sporting post vs computerform race ratings

  • Jack Dash
  • New Member
  • New Member
  • Thanks: 0

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#75815
Frodo, you are right.

What else is there to be done when a bunch of new horses gallop accross some land for the first time?

Your thumbsuck rating of 85 could be a net 60, probably as good a place to start as any.

What I do is anchor the 2nd horse a 78 and see how the cards fall from there. If the winner just wins, it gets an 80ish and if it wins well it the earns higher from the base of 2nd=78.

Focusing on the 2nd horse stops you from 'guessing' how much the winner has in the tank as they could be grade 1 horses or never win again.

It works for me as I find my best winners every year when in the first '2yo' hit hcps or open company. It's a big day for me when the handicapper publishes the ratings, although there are clues as you go along from the occational rating printed.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Karel Miedema
  • New Member
  • New Member
  • Thanks: 0

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#75825
Frodo,

In a closed pool of horses, like the South Africa, there should be little difference from year to year between the 'average horse' in terms of ratings.
In other words, by averaging the ratings of all 3yo's you get a figure that should be the same as the average for all 2yo's.
So once you're happy with 2yo ratings later in the season, you compare to the older group(s) and adjust ALL 2yo ratings to bring them in line what what it should be.

This probably why the official handicapper doesn't publish 2yo ratings, in case they have to be adjusted; they keep the cards close to the chest!

Some notes:
You can do the same excercise for individual (major) centres (Ntl, Cpe, Gauteng); when a 2yo from one major centre goes to another you'll have to make sure that the average ratings in the centres are similar.

There is a statistical difference between males and females - you have to treat their average ratings separately, in the same way as the major centres are treated separately when adjustments are made.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Marsellus Wallace
  • Topic Author
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 3350
  • Thanks: 140

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#75828
Karel & Jack, sounds to me like you could write a best seller on the subject. the MR system is a major factor is SA racing yet there's very little/no literature on the subject...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Dave Scott
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 43867
  • Thanks: 3338

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#75831
Have you tried 999 or ABC

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • magiclips
  • New Member
  • New Member
  • Thanks: 0

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#75867
ABC seems to be doing just fine!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Karel Miedema
  • New Member
  • New Member
  • Thanks: 0

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#75871

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Marsellus Wallace
  • Topic Author
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 3350
  • Thanks: 140

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#75874
thanks Karel, have read the doc on SP....but i would like to see more of how the trainers exploit thes system...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Frodo
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 13113
  • Thanks: 3026

Re: Re: sporting post vs computerform race ratings

15 years 6 months ago
#76026
Thanks Karl and JD, this is what I like about this forum, getting advice and insight from people 'born and bred' in the game.

Never thought of using the 2nd horse JD, and I think that's probably a good way to go, also the averages idea makes sence to me.

Thanks again.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.105 seconds