David Thiselton-Merit Rating is a handicap

Although im a novice when it comes to MR ,i thought this was a good read..



David Thiselton-Merit Rating is a handicap

Aspects of the Merit Rating Handicapping System are causing increasing unhappiness among trainers who are left having to explain to owners why a progressive above average horse suddenly finds itself battling to win another race. The handicappers are facing a headache on how to alleviate the issue. In the old days of the Race Figure system, whereby horses simply earned a handicap mark according to the number of races they had won, trainers were able to take horses through the divisions.
The major bone of contention with the Merit Rating System is that it usually punishes early three-year-olds with a high handicap (merit rating) figure after just one maiden win. The majority of early three-year-old maiden winners are then finding it tough to progress as handicappers.
The anomaly is that whereas in the old Race Figure days a horse would spend the first dozen or so runs of its career proving how good it was, under today’s system certain horses are wasting these runs in order to prove to the handicapper that they are not as good as he has rated them.
Another catch-22 situation is also that if these horses come close to winning a handicap they will remain high in the merit ratings.
The reason why early three-year-old maiden winners are being given high merit ratings is partly because they have an assumed improvement factor built into their rating. Improvement in horses is based on a Weight For Age (WFA) system that was devised by the British Jockey Club handicapper, Admiral Rous, in 1855 and it has stood the test of time. Read the full Article

The Gold Circle website article is shortened. Here is the full newspaper version:

Aspects of the Merit Rating Handicapping System are causing increasing happiness among trainers who are left having to explain to owners why a progressive above average horse suddenly finds itself battling to win another race.
On the other hand the handicappers are facing a headache on how to alleviate the issue.
In the old days of the Race Figure system, whereby horses simply earned a handicap mark according to the number of races they had won, trainers were able to take horses through the divisions.
The major bone of contention with the Merit Rating System is that it usually punishes early three-year-olds with a high handicap (merit rating) figure after just one maiden win.
The majority of early three-year-old maiden winners are then finding it tough to progress as handicappers.
The anomaly is that whereas in the old Race Figure days a horse would spend the first dozen or so runs of its career proving how good it was, under today’s system certain horses are wasting these runs in order to prove to the handicapper that they are not as good as he has rated them.
All racehorses have only a certain amount of runs in them and can’t afford to waste these runs for the sake of bringing their merit rating down.
Another catch twenty two situation is also that if these horses come close to winning a handicap they will remain high in the merit ratings.
The reason why early three-year-old maiden winners are being given high merit ratings is partly because they have an assumed improvement factor built into their rating.
Improvement in horses is based on a Weight For Age (WFA) system that was devised by the British Jockey Club handicapper, Admiral Rous, in 1855 and it has stood the test of time.
In a WFA 1600m race taking place in October, for example, a three-year-old will receive 9kg from a horse that is five years and older, while four-year-olds will receive 1kg.
However, in Maiden Plates in October over 1600m, three-year-olds only receive 2kg from four-year-olds and five-year-olds, instead of 8kg and 9kg respectively.
Assuming a four-year-old is rated 70, this would mean that a three-year-old would have to run to a rating well over 80 in an October maiden plate over 1600m to beat it (one merit rated point equates to 0,5kg).
Four-year-olds, by the same measure, would not have to run to a high merit rating to win the race.
In South Africa the merit ratings allotted after a race are based on a “line horse”, or a horse that is perceived to have run to its previous rating.
This horse is usually one of the placed horses and as all maidens, good and bad, race against each other in the major centres in South Africa, the line horse is bound to have a reasonably good merit rating.
In England, on the other hand, trainers can assess how good their horse is and choose an appropriate centre in which to run it.
Good horses, for example, will be sent to run in maidens at racecourses like Newmarket (where the stakes are also higher), while moderate sorts could be sent to a lesser centre like Brighton.
Very few horses in England run in maidens after achieving a handicap mark (after three runs) and instead embark upon a handicapping career with the Brighton type horses starting off on a low mark and entering lowly handicaps.
South African trainers have not followed suit in this regard and 99% of maiden horses run in maiden plates.
If trainers changed their policy they could for example place a reasonable three-year-old maiden, who is fortunate enough to have earned a merit rating of 70, into a MR68 handicap without that horse being under sufferance.
The horse will therefore be running with it’s full WFA allowance and would not have to run much higher than its current rating to win the race.
The introduction of more three-year-old handicaps would mean that early three-year-old maidens rated even below 70 would be able to enter without being under sufferance and could have the same possibilities for progression that current four-year-old maiden winners are enjoying.
Another problem that exists under the current system is that due to the “line horse” system, early three-year-olds are earning merit ratings in the 80s simply for performing well in maidens without winning.
One solution to this perceived punishment of the good early three-year-old, especially in light of the logistical problems South African trainers have in sending a horse to a weaker centre, would be to change all Maiden Plates into Weight For Age races.
Three-year-olds would then not have to run to a high merit rating to win them and would have room for progression in the handicaps.
Four-year-old maidens would then find it tough, but special maidens for older horses could be introduced.
Another solution is that the “line horse” policy be scrapped in favour of assessing the race in its entirety, for choosing a line horse is a matter of subjection in itself, while the line horse also might not have had the time to reach its true level and could be overrated at the time.

There is an assumption in RSA that "the majority of horses do not make the wfa improvement" that is expected by the WFA table.

Because of that assumption, the handicappers are under pressure from trainers to keep the ratings of horses down as they go on.

The result then is that older horses can win several races and keep a rating equal or lower than the gross 80 ratings maiden winners get. It's obvious then that younger horses are systematically disadvantaged.

Perhaps someone should remind trainers to be careful what you ask for, because maybe you will get it (and then it will bite you on your arse).

I believe that the way the MR system is applied is flawed by virtue of the fact that it should be an ABILITY rating,not a form or fitness rating.Why should rested horses get reduced merit ratings?Do they lose ability whilst resting...The conditioning should be in the hands of the trainer,not the handicapper.
If the old saying"horses lose form,not ability" then MR should not be reduced,except in the case of mistakes...this would prevent the perception that MR's are manipulated.Reduced MR should not be easily acheived!
The problem starts with maidens who appear(as a generalisation) too highly rated,as few horses run to their rating,straight out the maidens!This would also explain maidens battling in hcp's locally.It also explains the amount of ratings that need to be reduced early in the handicapping careers of many horses.
The last paragraph of the article has got me confused...how do you measure a race in it's entirety without yardsticks,and a line horse has to be more reliable than times, for example.I would be interested in the thinking behind that comment.

RF

The handicapper tells me that the wfa discounting system has been very short lived. Apparently only after 210 days (race to race) is a max of 5 points allowed possibly.

So given that the wfa improvement for a 2yo winner in July to 210 days later could be 19 lbs. 7 months off the track to (maybe) get 5lbs off is hardly a play for a sound horse.

Also, you would think in a world of information highways, that the circus show could at least put up these rules as and when they change. Maybe without a ringmaster, clowns just do what they like?

I suppose the idea might be to assess the race multiple times, with each horse considered the line horse, and use the average rating that results. Just guessing.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> The last paragraph of the article has got me
> confused...how do you measure a race in it's
> entirety without yardsticks,and a line horse has
> to be more reliable than times, for example.I
> would be interested in the thinking behind that
> comment.

100% R.F.
"Another solution is that the “line horse” policy be scrapped in favour of assessing the race in its entirety, for choosing a line horse is a matter of subjection in itself, while the line horse itself might not have had the time to reach its true level and could be overrated at the time."

Open challenge for the conceiver of the last paragraph, to explain HOW you rate without a line horse?

(possibly this will illuminate the concept: Pocket Power is rated 121. If he doesn't win a race, are the horses in front of him better than 121? If he wins, is the horse next to him 120? Selecting a line horse(s), individual(s) whose ratings make sense or supply the best fit of results is the essence of a long handicap...basically collateral form with adj for weight, beaten distance and weight for age).

Next suggestion will be to have races without a finish line.

Sabre,I do my own ratings and when comparing the entire field,in some races the variance is huge,which necessitates trying to establish which horse's run is most relevant...and that becomes the line horse!
I find you can't get away from that but I do try and reinforce with a second example in the race,if possible.

The system sucks because SAF racing is not allowing its young stars a proper chance to develop.

There should be conditioned allowance races a) specifically for 2 and 3-year-olds until they have have won 3 or 4 races, then they can be weighted according to their talent.

No matter how good a horse it, talent is never a guarantee of success. It is not easy to win any race.

If claiming races were more prevalent, you would have a built in classifier. It would also create more trade.

The way the system is now it encourages people to cheat by stiffing their horses until their weight is low enough to ensure a good try.

Sure, Rob. Not advocating the method myself, just trying to understand the meaning of the post.

My personal views are similar to Barry's above, less handicaps, more conditioned plate races.

For me,the worst thing that ever happened from a punting point of view was the scrapping of the race figure system.....every handicap was in fact a conditions race with fixed penalties for wins.As a result,many many races had "hdcp certainties" as a result.
I agree with barry's idea and let the manipulation of MR kick in for the older horses(a bit like senior golfers off senior tees)lol

Barry and Sabre

If 10 horses lined up for a plate race, 1 or 2 would look to have the race at the weights.

If the same 10 were to be in a hcp, arguably more of them would have a chance, so handicaps are far more attractive especially to the canon-fodder.

Therefore, plate races favor the better horses, while hcps give poorer animals a chance, affirmative action if you like.

The only solution I can see, is to have combinations of
a)Stage MANY more Merit and RaceFigure handicaps for significantly LESSER stakes, and
b)plate and level/wfa races at HIGHER stakes.

Hopefully, such a combination would:
a) spread stakes out to equine investors so maore can get a bite of the pie and
b) also generate a stream of performance horses who win more and supply quality races for a classic program
c) more opportunity for high rated horses not at expenses of handicappers
c) create more races with the same available total stakes, & more betting opportunities
d) stream the handicappers with more races as they tend to race more often anyway albeit for smaller bites.
e) entice horses to race in plate/wfa races as even places would return higher stakes

This is a simple, but effective possibility of untangling the favoring of younger vs older classes, to have more races, and seperate the wheat from the chaf with regards to ratings and quality, all at the same or similar cost of stakes, and hopefully generating more income from more races. Punters would play on 2 handicaps even if run for half stakes. Individual horses would earn less but as a group, handicappers will earn the same and run more often.

Perhaps the more informed amoungst you can explain those low stake races in the UK and elsewhere?

Ultimately, it's hard to argue that better horses shouldn't have the opportunity to run for more, and not so good horses have another oppertunity rather than giving up the sport early because they really are not good athletes and they unfortunately turned out to be not well bought.