The New Ratings Based Handicapping System

[KTQ]

http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=32464
Get your word in!

[Fan of Jate]

Good one KTQ- I have complained strongly about this handicapping system to HRA and will be getting my word in again.

[Messenger]

The recent interview with Dale Monteith posted elsewhere

https://vimeo.com/202591740

would indicate it IS going to happen

[alphastud]

Some of the current Handicapping + Grading is dumb. We all make mistakes. I make a lot and my thinking below might be another.

I understand that there are industry challenges due to factors such as foal numbers etc. however some aspects of the current system only appeal to a few.

Below are examples of the current policy's and issues regarding handicapping and grading;

Example1: short priced favs
we want less short prices favs. However, the system consistently allows “out of class” horses to compete in lower grade races. The system is creating shorter priced favs. Here’s the really dumb part. The system then allows these “out of class” horses to enter a lower grade race and draw as good or better than the horses that they should be handicapped against. E.g. a C3 mare in a C1 only race with a concession driver drawing barrier 1. They can draw 1 whether it’s PBD or RBD.

Example2: 12 horse fields
The 12-horse field strategy has been created to offset the problem of short priced favs. Reduce the # of short priced favs and we don’t need a 12 horse field. I’d like to know how much a 12 horse field actually helps betting when we have a short priced fav drawn favourably. I’m guessing it’s negligible.

Example3: increasing C0 and C1
We have worrying and increasing trend of C0 and C1 racehorses. How hasn’t this already rang alarm bells?


I had a good conversation with Cameron Brown from HRA who is facilitating this handicapping review project. He's a lot more than his title of Finance Manager suggests however us, the industry, the customer and the stakeholders need to drive change for it to improve. Handicappers and Administrators created the current system and so I'm not confident that they have the answers.

I’m thinking about getting involved in the workshop in Melbourne to strongly represent the thoughts of owners, trainers and breeders. I know that many think that this and other things don’t get anywhere however I can promise that if I do go, it won’t be for the scones and cakes. And it won’t cost you anything.

I’d only do this if I could first get at least 30 owners, trainers and breeders to run through a workshop with me (before the event) as I want to represent you and your ideas and not just mine.

I doubt that merely forwarding a submission will do too much. I won’t be doing that. It hasn’t changed much in the past.
I speak to many harness racing participants. A lot of them make sense and have valid ideas however aren’t great at expressing themselves. I’d like to help.

This could be a 2 or 3 hour workshop in the Penrith area. My email richard@alphastud.com.au or call me 0417 227 768.

[teecee]

http://www.hrnz.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/5140-ratings-system-documents

This RBHS has been trialled in the Nth Island since late last year with generally positive feedback from participants. Naturally such systems have some drawbacks but its success has meant it is to be rolled out throughout the Sth Island and thus the whole of NZ from March 17.
We were told recently at a meeting of participants that HRA has shown such interest in this system for consideration of use in Aussie. It may be worth a browse.

[Fan of Jate]

Good work Richard.


All of your examples are spot on.


I get very annoyed at the handicapping system in place. The "out of class" issue is a monster and needs to be stopped. I also think that if they are singleminded/determined and get the right policies and procedures in place that it will dramatically improve, there needs to be a bit of "blood on the tracks" though. You cant make major change to systems where money is involved without a few blood noses. I would be willing to participate in a workshop but only electronically due to location.


Good luck with it.

[aussiebreno]

Some of the current Handicapping + Grading is dumb. We all make mistakes. I make a lot and my thinking below might be another.

I understand that there are industry challenges due to factors such as foal numbers etc. however some aspects of the current system only appeal to a few.

Below are examples of the current policy's and issues regarding handicapping and grading;

Example1: short priced favs
we want less short prices favs. However, the system consistently allows “out of class” horses to compete in lower grade races. The system is creating shorter priced favs. Here’s the really dumb part. The system then allows these “out of class” horses to enter a lower grade race and draw as good or better than the horses that they should be handicapped against. E.g. a C3 mare in a C1 only race with a concession driver drawing barrier 1. They can draw 1 whether it’s PBD or RBD.

Example2: 12 horse fields
The 12-horse field strategy has been created to offset the problem of short priced favs. Reduce the # of short priced favs and we don’t need a 12 horse field. I’d like to know how much a 12 horse field actually helps betting when we have a short priced fav drawn favourably. I’m guessing it’s negligible.

Example3: increasing C0 and C1
We have worrying and increasing trend of C0 and C1 racehorses. How hasn’t this already rang alarm bells?


I had a good conversation with Cameron Brown from HRA who is facilitating this handicapping review project. He's a lot more than his title of Finance Manager suggests however us, the industry, the customer and the stakeholders need to drive change for it to improve. Handicappers and Administrators created the current system and so I'm not confident that they have the answers.

I’m thinking about getting involved in the workshop in Melbourne to strongly represent the thoughts of owners, trainers and breeders. I know that many think that this and other things don’t get anywhere however I can promise that if I do go, it won’t be for the scones and cakes. And it won’t cost you anything.

I’d only do this if I could first get at least 30 owners, trainers and breeders to run through a workshop with me (before the event) as I want to represent you and your ideas and not just mine.

I doubt that merely forwarding a submission will do too much. I won’t be doing that. It hasn’t changed much in the past.
I speak to many harness racing participants. A lot of them make sense and have valid ideas however aren’t great at expressing themselves. I’d like to help.

This could be a 2 or 3 hour workshop in the Penrith area. My email richard@alphastud.com.au or call me 0417 227 768.

Mares with a concession claim is the worst. Wagga Race 1 this Saturday night Holm Three made it an unbettable race as I liked an outsider - now it is scratched I will be having a bet.

[p plater]

Richard, race 5 next Tuesday at Menangle C4 or better PBD/C is such a race.
C4 MO draws 1 and a C15 M3 draws 8
Add to that a C9 draws outside 2 C11's.....go figure

[alphastud]

Good work Richard.


All of your examples are spot on.


I get very annoyed at the handicapping system in place. The "out of class" issue is a monster and needs to be stopped. I also think that if they are singleminded/determined and get the right policies and procedures in place that it will dramatically improve, there needs to be a bit of "blood on the tracks" though. You cant make major change to systems where money is involved without a few blood noses. I would be willing to participate in a workshop but only electronically due to location.


Good luck with it.

Thanks for your feedback Pat. If we get it up then I'll provide a gotmeeting link so that you can help. Thanks Brendan and Bailey.
Our challenge is that betting revenue is by far and ahead the #1 priority for this industry.
So how do you increase betting revenue and at what cost?
More Races, Competitive Races, Advertising, Participation, etc.
If there is so many C0 and C1 racehorses then why can't we make more competitive races from such a significant pool of horses?
Short priced favs stifle betting.
What is the cause of short priced favs?
Horses racing out of class or unfairly preferenced? Refer to Brendan and Bailey's posts above.
Leading / X-factor Trainers? How many short priced favs are trained by these trainers?
What probelms can we review and improve to both increase turnover and add value for participants - breeders, owners etc. ?
What are the reasons for these problems?
The 12 horse field strategy is diminishing returns particularly if handicapping and grading isn't improved.

[arlington]

A bit of crossover here with the APG Sales Syd & Melb commentary.

In regards to mares claiming both concessions. Sure it can stifle betting but the other consideration is honouring a commitment you've made to an owner when they've purchased a filly at the sales...or bred one. Wise to consider cause and effect when thinking about dishing out, quote, "a few blood noses".

No question a lot of C1 fields aren't any stronger than some C0's and in the case of the C3 mare drawing well in a C1...hard to gauge how this has helped with increasing, or curbing the decline in, the horse population (it's intention along with building up a broodmare's credentials for her progeny at the sales).

In my case, I have purchased at the sales with the mare's concession in mind, as well as obtained another two females. But on the flip side I've also owned males. Can't have my cake and eat it too and I'm fully aware of the punting dollar aspect.

If wiser heads think this should be changed I'd hope any introduction wouldn't dishonour the current obligation.

Talking for myself as a possible comeback buyer and small breeder to race, an example of changing the goal posts that makes me say possible is the Vicbred Homegrown Series. No coincidence Empire have naming rights and I imagine this little series is an example of David's state based sires racing. However the maximum stake money allowed to be earned to be eligible changed from 6 to $ 10,000. Not that on the fall of the hammer my "Tailamade Lombo" purchase was targeted for this series but if she didn't have "it" this series was introduced for the likes of her, as a 2 & 3yo.
It's little, or not so little(?), things like this that makes me wary of heading back to the sales as I don't envisage ever competing with Emilio and Mark.

Btw, there are some vendors who are happy with the prices they receive for the lower tiered stallions.

[aussiebreno]

A bit of crossover here with the APG Sales Syd & Melb commentary.

In regards to mares claiming both concessions. Sure it can stifle betting but the other consideration is honouring a commitment you've made to an owner when they've purchased a filly at the sales...or bred one. Wise to consider cause and effect when thinking about dishing out, quote, "a few blood noses".

No question a lot of C1 fields aren't any stronger than some C0's and in the case of the C3 mare drawing well in a C1...hard to gauge how this has helped with increasing, or curbing the decline in, the horse population (it's intention along with building up a broodmare's credentials for her progeny at the sales).

In my case, I have purchased at the sales with the mare's concession in mind, as well as obtained another two females. But on the flip side I've also owned males. Can't have my cake and eat it too and I'm fully aware of the punting dollar aspect.

If wiser heads think this should be changed I'd hope any introduction wouldn't dishonour the current obligation.

Talking for myself as a possible comeback buyer and small breeder to race, an example of changing the goal posts that makes me say possible is the Vicbred Homegrown Series. No coincidence Empire have naming rights and I imagine this little series is an example of David's state based sires racing. However the maximum stake money allowed to be earned to be eligible changed from 6 to $ 10,000. Not that on the fall of the hammer my "Tailamade Lombo" purchase was targeted for this series but if she didn't have "it" this series was introduced for the likes of her, as a 2 & 3yo.
It's little, or not so little(?), things like this that makes me wary of heading back to the sales as I don't envisage ever competing with Emilio and Mark.

Btw, there are some vendors who are happy with the prices they receive for the lower tiered stallions.
If removing the mares concession it would need to be phased out eg we set a 2021 date. Maybe hard with declining horse pool but need more mares only races especially in the 2yo and 3yo ranks which gives all owners a better crack. Mares owners have their races and C1s dont end up racing C5s. Of course a drawback is if a mare wins 5 against her own sex and is all of a sudden thrown in against boys or forced to race in a M0-M3 mares (cos need that range for field sizes usually) but at least the owner can hang their hat in getting those first 5 wins that they otherwise may not have got.

[alphastud]

Thanks to everyone for their feedback.

However, I’m confused. I’m based in NSW and so will discuss the HRNSW handicapping only for now.
I understand that Handicapping in NSW is successful when reviewing the excerpt below from the HRNSW 2015/2016 annual report (https://indd.adobe.com/view/3f2b4686-d984-4ee6-8315-bc94d0efb35b):

The programming during the 2015/16 racing season combined with prizemoney increases provided viability to a higher percentage of horses and gave more owners the exhilaration of winning a race. Furthermore, a better utilisation of the horse pool through “like for like” racing and an increase to the maximum field sizes at Tabcorp Park Menangle and Newcastle led to more individual horses racing, larger field sizes and an increase in total turnover and average turnover per race. (p28)

So then, is the HRA review of handicapping a call to make further improvements or is it a result of a hidden handicapping problems or other factors?

HRNSW (p27) says that the current model aims to:
a) Make a higher percentage of horses viable, which will keep them racing and maintain their connections in the sport.
b) By making horses viable it is hoped that owners will be able to further invest in other horses.
c) If owners invest in other horses there will be demand for horses at yearling and ready to run sales. d) If there is demand for horses at sales then commercial breeders may breed more horses.
e) If hobby owner/breeders have viable race horses then they may have money to breed more horses as opposed to leaving their mares barren

Does anyone know?
x - how the current HRNSW handicapping system is tracking against these aims?
x - if there are any other measures that are used to determine the success of the current HRNSW handicapping system?
x - how HRNSW defines its benchmark or “optimised” handicapping system? i.e. what are the targets or criteria for this optimised system?

Now, I understand that many of us have valid ideas on how to improve handicapping. And it seems that some of the fixes are common sense and clear. However, please support me on working through this if you can help. Thanks, Richard
m. 0417 227 768 or richard@alphastud.com.au

[Messenger]

Good luck Richard.* At first, I was thinking that the average horse earnings per season would be an indicator but realized that it means nothing as there could be as little as 50 horses winning the majority of the money and thus skewing this average as meaningless. Also the more horses that compete the smaller that average will be unless prizemoney is increasing.

The median (middle earner) would be more relevant and other points such as the 20th percentile (the horse with only 20% of those to race below him)

The simple fix of course is to make the emphasis on just having a horse good enough to compete and for authorities to keep increasing the percentage of prizemoney that goes to every starter. Unless we are growing the size of the cake, it does after all require today's big winners to be getting less and today's losers to be getting more.

Once upon a time HRNSW'S Adam Fairley used to post on here and although I think they still monitor us ,for when we make a mistake, it seems they strangely no longer see any value in communicating with the rank and file on here

[Messenger]

A couple of comments I received in an email from an expert on the topic:
*

An increase in total turnover and average turnover per race. (p28) – just wondering how HRNSW have deduced that this minor turnover increase (1.5%) on previous year can be directly be attributed to programming – could it be the result of a general improvement in the economy – benchmarking against thoroughbred and greyhound turnover would provided an insight?*

Larger field sizes – whist the numbers are small and may well be insignificant I wonder whether 18 less race meetings and 54 less races has contributed to this

*

It seems to me that whilst programming has a* worthwhile tactical role to play in potentially helping to sustain the sport in the short term unless the industry can strategically secure product* availability in the future the long term decline trend that has been evident for the past* three decades will continue albeit at a slower rate
*

The industry seems to spend more time and energy focussing on tactical initiatives rather than strategic fundamentals to me – Strategy development requires a far greater degree of thinking (hard work) than does tactics and maybe this is the reason why

*

*

[Fan of Jate]

This started out as a review and then a proposal in the document


Accordingly, HRA invites interested parties to submit a ‘Ratings Based Handicapping System’ proposal, addressing at least the following criteria:


Method and system of rating horses;
The effect of the RBHS on ‘concessions’ – i.e. junior drivers, fillies and mares;
The effect of the RBHS on trotters; and
Impact and consequence of a RBHS between different states and international competitors.

Nothing strategical about it but depends on the authors views and experience on what is tactical and what a strategy is. Kev, your expert is correct, the tactical thinking approach is much easier and gives short term gain only. The headline of this document was basically wanting a review-far short of a strategy.


Each of Mr Browns points in his proposal request need to be drilled down as some of our posters have done and get to the bottom of why the systems is failing. And as you can read , most individuals have their own agenda depending on what type of horse they have bought and where ( which state & which country) and the cost.


For an individual or group to come up with a proposal to meet the four points requires a great deal of resources which has to include subject experience/administrative experience and a strategic mind which are not easy qualities to find in one spot. At the moment I see individuals putting in their 2 bobs worth, there may be a lot more going on behind the scenes but I finds Richard's ideas of good value but how will groups from WA for e.g meld in with this. I think someone totally independent, a clear thinker with strategic ability and marketing expertise needs to be bought in- this is a once only opportunity.


My opinion:


*A horse only has a finite life in racing- why do we want to keep them racing if they have no ability at all? Why do we want to create a losers "class"
*Why do we keep breeding horses with limited pedigree?, this creates a class of Co's all of their own. I understand the hobby breeder/owner doing this and I appreciate it but can someone clearly explain to me how many horses don't even make it to the races and what happens to them? I never hear anything regarding this subject.
* We have rehomed a couple but happens to the rest? Is this sustainable?
* If a group cant promote their own product and increase "gambling turnover" and create good social atmosphere they should cease to exist i.e a race track or club.
* If some-one wants to sit at home watching Fox and complaining about odds on faves, get to the race track and have a good time. Support the local industry.
* Are we short of racing horses? Another one that intrigues me. International horses arrive by the dozens each month, so is this to fill the void? No, it is a way to try and pick up 5-6 wins/good prizemoney before the horse comes back to the field. Most of us have all done it.
* Local Horse owners complain when people go overseas to buy a horse because you are putting a ridiculous price on a local horse which has won 2 races from 40 starts. Its called cutting your own throat.
* Why are international horses allowed to come her on easy marks and racing against very good horses especially trotters and win easy local money-no other sport in any other country allows this.
* Why are 2yo & 3yo international horses allowed to enter into each states big money races especially when these "international horses" are the pick of the crop? Now that's a tactic and a strategy. Try doing that in another country.
* I think mares should get certain advantages for a certain length of time in their racing careers, the reasons are obvious.
* There should be more races for fillies to encourage the their breeding and help with sales which are on a downward trend generally
* The view that " local plodders" aren't good enough. This term came from a thoroughbred commentator actually in relation to upgrading the Caulfield cup to get more international horses here. I think all Australian horses should be given first spot in any race unless international horses are specifically invited to enter a big race.
* If we are short of horses -International horses should only be allowed to come over here when they have reached say C5/9 or MO in their own country and that rating is equal to Australia's or bought here as unqualified 2 y/o's. This increases the risk of buying an overseas horse and this allows the local product to develop.
* Review the NZ ratings system and see if it works or investigate other countries systems- but we have to fix some of the other problems as well.
*It looks like HRNSW are going alright according to Richards data- What can we learn then? One thing we know is that they have a shedfull of money more than anyone else.


These points all meet the HRA Proposal and some go further. They also align with the agreed Philosophy.

[Messenger]

Good thought provoking opinions Pat

Remembering the trotter (how could I not - they are all that is racing at Melton tonight), they have the huge advantage of still having Standing Starts and thus true handicap racing if they get serious about it.
I may be diverging a little but I would have loved to have seen some of those races where champs of the past made up huge handicaps - I have been a bit of a follower of athletics and with the pros, watching whether the backmarker can get up is 90% of the interest factor.

[Fan of Jate]

Kev, I agree with the standing starts of yesteryear, it would have been good to see. One thing that sparked my interest in the way that handicapping works is athletics and also pro bike riding where any hint of ability more than your opponents and you are on a handicap, the Stawell gift is one such event in athletics where you are handicapped on who you have raced against, where and your race record. It is rare that someone gets under the handicappers guard, unfortunately I don't see those strict protocols in Harness racing. There is quite a bit of money involved in athletic meetings especially overseas and they I believe they manage the running heats well especially based on form, there are no easy races to get to a final.

[DRUIDRACING]

With all systems for ratings /classes / mares concessions and driver concessions will never be a perfect system. All trainers owners will study the rules or rating system to squeeze out the maximum results for their horses. When the drop back system was brought in horses were not at there peak at start 10 but peaked the next start down in class however this factor does not seem to be as prevalent as it was maybe $$ was a factor.

I have a database (5000) of mainly NSW horses and have found that of these horses that start 14% actually win a single race. 27% never win a race. 23% win 2 races probably improved when conditioned racing came in.

In my opinion the system at the moment is good however I think its designed to a degree to force country horses who reach C5+ to race at Menangle by restricting the open class races in the country. With $30k country cups it attracts the city to the country has to be good for turnover.

[alphastud]

Thanks Kevin, Pat and Steven.

A few comments and notes below in response and to take the discussion further.

x - current HRNSW Handicapping + Race Programming - 1. Bettting Revenue and 2.Larger Field Sizes seem to be the only measure of success. Both have increased under the current Handicapping system for HRNSW. However, it's caused significant other industry problems. Will discuss another time.

x - current HRNSW Handicapping + Race Programming - Increasing betting Betting Revenue is the only real priority. HRNSW measure, track and work towards this outcome way ahead of any other. This is for the PUNTER. There is no or limited strategy to improve factors for the BREEDER, OWNER or TRAINER in Handicpaping + Race Programming. Will discuss another time.

x - Steven Pile - Hi Steven, thanks for your input. Do you know the % of C0 and C1 horses in the population? This is a significant bottleneck and example of the system not working as well as what it can. Furthermore, the satisfaction of the customers of HRNSW i.e. PUNTERS, BREEDERS, OWNERS, TRAINERS etc. provide the ultimate measure of whether the system is working or otherwise. Will discuss another time.

x - Major problem with any new Handicapping, Race Programming etc. System - if the strategy remains the same then any new Handicapping system probably won't help the other customers of harness racing. If the strategy's focus stays on the PUNTER, then we shouldn't expect too much improvement for the BREEDER, OWNER etc.

We've summarised some problems discussed in the list below. Note that you may not agree that all below are problems and may disagree with some. Remember, that they may be a significant problem for a different customer i.e. TRAINER.

Do we need or want a more holistic approach? i.e. a strategy and activities that supports more interests of key customers beyond PUNTERS

Can you please add any further problems or issues that you feel are important and should be addressed? Here is the current list.

1. 12 horse fields.
2. False Preferential Barrier Draw (PBD). i.e. Horses preferenced in sequential order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. ) versus them orderered by the most successful barrier. (Penrith 3, 4, 2, 1, etc. if this was the case)
3. Concession horses getting equal opportunity to enter a race. e.g. C2 horse getting into a C1 only race ahead of other C1 horses.
4. Concession horses getting equal opportunity to draw as well as or better than non-concession horses. e.g. C2 horse drawing better than a C1 horse.
5. Out of class horses e.g. A 3C5 horse who's won $100k racing in a C0 race against C0's without a LTW.
6. Multiple runners. e.g. Trainers getting 2 and 3 runners in a race and balloting other trainer runners.
7. Lack of opportunities for lower grade horses to compete with similarly graded horses. e.g. 4YO + with 0 LTW
8. The system giving the same preference in barrier draw regardless of life time stakes. e.g. a C0 that's won $100k can draw as good as a horse that hasn't won a race.

[teecee]

Thanks Kevin, Pat and Steven.

A few comments and notes below in response and to take the discussion further.

x - current HRNSW Handicapping + Race Programming - 1. Bettting Revenue and 2.Larger Field Sizes seem to be the only measure of success. Both have increased under the current Handicapping system for HRNSW. However, it's caused significant other industry problems. Will discuss another time.

x - current HRNSW Handicapping + Race Programming - Increasing betting Betting Revenue is the only real priority. HRNSW measure, track and work towards this outcome way ahead of any other. This is for the PUNTER. There is no or limited strategy to improve factors for the BREEDER, OWNER or TRAINER in Handicpaping + Race Programming. Will discuss another time.

The two statements above appear to be quite definitive/factual ??? If you wish to make sweeping statements such as these and are relevant to the issue of the thread please supply substantiating evidence within the post rather than leave us to suss it out elsewhere thanks. MOD

x - Steven Pile - Hi Steven, thanks for your input. Do you know the % of C0 and C1 horses in the population? This is a significant bottleneck and example of the system not working as well as what it can. Furthermore, the satisfaction of the customers of HRNSW i.e. PUNTERS, BREEDERS, OWNERS, TRAINERS etc. provide the ultimate measure of whether the system is working or otherwise. Will discuss another time.

x - Major problem with any new Handicapping, Race Programming etc. System - if the strategy remains the same then any new Handicapping system probably won't help the other customers of harness racing. If the strategy's focus stays on the PUNTER, then we shouldn't expect too much improvement for the BREEDER, OWNER etc.

We've summarised some problems discussed in the list below. Note that you may not agree that all below are problems and may disagree with some. Remember, that they may be a significant problem for a different customer i.e. TRAINER.

Do we need or want a more holistic approach? i.e. a strategy and activities that supports more interests of key customers beyond PUNTERS

Can you please add any further problems or issues that you feel are important and should be addressed? Here is the current list.

1. 12 horse fields.
2. False Preferential Barrier Draw (PBD). i.e. Horses preferenced in sequential order (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. ) versus them orderered by the most successful barrier. (Penrith 3, 4, 2, 1, etc. if this was the case)
3. Concession horses getting equal opportunity to enter a race. e.g. C2 horse getting into a C1 only race ahead of other C1 horses.
4. Concession horses getting equal opportunity to draw as well as or better than non-concession horses. e.g. C2 horse drawing better than a C1 horse.
5. Out of class horses e.g. A 3C5 horse who's won $100k racing in a C0 race against C0's without a LTW.
6. Multiple runners. e.g. Trainers getting 2 and 3 runners in a race and balloting other trainer runners.
7. Lack of opportunities for lower grade horses to compete with similarly graded horses. e.g. 4YO + with 0 LTW
8. The system giving the same preference in barrier draw regardless of life time stakes. e.g. a C0 that's won $100k can draw as good as a horse that hasn't won a race.

Are these not the issues and anomolies that HRA is trying to address by looking to a PBHS or other handicapping system to implement nationwide supposedly. It is HRA looking to this issue rather than the individual state bodies.?

[Messenger]

It is state by state here TC - no unity I'm afraid, sadly still a fair degree of rivalry.* We cannot however blame that for our woes as the gallops are probably worse.* It makes you wonder what could be achieved

[teecee]

I appreciate that but I just wonder whether HRA is about to take what I see as a long overdue leadership role when it comes to this issue as they have with the whip banning issue.

[Fan of Jate]

I believe that the issue regarding a system for all states will be decided in April this year, presumably during the review of the current method. So hopefully there will be some unity.

[arlington]

I appreciate that but I just wonder whether HRA is about to take what I see as a long overdue leadership role when it comes to this issue as they have with the whip banning issue.

Touché teecee

[Messenger]

So how does the NSW system work?

I look at Races 1,2 & 4 at tonight's Menangle and see they are Level 2, 3 & 4.

I am thinking the lower the level the higher rated a horse is?
I look at each horse's class and see there is an M0 horse in both the Level 2 & 4 so I am only guessing

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=PC260817

[p plater]

The NSW system is on trial for a few months. It is designed to place horses based on their current form in the amount of $$$$'s.
Under a "How It Works" sheet it states;
Events open to all horses
Horses will be ranked based on the prizemoney won in the last 5 starts less any prizemoney won when winning a M0 event in the last 5 starts.
Barrier draws are PBD/$L5 so highest money winner draws 10 or 12 with reserves in.

Level 1 usually a $30,000 race
Ranked 1st to 10th with 11th and 12th as reserves

Level 2 usually a $22,000 race
Ranked 11th to 20th with 21st and 22nd reserves

Level 3 Usually a $14,000 race
Ranked 21st to 30th with 31st and 32nd reserves

Level 4 Usually a 12,000 race
Ranked 31 to 40th with 41st and 42nd as reserves.

As a horse earns more prizemoney it progresses through the levels and races for more prizemoney. It allows out of form highly M graded horses to continue racing but not against FFA in form horses. An example was tonight Bettor Bet Black a M8 was in a level 3 (he had 1 second in his last 6 starts) he wins $7,000 tonight and will probably be Level 2 next week.

Hope that helps.

[Fan of Jate]

A better example was Desdon Murruffy coming home nice odds of $82. Not sure where this post fits in relation to several threads, especially as the trainer got QIP, driver tactics questioned, long shot winners, handicapping and last but not least ....a very long shot winner with an owner/driver.

[Messenger]

Thanks Bailey and thanks to Adam Fairley for sending me this link

http://www.harnessmediacentre.com.au/uploads/files/racing%20notices/metro%20handicapping%20system%20for%20website%20v2 .pdf

[Dot]

HBNSW have distributed a copy of HRAs proposed ratings based handicapping system to their members requesting feedback. Not sure if any other industry groups have done likewise yet.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ae971c452e9a64a2e4fd3cec2/files/91d734b6-c8c5-4782-9fb8-3ff65b190f00/Ratings_Based_Handicapping_System_HRA.pdf

[gutwagon]

Thanks for that link Dot. I think it's worth a try.

[Dot]

Yes it is Rick, and changes that address the economic losses and welfare failings of the industry due to horses that don’t race at all or disappear from the racing pool after one win are long overdue.

I can’t believe on other social media there are people who would can this ratings system based on an irrational fear of the lengths some drivers may go to to to finish nearer the tail of the field to maximise the loss of ratings points. I’ll bet these same people are the ones that haven’t noticed over decades those drivers who have only ever been trying to run in the placings to avoid taking a penalty.........

[gutwagon]

I think the first win bonus should be paid out for a win in any race the TAB is betting on regardless of race prize money. This would also encourage owners of lower ability horses to stay in the game longer. With the current demand for as many races as possible I don't think punters care much about the ability of the horses they are betting on, they just want competitive racing, fields big enough for each way betting and fewer odds on favs.

[Dot]

Ballarat should be a great nights racing but has stimulated some discussion on our current handicapping system with Spankem fresh from 2 heat wins in the ID and fourth in the final being assessed an M3/C3 and eligible for that C3 race, and seeding for the derby heats as 5 of the top 6 in betting being drawn the same heat.

Think it shows we have room to improve our product

[Showgrounds]

Should be a great nights racing but has stimulated some discussion on our current handicapping system with Spankem fresh from 2 heat wins in the ID and fourth in the final being assessed an M3/C3 and eligible for that C3 race, and seeding for the derby heats as 5 of the top 6 in betting being drawn the same heat.

Think it shows we have room to improve our product

Alternatively, it shows how out of whack the handicapping system is in NZ that you can have a horse like Spankem, who has only won 6 lifetime races, as an open class horse (rating R91). Horses like him have to come to Australia just to get a chance of winning. He has paid the price for being a good 2 year old (4 wins, 6 placings from 10 starts and $186K). No wins from 5 starts at 3 and 2 wins this season.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the proposed handicapping system based on ratings. You would have to ask an NZ'r for an honest opinion of how its working there. Lack of 4 year old racing does not help their horses. Elle Mac, for example, is a seriously good 4 year old mare but had only raced against her own sex as a 2 and 3 year old. She had to start her 4 year old season as a rating R95 - against males. Two wins later, she is a R104. Little wonder her next race start will be in Australia. Against mares and possibly many of her own age.

Spankem a special in the C3 at Ballarat based on that.

[Dot]

Well in the absence of a Kiwi, though one is welcome to come in and answer, I think it goes like this, Allstars don’t like the ratings system because many of their horses do progress too rapidly for their liking through it. Others do like it because the good horses progress through more rapidly leaving like to race like more often, and there are issues with lack of races for juveniles against other like juveniles after they’ve had a win or two.

But it’s not just the ratings system there that’s the problem, it’s the programming, the field sizes, prizemoney and declining horse population and favourable handicapping here that see their horses travel or sold overseas to race.

If the Allstars stable were in the US then the majority or all of their horses would race on the stakes and grand circuit so no problem with handicapping or horse numbers but here and in NZ their performances are an outlier on their and our handicapping systems which is hard to cater for.

Spankem is not quite as “poorly” performed as you suggest Trevor. 4 of his wins were at 2, he did win at 3, here in a heat of the Victoria Derby last year, and the Kaikoura cup as a 4yo before 2 heat wins and a 3rd and then 4th in final of the ID for lifetime summary of 25 8 4 9 total earnings of approx $330k. I believe he went into the ID as a C1, and because of the Kaikoura Cup an M1, the ID heat wins made him M3/C3.

Of course when the class system was set up you couldn’t be an M1/C1 or M3/C3. He may not have gone through his grades but the Kaikoura Cup win would have made him an M1/C6 ( from memory) on arrival in Aus for the ID, and the ID heat wins an M3/C8. If he was in a C8 or C8+ at Ballarat then fair enough that’s what his assessment (should) have been.

I don’t think a horse like Spankem has to come to Australia to get a chance at winning ( apart from having to take on his stablemates in NZ) but the Kiwi connections giggle at how easy we are making it for them under our class system as it stands now.

Ratings alone won’t fix the problem, but they have to be better then what the class system has become, programming has to come into it too, and most important is a big enough horse population from a variety of stables to make it work.

[teecee]

Alternatively, it shows how out of whack the handicapping system is in NZ that you can have a horse like Spankem, who has only won 6 lifetime races, as an open class horse (rating R91). Horses like him have to come to Australia just to get a chance of winning. He has paid the price for being a good 2 year old (4 wins, 6 placings from 10 starts and $186K). No wins from 5 starts at 3 and 2 wins this season.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the proposed handicapping system based on ratings. You would have to ask an NZ'r for an honest opinion of how its working there. Lack of 4 year old racing does not help their horses. Elle Mac, for example, is a seriously good 4 year old mare but had only raced against her own sex as a 2 and 3 year old. She had to start her 4 year old season as a rating R95 - against males. Two wins later, she is a R104. Little wonder her next race start will be in Australia. Against mares and possibly many of her own age.

Spankem a special in the C3 at Ballarat based on that.

Just so you can see where the two horses mentioned above come to get ratings that they have included is their respective paths to such ratings. The ratings take account of age with young horses as well as ability. It is a little misleading to suggest good / above average good horses are penalised by the ratings as can be seen by the ratings allocations to these two examples. There is no such thing as an open class rating. When all hoses start with 50 ratings points then a horse like Spankem with 91 points is only the equivalent Class 5. Hardly Open class even taking into account max rating is 120. (10+ wins old class system)

Spankem
https://harness.hrnz.co.nz/gws/ws/r/infohorsews/wsd06x?Arg=hrnzg-Ptype&Arg=HorseRatingHist&Arg=hrnzg-HorseID&Arg=188757&Arg=hrnzg-Gait&Arg=P

Elle Mac....
https://harness.hrnz.co.nz/gws/ws/r/infohorsews/wsd06x?Arg=hrnzg-Ptype&Arg=HorseRatingHist&Arg=hrnzg-HorseID&Arg=190477&Arg=hrnzg-Gait&Arg=P

[Showgrounds]

Thanks for bringing us up to speed, Tony. Would I be right, though, is suggesting NZ's "fast class" ranks are seriously depleted?

Looking at a horse like Sicario, R94 rated and destined (due to programming or lack of horses) to fast class races. A pretty good horse who has won 11 of 24, but his best win has been the Flying Stakes. In Australia, he is assessed a C2, M0!

Here is a horse that has beaten Chase Auckland, Pats Delight and Sheriff, as well as a FFA (sitting parked outside Alta Orlando - AS A 3 YEAR-OLD!) assessed a C2 in Australia! I cannot work out which is right or which is wrong, the Aus or NZ handicapping system. Either way, it flawed.

[Dot]

It’s not as simple Trevor as one or the other is flawed. A quick look at the WA pacing cup field will tell you very quickly where a large number of the NZ fast class horses are. It’s not just the NZ ratings system that sees them in WA. It’s the difficulty other stables in NZ, have in matching the standard set by the All Stars horses to be competitive in NZ, plus a number of very wealthy owners in WA that are willing to part with six figure sums, and the first digit is often not a 1, which is far inexcess of what many horses can win in NZ, and it’s in a lump sum, to compete for high levels prizemoney in WA which is subsidised by the TBs.

But our class system is flawed and particularly so by the changes of more recent times that the Kiwis often become very loosely assessed on arrival in Australia, so much so that when Mark Purdon brought Picadilly Princess to WA for the mares feature races during the ID carnival she was actually too lightly assessed to be eligible. Now HWOE applies in WA. And of course there are a number of NZ fast class horses in the eastern states as well.

The NZ industry is underpinned by the sale of horses overseas, which hampers their ability to generate turnover, and our breeding industry is in decline as a significant portion of owners choose to buy going horses of known ability from NZ rather then partake in the purchase of yearlings which is somewhat more of a lottery.

It will take more then just handicapping reform to restore the balance that sees each state of in Australia breed sufficient of its own horses that creates the economic activity that ensures government support for the industry more so then just taxes on wagering does and for NZ to have a racing environment that encourages owners to race rather then sell horses.

[Messenger]

Great post Dot.

I noticed that WA Cup winner Rocknroll Lincoln had had 13 starts in NZ (11 as a 3yo and 2 as a 4yo for 4 wins and 5 placings) for $28,721 in prizemoney - I added up his next 13 starts in WA to find he had already won another $89,745 (7 wins and 3 placings)
He has now had 21 starts in Aus for $435,453

[Messenger]

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) will conduct a series of consultation sessions across Victoria in relation to the proposed national ratings handicapping system.

All stakeholders are encouraged to attend one of the following sessions:

Tuesday February 12 at Shepparton (7pm)
Wednesday February 13 at Ballarat (7pm)
Thursday February 14 at Cranbourne (7pm)
Monday February 18 at Mildura (7pm)

Light refreshments will be provided.

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/articles/industry-news-consultation-sessions-to-be-held/

[gutwagon]

The Cranbourne consultation session could probably be held in an elevator !

[Dot]

Was thinking similar mysel Rick, and Bendigo misses out. One prominent owner has called for one in the city. I’ve read it’s being introduced in May

[Messenger]

The price of the favourites at Melton tonight is a classic example of why we need a new system

$2.30 $1.40 $2.30 $1.40 $1.30 $1.04 $1.60 $1.30 $1.70 $1.20

Other than that we have to educate the public because there was actually winners to be had at

$7.40 $3.30 $5.40 $10.70

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX090219

[gutwagon]

Am I the only one that thinks these "consultation sessions" will be to explain how the system works and the decision has already been made and nothing about the new system will be altered ?

[halfyourluck]

The matrix that is included in the attachment in Dot's post #1 of this thread, (for race stakes $2001-$8500) shows points reductions happening for 6th to last- so not many reduction points flowing out of 5 and 6 races fields for horses finishing last and second last? Also it says no points movements for horses retired in running or pulled up, but presumably they do "use up" one of the available reduction places. Unless the average field sizes show a noticeable increase, the reductions won't be happening as much as is seemingly intended in the matrix.

[Showgrounds]

Good to see a C2 assessed pacer start favourite and win the SA Cup last night. Probably the best win ever be a horse with this assessment at the time of the race.

[aussiebreno]

Good to see a C2 assessed pacer start favourite and win the SA Cup last night. Probably the best win ever be a horse with this assessment at the time of the race.
Spankem beat Tiger Tara as a C1 and a further Inter heat as a C2.

[Dot]

Good to see a C2 assessed pacer start favourite and win the SA Cup last night. Probably the best win ever be a horse with this assessment at the time of the race.

Tongue in cheek Trevor? He was actually a C1 going into the race, now he’s a C2

[Dot]

The matrix that is included in the attachment in Dot's post #1 of this thread, (for race stakes $2001-$8500) shows points reductions happening for 6th to last- so not many reduction points flowing out of 5 and 6 races fields for horses finishing last and second last? Also it says no points movements for horses retired in running or pulled up, but presumably they do "use up" one of the available reduction places. Unless the average field sizes show a noticeable increase, the reductions won't be happening as much as is seemingly intended in the matrix.

Good points Graeme.

[Dot]

Also doesn’t indicate what the band width or spread of ratings points will be in the programming or wether these will be fixed or variable. So along with slow reductions in points in small fields as Graeme has pointed out, if those small fields are in races with a wide spread of ratings points determining eligibility movement down toward an easier band could be negligible for quite sometime for some horses.

Likewise band width will also impact on a successful horses ascent to racing higher rated horses.

[Dot]

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.

[Dot]

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.

[Showgrounds]

Tongue in cheek Trevor? He was actually a C1 going into the race, now he’s a C2

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.

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!

[Dot]

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?

[Messenger]

Good to see a C2 assessed pacer start favourite and win the SA Cup last night. Probably the best win ever be a horse with this assessment at the time of the race.

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)

[Dot]

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.

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!

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.

[Showgrounds]

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.

[Dot]

Yes Trevor, Bill and Jean Feiss, I should have written choose to base their racing interests on the South Island

[Dot]

The matrix that is included in the attachment in Dot's post #1 of this thread, (for race stakes $2001-$8500) shows points reductions happening for 6th to last- so not many reduction points flowing out of 5 and 6 races fields for horses finishing last and second last? Also it says no points movements for horses retired in running or pulled up, but presumably they do "use up" one of the available reduction places. Unless the average field sizes show a noticeable increase, the reductions won't be happening as much as is seemingly intended in the matrix.

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.

[Dot]

And in NSW and Vic at least “earn” 2% of the higher race stake while your doing it!

[arlington]

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) will conduct a series of consultation sessions across Victoria in relation to the proposed national ratings handicapping system.

All stakeholders are encouraged to attend one of the following sessions:

Tuesday February 12 at Shepparton (7pm)
Wednesday February 13 at Ballarat (7pm)
Thursday February 14 at Cranbourne (7pm)
Monday February 18 at Mildura (7pm)

Light refreshments will be provided.




https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/articles/industry-news-consultation-sessions-to-be-held/



A podcast will be released for those who can't get to a session.

[Dot]

That’s good Wayne but it’s a shame that a video/podcast explanation of the workings of the system in its entirety was not released prior to the consultation meetings to enable those who are sufficiently interested to view in order to be able to give consideration to the proposed workings of the system and formulate opinions and question for the consultation meetings ahead of time.

Would make better use of the brains that are out in the stable and not in the office

[Dot]

That’s two consultation sessions down, and another about to be. How’s that podcast going?

[arlington]

That’s two consultation sessions down, and another about to be. How’s that podcast going?


RSN The Trots - One Out One Back program, HRV's Stephen Bell from the 11.15 mark. https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=331805

[Dot]

Oh I’ve listened to that Wayne. You could barely hear Stephen Bell. Only really said they were holding meetings, that he, Bell, was from the TB industry and the new ratings would be like there’s. Nothing there on the nitty gritty for those of us that have already figured out the basics.

[arlington]

Only posted the link as the release of the podcast was mentioned Dot.
Also mentioned discussion(?) paper to be released after the last session.

[Dot]

Sorry Wayne, heard about the discussion paper too, but after the sessions imo is too late. More information should have been released before the consultation sessions so those responses could be built into the consultation sessions. HBNSW is the only industry body I aware of that released the original HRA document I linked in the opening post of this thread and sort input from their members. I’m also a member of HBV and received nothing from them, nothing from the owner/trainer associations and nothing from the governing body in the state I reside or any other one. I did not even see a release from HRA themselves about their proposed new system on harness.org.au.

This in my opinion is very sloppy management of the most significant change Harness racing has seen in decades and very poor treatment of participants who are directly impacted by the changes, particularly those who’s livelihood may be effected

[Dot]

Two tales of one new handicapping system:

https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/wa-races/new-racing-and-wagering-model-fans-flames-of-unrest-among-harness-stakeholders-ng-b881099747z.amp?utm_campaign=share-icons&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&tid=1549743448120&__twitter_impression=true

https://www.rwwa.com.au/home/media-centre/three-months-in-new-harness-racing-business-model-9367.html

[arlington]

I was surprised info wasn't made available before the sessions started in Vic. Even though, it seemed, many who attended the session I went to were well informed, a link to a download could have been provided with the notification of the sessions.
I believe there will be another round of sessions, I think, after the roadshow goes to Tas and SA. Would imagine, hope, any further papers will be released before the next round.
Had heard not many are happy with WA's system but the WA administrators feel the HRA one is flawed as well. Interestingly, perhaps merely coincidental, the HRA chap heading up the new model is from WA.

[Dot]

https://m.soundcloud.com/hrv-2/hrvs-ratings-based-handicapping-information-podcast

The “real” podcast. Informative but still questions to be asked, and I suggest anyone who has queries raises them with Stephen Bell or Cam Brown, the only way to get the best outcome is to delve into the nooks and crannys of the system, find the bugs and iron them out. One point that I’ll be raising and certainly concerned me was from Stephen Bell where he said a 2yo on getting its first win will go into the band system. Also very limited information on programming as the states handle that but twice 5 point ratings bands for race were mentioned, ratings point band width for programming along with field size will impact on how the matrix operates.

There are flaws in the WA system, as there will be in any system Wayne, and there are people who are unhappy, much of which has to do with the implementation process as much as anything else. There are concerns about the lack of consultation from RWWA which is true, and how complicated the system is. It’s doesn’t just handicap horses but impacts on where they can be placed to race, and certainly has thrown up some interesting fields based on horses previous assesments and form, particularly standing starts.

As far as WA thinks the HRA model is flawed, West Australians as a whole think they are seperate to the rest of the country and tend to want to do things their way and different to the rest.

[Dot]

Media release from SA.

https://www.harness.org.au/media-room/news-article/?news_id=39689

SA not waiting on HRA Ratings System, immediate change to field selection based on prizemoney last 5 starts. Things are really crook for both codes in SA, particularly trots.

[Dot]

https://www.harness.org.au/media-room/news-article/?news_id=40155

Implementation details for the HRA ratings scheme.

Am I reading this right, HRV have set a date to implement the new handicapping system but have not yet consulted with participants on how they intend to program races or distribute prizemoney under the new handicapping scheme? Mind boggling if thats the case.

[Dot]

Not saying our system will be the same as NZ but without information on programming how do we know. Whilst it’s important to reduce the number of short priced favourites to improve wagering returns it’s important to remember that not every race can be programmed with that as its primary aim. It’s important and part of the cost of running the business to allow young inexperienced horse to race other young inexperienced horses to develop the grounding to fill make up the fields for those races that are more profitable for turnover.

https://www.odt.co.nz/sport/racing/trainers-unhappy-handicapping-system

[Messenger]

Having my first look at the new ratings being displayed
Looking at Menangle today, I can see it could still take a long time for a horse who is now a shadow of his former self to be rated to succeed

Desdon Murruffy has a record 132-19-14-8 = $168,904
He has not been placed in any of his 28 starts in the last 2 seasons
His NR is 90

Fat Prophet has a record 127-23-7-17 = $148,443
He has won 9 times in the last 2 seasons (73 starts mind you)
His NR is 90

I do not know the NSW form, maybe Brenno can tell me if these ratings are fair enough
They both race in C5+ races today under the old system

ps It may be that Des is simply a victim of the system being used to initially transition horses from the old to the new system. Being an M2 he cops 95 with the maximum reduction for his last five being -5

[Messenger]

R9 at Menangle tonight - if this was under the new system we would have a ratings range of 50 - 103

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=PC110519#PCM11051908

[Messenger]

Or what about the Gp3 Angelique Cup at Melton tonight
We would have from 75 - 120 if the new ratings system was in place
Both Stewart runners
and the the 75 Frankincense has to start from 7 compared to Berisari 120 coming from 4 because it is PBD/$L4

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX110519#MXM11051904

[aussiebreno]

Maybe, just maybe, the perceived problems aren't anything to do with the structure of a class system but more to do with a small horse population.

[arlington]

The small horse population makes any system pretty hard.
You will still have a wide range of ratings within a classic type field - The RBHS would account for the core of most race programs but a lot of races would also be programmed outside the RBHS; classics, futurities, free-for-alls, etc.
Using the mares triple crown as an example, will all three races simply be PBD rating?
Seeded draws?

[arlington]

Monday June 3, 2019

Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) this morning released the racing program for July – the first month of the national ratings-based handicapping system.

View the programs here https://www.thetrots.com.au/for-participants/harness-racer/

“It’s important our participants have as much time as possible to plan their programs for July and so I want to thank my team for their hard work and methodical approach to ensuring these programs were ready to go this week,” HRV General Manager – Racing Stephen Bell said.

“Moving forward, initially we’ll be releasing the programs on a month-by-month basis to ensure we can be as dynamic as possible and provide the right programs for our horse population, then we’ll move towards releasing programs in two-month blocks.

“Importantly we’ll be critically reviewing everything as we go, flexible and willing to tinker with our approach to programming depending on the fluidity of horse population.”

HRV has set an e-mail and would love to hear feedback on all aspects of the new system: rbhs@hrv.org.au

Programs for August will be published on Monday July 1.

Bell will be on RSN’s Gait Speed tomorrow morning with Blake Redden.

[aussiebreno]

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

[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?

[arlington]

Just caught up with the RSN’s Gait Speed program featuring Stephen Bell (per Monday's press release) https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode/381074 from the 8:25 mark.

He does make reference to differential stakes in the segment. A bit open ended and I'm not sure if this isn't something that might be similar to what was intended with the tiered system anyway.
I think we already have a commitment that prize money won't be less than $10.000 on a metro meet and remembering that best intentions way back were we might have a $10000 meet as separate to a metro meet.

Interpreting what Stephen said earlier in the segment where they didn't want to shock with too many changes initially, so I guess the door is still open.

Would be good, completely fine, if we had the three tiers, $4500, $7000 and $10000, where the classier horses race for the $10k. Classier within RBHS points ranges. Utopia would be turnover increases so we can have those $10k races without compromising lower grades.

Many already suspect the number of $4500 races have increased.

[Dot]

Yes of course the sale of horses to the US has to do with more then just the level of prizemoney, but I hardly think our industry has the ability to to change the exchange rate. The dollar is low against the greenback, and expected federal monetary policy for around the next 18 months is intended to lower the dollar further to make Australian businesses more competitive on world markets. I doubt Wayne you’ll get the Reserve Bank to change its mind to keep Aussie standardbreds in Australia so perhaps it’s best we concentrate on what we can do.

I doubt we can elicit a guarantee from owners to not sell their horses overseas though perhaps it is possible to increase the export fee, possibly in line with ratings points or earnings, and obtain a further contribution to the overall industry on their departure. Of course that could just see them sold sooner.

In many respects Wayne I don’t see it as a negative to bolster prizemoney in the “sales sector” and encourage people to produce horses targeted at this sector and the export market so long as they are equally as motivated to reinvest in the industry.

You’ll note I did write some money shaved from the elite level races as well, can’t imagine why you would think that is not inclusive of top end juvenile races, though a number of those are funded from breeder and owner contributions which shouldn’t be sequestered for other purposes.

Well despite not having a fast class horse to sell, and like many others not “happy” that overall prizemoney is low I would be entirely happy that on average but not necessarily exclusively that prizemoney for lower class races is lower and prizemoney is tiered toward higher rated horses.

Is it not enough for you Wayne that your “C0” has increased opportunities to earn in lower rated races by now being protected from the more progressive juveniles entering open age racing at higher level then they would have in the past, and not getting an easy kill over your “C0” as they made their way through the grades as it was previously. That the weakest “C0s” having established their “credentials” are protected altogether from more progressive horses of any age?

Is that, the opportunity for more “C0” prizemoney to be distributed amongst genuine “C0s” not worth the “C0s” sacrificing some of their overall prizemoney for? Or do you think it unworthy that those owners of more progressive horses who sacrifice easier earning opportunities under the rating system be compensated somewhat by racing for a higher stake then those now enjoying increased earning opportunities protected by the ratings systems?

In my view “C0s” expecting to enjoy racing under the benefits of the ratings system with no adjustment to prizemoney distribution across the ratings system for those who sacrifice opportunity isn’t just unfair it’s greed Wayne.

I didn’t see the noms Wayne, Ill take your word for it but somehow I don’t see any of those trotters having been nominated for the Monte trot.

[arlington]

I'm thinking dynamically Dot, not statically, as in one particular owner of a particular "C0" on a given day. As I wrote, a fast class owner today a "C0" owner tomorrow...next month next season...

At the lower end those 3yo's missing out on the "C0" kill, let's not forget many of the "C1's" are no better quality than "C0" and those 3yo's get two goes at a "C1", I'm pretty sure that still stands. And I don't think that excludes you from not progressing too quickly and missing out on additional prize money by using the mares or concession driver claims. Maybe greed does come into it somewhere.

Without researching too much, I'd suggest, as an example, Emma has been doing that of late, using concession claims. Sure you're likely to cop a PBD but drawing 8 or 9 is not too bad compared to the aged "C1" who draws 7 and has only won one race in it's career. And of course fear factor in the noms might mean your classy 3yo ends up drawing the front line and well, easy hand up is always on the cards.

Quite unreasonable to suggest I would think our industry could have a bearing on the exchange rate. Really.
But it is a major factor we have to work with, which doesn't mean robbing Peter/Peta to pay Paul/Pauline, where Pa might become Pe next week after selling their horse.

You're right Dot, I wouldn't think any of those trotters would be Monte's so there wasn't a race programmed for them, they chose to run in the C0. You might like to ask someone who has a harness racer magazine and ask what the original program was.
Although I think there is a sticky note from Breno that shows how to get the original conditions/programs up(?)

I'm not going to enter into this conversation any more Dot. You've seen my views as was/is your want (post #61).

From memory, when that radio program went to air Stephen said he hadn't had any feedback at all. Now's your opportunity Dot.

[Dot]

As there is no retrospectivity to the system and June and July wins in the lead up are virtually penalty free well performed juveniles do get a chance to enhance their earnings at the expense of low rated older horses but that does not continue once the system is established. I’m not sure how you think 3yos still get two goes at the C1s when the ratings system is established

9. Transition by Age. Within the application of ratings points, horses will be gifted 50 rating points with which to commence racing.
For a horse that commences racing as a two-year old, they will receive 40 points. When a two-year old becomes a three-year old, if it is rated over 50 points its points above 50 are halved and rounded up (i.e. a horse is rated 59, its rating becomes 55).
If a two-year old nominates for an open age race and it is rated over 40 points, its points above 40 are halved and rounded up (i.e. a horse is rated 49, it’s rating for an open aged event is 45).
If a two-year old nominates for an open age race and it is rated under 40 points, its points are not changed.
Upon two-year old’s turning three, horses who have a rating of less than 50 will revert to 50 upon the start of the season. Two-year old’s that accrued more than 50 points at two will not have their points reverted back to 50.

[Dot]

Under the ratings system, apart from first starters, (so yes how do we know it’s classy?) I can’t see how a classy three year old as you say that has proved its “class” at the races would be even stating ( perhaps with a claim) against a one lifetime win “C1”. Not sure how junior drivers will fare under the ratings system Wayne, they didn’t fare well for opportunities in WAs switch to HWOE, but wouldn’t you think it tempting to connections to race a “classy juvenile” in a race of higher prizemoney with a senior driver instead.

Sorry I can’t agree with your Peter/Paul analogy. There will always be owners with progressive horses seeking to move up and owners who’s horses will not. It will not be completely random as to which group will be which but largely determined by willingness to invest in stock of higher quality stock, more skilled drivers and better trainers and in some cases simply those more prepared to put in the hard yards. That is the purpose of the ratings system, to facilitate the progression of “better” horses whilst improving the racing opportunities for less progressive horses.

What do you see the cost base of a stable such as Emma’s to owners being Wayne? How does that compare with the cost base to the average owner trainer? Can’t you see that, along with ratings restrictions, by reducing the value of the lower rated races you provide a disincentive to stables operating on a high cost base to target those races, that they need to target races of higher value to satisfy the expectations of their clients? And that a low return on investment will see many of those owners turnover their horses, often to hobbyists who can get a return on investment in races of lower value.

Reducing it to its simplist Wayne would you prefer to race the professional stables more often in low rated races of higher value or race in races of a lower value predominantly against other hobbyists?

I’ll take Andy Gaths word on Twitter that the trot race for his trotters didn’t stand up and hence why he nominated for the C0.

[Messenger]

What do you see the cost base of a stable such as Emma’s to owners being Wayne? How does that compare with the cost base to the average owner trainer? Can’t you see that, along with ratings restrictions, by reducing the value of the lower rated races you provide a disincentive to stables operating on a high cost base to target those races, that they need to target races of higher value to satisfy the expectations of their clients? And that a low return on investment will see many of those owners turnover their horses, often to hobbyists who can get a return on investment in races of lower value.



I don't know that this is the case Dot. There always seems to be a runner or two from the bigger stables even in the $4,500 races. Maybe they are using them as 'warm up' races or just cannot resist the low hanging fruit. Just look at Melton today

[arlington]

I don't know that this is the case Dot. There always seems to be a runner or two from the bigger stables even in the $4,500 races. Maybe they are using them as 'warm up' races or just cannot resist the low hanging fruit. Just look at Melton today

Some people only see what they want to see Kev, not the reality.


It seems as though some would like to see us remove one class system and introduce another. #givethedogabone

[Dot]

Yes Wayne some people do only see what they want to see and not the reality. What would you like to see Wayne? An increase in prizemoney for the lower rated races that the bulk of hobbyists participate in? That would be nice wouldn’t it? Or would it be? The closest thing to an equivalent population of participants are country gallops trainers, and as we know that code is pretty flush with funds. Several prizemoney increases have been directed at country racing in both Vic and NSW with the intention of increasing returns to country trainers, only to create an increase in city based trainers targeting these races because of the increased prizemoney and winning the bulk of it, with the net result being an increase in earnings for city based trainers and a decrease in earnings for country based trainers? Don’t believe me, ask the country gallops trainers associations in both Vic and NSW. That’s the reality of seeing what you want to see with high prizemoney for low rated races. The country gallops trainers assosciations will also tell you that great horseman they may have but they simply cannot compete with the better quality stock and superior training facilities available to city based trainers. That’s another reality not too different to us, the hobbyist trainer for example who usually has to prepare their horse on its own, versus the big stable with a seemingly unlimited supply of stable mates to work with to fine tune eaches performance.

Believe me Kev, the big stables don’t rub their hands together with glee when they spot a meeting full of $4500 dollar races. That’s not to say they don’t go in them if there on the doorstep and all that the programming offers. Having a lowly assessed horse in a larger stable I can tell you rarely if if at all has she been targeted at low hanging fruit as you deem it, the reality is the better horses at the stable are aimed at particular races at a meeting and she tags along and goes in the one she is eligible for, which is often a $4500 one. Many times over the last 12 months I’ve spotted easier races that would be more suitable for her but the logistics of being in a larger stable means she doesn’t go to those.

So no it’s not only prizemoney differentials that can be used to encourage the big stables away from particular meetings, it’s programming as well. I’ve often wondered why Vic doesn’t schedule a secondary meeting at the same time as its metro meeting, as NSW and WA frequently do, that’s an obvious way to segregate participants and direct more prizemoney towards non metro tier participants. Or program more races with conditions formulated around trainer eligibility, though I doubt either of those were put forward at the RBHS meetings so along with differential prizemoney Wayne would consider measure such as those to be deceptive.....

[Messenger]

That is worth some thought
I know that NSW and WA seem to run secondary meetings successfully but I wouldn't really know how successful they are financially
I suppose balancing up that more people bet on weekends with having your meeting destined to be on Sky2.
I once read in a Ray Chaplin (Equine Excellence) report that Sky2 as opposed to Sky1 costs you 40% in turnover (that sounds about right)

[arlington]

RE post #70


The only reason I've engaged for what will be the final time is to point out that; at no such time in this conversation have I advocated for higher prize money for the lower rated horses.
Whether real or contrived reasons, horses from bigger/pro stables running in those races has no bearing on my position of remaining steadfast on prize money levels not decreasing.

In closing - Programming options including trainer eligibility were brought up at the RBHS meeting I attended, although they steered clear of using the word segregate or segregation.
So, no Dot, I wouldn't consider those deceptive but just making it clear again, prize money decreases weren't brought up.

[Dot]

That is worth some thought
I know that NSW and WA seem to run secondary meetings successfully but I wouldn't really know how successful they are financially
I suppose balancing up that more people bet on weekends with having your meeting destined to be on Sky2.
I once read in a Ray Chaplin (Equine Excellence) report that Sky2 as opposed to Sky1 costs you 40% in turnover (that sounds about right)

I don’t know how financially successful they are either Kev. NSW is not tied to market share for revenue as Vic is but I doubt they would put it on if it was a real loser for them. NSW are also more atune to participant satisfaction, eg, reducing field size in the Metro $L5 races at Menangle from 12 to 10 though that would be a negative for turnover, then just driven by maximising turnover. The geographic separation between these meetings also means it isn’t necessarily a means to direct prizemoney to a different set of participants as there wouldn’t be a lot of cross over if they were held at different times. So my guess would be that they do alright on the turnover front.

WA harness racing in recent times has become acutely focussed on increasing market share so I’m presuming these aren’t to bad for turnover either. Depending on where they are being held would make a significant difference to the participant mix if they were held at different time to GP fridays. As I understand it WA doesn’t get much say from Sky in when they put on their meetings so it could be they would hold it in a different slot if they could get one.

[Dot]

I can’t copy it here, perhaps Kev can, but doesn’t the very design of the ratings matrix make it clear it is designed to include races less then $4500? I didn’t attend any meetings so no idea what was said. Did no one think to ask if races could be for lower prizemoney? I don’t see how the matrix and ratings system can be expected to work without a significantly tiered sliding scale of prizemoney from the lowest rated horses to the highest as an incentive to achieve the best possible finishing position and progress up the scale.

Even with tiered prizemoney it looks attractive, and without it even moreso, for someone or someone’s to exploit it, and not necessarily a big stable for a hobby owner trainer driver could do the same thing. How do they stop someone getting a horse who’s ability is in excess of its rating ( NZ the obvious place) and setting up camp somewhere with races in the say$2500 to $4999 or $5000 to $8499 prizemoney bracket for its rating and winning, getting the 3 or 4 points added to its rating, then being driven “dead” for the required 3 or 4 starts to bring its rating back to where it was, obviously still below its ability and then utilising it’s superior ability to win again. And repeating that over and over again, with in effect the horse rating never really changing, add winnings from the punt for when they are trying and it could be very lucrative.

Don’t know what they have in mind to stop someone doing that. Can only imagine seasonal or overall earnings would need to be included in race eligibility conditions and horse whose earnings exceed the limit would have to be permitted to race in a higher rated race.

[Messenger]

I believe the reason the matrix includes races less than $4,500 is to cover Tassie and South Australia where they already race for less

[Dot]

I’m well aware of the states that routinely race for less Kev (and both TAS and SA would be prime examples of what I wrote earlier about big stables targeting high value races amonget weaker populations of participants ) and that, as HRAs National Ratings Based Handicapping System the matrix produced by HRA covers them as well. Only glanced through the release ( very confusing if your not familiar with QLDs existing band system) but it looks as if QLD has incorporated some changes of their own to how it operates there

But I didn’t think we were talking about RBHS presentations and the operation of the matrix in other states, but in Victoria and well, to me at least, an obvious question to ask would be if adopting the RBHS Matrix would that change the distribution of prizemoney which was previously linked to the M, C and R classifications.

[Messenger]

I have merged 2 threads under this similar but new title

[Messenger]

NOTICE - ATTENTION INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS
HRA National Ratings Handicapping System

Due to an unprecedented number of valid enquiries and complaints in the past two weeks, the United Harness Racing Association has called for an URGENT Meeting with HRNSW.

Wally Mann
UHRA Secretary

[Dot]

Circumstances have caused me to conduct a review of racing opportunities for my NR64 trotter in Victoria.

Under NR and current programming for the period 8/8 to 30/9 2019 he is eligible for:

4 mobile races with a Snr driver with no prospect of drawing towards the inside on the front row under PBD NR

10 mobile races using a minimum 3NR point concession driver, no prospect of drawing towards the inside of the front row.

26 standing start races, minimum of 10m handicap with Snr driver on 5 occasions. Majority of races would be drawn off 20m to 30m, on some occasions 40m or more.

Under previous class system he would be assessed a T1 trotter, on last years results for the period 8/8 to 30/9 2018, if identical programming continued for the same period this year he would have been eligible for:

16 mobile start races, all with a Snr Driver and 5 opportunities to draw inside of the front line.

23 standing start races with Snr Driver able to start from front row on 13 occasions, and never off further then 10m.

He has won 4 races lifetime, 2 former “C” class and 2 former “R” class, yet rather then have his racing opportunities improved and career extended by National Ratings and revised programming it would appear the opposite is occurring. I have raised my concerns with HRV. I can only suggest that other owners and trainers review their horses racing opportunities and if they identify similar concerns, raise them with HRV. The industry cannot afford to lose horses from the racing pool.

[Messenger]

I am sure I will get used to it but at this point I do miss the old C's and M's
They were generally a pretty good indication of how many country and city wins a horse had had - the new NR requires a bit more research (especially to find out how many metro wins)

[Messenger]

I look at the Melton card tomorrow and cannot help but think the horses in the R6 and R8 heats are being used ie putting on the show/providing for the punter, for less than they should be
The races are for $4.5k to get into a $7k final
All of them raced in $7k or more races at their previous start, 3 of them winners and yet here they consent to go around for $4.5k
The harness industry is an accepting lot. I cannot imagine cricketers or footballers consenting to run around for half pay every 2nd week

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX070720#MXB07072003

[aussiebreno]

I look at the Melton card tomorrow and cannot help but think the horses in the R6 and R8 heats are being used ie putting on the show/providing for the punter, for less than they should be
The races are for $4.5k to get into a $7k final
All of them raced in $7k or more races at their previous start, 3 of them winners and yet here they consent to go around for $4.5k
The harness industry is an accepting lot. I cannot imagine cricketers or footballers consenting to run around for half pay every 2nd week

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX070720#MXB07072003
I think you'll find about 250,000 cricketers/footballers go around in their chosen hobby for nothing every weekend!

[Messenger]

I think you'll find about 250,000 cricketers/footballers go around in their chosen hobby for nothing every weekend!

Not too many amateur trainers in R6 & R8 Breno. And I think you will find that hobby cricketers are not putting on a show for anybody so cannot expect a respectable cut

ps I know little about minor cricket but you would be amazed how many go around for money in every minor football league down here - I know for a fact (and sometimes we are talking $2k a game)

[Messenger]

I look at the Melton card tomorrow and cannot help but think the horses in the R6 and R8 heats are being used ie putting on the show/providing for the punter, for less than they should be
The races are for $4.5k to get into a $7k final
All of them raced in $7k or more races at their previous start, 3 of them winners and yet here they consent to go around for $4.5k
The harness industry is an accepting lot. I cannot imagine cricketers or footballers consenting to run around for half pay every 2nd week

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX070720#MXB07072003

Regulus the winner of the first of those heats is an interesting one.
He has won $144k and here he is going around in a $4k race.
He is only a 4yo and 25 months ago as a 2yo having his 7th start, he won $64k in the Redcliffe Yearling Sales final

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX070720#MXB07072003

[Messenger]

Do we need an adjustment for horses coming over from NZ?

A good example might be the last 2 races at Shep tonight

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP110820

These 2 imported winners have now won 5/5 races since coming over from NZ and the longest odds we have seen is $1.50 - suggesting they are class above the grade they are racing in

On the other hand maybe we don't want to dampen the incentive to import horses as we need the racing stock

[aussiebreno]

Do we need an adjustment for horses coming over from NZ?

A good example might be the last 2 races at Shep tonight

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP110820

These 2 imported winners have now won 5/5 races since coming over from NZ and the longest odds we have seen is $1.50 - suggesting they are class above the grade they are racing in

On the other hand maybe we don't want to dampen the incentive to import horses as we need the racing stock

How many people gave up breeding because they were sick of getting beat by NZ imports? Maybe thats a key reason #s of racing stock have gone down!

[Messenger]

Good point Brendan
NZ imports became very fashionable at the start of the 90's
You would have thought that our bloodstock should have caught up quite a bit (if we are importing the right types)
Maybe it is better grass
Quite a bit of it would seem to be the lack of racing over there means many of the better than average horses cannot even win many races and have a good mark that makes them doubly attractive to importers

[Messenger]

Do we need an adjustment for horses coming over from NZ?

A good example might be the last 2 races at Shep tonight

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP110820

These 2 imported winners have now won 5/5 races since coming over from NZ and the longest odds we have seen is $1.50 - suggesting they are class above the grade they are racing in

On the other hand maybe we don't want to dampen the incentive to import horses as we need the racing stock

Another NZer for the Amanda Turnbull stable tonight at Bendigo makes it 2/2 at $1.04
This one is a 6yo and only had 3 wins from 76 starts before coming over

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BN120820#BNC12082004

[Showgrounds]

In reality, it's the flawed NZ handicapping system forcing owners hands to sell or send their horses here to race.

Would you want your top 3yo filly to race here against mares or, because of her success, be forced into early retirement or have to race against cup class horses every week?

Check race 11 at Albion Park this Saturday night for the answer. By the way, we desperately need NZ racing stock to make up the fields.

[KTQ]

In reality, it's the flawed NZ handicapping system forcing owners hands to sell or send their horses here to race.

Would you want your top 3yo filly to race here against mares or, because of her success, be forced into early retirement or have to race against cup class horses every week?

Check race 11 at Albion Park this Saturday night for the answer. By the way, we desperately need NZ racing stock to make up the fields.
NZ racing is bananas. I've been following a 2yo filly in NZ that has been forced to race against mares in its 2 starts. She's for sale now and I don't blame the owners. No 2yo should ever have to race out of its age group.

[aussiebreno]

NZ racing is bananas. I've been following a 2yo filly in NZ that has been forced to race against mares in its 2 starts. She's for sale now and I don't blame the owners. No 2yo should ever have to race out of its age group.

2yo Maidens shouldn't be forced to race against 2,3+ win 2yos. There is only so many 2,3+ 2yos going around in each area so I think its fine if those 2yos have to race against older opposition.

[KTQ]

They're going 1.58 though for 2150m and few 2yo fillies can run that fast - I know ours struggle. I dont know if there's a solution but apples with apples I say

[Messenger]

In R3 at Ballarat tonight, Rockasaki seems hard done by under the ratings
She is the 3rd highest ranked and yet she has won the least of any runner (half of the 2nd least)
Drawn 7 she seems worse off than the top two rated in SR1 & SR2 (unless she is a super beginner)

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BA230121#BAM23012105

[Messenger]

Of course she gets the lead and wins

[Messenger]

Has there been a more ridiculous $20k race than at Mildura tonight
We have Rhyflective with an NR of 46 down to Bernie Winkle with an NR of 120

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=ML260121#MLC26012101

[aussiebreno]

I despise horses dropping down in grade who have won 6-7 races and winning races against horses who have won 2-3 races. Give the horse with 2-3 wins more chances to win. Nobody has mastered handicapping and if they have they aren't openly sharing it or working in handicapping for a racing authority. Just let horses race against horses who have won equal amount of races is my vision. PBD handy for field sizes when you need to combine classes.

The argument is longevity of a horses career is a barrier to ownership entry. I don't understand how that is any more of a barrier than owning a horse that keeps losing to horses that have already won its fair share of races. It would be an interesting answer to whether the industry could generate more money recycling horses after they reach their win limit more dams in foal, more service fees etc or if the ownership dropoff would be too much with the extra costs.

The stock standard industry answer seems to be to lengthen a horses career so I will accept that (for now).

The Net Rating system is a success on that measure.

However, to get the best of both worlds should the drop downs only be applied to older horses, eg 7yo+ so that 4-5yos can still get their fair share of wins first. We have 2yo and 3yo races why not Senior races. 7yo+ could still compete in open races but they would have two sets of ratings (one based on wins only that applies in the open age races and one based on drop down rules that is only applied when they enter Senior races).

[Messenger]

We all know of horses that do not peak until 8 years of age. What about drop down ratings only for horses 9yo+? Age limit races seems good to me 4 and 5yo, 6 and 7yo (along with their rating)

[aussiebreno]

We all know of horses that do not peak until 8 years of age. What about drop down ratings only for horses 9yo+? Age limit races seems good to me 4 and 5yo, 6 and 7yo (along with their rating)
Yeah the age is an interesting one not sure of what age to go with, or could potentially have multiple senior age groups. I went with 7yo as I was worried under performers may start to be retired beforehand so wouldn't get advantage of the drop down system.

[Messenger]

Having some Wins and Age specific races would exclude some drop down horses and give for eg the 4 or 5yo who hasn't won many his chance (as it would exclude drop down horses)

[Messenger]

You can see why plenty of people are complaining about the NR system

I have added the horses: Age, Wins, NR to the result of R3 at Cranbourne tonight

[Messenger]

A lot of upset posters on the AHRI facebook page

2023 2yo's to enter NR system on 50

https://www.harness.org.au/media-room/news-article/?news_id=54486

[aussiebreno]

A lot of upset posters on the AHRI facebook page

2023 2yo's to enter NR system on 50

https://www.harness.org.au/media-room/news-article/?news_id=54486
Gallops WFA scale changes throughout the year. Perhaps this should be looked at here as there is a big difference between a 2yo debuting in Jan/Feb Vs a 2yo debuting iNovember/December

[Messenger]

I am surprised at the outcry as I would have thought nearly all 2yo's just race against their own age. I am led to believe that this is not so outside of Vic

[Messenger]

NSW have got around the NR50 with a 16pt concession, so in other words they are NR34's

https://hrnsw.com.au/news/3674/hrnsw-two-year-old-racing-policy-updated-for-2023

(this is December news that I missed)