The New Ratings Based Handicapping System

[arlington]

Are you allowed to go in a race higher than your rating? Eg 68 rater go in the 70-80 rating races?

You can Breno but you won't drop your rating by finishing down the track. Pretty sure that's how it is.

[Dot]

Hope that actually isn’t correct Wayne, and the value of the race and the number of “losing” points in the matrix has been taken into account. You shouldn’t be able to race above your rating in a race of significantly higher value and accelerate your decline down the ratings ladder by getting the higher number of negative points for finishing down the track in a high value race so should be no higher number of negative points in those circumstances.

But to improve the likelihood of optimum field sizes you should be able to nominate for a higher, within a limit, then your rating race and of comparable worth and not have to sacrifice the ability to reduce your rating by finishing down the track. No point in having 15 noms for one ratings band and having 3-5 stay home in the stable ( Vic would probably split that race but other states won’t) and the next higher ratings band have a field of 7 or 8 because chancing your hand at a slightly more “difficult” race on ratings bands ( which may actually be favourable for some because of its other conditions) cost you the chance to lose the same number of ratings points as you would for an “easier” lower rated race of the same or similar value.

I’m also sure Jason Bonnington answered the question on twitter and I think Steven Bell on In The Gig did too that prizemoney would be differential with higher rated races racing for increasing amounts over lower rated races to but that doesn’t appear to be the case in the program they have just released. Perhaps racing out up out of grade for higher stakesmoney and therefore unplaced runners subsidy would be sufficient reward for sacrificing the ability to lose ratings points racing up out of grade.

Still evolving system and I’m not sure how it’s going to go or what will work best, but I think some flexibility/incentives will be needed to best use the horse population, increase field sizes and maximise returns from wagering

[Messenger]

Hope that actually isn’t correct Wayne, and the value of the race and the number of “losing” points in the matrix has been taken into account. You shouldn’t be able to race above your rating in a race of significantly higher value and accelerate your decline down the ratings ladder by getting the higher number of negative points for finishing down the track in a high value race so should be no higher number of negative points in those circumstances.

Isn't that what Wayne said?

[Dot]

No not exactly, in most instances you lose 1 rating point for finishing 6th or worse but in races of higher value you can in certain finishing positions lose 2 or 3 ratings points and accelerate your decline down the ratings ladder. Don’t see why if you chance your hand racing up out of your ratings band you shouldn’t lose the same number of ratings points for “failing” as for “failing” in your own ratings band, but you should not be able to gain a higher number of negative points to accelerate your decline by racing up out of your ratings band

[arlington]

Racing above your rating but not dropping rating - I guess the thought that some would purely want to drop their ratings rather than finish in the best possible position was to the forefront/paramount in their thinking. Was one of the first whispers I overheard in the info session I went to.

I caught the In The Gig replay last week where I first heard about the prize money differential Dot. Was one of the first things I looked for in the July program as I hadn't heard about it in the RBHS information session, or podcast/media releases or published material. From my point of view it would have been...deceptive.

[arlington]

Just saw your post #56 Dot. Have to race off now but maybe integrity will rule out any changes there. Got to go.


p.s. I hadn't seen post #56 when I wrote #57.

[Dot]

Don’t see how you can have a ratings system that facilitates “sliding back” without counter measures to discourage people from abusing the system and not trying for a few runs to get into an easier race. Obviously a great deal of the burden to prevent this lies with the stewards but differential prizemoney built into the programming is another, essential imo, tool to discourage abuse of the system and to facilitate it working as intended. Differential prizemoney towards the higher grades should also act as an incentive to retain better horses to race in Australia rather then be sold to America, and in the face of rising demand from the US we need incentives to keep our horses here, contributing to our turnover and in turn overall prizemoney pool.

Differential negative ratings points also encourages abuse of the system and needs to be countered, but is no negative ratings points for racing above your ratings band the best solution? Would you consider it fair if a 69 rated horse nominated for a say 70 to 80 rating $15001 race and on finishing 10th loses no ratings points whilst a 70 rated horse finishing 9th loses 3 rating points?

Do we stick fast to the ratings bands and lose the opportunity to maximise field sizes, or do we have some flexibility to optimise field sizes by treating horses that race above, or limited to slightly above their rating, to be treated the same as a horse racing within its ratings band? If the field can be made up of horses all in the “right” ratings band well and good, but current avg field sizes in Vic are under 9 so with a need for the maximum number of races to maximise returns under the joint venture how often will fields be filled to capacity? Be the same number of horses available to race in likely the same number of races so we can’t afford any to stay home in their stable. Look at Melton tomorrow, 3 trotters making up a 7 horse C0 because the trot didn’t stand up. So are we better off to allow lower rated horses to race in a slightly higher band without disadvantage to maximise field sizes and put the program out two months in advance as intended, or do we stick rigidly with horses in their “right” band and a disadvantage to anyone who wants to race above it and update the programming to reflect horse population more frequently then put out two months in advance to increase field sizes?

[arlington]

They gave an email addy Dot rbhs@hrv.org.au

Not sure about tomorrow with the trotters in the C0 though. The 2yo trot and the Monte didn't get up so the trotters in the C0 could be due to the T0 actually getting up with a full field/large noms. Or it could just be the trotters have been taking on the C0's, as they do.

[Dot]

Yes Wayne I could ask what they intend but I am interested in hearing, well reading, others opinions first. I think it is essential that we increase field sizes and turnover and to that end we cannot be dogmatic about horses racing exactly in their “right” ratings band and should assume that anyone racing only perhaps a point or two above their rating in low ratings band races, and perhaps a few more points above at higher ratings with wider band widths is not trying to cheat the system and should not suffer any disadvantage for doing so ( yes that’s a little different to what I wrote before having thought about it some more). After all they do need to race to the satisfaction of the stewards as well to escape sanctions there. But a horse starting many points above its rating, well perhaps they forfeit the ability to acquire losing points.

I also think it essential to try and retain the level of horse that is rapidly disappearing to America and that means racing for differential prizemoney across the system and in order to do that there likely needs to be some funds removed from the lowest ratings bands to improve prizemoney at the level these horses are, and likely a little also shaved from the elite level races and added to this level as well.

Their abit better then T0 trotters Wayne and apparently their trot race didn’t stand up.

[arlington]

This isn't really a RBHS quandary and selling horses to the US has more than a bit to do with the $ exchange rate, the greater the differential the more lower class prize money level takes a hit? Or we can get the would be sellers to guarantee they won't sell their faster class horses irrespective of $ flucs? I suspect some of those sellers are looking to capitalise on a sale and reinvest on what could be a better quality juvenile. Perhaps we need to lower top end juvenile prize money levels.
There is no thought that you have a fast class today and either sell or retire (for whatever reason) today and you re-enter with a C0? You're happy then that lower class prize money is low?

I'll stand by it, the prizemoney differential, would have been deceptive, to me, as it hadn't been disclosed until the last week prior. Perhaps they'll introduce it and people can vote with their feet.

The T0 or better Monte didn't stand up but a bit of a stretch to use a Monte as a reason for changes to the RBHS?