sporting post vs computerform race ratings

does anybody know why sporting post and computerform have have different race ratings? i know these are two independent publications but both base their race rating on merit rating. for example race 2 at the Vaal today, from SP tickle my fancy: rated 79 and computerform rated the filly 56. still trying to find my feet in these MR system, so if i'm asking the wrong question pls assist.

Sure it is just their own ratings?,the SPORTING POST also print the MR

Computaform based on throw a dart hit a number times by 4

Sporting Post much Better.

MR System Punish the good reward the mediocre and ignore the Junk

Sylvester, what i find confusing is that sometimes a top MR/weighted horse wins a race (e.g.Htd,ll,etc) and at other times its the bottom weighted horse that wins, when is weight on a horse too much or too little? or how would you actually compare a horse's wgt to its MR to conclude whether it can win a race?

dashing jack best person

The Sporting Post has it's own merit system called AR (Ability Rating). Other than small possible differences in the WFA scale and probably differences in the length-weight table (ie the amount of weight you apply to a beaten distance), it would run as directly comparable to what the handicapper does.

The handicapper is also handicapped by an assortment of "rules" or restrictions that an ordinary long handicapper would never apply.

I don't know what system the Computaform uses, perhaps someone can post that?

Keniza, a quick rule would be in a handicap the weights are given based on previous displays of ability, so try to find a winner by looking at the current form or look for something which tells you a horse might improve, because the differences in weight carried is already factored in and the MR figure is the least help here (unless there has been a spectacular drop for some reason).

In plate or conditions races the MR will be a great aid in choosing winners. In these races (not WFA) you must just keep an eye on the age of the horse. In plates/conditions there is normally NOT a favourable WFA allowance and generally you need a good young horse to beat an older horse (especially a lightly raced older horse).

In a WFA race,the MR should be the most accurate guide around. In SA we have relatively alot of WFA Gr1 mile races, and horses like Jet Master, Winter Solstice, Flaming Rock, Free My Heart, Pocket Power etc etc are able to win repeatedly in races like the Queens Plate and Gold Challenge as older horses.

These days I try to capitalize either on the forced 'mistakes' the handicapper must make, or on taking advantage when I think the handicapper is right and the market disagrees. It then comes down to price, bank and the ability to 'get on'. Amen.

Amen Jack Dash that helps a lot thanks, do you mind to share the situations where "the handicapper would be forced to make mistakes", i know the list is probably endless...

Perhaps an example would explain best:

On Sunday Purple Lake was due to run in her 3rd start in a hcp and opened 15/10 as an unbeaten favourite. Even though she only has a MR of 76.

The handicapper kicks most maiden winners off a net 64-66. So if a 3yo filly wins a 1200m in Aug, she could expect a 64 + (WFA Aug 1200m is 7kg or 14 points) = 80 ish.
Purple Lake (a 4yo) won her maiden by 3 lengths so the hcpper went 64 + (0 WFA) + 6 points for the 'ease of victory' = 70. (The runner up won next time out as strong fav).
In her next start she won a Graduation beating another 4yo filly (Street Cred MR78) by 2.50 lengths.

To be fair to Street Cred, Purple Lake could easily be accessed MR78 + 2.50 lengths, comfortably a MR84.
However the maximum accessment for winning a Graduation is 6 points, so 70 + 6 = MR76.

So off a very low MR70 maiden win, Purple Lake is an unbeaten 4yo running off a MR76, when she has shown herself easily an 84+. The handicapper knows this, but is powerless to give other fillies a proper chance against her.

Irrespective of the result, she is carrying at least 4kg less than she would without the rules, which makes her a favourite in any handicap.

These guidelines the handicapper uses can favour some horses and cripple others for months at a time.

We have trainers having a strong influence on making the rules, and because they look to protect themselves the system has been bastardized. It's a bit like letting the players make up the rules for a referee, during the game...can you imagine what they would come up with?

keniza999 Wrote:

---

> does anybody know why sporting post and
> computerform have have different race ratings? i
> know these are two independent publications but
> both base their race rating on merit rating. for
> example race 2 at the Vaal today, from SP tickle
> my fancy: rated 79 and computerform rated the
> filly 56. still trying to find my feet in these MR
> system, so if i'm asking the wrong question pls
> assist.


I (Ken Nicol) do handicapping for the SPost. I produce Cape, KZN and (for my sins) Flamingo Park ratings.

Our Race Ratings(RR) are derived from our own Ability Ratings(AR) and weight carried. They have nothing to do with official MR. Obviously our AR's are arrived at based on similar principles to MR's,but often turn out quite differently.

We gave Tickle My Fancy an AR of 71 prior to her winning yesterday, not 79. The 79 you refer to is her RR for yesterday's event. The horse with the highest RR(in this case the winner Tickle My Fancy) has on paper the best chance of winning.

Of course other factors come into play - the top rated may be out of form, rested, running over wrong trip. In this case you will see a ? next to the RR, indicating the horse may well not run to that rating. There may also be horses in the race who are expected to improve on their rating(given a + - often an unexposed horse with only a few runs behind it), while a * says we expect it to produce its rating on the day.

Anyway in this case i would say our rating was a bit more accurate than the Computaform's !! (couldn't resist getting that in !!)

Great post guys, thanks for info

Dr Who,do you use a "current form bias" on your RR's.
I use official MR (as shown by computaform) your RR's and then do my own "current form" rating.
Example,the other day a horse in a plate race was a "certainty" on MR (92).Its last 2 runs it had run to 68 & 71 for no obvious reason at all.
Went from a bet to a lay and ran accordingly!(BTW wish it always worked out so well,which it doesn't)