It’s official- Mike de Kock

louisg wrote: The question at the end is the key here. "Is it the system that is flawed or are the Handicappers clueless?"

A bit of both.....?
1)The restrictions on the Handicappers prevented them from raising ANS to the 121. That is a system fault.

2)The Handicappers failed to properly raise ANS after Saturday. Two points here -
a) Imagine the outcry from everyone if they raised the horse to 121 after Saturday.

b)Basically , there would be a big headache with regard to Crowd Pleaser's rating and the rest of the field. Those other ratings of all horses which ran on the weekend are also "system bound" and the system is again bound by restrictions.

We have to find a solution - either a computer handicapping system or go back to a resticted system similar to the old race figure system. And neither of these are the best solution.

Its tough, whichever way u look at it.

Whoever stopped the handicapper from running the ratings all the way down was trying to protect horses who run well but who don't manage to earn.

It sounds good, but it isn't because (if we can use ANS just as an example of the moment) the problem might be:
1. that the horses in front of him are not his only problem (because he can get to them)
2. the horses that all run up his bum and also don't go up
3. that we shouldn't be "protecting" horses in Graded races, especially WFA championships
4. why should everyone else have to put up with protected horses like ANS

People are saying the handicapper could put ANS up say 4kgs instead of 2kg
1. In the past 10 years we haven't allowed any of that "ease of victory" guessing
2. Once the rule applied to ANS, they chose a path as a result of that "advantage". What's the point of a protection rule if you can take it away immediately despite the connections following the rules? You may as well not have a protection rule at all then.
3. Others are saying the hcpper has the power to allocate any weight in the July anyway. That's rubbish, we haven't seen 1 single horse given a different weight from the proper weight is 400,000 runs in 15 years. And why should they to ANS, he hasn't done anything wrong.

My very strong opinion is let the handicapper apply the long handicap, and object if it goes wrong. All this time "ease of victory" penalties, or the hcppers judgement if you like, has all but ended because of constant objections. The only time we get it (possibly the proper rating) is by request to get into a high stakes race or maybe get sold overseas.

There is no reason to think that letting the handicapper apply the long handicap, with objections as a remedy to errors and unforeseen shit that will happen won't work. Certainly might be better than whats happening now.

And basically 'whats happening' is that the July Hcp has lost it's status as the best race in SA, and partly because of so little confidence in the system to be fair. The proof is that people are opting to walk away rather than run. The best race is the one which you want to win, no matter what the cost.

I think if you were from Mars, or HK, the horse you want to buy is the Met winner, not the July winner, and certainly not the Summer Cup winner. After that the QP winner, the Guineas winner. The Daily News winner, that's my 3yo championship. Partly because of the timing, and partly because of the class, and mostly because it's WFA.

Well put Tony. I believe that handicappers have now opened a can of worms for themselves with the "ease of victory" rule. They can no longer just handicap purely on the result of a race.

Now what happens if, in a MR race, a horse don't get a clear passage, gets balked at a crucial stage and flies at the finish losing by 0,5 length. The horse should have won by 2 lengths if they didn't suffer interference, now do they get a larger increase than the winner?

We all know what happens in WFA races, if you come into the race under sufferance and finish in the placings you will get heavily penalized, if you run out the placings you don't regardless of how much above your rating you ran. That race is past and cannot be looked at again for handicapping, regardless of what the horse should have received.

If ANS did not run to a 121 in the Met, would he have received a "ease of victory" penalty?

Thanks for the contributions, very interesting reading .

I see the handicapper has responded .... but to the wrong questions imo; the question should be (to be answered by whoever drafted the rules) 'why are limits in place when determining a horse's Rating' ?

If we go back to the QP and the Met (which was not an easy race to rate), imo there is evidence that ANS ran to around 113 (and Oh Susannah in the Met to 111) - so with the 6 points increase in March he should be around 119; if you take the handicapper's view that OS ran to 121, then it follows that ANS should currently be at 129 :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: For me I think around 119 is more realistic - that's why most believe he is still slung in at the weights in the July. But I don't think he should be raised just because he was deemed to win the Cup Trial 'convincingly' - imo it is not unrealistic to believe that he ran below his Met rating in the Cup Trial - he came from so far back and was most likely not at his peak yet So that rating is not a true reflection of his 'Merit' imo ....

Regarding Yakeen, I agree has been harshly treated by only by a point or 2 - I have him at 101.

Coming back to the July - it is stated in the race conditions that 'weights shall be framed by the Handicapper in his sole discretion and without necessarily having regard to the horses merit rating' (and I know they have never used this 'discretion' in the past). So who is this 'Handicapper' ? Is it not the same 'Handicapper' that allocated the Ratings in the first place? If so, why would he/she/they change their view ?

In theory (taking the above into account) it is possible ( highly unlikely, but possible) that the 'Handicapper' (should it be a different 'Handicapper' than the one that allocated the official Ratings), that ANS will be asked to carry more weight (if the July 'Handicapper' uses his/her/their 'discretion'). And I'm sure every owner / trainer (bar ANS's connections) with runners in the race would agree that ANS should be top weight (or close to it); so the next question is should these other connections not appeal to whoever is framing the July weights ? As surely every other runner is being disadvantaged ?

Of course ANS's connections (in the case of him being raised to carry top weight) might respond by withdrawing him - and what a ruckus that would cause ito Ante-Post bets struck :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

And all this because of Ratings not being applied correctly (due to the 'limiting' rules)

So better just to let sleeping dogs lie - and hence ANS will walk the July - bar any real bad luck in running of course :huh:

Saturday.

JUNE 13, 2018
National Horseracing Authority Handicapping Manager Roger Smith was approached for comment and was happy to give some insight into the handicappers’ thinking.

Smith said: “When we looked at the Cup Trial, we used third-placed Platinum Prince as the line horse. We did consider using fourth-placed Head Honcho, but Platinum Prince has run a string of places in Graded races this season and is very consistent.

“In addition, neither Platinum Prince nor runner-up Crowd Pleaser have won for almost a year and we were reluctant to pick them up for placing when they are struggling to win.

“With regard to African Night Sky, the margin of victory was just under a length, which equals two Merit Rating points. We treated the margin as two lengths due to the ease of victory, and also the fact that he had to switch. His rating was therefore adjusted from 108 to 112.

“We do not practice retrospective handicapping, so whatever number he ran to in previous races is irrelevant in this instance.”

In the Jubilee Handicap at Turffontein on Sunday, De Kock’s horse Yakeen also received a four-point Merit Rating adjustment after scoring by a desperate short-head over fellow July hopeful Tilbury Fort.

De Kock contrasted the hard-earned nature of this win to the ease of African Night Sky’s – for an identical four-point penalty.

Smith had this to say: “We used third and fourth placed Arctica and Social Order as joint line horses. Runner-up Tilbury Fort would not make a good key as he had won his previous two starts since being gelded and is clearly still improving. Winner Ÿakeen is a young horse who has won four from six starts and is also clearly still on the upgrade.

“Äs a result, Tilbury Fort went up three points and Yakeen four.”

Smith also revealed that the NHA would draft an official response to some of the views expressed in De Kock’s blog and this would be released in due course.

Why did they increase all our horses by six points. Is it to try make South African horses look better to improve sales?? Its a joke our horses are not even in the same class. Smart call, Al Sahiem and Whisky Baron are more than enough proof. Undercover agent a 125. You got to be joking , its not even a 115 by International standards. He was beaten by Perovskia 2 weeks before. Its just a farce and killing our horses potential dubai careers etc.

Frodo.
I think you will find , if you troll through archives of sporting post and handicapping conferences that some of the now vocal and adamant people,(including trainers) had input into those limits.

onlyinthiscountry wrote: Why did they increase all our horses by six points. Is it to try make South African horses look better to improve sales?? Its a joke our horses are not even in the same class. Smart call, Al Sahiem and Whisky Baron are more than enough proof. Undercover agent a 125. You got to be joking , its not even a 115 by International standards. He was beaten by Perovskia 2 weeks before. Its just a farce and killing our horses potential dubai careers etc.

I kind of agree and disagree.
The ratings increase is arguable overall but for many of the horses that have travelled their ratings have increasd overseas. Its at the top end we have issues

I think for example Met ratings have been misleading the last few years, which is part of the reason for the ANS debate . And the excessive expectations of some of the exported runners.
My logic is that the Met ratings have been largely affected by a few consistant horses running good races in all the features and the assumption that they ran to anywhere near their top ratings in the Met.(LE ,CA, in particular)

Smart Call crushed them..but even argueing for improvement, her ratings compared with all previous and future collateral form were an anomaly.
Whiskey Baron again improver, but his overall form was not suggestive of the rating for the Met..
And then there are Horses like Oh Susannah Gold standard, ANS etc have not before or since run to those ratings supposedly achieved in the MET .

I think the handicapper almost never assumes the winner may have been the line horse, and forgets that most horses will run below their highest rating more often than not.

The better horses will run closer to their abilty more often than weaker ones but will only rarely improve their ratings.
Instead any time a horse beats these consistant horses the handicapper feels the need to elevate its MR beyond the consistant horses . Which means the next time they meet and the consistant horse wins, it needs to be rated higher...and so on..and so on...even if the actual abilty of the horse has never changed relative to its competitors.

I think at some point a machine learning algorithm will be put in charge of handicapping and will use a weighted average rating with some calculated penalties for deviations from that mean to weight runners. I m actually surprised that its not happened already but until then these discussions will continue to be heated.

drdom wrote: Frodo.
I think you will find , if you troll through archives of sporting post and handicapping conferences that some of the now vocal and adamant people,(including trainers) had input into those limits.

Could well be, but imo the way it works currently is just wrong - and I agree totally with the suggestion by TM above (use the 'long handicap')

On the other hand, as also mentioned above, some horses (Legal Eagle, Snowdance, Oh Susanna, Undercover Agent) imo are rated too high; Legal Eagle imo might have been 120 once, but has not run to that mark yet this year .... Snowdance got her elevated rating very early, Oh Susanna on that Met rating (which would put ANS at 129 today) - there has to be a more accurate way

Frodo wrote:

drdom wrote: Frodo.
I think you will find , if you troll through archives of sporting post and handicapping conferences that some of the now vocal and adamant people,(including trainers) had input into those limits.

Could well be, but imo the way it works currently is just wrong - and I agree totally with the suggestion by TM above (use the 'long handicap')

On the other hand, as also mentioned above, some horses (Legal Eagle, Snowdance, Oh Susanna, Undercover Agent) imo are rated too high; Legal Eagle imo might have been 120 once, but has not run to that mark yet this year .... Snowdance got her elevated rating very early, Oh Susanna on that Met rating (which would put ANS at 129 today) - there has to be a more accurate way

How do you get ANS to 129 ?

Sorry my bad - the handicapper should have him at 123 :huh:

By my calcs ..... ANS with 59.5 kgs ran 2 lengths behind OS with 51.5 kgs in the Met - so that makes ANS abt 2 points better than OS (bearing in mind that there was abt 11 pounds / points difference in WFA between the 2 at the time); the handicapper gave OS 121 (after the 6 points increase in March) - so that should make ANS 123 ?

But as I said, based on their Met runs, for me I have ANS at about 118 / 119 which should put OS at abt 116 / 117

Frodo wrote: Sorry my bad - the handicapper should have him at 123 :huh:

By my calcs ..... ANS with 59.5 kgs ran 2 lengths behind OS with 51.5 kgs in the Met - so that makes ANS abt 2 points better than OS (bearing in mind that there was abt 11 pounds / points difference in WFA between the 2 at the time); the handicapper gave OS 121 (after the 6 points increase in March) - so that should make ANS 123 ?

But as I said, based on their Met runs, for me I have ANS at about 118 / 119 which should put OS at abt 116 / 117

Now that is correct he should be 123 rated now on his Sunmet run .