Different Aspects to Programming

[Messenger]

Maybe things are already heading in the right direction
Check out the winners' prices this week at Ballarat, Maryborough, Bendigo, Melton, Swan Hill, Yarra Glen

[alphastud]

Thanks for your feedback.
Kevin - agreed re the process of nominating a horse into a race without knowing the conditions. Let's call it a "blind nomination". As you're aware, this "blind nomination" process has been created to workaround the problem of racehorse numbers. Until racehorse numbers incr then I'm expecting this to be the process. Agree that many hate it.
Wayne - excellent post #12. agree - forget about influencing punters into getting excited about exotics.
Phil - sounds like you've felt the pain of being at the back of the field in a 12 horse race with no chance. Can someone show me the data that shows the betting turnover difference over a 12 month period of 12 horse fields vs 10 horse fields?

[alphastud]

Is barrier 4 at Penrith better than barrier 1 at Penrith? Or is #1 just that outclassed it can't make use of the barrier?

Race fields are getting way to complicated. Leave it up the horses. Equal number of wins RBD. They will win their share of races and then be in their right class.

Scenario 1

Week 1. C1 PBD race. Horseymchorseface is #1 and $5. Horsesforcourses is # 10 and $1.90. Horseymchorseface gets sprint lane and wins, Horseforcourses 3wide last lap gets beat 1/2 length.

Week 2. C1 race Horseforcourses $1.60. C2-C3 Horseymchorseface $20

Scenario 2.

Week 1. C1 RBD race Horsemchorse face #5 is $10, Horsesforcourses #6 is $1.50. Horseforcourses wins.

Week 2. C1 Horsemchorseface is $5 (no longer has to compete with superior Horsesforcourses) while C2-C3 race Horsesforcourses is $8 (more suited to C2-C3 races than Horseymchorseface)


By evening it up you just make the better horses odds on more regularly, and the lucky PBD winners longer roughie odds when they're up in class. Week 1 might have been all good but week 2 is where it hurts and week 2 carries on longer than just that week because Horsesforcourses can continue getting beat because the PBD system screws him, whilst Horseymchorseface continues to be long odds because he can't compete in that grade.

10 start drop back rule is crap too. Fields are sizes of 10. You should win 1/10. That you didn't win in that 10 is just a basic statistic anomaly. Those horses are then going back to horses they are superior than.

If horses have made their way to a Rating 80 or an Ave MR 1.59 but have since dropped off in form shouldn't be given the opportunity to race in Rating 60 or an Ave MR 2.01 against horses who have never ever made it past Rating 60 or Ave MR 2.01

Hi Brendan,
Thanks for your reply.

Re: Penrith - I’m unsure of the real data however, we could analyse results over a 12 month period from RBD races to know an accurate answer. Yes, there are variables such as multiple horses by the same trainer etc .. However, I’d use that information as a punter and would feel happier as a trainer to be selected into those barriers with better winning stats.

Re: Complicated fields – agree, if we had a field of horses with the same or similar number of wins then make it RBD. Unfortunately, the HANDICAPPERS are not orgainsing these types of fields.
Look at Newcastle this coming Sat night. There are 3 x C1 races and so the HANDICAPPERS had 39 C1 eligible horses to organise.

On a quick look, we could have organised:
1. one C1 race for horses that have won 1 – 2 races (there are 11 of these)
2. one C1 race for horses that have won 7+ races (there are 11 of these)
3. two C1 race for horses that have won 3 – 6 (there are 17 of these)

Instead, we have these issues:
1. Horses in the upper percentile of prizemoney and wins drawing top barriers. E.g. Christian Brother 13 wins (R1), My Late Best Mate 9 wins (R3) and Six Degrees 5 wins (R6) drawing #1.
2. Horses in the lower percentile of prizemoney and wins racing against much better and in form horses drawing wide. E.g. Is I Out 1 win from 98 starts (R1 #8), Alwaysintouch 1 win from 34 starts (R6 #6).

Dropback – agree. Per Phil’s comments it could also be encouraging / allowing wrong behavior.

I think that PDB can be used to better handicap a race and it can also be used to help achieve secondary outcomes. Are you a PUNTER, OWNER, BREEDER etc.
e.g. you could PBD by the # of TRAINERS wins.

Why not give Is I Out the best barrier draw every week. Its TRAINER / OWNER has invested so much into HR and should get a better chance to get a better result. What would they do with the money? I’m betting that they’d re-invest.

[strong persuader]

Phil - sounds like you've felt the pain of being at the back of the field in a 12 horse race with no chance.

I think everyone has felt that pain My objection to the 12 horse fields is that we used to race 10 horse fields with money for the first four placings, 6 horses race for no return. Now we have 12 horse fields, and still only money for the first four places, 8 horses race for no return. If 12 horse fields are improving the punting return, why hasn't it followed with a return to the owners and trainers with the implementation of a fifth place cheque?

My objection to these blind nominations is that in the worst case scenario you could have a C2 horse racing up against C7 horses or better. That is really painful.

Whilst I like the idea of mares concessions, I hate that even in the better races like the Country to Menangle series, a mare with a junior driver can drop back 2 classes. This is creating a reverse discrimination situation.

In NSW now, it feels a little like once you win a C0, you are entering into the free for all ranks, there are few opportunities to place a C1-C3 horse where they will not encounter horses graded way above them.

As to the dropback situation. For an example, Mister Haywood in his C1 win. In finishing order, the horses had 2,2,3,2,9,11,8,7,7 and 3 wins before the race, the last placed horse in the race, not surprisingly had 1 win to its name. How there can be such disparity in a race for C1-C2 horses is bewildering. Then after competing in some good races, we were able to drop into a competitive stakes for horses assessed no better than C2 with only one outlier that had 6 wins.

I think that ordinary people would be as confused as all get out in trying to figure these things out.

It isn't beyond most of us to realise that all horses have their mark. Some lower than others. If we are able to win a couple of races with those ordinary animals and continue on with the next horse we are usually happy. As I put it, most of us are happy to spend $15k a year so long as we can get 10 of it back, but when you have to go multiple years of spending with no return, that is when it gets tough to keep on going with just the passion.

[Messenger]

I recently received an interesting email from Ray Chaplin of Equine Excellence about this thread, from which I have extracted the following quotes:

I wonder if HRA have done the foundation work necessary to provide them with a factual framework on which to base their efforts and more importantly their expectations


Harness racing’s viable future in Australia is at present almost totally dependant upon wagering revenue.
Currently HRA and industry participant attention is focussed upon alternative handicapping/programming initiatives that will create larger and more evenly balanced fields in order to maximize wagering turnover and revenue
No modelling exists that establishes the levels of increased wagering turnover and resultant revenue gains that will be needed to maintain and grow the sport into the future


Given the continuing product related declines illustrated above [ 2015/16 numbers for Mares served, Named horses plus overseas imports, Number of Starters, Number of races run - all Lowest ever] is it realistic to believe that changes to race handicapping/programming will be able to fill the ever widening gap in product availability [racing stock] necessary to generate wagering revenues required to secure the sports future - or is this focus a tactical band aid initiative that will simply slow the inevitable demise of Harness Racing at the professional level?


It is likely that the gap will be so great as to indicate that it is not feasible to expect that tactical changes to handicapping/programming/field makeup will resolve the serious threat to the viability of the sport
If this assessment is correct it will then create an urgency to address the fundamental strategic issue the industry faces – a lack of public (customer) support

[arlington]

Here you go Kev

SITUATIONS VACANT

http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=33418

One of the perks of the job is you can claim that South Melbourne pad you have as a second residence. Just don't ferry the dogs.

[Messenger]

I am hoping they find someone whose shoelaces I would not deem to tie
Please, please settle for nothing less than best available

[p plater]

Now here is a bit of interesting handicapping at Newcastle next Saturday.
Race 6
OSBORN LAW PACE 7:34 PM Track: Circumference - 940m, Straight - 220m, Front line - 10
Track Record: 1:55.0 Captain Brook 13/01/2017
Pacers. Restricted to horses which have had a minimum of 6 starts in NSW. For horses assessed no better than C2 that have not run 1st, 2nd or 3rd in their last 5 starts. PBD/$L4.

[alphastud]

Hi Bailey, I think that the purpose of this race is to incentivise the lower tier of C0 - C2 horses and provide them with an opportunity to compete with horses of similar form.
I think that it has merit. There is a large population of C0 - C1 horses in Newcastle (and most places) and so tihs is one way to handicap some of those until the new system arrives.

[Tangles]

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=HM180517#1


Hamilton race 1 Who would want to put a country front 3 yr old up against Our Little general. Much better handicapping needed by the HRV if racing is to prosper.