The Cranbourne consultation session could probably be held in an elevator !
Printable View
The Cranbourne consultation session could probably be held in an elevator !
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
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/fie...s/?mc=MX090219
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 ?
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Tongue in cheek Trevor? He was actually a C1 going into the race, now he’s a C2Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
Good points Graeme.Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyourluck
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.
And presumably the only way to increase the field sizes would be to open up the bandwidth, particularly in regions with limited horse populations, which would have a negative effect on horse movement through the bands based on a fixed points allocation in accordance with placings.
Actually there is another way to increase field size and that would be to increase the prizemoney to increase horse population in a location or incentivise trainers to travel further to meetings which would lead to an accelerated progression/regression through a fixed bandwidth of ratings points.
Just getting my tongue back, Dot. No, he was assessed C2 MO. A big drifter when favourite in the Central Victorian Championship at Maryborough 9 days prior from barrier 2. Like Spankem, a very, very good 4yo not catered for by the NZ handicapping system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dot
I felt sorry for the new owners when, before the Cup, doubts were cast over the horse's ability due to his defeat at Maryborough. When asked on the track before the race Gavin Lang used the old "well, it was the first time I've driven him" excuse for his defeat. Take that on face value and you would never let him drive your horse unless he had driven him at the trials! A quick look at the HRNZ website would show the horse leading most of the way and being too good for Star Galleria at Alexandra Park two starts ago - that may have given a clue as to the horse's ability.
Interestingly, Sergeant Schultz may have been in the stewards tower at Maryborough. They see nuthink!
Can anyone answer why we need a national handicapping system?
With a nation the size of ours wouldn’t regional handicapping based on commercial concerns be better? Higher prizemoney races for better credentialed horses, lower prizemoney races for lesser performed horses.With race eligibility being determined on prizemoney won on three criteria in preferential order, dollars last 6, dollars for the season, dollars lifetime. Later two only used when more field management is required then dollars last 6. Free for all races for better older horses that really are free for all. Seperate feature races for better juveniles, and races according to dollars won lesser juveniles, etc ( yes sounds like America)
But with different states having different commercial arrangements With TABCORP how is a one size fits all handicapping system for putting on the races going to maximise returns for each state. Most states want increased field sizes to maximise returns, Victoria needs maximum volume of races for best returns under joint venture agreement.
South Australia, your prizemoney is shit ( sorry but you know it’s true) do you have sufficient horse numbers to support narrow bandwidths so that horses move up and down as the matrix provides for? Or would you need wider bands to make up optimal sized fields for turnover but with low ratings points assigned to low value races movement between bands would be minimal?
Vic your model is just get as many races out there as you can, don’t worry about the field size. With as Graeme pointed out minimal reduction points available in small fields are those horses who finish in the last positions determined by field size, but midfield as determined by the matrix going to actually be able to drop back to an easier race, or will they stay where they are being sitting ducks for horses with winning/place form comin up the ratings scale as determined by the matrix?
Does the high prizemoney available at Menangle see horses progress too rapidly up the ratings scale, particularly when field sizes are small, so that their rating would actually be higher then horses of commensurate ability racing in lower prizemoney jurisdictions so that when these horses are drawn together in the same race somewhere there is actually a marked disparity in their abilities? Would the QLders when they come down be getting a free kick for a race, or two or three, before their dollars generated ratings catch up to those racing at Menangle?
How do all these, and likely more variants impact on our ability to reduce short priced favourites which I’m led to believe is imperative to improving wagering returns?
Why again do we need a fixed national handicapping system when no two jurisdictions are alike, and regions within jurisdictions can be markedly different. Are we heading in the wrong direction trying to pidgeon hole all our varying racing regions into one handicapping system when really we should be designing varied conditioned racing models to suit different racing jurisdictions and regions within a jurisdiction ( what is right for handicapping Melton is probably not right for handicapping Mildura)
Surely in this digital day and age we need something better then a fixed dollars points matrix the same in each jurisdictions when conditions in each jurisdiction vary so widely. Isn’t our overall aim to maximise our returns from the TAB, not actually to be able to compare our horses directly with each other under a single ( flawed) handicapping format?
The South Aussies must love seeing the prizemoney go across the border (the Vics do a NZer)Quote:
Originally Posted by Showgrounds
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Yes Trevor, Bill and Jean Feiss, I should have written choose to base their racing interests on the South Island
Presumably Graeme horses can still be nominated “out of their class” ? Nominate well out of your ratings point assessment in the highest dollar value race you can find, get a run, finish last and you can accelerate your descent back to easier races.Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyourluck
The matrix seems to be constructed around a perfect world, full fields and horses only starting in their actual ratings points band.
And in NSW and Vic at least “earn” 2% of the higher race stake while your doing it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messenger
A podcast will be released for those who can't get to a session.
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
That’s two consultation sessions down, and another about to be. How’s that podcast going?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dot
RSN The Trots - One Out One Back program, HRV's Stephen Bell from the 11.15 mark. https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=331805
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.
Only posted the link as the release of the podcast was mentioned Dot.
Also mentioned discussion(?) paper to be released after the last session.
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
Two tales of one new handicapping system:
https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/wa...mpression=true
https://www.rwwa.com.au/home/media-c...odel-9367.html
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.
https://m.soundcloud.com/hrv-2/hrvs-...mation-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.
Media release from SA.
https://www.harness.org.au/media-roo...?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.
https://www.harness.org.au/media-roo...?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.
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/t...capping-system
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 = $148,443
He has won 9 times in the last 2 seasons (73 starts mind you)
His NR is 90
I do not know the NSW form, maybe Brenno can tell me if these ratings are fair enough
They both race in C5+ races today under the old system
ps It may be that Des is simply a victim of the system being used to initially transition horses from the old to the new system. Being an M2 he cops 95 with the maximum reduction for his last five being -5
R9 at Menangle tonight - if this was under the new system we would have a ratings range of 50 - 103
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...19#PCM11051908
Or what about the Gp3 Angelique Cup at Melton tonight
We would have from 75 - 120 if the new ratings system was in place
Both Stewart runners
and the the 75 Frankincense has to start from 7 compared to Berisari 120 coming from 4 because it is PBD/$L4
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fie...19#MXM11051904
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.
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?
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-part...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.
Are you allowed to go in a race higher than your rating? Eg 68 rater go in the 70-80 rating races?