G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 10 Non Members

New Handicapping System for the Trots

Harness & Greyhounds

Comments

  • ChandonChandon    14 posts
    edited March 14
    Good.
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    1,309 posts
    edited March 28
    Interested to hear RWWA's David Hunter on TABradio this morning espousing the virtue and benefit of a national... and ...with the proposed inclusion of New Zealand in future...a possibly international system of nomination and acceptance for races in the thoroughbred world. This homogeneous system will be based in Victoria and have computer and telephone communication and technological facilities

    Seemed a relatively incongruous viewpoint though when RWWA is determined to alienate itself from the National Harness Handicapping Ratings system about to be introduced in every other harness racing jurisdiction in Australia. Instead WA ploughs on with its maverick New Business Model that with each monthly incarnation and change post "review" is beginning to look astonishingly like its MCR predecessor clad in new vernacular. 

    How do those different and diametrically opposed perspectives exist under the auspices of one overarching body ?

  • GilgameshGilgamesh    2,926 posts
    May be mentioned elsewhere but anyone applying for the harness manager job after skipping over the assistant harneess manager job!
  • freodockersfreodockers    208 posts
    Interesting who was previous manager
  • GilgameshGilgamesh    2,926 posts

    Interesting who was previous manager




    I assume this is Barry Hamilton's position?
  • JayJayJayJay    4,966 posts
    New National Ratings Based Handicapping system to be introduced on July 1. All horses (Australia wide I am presuming) will have their rating publically available  on Harness Web from May1. Interesting times. HRV to issue new programmes for July in the first week of June..
  • 2lifetimewinners2lifetimewinners    317 posts
    JayJay
    I looked over the proposal and thought it was quite simple (thankfully for me) and easy to understand. Also the recommendation for PBD to be the norm was critical
    Would like to get your thoughts on it.
  • JayJayJayJay    4,966 posts
    I very much like the National Ratings Based proposal, for a number of reasons.  I know others have some reservations, especially for "bottom end" horses (nothing that can't be fixed at a local level) and their future in a Ratings system but in my mind, it is far simpler for everyone to follow, it doesn't have all the confusing jargon and acronyms associated with the HWOE set up, it has PBD as a core value, it will be a nationally adopted system (sans WA it seems), it  has a crossover connection to the ratings punters are familiar with in Thoroughbreds, a crossover to NZ ratings, it has built in "drop backs, go forwards" based on performance.....and I am concerned about our "WA" go it alone mentality that can lead to anachronistic farces like the differences in railway line width that existed previously, which was a laughable and avoidable nonsense, for those who can remember having to change trains etc prior to the introduction of Standard Guage. I have to admit to being a centralist in some respects, I think their is a lot of false hyperbole from the myopic states rights lobbyists, that leads to different rules and different jurisdictions controlling different aspects of our lives, depending on which state you live in. Trying to get National agreement on things like Hospital Funding, National Educational Curriculum etc etc has been a hill too high for our respective politicians and I think there will be similar issues on this topic. I suspect there has been a lot of money invested in the WA system and that in the short term, we will have two systems running concurrently with strong argument being put forward along the lines "my car is faster than your car, so nah!"
  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts
    JayJay said:

    I very much like the National Ratings Based proposal, for a number of reasons.  I know others have some reservations, especially for "bottom end" horses (nothing that can't be fixed at a local level) and their future in a Ratings system but in my mind, it is far simpler for everyone to follow, it doesn't have all the confusing jargon and acronyms associated with the HWOE set up, it has PBD as a core value, it will be a nationally adopted system (sans WA it seems), it  has a crossover connection to the ratings punters are familiar with in Thoroughbreds, a crossover to NZ ratings, it has built in "drop backs, go forwards" based on performance.....and I am concerned about our "WA" go it alone mentality that can lead to anachronistic farces like the differences in railway line width that existed previously, which was a laughable and avoidable nonsense, for those who can remember having to change trains etc prior to the introduction of Standard Guage. I have to admit to being a centralist in some respects, I think their is a lot of false hyperbole from the myopic states rights lobbyists, that leads to different rules and different jurisdictions controlling different aspects of our lives, depending on which state you live in. Trying to get National agreement on things like Hospital Funding, National Educational Curriculum etc etc has been a hill too high for our respective politicians and I think there will be similar issues on this topic. I suspect there has been a lot of money invested in the WA system and that in the short term, we will have two systems running concurrently with strong argument being put forward along the lines "my car is faster than your car, so nah!"



    Hopefully we all want the most effective handicapping system and not just the easiest to understand.

    RWWA and the HRA have both produced systems which are intended to benefit the industry and running them at the same time will enable comparisons based on facts and not opinion.

    One may out perform the other or possibly they may out perform each other in different areas which could see changes made to one or both

    Regardless of whether in the long term the WA system, the HRA system or a hybrid  prevails the end result we should all be wanting is for an effective handicapping system that benefits harness racing

    My preferred option is obviously  the WA system as I believe it protects the lesser horses better

    Attached is  comparison of the two systems effectiveness at the change of season for 2yos turning 3yos based on my interpretation of the HRA ratings system - franco Edward and dracarys



    docx
    docx
    Franco Edward.docx
    25K
  • JayJayJayJay    4,966 posts
    Yes, of course we do but whilst RBD or even the semi RBD group PBD's prevail (as opposed to having PBD as a core value) then there is an argument that the term "handicap" is being macerated.A simple change in emphasis woul in my view go along way to achieving one of the aims stated so frequently by Barry Hamilton..."Like For Like" racing...and albeit a small sample but Tuesday night at GP was a non event in that regard.
  • maybesomaybeso    4 posts




    Hopefully we all want the most effective handicapping system and not just the easiest to understand.

    RWWA and the HRA have both produced systems which are intended to benefit the industry and running them at the same time will enable comparisons based on facts and not opinion.

    One may out perform the other or possibly they may out perform each other in different areas which could see changes made to one or both

    Regardless of whether in the long term the WA system, the HRA system or a hybrid  prevails the end result we should all be wanting is for an effective handicapping system that benefits harness racing

    My preferred option is obviously  the WA system as I believe it protects the lesser horses better

    Attached is  comparison of the two systems effectiveness at the change of season for 2yos turning 3yos based on my interpretation of the HRA ratings system - franco Edward and dracarys

    There seems to be various documents circulating regarding the new HRA ratings based system. The latest I could find was this one: https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/media-releases/23-april-2019-hra-ratings-based-handicapping-system/ which does not discount 2yo earnings per race, but gives a transition of points when they turn 3. It make a difference to both examples you posted.
  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts
    thanks maybeso - either I misread it or it the link you posted is more detailed - will correct and repost asap
  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts

    comparison correction

     maybeso -  interpreted right this time?

    docx
    docx
    Franco Edward.docx
    27K
  • JayJayJayJay    4,966 posts
    Cheers for that analysis ...so Franco Edward, up to March1st , has won $189,142 in stakes and has a HWOE of $38,692 (making him still eligible for a <HWOE $40,000 ....an MO in the old lingo)?

    Subsequent to March 1st, he has had 3 more starts (a 2nd, a 3rd and a win (winning stake $5,444, discounted by 25% adds $4083 to his HWOE) taking his HWOE to $42,775 and total stakes won to $216,895 ....and yet a search on Harness Web shows his HWOE is $38,194.41. Either I am not reading this all correctly or something/someone is wrong. I understand that Harness web updates are instantaneous... so, can this be explained?
  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts

    Jay Jay - he was a C0 at transition and transitioned at $12,500

    Win$ this season = 34,261

    75% of 34,261 = 25,694

                       +      12,500 = 38,194

    If retrospective he would be $42,775 as per your figures

  • JayJayJayJay    4,966 posts
    edited April 26
    I took the HWOE figure straight off the analysis that you provided, which stated an HWOE of $38,692 as of March 1st which is incorrect.

    So, he transitioned as a C0 with an allocated HWOE of $12,500.....with him having won 4 races (including 2 group 1's) with a total win stake of $152,326? And in spite of the acknowledged difficulty of finding a "sweet spot" for horses transitioning into the new system, he has done ridiculously well and been given an enormous free kick.

    Therefore under the HWOE system, he can still rock up in what is essentially an old M0 fiedd of battlers and absolutely smash them. Under the proposed HRA Ratings system, he gets nowhere near such an unfair advantage with his current rating being around 90. Surely, that is a fairer system.
  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts

    Jay Jay - Franco Edward attachment updated

    docx
    docx
    Franco Edward.docx
    28K
  • JayJayJayJay    4,966 posts
    Thank you, but his actual HWOE is $38,194, not the $42,775 that you are using. When you put HWOE as your column leader, I thought you were indicating what his ACTUAL HWOE is, not another figure which ignores transitioning values.
  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts

    jay Jay - I didn't include the transition figure as it was meant to be a direct comparison as if the horse had raced completely under either system from when he commenced racing

    Under that scenario he isn't eligible for a HWOE LT $40,000 race

    JayJay likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    4,966 posts
    Gary Hall Snr very expansive on the new HWOE system on the radio this morning.....was an interesting listen. Right from the get go, I always thought that the bands were way too broad (the under $40k allignment and the $40k to $70k band in particular) and I strongly put forward that argument with the previous Harness Racing Manager but alas, I was assured I was reading it all incorrectly, even though "my point was being taken". There appeared to be some acknowledgement of that just recently with the occasional $40k to $55k band but the scarcity of horses in the up to and over $100k band races which keep falling over might suggest that horses get through the bands too quickly, end up in open class and then get sold to the USA. The options are either sell them on or race Chicago Bull. There are no claiming races anymore and maybe it has been in operation long enough for their to be some major tweaks implemented, as 5 horse open class races are not a good look. I know it is all being monitored and will continue to be so against the about to be introduced National Ratings set up in the other states, with the two systems about to run in tandem with each other. Unfortunately, we have seen no turnover figures or the comparative incidence of odds on favourites etc (maybe that data, which was promised to be made available, has been released and I have missed it). I fully realise that you must look at things long term and not just cherry pick stats to either support or deny the new model....but I am strongly thinking that the quicker we jump on board the National Ratings system with its built in drop backs etc that may well provide greater racing longevity for many horses, the better it will be. It will be interesting going forward to say the least....I have a couple of decent types about to come back into work following spells but if either manages to win another metro race, their fate is pretty much sealed as they will have no where to go other than race the Bull or Tribeca. Difficult decisions coming up.

    Betonme, TrackBias, curmudgeon likes this post.

  • BetonmeBetonme    117 posts
    Agree, better to adopt the national system. Too many good horses that are on tough marks struggling to earn here. 
    In terms of claiming races, i thought that could be some option, since no drop backs maybe some option to go into them instead for longevity. 
  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    1,671 posts
    Not promoting it but national system being explained on In The Gig tonight or tomorrow night.
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    1,309 posts
    The most beneficial aspect of the National Ratings Handicapping System is the real time fluidity. If your form demonstrably improves you gain a higher rating and if it demonstrably slips then you lose ratings. If your form is respectable then you generally remain on a rating until either of the aforementioned happens. It therefore has a built in handbrake on dropbacks but not an exclusion on them that places the career of otherwise sound horses in jeopardy. 
    The NRHS application of barrier draws as a handicapping tool within the ratings brackets in a specific manner rather than the ad hoc draws ....either random or the somewhat random "grouped"categories... that currently prevail in the WA model is also an essential improved element. This is the application of "handicapping" as it is defined and gives the lesser rated horses a say in race tactics rather than running the gauntlet of repeatedly being on the receiving end of tactical disadvantage due to the vagaries of mathematical chance and how the cards can randomly fall. 


    Betonme, Gilgamesh, JayJay likes this post.

  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts
    Betonme said:

    Agree, better to adopt the national system. Too many good horses that are on tough marks struggling to earn here. 
    In terms of claiming races, i thought that could be some option, since no drop backs maybe some option to go into them instead for longevity. 



    there are 6 drop back races which in many ways act like claimers except you don't lose your horse - see attachment

    HRA ratings - I must be missing something as from figures I have done I can`t see it working



    docx
    docx
    drop backs.docx
    21K
  • BetonmeBetonme    117 posts

    "6 – Any horse racing could possibly get as low as a L5$ LT $4,000 (level
    4) race over a period of time if not winning for five starts in each of the L5$
    LT races.

    Eg - A fast class horse could drop to level 4 if it failed to win at
    five starts in fast class, five starts in level 14, five starts in level 12,
    five starts in level 10, five starts in level 8 and five starts in level 6"

    Getthechange, looking at forward race meetings, I don't see any of these type races constant enough to even achieve what you are saying here? I must be missing something. 

    Kane_26 likes this post.

  • getthechangegetthechange    68 posts

    Betonme - agree level 14 has been a problem and that there is a need for more level 14 races -- notice an extra level 14 code has been added to the 31st May program and to be eligible $100,000+ horses don't have to have been balloted from the fast class race which should help it hold up

    however

    Newtons law of equal and opposite reaction could apply as that change could adversely affect the fast class race

  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    1,309 posts
    Don't think Newton has much to do with it GTC ......the horses that would normally bulk up the tiers of FFall's can be found on the exported schedule or are in the paddock or retired or racing in the eastern states.

  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    48 posts
    I still have no confidence in the CRS Just doing what I can to find suitable races, not enough horses for the HWOE LT$40k this week Ngn so no race
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    1,309 posts
    Similarly the main race at Kellerberrin last Sunday went as R1.....a 3 y/o ....4 starters with a scratching ...while 8 x 3 y/o's went around in other races to use the system to advantage themselves with possible concessional penalties against weaker aged opposition. Fair enough under the new existing conditions but certainly didn't do the club or the industry much good visually as a main event. 
  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    48 posts
    Incorrectly Transition horse wins race 6 GP tonight will be looked into tomorrow by GT
Sign In or Register to comment.