Louis & Karel - talking Merit Ratings

As requested by Louis, this will be a twosome - only the two of us post on this thread.
Let's keep it that way.
Anyone with views can post on another thread.

Here are two links to background stories on MR handicapping and weight-for-age.
Just so that whoever follows us will be clued up on the thinking behind the concept.

They're on the Sporting Post website, and were written ages ago - some of the horses mentioned will give the time away.

Here are the links:
Merit Ratings and how they work
Merit ratings and how they work - part 2

Ok, lets kick off with a few general points or questions to establish the principles, BEFORE we get to some really good examples -

LG POINT
After cracking the maidens, the MR system then can and MOSTLY does take horses through the divisions, even without that horse winning another race.

LG VIEW
Here I am talking about the normal good handicappers, those horses destined to win more than just their maidens. I am NOT talking about the handful of TOP horses, I am talking about substantially more horses than those few. This just seems unfair. The result is that the better, more consistent horses win fewer races than the weaker, less consistent horses. There are hundreds of examples of this

LG QUESTION
Is Racing not about winning ? Is winning races not what an Owner invests in ? Is the current MR system FAIR in this regard ?

LG QUESTION
Is Racing not about winning ? Is winning races not what an Owner invests in ? Is the current MR system FAIR in this regard ?

There are two issues here. Opportunity and perspective.
Opportunity first.

During the previous season there were 1020 turf races in Gauteng.
60 of these were black type races.
320 of these were maiden races (all ages)
That leaves 640 races on turf for the bread-and-butter brigade, spread over all distance categories.
These races were contested by 1920 individual horses.
Which means that at least 1280 horses could not win a race during that year, whichever way the conditions were framed.

Perspective.
What you see is who you are.

So who is who in racing?

Owners.
Owning horses is an expensive thing.
It is not a business, but something you do when you can afford it, like having a yacht, or a mistress.
It’s about enjoying the ride.
With horses there are some other benefits. Like the hope of hitting a big horse. The hope of winning a few races.
Hope, not expectation. It remains a lottery.
When you spend a few hundred thousand at the sales there’s little thought of winning an MR72 down the line.

We did some market research many years ago for the Cape OTA.
There was something like a 75% return rate on questionnaires, which in market research terms is unheard of.
The owners wanted to be heard, it seemed.
One of the questions was to rank what was important them.
The summary showed that by far the most important thing was the social relationship with the trainer, and communication.
Earning prize-money didn’t make the top-five.

Many owners, but certainly not all, enjoy the limelight. Standing in the winner’s box is a nice feeling, especially when the Jooste-colours are next to you, in the second box. The interview, be seen on tv.
But those are bonuses, not expectations.

Trainers.
Here horses are a business. Success is measured in money.
The better you are at what you do, the more successful you will be.
The same goes for jockeys.

There’s a funny thing, though.
Champion trainers Millard and Ferraris moved to Hong Kong many years ago.
The horse-population there is pretty average on the whole, the racing-diet is handicaps, MR-style.
Why would champion trainers want to go there, when only be able to win a very limited number of races each season?

Punters.
Funders of the game, day after day.
Realistically they have no expectation of winning, only hope. Plus the lure of hitting the big one, some day.
They are there because racing is an addictive pastime - socially, mentally.
Punters are the cleverest people in the world.
Ask any bookmaker who prices up a horse wrong. Punters move in for the kill, take no prisoners.
Punters hope to outwit everyone else – their fellow-punters, trainers, jockeys, the handicapper.

Racing Operators
Here turnover is the issue, eventually translating into prize money for owners.
Competitive races and large fields make for bigger turnovers (and carry-overs).
Handicap races are important in this respect, as they are everywhere in the world.
Non-handicaps often give smaller fields, predictable outcomes, lesser punter-interest.

Handicappers
Here the ultimate braingame is played.
It’s the official handicapper against other committed researchers, such as Sporting Post and individuals like Jack Dash who all handicap every race on every day. Their purpose is to establish the inherent ability of horses, and to see if it can be (or was) reproduced in races.
No two handicappers will come up with exactly the same answers, but normally it’ll be pretty close.
Sporting Post publishes its own AR side by side with the official MR for all races. Punters can use this to see if anyone slipped up, and exploit it.

There’s a big difference between Official handicappers and others, like me.
If I don’t like what I see, I can ignore it. False run races for instance (a false run race is a race which will mostly give a different result when you run it a few times over, unlike a true run race – but that is a subject all on its own!). I don’t want to introduce things into my system that aren’t easily corrected if they turn out to be wrong.
The official handicapper has no such luxury.
He has to play the hand and commit – everyone is watching, ready to criticize one way or another.

Added to that, in South Africa the official handicapper has to perform with one hand tied behind his back.
That’s because of rules and limitations imposed by the NHA, people who have not the faintest idea about handicapping and less so about the long-term effect of their impositions. Such rules and limitations do real harm. Moreover, they do not exists anywhere else in the world of handicapping – for good reason.
The official handicappers are experts in their profession. They have understanding, and integrity.
In an ideal world they should be left to do what’s right in their view, without having to answer to the uninitiated at every turn.
They are quite capable of spotting mistakes and rectifying them quickly, reducing harm done – if any.
The present system in South Africa is not conducive to expert interpretation of events.

So to finally answer LG’s question, for some racing will be about winning, for some not.
It all depends on who you are.

PS I feel the need to comment (although it wasn’t a question) on LG view, which included the words ‘the better, more consistent horses win fewer races than the weaker, less consistent horses’.
Those who know me well also know that such statements should not be made without being able to substantiate it.
I need to be shown facts and figures.
Now to short-circuit this, I’ll try and help.
I’ll look at a good sample of horses, split by age-groups, and marry their ratings (both MR and mine) to their earnings.
I’ll take a sample from the end of the last season, say all runners from July 2013 (the end of the season, just before ages change).
Then I’ll do the same for July 1999, just before the MRs took off properly, using my own ratings.
With luck this may throw good light.
Give me some time.

Your explanation refers -
1)Owners - you say that social relationship and good communications are all that Owners want.... you also refer to punters funding the industry. You dont mention the following
a)How many Owners will agree to not only spend the R100k at Sales, but will be happy to stay in racing, paying their monthly keep, without results.....
b)That without Owners funding, there wont be any racing either. So, Owners AND Punters fund fund the industry. Without either, we have neither, no industry.
As for the 1280 horses that could not win a race that year, these are just numbers and will remain just that. The point is that THIS system, as applied, is taking horses through the divisions, through penalties for places, thus stopping the horse from WINNING. And the short, simple question is - IS THIS FAIR AND CORRECT in your opinion ? YES, NO ..?

My next points will be on the allocation of the line horse and the fact that this system is forcing us to run horses poorly (yes, pull them up !), or run them wrongly, in order to obtain relief. Yes, I will give very specific examples, will show the current mindset and alternative ways to apply the same system ,within the rules.I will also show how, since being given less restrictions, our handicappers have not improved and that the contrary applies.

But first, please specifically answer the question on this point.

My final on this point is - Racing is about WINNING, Owners invest in WINNING and the current MR system is UNFAIR in this regard.

LG question
THIS system, as applied, is taking horses through the divisions, through penalties for places, thus stopping the horse from WINNING. And the short, simple question is - IS THIS FAIR AND CORRECT in your opinion ? YES, NO ..?


Your question is loaded.
You make a statement, assuming I agree with it, and then ask 'is this fair and correct - yes/no'.

I don't agree with your statement, so I can't say yes or no.

If you'd ask 'is the system in itself fair and correct' then the answer is 'absolutely, as long as no one fiddles with it'.

For every horse that loses, there must be a winner.
For every winner there are nine or so who must lose.
How can you decide who must win or lose, if the object of the exercise is to level the playing field (defined as an open betting market and by NHA Rule 47.3.2)?

To refresh, here's the NHA Rule:
47.3.2 a handicap, which shall be a RACE in which the weights to be carried by the HORSES are allocated by the handicapper for the purpose of equalising their chances of winning;

Come now Karel, nail your colours to the mast. Lets leave the "if nobody interferes with it" out. Right now the handicappers are a law unto themselves, with the power of God, within their "guidelines" behind which they hide or are protected. My appeal against Trip Tease Turf rating will prove this, when I publish all, later on. ( ABC forumites, get familiar with his form so long!)
I will close this point, declaring that we agree to disagree. Later, I will highlight the whole, showing how the system punishes the consistent. Lets leave it.

LG POINT 2 -
THE LINE HORSE is the line from which penalties are added and sometimes deducted.
LG VIEW - the line horse is often not the right choice. Too often a horse which is off form or as far back as possible is used thus increasing the penalty on those ahead of it.
Again, here we are establishing a principle and showing the mindset of the handicappers, before moving onto the debate with real examples. The mindset is to penalise rather than to handicap. The selection of the line horse shows this often, imo.
LG QUESTION - is the correct, logical and obvious line horse selected always ? Are there better alternatives for a balanced and fair result ?

Karel, please debate the addition of 9 points to Trip Tease Turf rating after his subsequent two sand wins. This was done after he was officially rated 88 after his last Turf run.

I know that Karel is very busy running Sporting Post amongst his other commitments. I will accept that as the reason for his lack of response on this debate.

My wrap on the issue is in the form of the following points -
1)The current application of the handicapping system by the handicappers is not in the interest of racing, because it penalises consistency rather than equalises, which is the goal of the system.
2)The furthest back line horse is used too often. Ratings and penalties would change a lot, if they were restricted to using the winner or second horse only, for instance.
3)As for restrictions imposed on the handicappers, many would say that this is bad. I again, believe that they must be restricted. My reasoning is that the handicappers themselves have proved that they need them. Since the lifting of certain restrictions on the handicappers about 2 years ago, the overall picture has become worse. What we see now, is a situation where the handicappers will impose the " maximum allowed" more often than not. They will get away with this, based upon their written guidelines. Too often they are found guessing and too often they are hurting individual careers, eg Trip Tease, Papa Joe, Moggytwoshoes, etc etc etc etc.
4)The problem will remain the mindset of the handicappers. Irrespective of the fact that restrictions could be imposed on handicapping penalties etc, there is ample evidence of their focus on the consistent horses and the penalties on these.
5)The above now creates a situation where you must win or lose properly. This ushers in an era that is gone from racing, many years ago, but an era that still today is etched in the minds of outsiders, who view racing as corrupt. This is not the racing that we want, but this is the racing that the application of the handicapping system will reward. Win or run unplaced. Placed horses, horses that are trying their heart out, consistently running just off the winner are being penalised. These horses cannot win, yet they get weight for that. But, if they run unplaced a few times.....
6)Where the NHRA are clearly at fault lies in the fact that the handicapper is never wrong and that the appeal process against the handicapper appears to be nothing more than a formality in which the appellant will lose and to make the message loud and clear, the deposit will be forfeit, as nhra will declare the appeal as being "unwarranted".
7)The whole appeal process appears unconstitutional, in fact it Looks like it is something that could have been conceptialised by Robert Mugabe or maybe years ago, by Idi Amin. You appeal in writing. You may not appear. You may not be represented. A committee or panel of three is called and your fate is in tneir hands...,,after they consult with the handicapper. So, you are up against the handicapper, who is the one who can argue his case..... And with all due respect to the committee who are fine racing men and fine attorneys, I would love to debate handicapping with them.
8)To make matters worse, I may not say anything against the handicapper. When I do, I have an enquiry. I read the Yorker article in S.Post, I hear an Owner say in an interview that his filly was stopped by the handicappers, I hear Deez say on Tellytrack that he cannot believe that Illa Bella was given 5 points for her second to Negev and that she now cannot win( Deez correct, she ran 4th), and I have many more examples.
Maybe its because I am outspoken and maybe its because I post on ABC, I dont quite know. Even though I am often dissagreed with by other forumites, which I accept, as this is about opinion, yet this seems to single me out. But, I cannot find any info on the enquiries into the other registered racing people who have said exactly what I have said.....
Come tomorrow 11am, I will deal with it......and with Robert and Idi.....no matter what it takes.

Have removed from sticky until the July comps are done

Bob Brogan wrote: Have removed from sticky until the July comps are done

Have noticed Louis missing since we switched

Someone give him a nudge

I see Effortless Reward after Sundays win is now merit rated 91 after 4 wins. Other fillies who also 3yos with 4 wins to their name Exquisite Touch and The Secret Is Out are rated at 106. All these fillies have achieved their ratings in sprints over 1000m to 1200m. If all these fillies lined up in a handicap sprint Effortless Reward will get 7.5kgs

If the old system Race Figure was used then all three of them would have carried the same weight in a handicap race I would assume. The Race Figure system was before my time.

On what we see is Effortless Reward in the same class as Exquisite Touch and The Secret Is Out after 4 wins each or is the handicapper right to say she is 15 pounds inferior at the moment.