And presumably the only way to increase the field sizes would be to open up the bandwidth, particularly in regions with limited horse populations, which would have a negative effect on horse movement through the bands based on a fixed points allocation in accordance with placings.
Actually there is another way to increase field size and that would be to increase the prizemoney to increase horse population in a location or incentivise trainers to travel further to meetings which would lead to an accelerated progression/regression through a fixed bandwidth of ratings points.
Just getting my tongue back, Dot. No, he was assessed C2 MO. A big drifter when favourite in the Central Victorian Championship at Maryborough 9 days prior from barrier 2. Like Spankem, a very, very good 4yo not catered for by the NZ handicapping system.Originally Posted by Dot
I felt sorry for the new owners when, before the Cup, doubts were cast over the horse's ability due to his defeat at Maryborough. When asked on the track before the race Gavin Lang used the old "well, it was the first time I've driven him" excuse for his defeat. Take that on face value and you would never let him drive your horse unless he had driven him at the trials! A quick look at the HRNZ website would show the horse leading most of the way and being too good for Star Galleria at Alexandra Park two starts ago - that may have given a clue as to the horse's ability.
Interestingly, Sergeant Schultz may have been in the stewards tower at Maryborough. They see nuthink!
Can anyone answer why we need a national handicapping system?
With a nation the size of ours wouldn’t regional handicapping based on commercial concerns be better? Higher prizemoney races for better credentialed horses, lower prizemoney races for lesser performed horses.With race eligibility being determined on prizemoney won on three criteria in preferential order, dollars last 6, dollars for the season, dollars lifetime. Later two only used when more field management is required then dollars last 6. Free for all races for better older horses that really are free for all. Seperate feature races for better juveniles, and races according to dollars won lesser juveniles, etc ( yes sounds like America)
But with different states having different commercial arrangements With TABCORP how is a one size fits all handicapping system for putting on the races going to maximise returns for each state. Most states want increased field sizes to maximise returns, Victoria needs maximum volume of races for best returns under joint venture agreement.
South Australia, your prizemoney is shit ( sorry but you know it’s true) do you have sufficient horse numbers to support narrow bandwidths so that horses move up and down as the matrix provides for? Or would you need wider bands to make up optimal sized fields for turnover but with low ratings points assigned to low value races movement between bands would be minimal?
Vic your model is just get as many races out there as you can, don’t worry about the field size. With as Graeme pointed out minimal reduction points available in small fields are those horses who finish in the last positions determined by field size, but midfield as determined by the matrix going to actually be able to drop back to an easier race, or will they stay where they are being sitting ducks for horses with winning/place form comin up the ratings scale as determined by the matrix?
Does the high prizemoney available at Menangle see horses progress too rapidly up the ratings scale, particularly when field sizes are small, so that their rating would actually be higher then horses of commensurate ability racing in lower prizemoney jurisdictions so that when these horses are drawn together in the same race somewhere there is actually a marked disparity in their abilities? Would the QLders when they come down be getting a free kick for a race, or two or three, before their dollars generated ratings catch up to those racing at Menangle?
How do all these, and likely more variants impact on our ability to reduce short priced favourites which I’m led to believe is imperative to improving wagering returns?
Why again do we need a fixed national handicapping system when no two jurisdictions are alike, and regions within jurisdictions can be markedly different. Are we heading in the wrong direction trying to pidgeon hole all our varying racing regions into one handicapping system when really we should be designing varied conditioned racing models to suit different racing jurisdictions and regions within a jurisdiction ( what is right for handicapping Melton is probably not right for handicapping Mildura)
Surely in this digital day and age we need something better then a fixed dollars points matrix the same in each jurisdictions when conditions in each jurisdiction vary so widely. Isn’t our overall aim to maximise our returns from the TAB, not actually to be able to compare our horses directly with each other under a single ( flawed) handicapping format?
The South Aussies must love seeing the prizemoney go across the border (the Vics do a NZer)
Why not put in conditions eg starters must have had 4 starts in the state in the previous 12mths or all their starts in the previous 12mths in the state (to cover returning horses)
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Sorry Trevor, I thought Harness Web had updated but it hadn’t. That’s a C2 with $242k in earnings. His assessment may not have been comensuret with a “Cup” race but his earning suggest that it was well within his capabilities as proved to be the case. I don’t think you can blame the New Zealand handicapping system entirely for his being here, it’s just as much or moreso that his much lighter assessment here and increased earning capacity meant owners willing to pay more for him to come here. I think he could have been competitively placed at Alexandra Park but his owners and previous owners are based in the south, and both have a greater focus on juveniles and cup horses, and his juvenile career is over and he’s probably just a fringe player in the cup.
All true Dot, but NZ fails to cater for 4 year-olds with no sires stakes for them and only a handful of feature races. Therefore, they are thrown in the deep end.
Sicario is capable of winning anywhere and his record would be much better if it weren't for fickle barriers in big races. And as a correction he has always been owned by Victorian connections.
Yes Trevor, Bill and Jean Feiss, I should have written choose to base their racing interests on the South Island
Presumably Graeme horses can still be nominated “out of their class” ? Nominate well out of your ratings point assessment in the highest dollar value race you can find, get a run, finish last and you can accelerate your descent back to easier races.
The matrix seems to be constructed around a perfect world, full fields and horses only starting in their actual ratings points band.
And in NSW and Vic at least “earn” 2% of the higher race stake while your doing it!
Last edited by Dot; 02-12-2019 at 06:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote