Tellytrack Presenters & The MR System

jap

that point has been made by myself and lips 1000000's of times.SA experts/commentators are obsessed with amount of wins and winning margin.

There is a horse running in the UK at the moment, its a maiden called Shantaram.

I rate this horse circa 98 and when the eventually chops his balls off a 120 this horse WILL beat a 70 rated 15 time winner EVERYTIME they meet at level weights

There are presenters at Tellytrack that know their stuff.A simple workshop where the 'knows' explain to the 'don't knows' would go a long way to solving this problem.

Certain changes to the parameters which influence the effect of the Handicappers have been proposed and will hopefully be ratified today. In effect, the changes which we proposed, give the Handicappers more say, wider parameters.

This makes sense, especially in the light of Lips joining the panel.

Often, we have blamed the Handicapper, when he has done nothing wrong at all. He has simply adhered to the parameters.

Once ratified. I will post these changes. I hope that Justin V will also give his input here. I am sure he can give us many examples where the Handicapper, in terms of the current parameters and the resulting restraints of these, has been forced to rate a horse incorrectly.

And as for 2 cents - yip, he understands handicapping. He should be on TT more often than anyone else, imho.

Theoretically ,for pure handicapping ,all parameters should be removed.However,in practical terms ,if every horse is correctly handicapped and 90% of races in the programme are handicap races then it becomes equine roulette from a punting point of view.
I don't play roulette,equine included, so I will switch fulltime to poker...........won't be wasting my money on guessing!

Merit rating has been great for the theory of racing but local racing income streams have gone backwards since introduced..........is that entirely co-incidental?
Racing will continue to regress if programmers remain obsessed with handicaps IMO.

If they adjust the handicapping,they need to adjust the programmes.

louisg..great news for them...an example? today up front is running..a maiden rated 98...as per the protocols a 3yo winning maiden can not be higher than a net 78..so if she wins..she will have to be rated accordingly..that means when she comes out from her maiden win at a net 78..she will run in handicaps way below her ability level of 98 which she earned in gr1 performances as a 2yo..she will effectively run off a net 78 and if she is still the same filly with the same ability she will walk in her first race off a net 78..then due to another protocol a horse can only get 8 pounds for winning a handicap..so she will go from a net 78..win and become a net 84,win and become a net 90 and win again and become a net 98..effectively giving her 4 free wins..now how is this handicapping? how does it give the opposition a fair chance in the races she runs?? would u like to own/train a horse running against her in a handicap running for 2nd?
the exact same thing happened to royal zulu warrior...was a 4yo winning maiden couldnt get higher than a net 70..and then 8 pounds per win...and he was literally slung in and the handicappers could do nothing as their hands were tied due to the protocols..if u ask me they should have no protocols and just be allowed to do their jobs..which is handicap! the handicappers are not fools,and i can assure you that although mr lips is a fine racing man,he is not the only person in that panel with a brain.

Justin,your points are absolutely valid,but when every horse has an equal chance ,the punter has none(other than lucky numbers)
Give Betfair a licence and I'll be back...........laying a lot more than backing!

100% rob..and that is why i rarely bet in handicaps..ive been hanging to lay horses..asked interbet if a normal account holder can get the la function added to their account like the bookies but they said its illegal in RSA to lay?? excuse my ignorance im not too sharp with legal stuff

Justinv you have sighted Rzw as an example of the system being exploited .
Thats one out of how many ?
That is surely an exeption and does not occur often .
Why can't the punter have some sort of edge every so often ?
Its a real tuff game this and i fully agree with Rob on this issue .
Also horses have run to high ratings and have failed to reproduce it in their furure runs . They have to wait for months before the handicapper drops them enough to be competitive again . Is that fair on the owner that pays the keep regardless?

I am with Rob on this one!

solo i dont think there is a dispute here..im a punter too i like edge()

The true situation is that any edge that was calculable by the punter will be removed.
But many horses will be running off incorrect,but manipulated, ratings.............handicappers "measure" what the horses do ,stables "determine" what horses do..........by definition then,stables can determine handicaps................... by planning fitness, feeding???? etc etc so handicapping parameters are the least of the potential "unfairness" in racing.
If a MR is an ability rating there is no justification for allowing reductions...........simple as that.
Whether you agreed with the old race figure system or not,it was the best regulator of racing, yet devised.

Fully agree with you, about rest of Panel, Justin. I was just pointing out the obvious, that Lips is a waste of time, if the panel are completely tied by parameters. In fact, given the current parameters, no handicapper is actually needed.

Having said the above, I am in full agreement with Rob Faux - I really dont like the MR system and I agree fully that it is very bad for turnover.....especially given the programme that caters for handicaps instead of plate races. Surely Punters WANT a "good thing "or two on every card. MR is a leveller and makes Racing very difficult for the Punter. I think, Worldwide, this has been a problem.

To me, Racing needs the Up Fronts and Royal Zulu Warriors. Punters love them. But, we have too few of them, with the current system. And whilst the current system seeks to bring the good ones back to the field, this also robs Owners of vital Stake monies. So, your facile 1 time winner is quickly "handicapped " to run with 5 and 6 time winners, effectively reducing that horse's earning potential.

As I said, this then creates a minefield for Punters, whilst the Handicapper declares, "but the horse ran to that rating"........... And come month end, the bill arrives for the Owner to pay and the Punter only has small change left in his pocket.

And ONLY because of the MR Handicapping system, do we have, what I call, "the great divide" - a clear gap between the really good horses (small percentage) and a hell of a lot of lower rated horses. In between, we have the "grey area horses " - These are the horses, which in the old days, always had a following, due to their consistency. They created turnover because Punters followed them when they ran. Those days are gone, as the consistent ones are punished at the weights. Today, in this handicapping system, a horse goes through the divisions without winning a race.

i couldnt agree more..i am the first to suggest that there should be more plate races to allow horses to win more races/prize money etc...but plate races dont attract full fields(usually) do they? and full fields are what the operators want to see...???

and in my opinion handicappers are given to much grief from people about the vet bills and training fee's of the horse..its the first thing u hear when a trainer/owner moans at the handicapper about..its their job to handicap..not make sure owners recover their racing costs..if the system is a problem then changes and complaints are for people higher up..not to the people who merely implement the system..its a case of shoot the messenger basically...