December 28, 2006 at 17:48 #34589AidanMember
- Total Posts 1198
Perhaps a letter to the RP might be in order….on occasions when questions are asked like that they do often get answered in the letters section. Really should be highlighted.December 28, 2006 at 18:11 #34590
I would not say so. In what respect would you make a better assessment of how much a horse like Mastership had in the locker a couple of weeks after the event than at the time? Deferring the decision encourages cooking the books. The bare form of what the horse is considered to have run to is usually there for all to see.
Whether individuals – including handicappers – like it or not, the fact is that any commercial organisation that stubbornly rated Mastership 74, rather than 80 or whatever, would be cutting its own throat much as an odds compiler offering 10/1 rather than 6/4 would be.
It is one of the skills of a good racereader/odds-compiler to estimate what otherwise seems very difficult to evaluate. It is all part of the job of a handicapper to take such matters into consideration at the time.December 28, 2006 at 18:17 #34591
i’d prefer a "as is " rating with the handicappers notes of worth another X pounds
That way the user determines how much the X is worth
Just my opinionDecember 28, 2006 at 18:28 #34592
Well, Timeform do do it that way, empty wallet. As an example, Kauto Star’s maximum performance figure Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â was shown as 178 prior to the King George but his master rating for the race was 6 higher.
Any commercial rating organisation that stubbornly refused to interpret the form and just rated horses on the precise margins between them crossing the line in all circumstances would see its top-rated percentage plummet and would go out of business – not as quickly but pretty much as surely – as would an odds-compiler imposing similar unnecessary constraints on himself.
People may not like it, but it is just how it is.
You can’t expect someone who makes a living from compiling ratings deliberately to limit their effectiveness just because a minority prefer to deal with things in such a way.
(Edited by Prufrock at 6:31 pm on Dec. 28, 2006)December 28, 2006 at 18:37 #34593
Back to the thread’s title. While I would very much stand up for a handicapper’s right to use all (rather than just some) of his skills to make his ratings as useful as reasonably possible, I am nearly always baffled by the Racing Post handicappers’ attempts at explaining what they do. Most of the time they seem determined to drag the whole ratings issue back several decades.December 28, 2006 at 19:19 #34594Racing DailyParticipant
- Total Posts 1364
I would have to say that odds makers and handicappers have totally different agendas. It is up to the odds makers to take the bare rating and interpret it any way they see fit. It isn’t the handicapper’s job to help them do that.December 28, 2006 at 23:40 #34595MauriceParticipant
- Total Posts 355
When I come to finalising my figure for KS in the KG, I’ll be giving him a rating based on the bare form with a ‘+’ to allow for the ease of victory in spite of two bad mistakes.
However, I don’t think it would be prudent to dismiss Walsh’s post-race assertion that KS will be better going left-handed.
I find myself regularly at odds with RPRs when they over-allow for wins. However, I backed See More Business rather heavily at longish odds for the Gold Cup the season he blundered his way round Wetherby in the Charlie Hall. I figured he couldn’t possibly make as may mistakes in one race as he did that day. I think that was the year he was carried out but I was on again at 20s the year he finally won.
There has to be an element of subjectivity in compiling ratings. The difficulty lies in being right more often than being wrong.December 29, 2006 at 13:21 #34596
I would have to say that odds makers and handicappers have totally different agendas.
They both have a desire to stay in business.
Compilers of ratings that have unnecessary limits imposed on them so that they are less helpful than they might be suffer as a consequence. Believe me: I have lived through the change from one approach to the other.
Ratings are numerical expressions of various factors, with a fair odds line being the ultimate numerical expression of all the various factors that go into determining a horse’s chance in a given contest.
There is nothing whatsoever to say that ratings have to be limited to the degree that some seem to want them to be, so that they are of little practical use in this process.January 15, 2007 at 15:25 #34597
Wonder how many lengths handicappers will add on to Dom D’Orgevals rating
One person may think 5, one 10, one 15
<br>shouldn’t this be left to the interpretation of the person reading the form and not included in the rating?
(Edited by empty wallet at 3:35 pm on Jan. 15, 2007)January 15, 2007 at 15:40 #34598
Totally agree TDK
<br>As i’ve stated before, i see nothing wrong with commercial handicappers giving a projected rating alongside the precise rating
Then it is up to the consumer which one he uses, it still allows the compilers to keep their top rated percentage chugging along, if that is what they want
(Edited by empty wallet at 3:43 pm on Jan. 15, 2007)January 15, 2007 at 17:01 #34599davidjohnsonMember
- Total Posts 4491
Quote: from thedarkknight on 3:35 pm on Jan. 15, 2007[br]<br>….. rather like Mastership for example…..
Everyone makes a rick now and again:biggin: Still think in a truly run race where he gets plenty of cover he’ll win races off his new mark. Though that isn’t your point I know.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.