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