Application of MR Handicap System

Most who are interested will have read Karel Meidema's "no bull" article and the opinions are supported by stats ,but I am still left with some questions as to how the system is applied.
Handicap races are no test as no result can be an "upset" in a race where all horses are weighted to deadheat!
However QUESTION : if all horses are rated to finish equal ,why is it that,as a generalisation ,the spread of finishing distance in handicaps, tends to average about a length per horse (ie 12 horses =12 lengths first to last ,14 horses =14 lengths first to last etc etc)

The Plate races, where, if horses race to ratings, results should be the most predictable, produces results that far too frequently make a mockery of the official ratings.(Another example yesterday at Fairview. Only one plate race in the exotics and the result bore no semblance to the ratings)

Another QUESTION: you often hear the expression "form is temporary and class(ability) is permanent."
Clearly that is not an official view as there were many 4 & 5 yr olds (WFA suggests peak should be at 5)whose ability ratings have been reduced considerably(PE this week-end had a days work) from their best.
My final QUESTION is why MR is reduced for rested horses (I see no mention of fitness when defining ability...........that is surely the conditioners job) I also notice that the rested "discount" is not removed after a horse has a couple of runs back, suggesting a rest reduces ability?????

Would it not seem that there might still be room for adjustment ,in the application?

Very interested in the comments of some of the forum handicappers!

{i'm no handicapper} imho MR does not reflect the current ability but the ability when the figure was earned. most horses run well only when the conditions are ideal. ability is permanent but an unfit horse might as well be in the stables cos it will not run to its ability.

Valid questions imo - especially the last one - I would be interested to know the reasoning behind this.

As to the first question, I think it goes as to the nature of the beast - not every runner can run to his/her ability every time - the only constant is that ratings will most times be 'rubbished' by inconsistent performances - a MR is merely the 'best' way that is available to measure merit - not sure that any system can address this fully.

As to the 2nd question, imo the stats show that the statement is incorrect - some horses do lose their ability or 'class', due to an injury and some (especially fillies imo) just lose interest in racing - so 'Class' is certainly NOT permanent in all cases

Well,I was hoping for a bit more comment before expanding the initial post.
Having tried to speculate answers to some of the questions,I venture the following possibilities.
I have assumed that in the perfect world ,MR can only be very accurate if every run by every horse was at 100% fitness and soundness and was ridden start to finish at the best the horse can produce.That is not ever going to happen so the anomalies will creep in!
Insofar as to why the distance spread in handicap races ,I think we have to be realistic that there is not likely to be a huge effort to gain the best possible place,outside the stakes pot(ie you are not likely to see whips out to finish 8th instead of 10th)
That situation,together with Karel's evidence that 4th place tends to be a common fulcrum(or line) would suggest that maybe the ratings of horses that finish lower than 4th or 5th in handicaps,should be treated warily..............especially when reducing ratings!

Insofar as the reduced ratings,when you see a 4yr old ,who in less than 2 yrs racing has been as high as an 80 and currently runs off 58 ,its probably fair to say one or both were never correct!
There is a strong view by some that young early winners are overrated and these discrepencies suggest that it may sometimes be true.Is that not because the system determines a horses ability on too little data?? I know that 3 runs are required to earn a rating,but they are not averaged ...........the best of the 3 is used????? thereby determining a horses ability,in fact, on one performance.Would it not perhaps be fair,therefore, to have a system which does a zero based re-assessment of each runner after another 3 or so runs??....and then be less inclined to reduce ratings ,thereafter,so readily???
A number of the exotic upsets have come about due to horses "bouncing back" from their lowest rating, suddenly!
It would seem that the volatility of ratings needs to be narrowed and smoothed,if possible.

Absolutely, yes,yes,yes , Rob ! Your last line says it all and simplifies the longwinded opinion that I have been posting and trying to explain.
The VOLATILITY OF THE RATINGS ! Perfectly put.
In a nutshell, that is the problem.

I don't know enough about mr but surely the question is if the ratings are wrong surely from a punting point of view, those that have knowledge of how to rate a horse should have the upper hand?

This doesn't help the trainers and owners though.

I see some debate about the effectiveness of MR following Karels article. What was very interesting was the fact that he conceded the system does not work on sand. How can this be? I am a strong advocate of bringing back the Race Figure system, the handicappers play God with the MR and often get it wrong

Over the Air wrote: I see some debate about the effectiveness of MR following Karels article. What was very interesting was the fact that he conceded the system does not work on sand. How can this be? I am a strong advocate of bringing back the Race Figure system, the handicappers play God with the MR and often get it wrong

does mauritius racing work with a race figure system or a merit rating system...
if answer is no...does any country in the world use the race figure system
the reason i ask..if the answer to any of the above 2 questions are yes....then if a horse from that country want to campaign overseas where the merit rating system is in effect,is that horse allowed to compete there and if so,how is the weight allocated

Racing Guru how many of our horses race overseas? Is it even 1/10 of a 1% of the total population? In my opinion if a horse goes overseas they can allocate the horse a rating that will quickly be adjusted. I have no idea why you ask about Mauritius seeing the horse population from that country are sourced with handicap ratings before they get there. What is your point I am not understanding it.

During one of the debates relating to ratings, Barry Irwin advised that the U.S. have no official ratings, as such ,but tend to be weighted on number of wins , so that is in line with the RF principle!...........and US horses are invited to run all over the world

(Mauritius has a MR system-they are available on their official web site)

Over the Air wrote: Racing Guru how many of our horses race overseas? Is it even 1/10 of a 1% of the total population? In my opinion if a horse goes overseas they can allocate the horse a rating that will quickly be adjusted. I have no idea why you ask about Mauritius seeing the horse population from that country are sourced with handicap ratings before they get there. What is your point I am not understanding it.

OTA...my point was although i am in favour of the RF system as well...as i say that we will see more champions.....the racing authorithy here will not contemplate it here,if it meant that the RF system will indeed affect racing our horses overseas,but Rob has put that to bed as he states that the usa work with the RF system..and that their horses can go abroad..how r those horses then handicapped overseas would be the next interesting point

RG ,I am not too sure how it works in the US, just the little that Barry gave us ................perhaps Barry will give us a better idea of the US system, as a whole.