You can Breno but you won't drop your rating by finishing down the track. Pretty sure that's how it is.
Printable View
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I have merged 2 threads under this similar but new title
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
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.
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)
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/fie...20#MXB07072003
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)
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/fie...20#MXB07072003
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/fie...s/?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
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
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/fie...20#BNC12082004
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.
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