BHA were willing to publish "Race Ratings," you could actually publish race-cards yourself. How about that? The information punters want in a racecard format with what your own handicappers think they have performed at. Maybe you could even get ATR and RUK onside for video form all in the same place.
No, too late, but it is not too late to be 100% transparent.
Currently you just have one Excel spreadsheet with every single horse listed. One number for each horse that changes each week with no historical background to it. It is surely time that changed?
"Race Ratings" must exist at BHA towers. They must be on a database or spreadsheet of some kind to refer back to what rating each horse achieved on a prior start. The "unrateable" drops should be open in a clearer format for examination.
A horse beaten 44l in a low-grade Wolverhampton race then receiving a 3lb drop afterwards is not acceptable.
A horse beaten 19.5l in a Class 6 Yarmouth sprint handicap then receiving a 3lb drop is not acceptable.
A horse who has a succession of PU receiving any drop in the weights is not acceptable. The immeasurable element of what a PU horse has a ran too should explain that.
The responses so far have not been satisfactory in various forms and, as a result, ignorance is all that has been displayed.
There are other factors people are also interested in that could be seen. Pounds per length – the Dewhurst "race ratings" that are explained has been examined by some.
"Race Ratings" do exist at the BHA. The argument of "collateral form changes things" won’t wash. Spreadsheets fortunately have enough cells to show progressive changes to a race/s rating, which will obviously impact on horses overall rating, and when any changes were made.
Time is not a satisfactory excuse either. This must be done in everyday work by handicappers. I can do the uploading for you if you wish – for free
More rewards for a no hoper with the handicap drop.
although it was not a qualifier, wins off a revised handicap hurdle mark first time over fences.
Saturday’s Qualifiers
KALYPSO KING
QUARRELI hate having to include horses like the top one. I wouldn’t back him to win any NH race.
Sunday’s Qualifiers
WILD SIDE OF LIFE
POACHER´S DREAMThe standard of racing at Towcester =
I’ll round up the last weeks statistics tomorrow.
Monday’s Qualifiers
SOPHIE´S BEAU
ANGLE OF ATTACK(Sat To Fri)
Winners 2/27
Placed 2/27Profit At SP +15pts
Profit At Top Early Prices +11pts
Tuesday’s Qualifiers
EMIRATE ISLE
JACKSON
REFUSE TO WAIT
JEMIMAVILLE
PROFESSOR JOHN
ON THE CUSP
ASTERALESSome more staggering racing tomorrow.
Good to see further rewards for thrashed horses.
Emirate Isle
won at 33/1 at Catterick. The highest any handicapper can have its "unrateable" form at for its last start is 41. Oh well, give it another 7lb drop.
Interesting. As part of this thread I’m taking a look at miracle improver’s. Miracle improver’s who have a bit of back-class in relation to their current marks, admittedly.
My favourite part is looking through the BHA stewards reports looking at the "noted explanation for miraculous improvement, we shall do nothing" attitude.
Jonjo O’Neill has not been behaving himself recently.
The Stewards considered the running of the winner, AMUSE ME, ridden by MR ALAN BERRY, and trained by JONJO O’NEILL, which had never previously been placed.
They interviewed the trainer’s representative, who stated that today in what was a poor race, AMUSE ME appeared to benefit from the fast early pace. They forwarded his comments to the British Horseracing Authority, so that the performance of AMUSE ME in his earlier races could be reviewed. The Stewards ordered the gelding to be routine tested.The Stewards considered the running of the winner, KENSINGTON OVAL, ridden by MR ALAN BERRY and trained by JONJO O’NEILL, which had never previously been placed.
They interviewed the trainer’s representative, who stated that the gelding was hampered on his previous performance and having a history of wind trouble, appeared to benefit from the recent fitting of a tongue strap. They forwarded his comments to the British Horseracing Authority, so that the performance of KENSINGTON OVAL in his earlier races could be reviewed.The Stewards considered the apparent improvement in form of the winner, Canal Bank (IRE), ridden by Richie McLernon, and trained by Jonjo O’Neill, compared with its previous run at Uttoxeter on 3rd October over 2 miles 5 furlongs on heavy ground where it pulled up, but having received a report of the trainer’s explanation that the gelding made a bad mistake at Uttoxeter and lost its confidence, they decided not to hold an enquiry. The Stewards ordered Canal Bank (IRE) to be routine tested.
Now lets go through theses horses one by one…
Amuse Me
first… 95l, 115l, 42l, 49l, 32l. Yep, beaten margins. First time in a handicap off 85 it wins.
WHY GIVE IT A RATING?
I would refuse in that position and instruct connections to continue in maiden hurdles.
Ah
Kensington Oval
. The horse who famously went off favourite in the Hampton Court Stakes won by Collection, who is now a Group 1 winner in HK. 71l, 39l, 25l, PU, 16l, 29l. Some good BHA class dropping in action as usual. 110 to 105, 105 to 100, 100 stayed the same and 100 to 97. It always impresses me how a horse beaten 29l needs a 3lb drop for running to 82. Why drop a horse who in the view of your own stewards has shown a dramatic improvement in form? What do you want it to do? Win without having ever run on its merits? Well you know it just might do that….
And
Canal Bank
. Hmm, 67l, 93l, 93l, 43l and PU. Where on earth did a mark of 93 come from? The moon by any chance?
Beaten 67l by
Intac
(rated 116 currently) – the last time I got the calculator up on screen, 116 – 67 = 49
Beaten 93l by
The Jigsaw Man
(rated 139 currently) – 93= 46, according to my calculator.
Beaten 93l by
Novikov
(rated 122 currently) – (93 + 6) = 23, according to my calculator.
Beaten 43l by
Holoko Heights
(rated 115 currently) – 43 = 72.
There is something to add on that run. Even if the BHA yardstick methods believe Holoko Heights beat a horse in Blacktoft who ran to his mark, they would still not get 93. Something around 84.
Now why was this horse given a handicap mark?
You have to be beyond genius status to know if this horse had ran to its full potential. Where was 93 plucked from?
Did it sound good?
Best of all, (oh yeah, it always gets better with this lot) the horse was dropped 3lb for being PU.
And what will be happening with "Jonjo?" Well two of his horses will be "reviewed" at BHA towers. Yeah, whatever that means.
A different set of statistics so far for October.
Using the BHA stewards report search function on the BHA site, the following results are returned when searching for "improvement," and I have listed the horses from October who have won having showed significantly improved in form. I have also listed what the BHA decided to do in such situations, along with what changes the handicapper made for those noted hopeless runs by race-day stewards.
Remarkably this list doesn’t include King’s Realm, Prince Massini or Grand Stitch. Magic Cat would be a borderline case to answer given those two hopeless runs, plus running significantly below its mark when beat 7l twice as a sprinter.
ISINTSHELOVELY
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 4lb drop for a 65l defeat
GREAT OCEAN ROAD
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 6lb drop for being PU
MIDNITE BLEWS
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – no drop for a 38l defeat
AL FARAHIDI
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 1lb drop for a 35l thashing (Was it worth it???)
CINDERKAMP
Forwarded to the BHA for review, ? – Handicap Winner – strange one why it is on here compared to most, 3lb drop for losing by 3.75l
MEXICAN JAY
No Enquiry, ? – Handicap Winner – first start in a handicap having been beat 13l, 15.5l and 40l
LOMBOK
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 2lb drop for a 45l defeat
VON GALEN
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 2lb drop for being PU
BLACK JACK BLUES
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – no drop for being PU in the Grd 3 Handicap Hurdle at Haydock in May
SARAH PARK
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Already discussed, Qualifier
APRIL FOOL
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Already discussed, Qualifier
SWANSEA JACK
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 2lb drop for a 11l 6f defeat
LADY OF GARMORAN
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Classified Stakes Winner
STAR ADDITION
No Enquiry, ? – Classified Stakes Winner
MEDICINAL COMPOUND
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 2lb drop for a 27l defeat
FOREIGN RHYTHM
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 3lb drop for a 17.5l 5f defeat
FINAL RHAPSODY
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Already discussed, Qualifier
BUDS DILEMMA
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – no drop for being PU
CURRAGH DANCER
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – 3lb drop for its British NH debut, when beaten 46l
CANAL BANK
No Enquiry, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – see above
AMUSE ME
Forwarded to the BHA for review, Routine Tested – Handicap Winner – see above
KENSINGTON OVAL
Forwarded to the BHA for review, ? – Handicap Winner – see above
http://www.racingpost.com/blog/horse-ra … dicappers/
It seems BHA towers’ official handicappers now wish to publicise their efforts via the Racing Post. Well they don’t really want to publicise all of those. They just wish to further the reach of their opinion on elite horses. So, no, Canal Bank is not worthy of discussion, although it would be far more interesting than Frankel.
There’s something that’s just sprung to my mind. The great servants that are the race-day stewards question connections of the "miracle improver’s," but how do they know what qualifies to be worthy of questioning if the horse wins? Do they interpret the form-book their-selves or do they have a list in-front of them beforehand?
Emirate Isle
, who had qualified before yesterday on this thread, was not worthy of being investigated or noted down on the site, so who decides when and why?
EDIT –
You can now read the fascinating blog of the BHA team responsible for official ratings every week on racingpost.com – don’t miss their insight and candid opinion
It’s good to see that on the RP homepage. Fascinating would be an explanation of Canal Bank’s rating.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.