The Flat Earth Society strikes again!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple V

Fellas,
When you think about it, under a Centralised Programming/Conditioned Racing system, either way...as in Trainers nominating a horse for a meeting & letting the Handicappers sort it out...or otherwise having the Handicappers writing and publishing the race conditions for Trainers to then nominate to, which is effectively pre-sorting the fields by way of conditions, the Handicapper has the final say on the composition of fields and whatever it is, be it a Pre or Post nom sorting system...the net result would effectively be the same. One's passive, the other active, that's all.

Handicappers make blatant and simple mistakes in selecting fields from the noms for one race, as I've pointed out on this forum before. How they could appropriately select fields with no programming to go is beyond me.
During EI race fields were down, people were just happy to get a run. On the same card there were R1/2s and then R2-R5s etc...a trainer of an R2 may prefer one race conditions over the other. How does the handicapper decide which R2 goes in what race?

Similarly, the R1+ divided race conditions which are currently programmed and then turned into a race/races. Out of these divided conditions lets say that come up with two races that are both R1-R3. One is $L4 <$2000 and the other is $L4 <$4000. There has been situations where a horse eligible for the <$2000 race have ended up in the <$4000 race due to number of horses entered.

These kind of things happen and irritate people even if Jesus Christ himself was the handicapper. Letting a handicapper pick fields from noms received is scary.

P.S When Arwoc Flier ran 2nd at Leeton on New Years Night it made for a very profitable night (got quinella). Unfortunately it has still been my most profitable night for the year and probably will be!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

Trainers should alway have the final say on what they start in as only they can know a horses "real" condition. "Centralised" programming did work well during EI at Bankstown with very limited numbers for our 2 meetings before we sucumbed to EI. In many races the driver was instrumental in the outcome with not surprisingly Josh Willick for the most part prevailing.

As for each club doing their own programming then obviously the skill and knowledge of the individual doing the job is paramount. Rather then a fully centralised system or an individual club one, then maybe one person overseeing a region in consultation with individual clubs and HRNSW maybe the best model. I presume that HRNSW has the ability to "ghost" meetings from the data they receive on trials and nominations, which is likely to be more accurate then stable or return to work forms.

Field conditions are written, and need to be written, well in advance of race day. Of course trial and noms all help, but they say who is at the races now (or in a week or two) whereas other forms could identify who could be racing in 2-3 months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Field conditions are written, and need to be written, well in advance of race day. Of course trial and noms all help, but they say who is at the races now (or in a week or two) whereas other forms could identify who could be racing in 2-3 months.

[VVV] Indeed. That's right on the money Breno.
A return to work aspect added to Stable Returns is a double edged sword but it is a pleasant one because, when combined with Centralised Programming, it would definitely allow for the production of much more accurate programming and with it a very significant shortening of the current lead in times.
Instead of the 2-3 months routine, under such a system it could be easily cut down to a 1 month to 6 weeks spread. More accurate and more timely information would of course allow for more accurate programming and consequently more races would stand up and more horses would get a start. I reckon it's a no brainer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

trainers should alway have the final say on what they start in as only they can know a horses "real" condition. "centralised" programming did work well during ei at bankstown with very limited numbers for our 2 meetings before we sucumbed to ei. In many races the driver was instrumental in the outcome with not surprisingly josh willick for the most part prevailing.
[vvv] g'day dot,
there's no downplaying it. It worked incredibly well & throughout the whole state in fact and with good sized fields in most instances. It duly produced closer, more competitive racing & so much better wagering opportunities...consequently the tab turnover increased & markedly so.

as for each club doing their own programming then obviously the skill and knowledge of the individual doing the job is paramount.
[vvv] the crux of the matter's not actually who amongst the individual club race secretaries has the skill to do the job for their club and who does not, rather it is simply that never in a million years will everyone going in their own direction and doing their own thing work as well as centralised programming would. We have long suffered and currently we continue to suffer under a regime whereby the left hand simply does not know nor in some cases does it give a bugger what the right hand is doing. That situation has to change & thankfully, sooner rather than later, it will.

rather then a fully centralised system or an individual club one, then maybe one person overseeing a region in consultation with individual clubs and hrnsw maybe the best model.
[vvv] that's like being a little bit pregnant or partially jumping from an aeroplane. It's in boots & all or it is not worth doing.

i presume that hrnsw has the ability to "ghost" meetings from the data they receive on trials and nominations, which is likely to be more accurate then stable or return to work forms.
[vvv] what would be the point of doing that dot? I'm not sure we're on the same page as far as a return to work notification is concerned. by the point you mention above...the horses have already reached the stage where they are ready to race or very close to it. The return to work aspect added to stable returns is meant to preceed that point by numerous weeks, ideally by as many as possible. An over the internet clicking of... Or the physical ticking of a box, doing a tiny bit of extra work/paperwork which would be of benefit to everyone by way of greatly assist handicappers operating under a centralised programming format to both shorten lead in times & much more accurately produce programs...is surely not a great impost on time nor effort?

vvv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

handicappers make blatant and simple mistakes in selecting fields from the noms for one race, as i've pointed out on this forum before. How they could appropriately select fields with no programming to go is beyond me.
[vvv] i'm not exactly sure how they went about it during the ei period however they must have had some idea because they did it very effectively indeed.

during ei race fields were down, people were just happy to get a run. On the same card there were r1/2s and then r2-r5s etc...a trainer of an r2 may prefer one race conditions over the other. How does the handicapper decide which r2 goes in what race?
[vvv] that my friend is 'the art of handicapping' in all its glory.
the huge fault with current system is that it forces horses out through the top as it handicaps on historical form (wins that may have occured many months and sometimes years prior) as opposed to using their current form as a handicapping measure... And that is pretty bloody disgraceful, imo.
in the case of the ei programming, as i recall the out of form r5's got dropped in against the in form r2's whilst r1/r2's that were struggling to get beyond that got to race each other and so on. It was no more or less complicated than that.

similarly, the r1+ divided race conditions which are currently programmed and then turned into a race/races. Out of these divided conditions lets say that come up with two races that are both r1-r3. One is $l4 <$2000 and the other is $l4 <$4000. There has been situations where a horse eligible for the <$2000 race have ended up in the <$4000 race due to number of horses entered.
[vvv] not a whole lot of difference to nominating for a 2yo fillies or 3yo fillies only race at penrith with the usual caveat that should there be insufficient noms the race will be combined with the same age group colts & gelding.

these kind of things happen and irritate people even if jesus christ himself was the handicapper. Letting a handicapper pick fields from noms received is scary.
[vvv] it's a reasonable fear breno. I don't trust too many people to be able to do that or for that matter anything like it properly & evenhandedly...but i do trust the abilities of the current one here in nsw to do just that.
on top of the fact that i know the bloke and i know how good he is at his job, he already has the runs on the board as far as that sort of handicapping/assembling of race fields goes (ei).

p.s when arwoc flier ran 2nd at leeton on new years night it made for a very profitable night (got quinella). Unfortunately it has still been my most profitable night for the year and probably will be!
[vvv] by way of them winning the messenger in nz, dean braun's horse and dexter dunn delivered me my box of bacci's for the year and i don't expect there to be many/any more. ;)

vvv

Mark certainly did do a very good with the race programming during EI at Bankstown from a very limited pool and our turnover was very good, and I'll take your word Jamie that it was the same throughout the state. But given the unique circumstances around the state with EI can we ever be certain that the results achieved re turnover were solely the result of centralised programming? Did the reduced numbers of meetings (gallops as well) for example have an impact? I think we have to consider the later as a significant driver of increased turnover on those meetings that went ahead.

Mark is certainly very capable but if it were to be solely placed in his hands what happens if he becomes unavailable?

I don't know what happens if he's not around Dot. If I could answer that for you I would.
I hope that he's around until his teeth fall out along with his hair. It's a reasonable concern of course, but so are a whole host of other things over which we similarly have no control.
He does get itchy feet from time to time & he skips off overseas on various trans-continental jaunts and the like...but I don't think Mark is planning to bugger off for good or otherwise to fall off his perch anytime soon (although in saying that, word is there's a chicky babe around that puts a fair bit of strain on his old ticker from what I've been told). I'll check with him and get back to you. :D:D:D:D:D As the infinitely fetching Keira Kinightley as Guinevere said to Artorious in the movie, King Arthur "What tomorrow brings...we cannot know".