The New Ratings Based Handicapping System

[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.