G'day Punter!

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 37 Non Members

New Handicapping System for the Trots

Harness & Greyhounds

Comments

  • savethegamesavethegame    2,788 posts
    Posted prev. four trainers got 6.8mil; of the 25 mil about 27% 2018-19. thought bondy purely on stakemoney was on target for over 10% trucking along at 50k a week this year, seems without  a feature horse to give him a boost, Bond& Hall .n.z four year-old aces----have come up as only eights and nines, in the pack which generally add the cream, when they lob a chicargo bull type.but this year they have hit a shockwave

    Bondy very smart operater, he will still be a big player if he so desires,for how long he wants,to
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    2,417 posts
    edited December 2019
    Before claiming or attributing any particular cause to fit any perceived effect it is prescient to remember a few constants and variables.
    Once the pegs are in the ground on any track the geometry is set.
    From the moment barrier draws are allocated the geometry of any track in the universe favours the horse drawn barrier 1 if it can take advantage physically of the geometry..
    The running of any discrete race event is just that..  .a separate unique and individual set of circumstances defined by its intrinsic variables for each event ....but the geometric advantage remains immutable.
    To extrapolate small sample numeric sequential results as an indicator of the direct effect of any policy and plant an immediate flag in favour or disavowment  of that policy is a complete folly. 
    It aint rocket science but it does test the ego and bias that is attached to human endeavour ....predetermined identification of what would be favourable outcomes have lured many a ship onto the rocks via a misinterpretation grasped too soon.

    savethegame likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,829 posts
    Friday 20th December the Big 5 improved their percentage to 36.5% winning $86476 of the $237k on offer.

    Still not dominant given the capital cost of the horses that went around..
  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,829 posts
    The big five were back in town on Friday winning 7 of the 11 races with Ross Olivieri the stand out with four winners.
  • freodockersfreodockers    2,667 posts
    7 out of 11 winners over $3.00 for the meeting Chariots.
    You will never stop the big stables but if good odds are achieved well then that is a positive from an industry perspective.

    Gilgamesh likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,829 posts
    My last post on this issue as I am growing battle weary. My daughter was involved in a syndicate that sold a horse 12 months ago for $4000 as it was not considered a viable proposition under HWOE. The horse has since won two races and $44.5k in stakes. Sometimes you may need to make an effort to work with the system and consider your options.

    In my 11 years on the RWWA Board my main focus was on increasing distribution to harness racing in order for all sections of the industry to benefit from greater available income. Operational matters were generally left to management after industry consultation with some oversight from the Board.

    Distribution has been almost stagnant for the last two to three years and I don't envy Bob Fowler's task in reversing this situation under current wagering trends.

    Just a few things to ponder before tapping the keyboard to point out the dire state of the industry:

    •  Electronic Funds Transfers still go out every week.
    • These funds go directly into the accounts of owners and the full amount of stake money is paid.
    • Drivers and trainers are now operating under infinitely better financial circumstances than ever before.
    • A trainer can use the facilities at Byford for a nominal annual fee to train as many horses as he has in his care.
    • There is little doubt that there are many operational issues of concern to individual participants but there are numerous bodies with direct assess to RWWA through which these concerns can be addressed.
    Good luck to all.

    JimmyPop, Gilgamesh likes this post.

  • freodockersfreodockers    2,667 posts
    Agree with your first paragraph Chariots but from there it is just downhill.
    Participants in all 3 codes have lost faith in RWWA.
    I no longer own,train or drive horses and my comment to owners more than 5 years ago was WA would end up like SA under the current regime, so I moved on.
    When turnover, horse numbers, owners and trainers in all 3 codes are in decline for the last 5 years then questions have to be asked of the controlling body not the product.
    It beggars belief that the industry is in the state that it is after 15 years or so of RWWA control and no action or measurement can or has been taken against their performance.
    They still have the highest paid public servant running it, who I might add gave himself a 10% pay rise in 2017. It was that bad the premier stepped in and told RWWA to get in line with the rest of the state.
    There are I am sure some very good people (past tense also) who worked their butts off with absolutely no thanks but if you have a system that answers to nobody then for want of a better term it's a "free for all".
    Until this system of administration is held accountable on performance (particularly from the top level down) all three codes are in for some very hard years.

    TrackBias likes this post.

  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,829 posts
    Freodockers have you taken the trouble to review the financial performance of RWWA since inception and the increase in industry distribution in excess of double the inflation rate.

    Surely that is evidence of accountability and performance.
  • freodockersfreodockers    2,667 posts
    No Chariots I haven't reviewed the industry distribution since RWWA inception.
    I do however understand that handing out money hand over fist combined with a continual decline in turnover and participation is a recipe for disaster,, if not is now a disaster.
    If you can answer my question of who measures performance of RWWA and who is held accountable (other than the soldiers) then I will be a happy man.
    So far we have had the same CEO since inception (very well paid I might add again) and sorry but I just don't agree with it.

    TrackBias likes this post.

  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    2,417 posts
    Chariots....are you indicating that the funding accumulated and held as a war chest between the inception of the Gallop government reduction in TAB tax circa 2003 and its dissemination by RWWA into a funding of stakemoney boost circa 2005 ....the single largest percentage increase in one hit to  tri code racing prizemoney in WA ...was in any way attributable to RWWA policy ?.
    That decision of Gallops....desperately needed by all codes and sandwiched between the wowser governments of Court and Barnett was the goose that laid the golden egg for RWWA.
    Management of funding SINCE then is of course deserved of scrutiny....as is the loss of clubs and ultimately the possibility of the loss of the government controlled TAB......the funding body that gave rise to RWWA in the first place. The percentage increase in stakemoney since that initial boost would be of interest to know. Also a percentage increase of the cost of RWWA itself since that initial funding.... graphed comparatively against turnover and prizemoney that would be of considerable interest. It may have been done already .....most people who actively have involvement with horses like many in this industry are time poor and need that sort of stuff delivered for perusal....god knows there is a surfeit of media available to do that job.
  • ChariotsonfireChariotsonfire    2,829 posts
    Curmudgeon I have plotted distribution, stake money and racing industry costs since the inception of RWWA. One of my tasks in my past banking life was to analyse company financial reports and balance sheets with an eye to profitability and future financial requirements so hopefully I have some understanding of the process.

    Some key points:

    • Distribution has increased by 153% since 2004
    • Racing Industry Services have increased by 103.1% in the same period.
    • RBA inflation rate for the same period is 40.2%
    • Harness Racing distribution has increased by 103% 
    • Country base stakes have gone from $3000 in 2004 to $7500 and increase of 150%
    • Metro base stakes have gone from $10k to $18k an increase of 80%
    • Feature race stake money has had a significant boost but with no increases over the last 5 years.
    • In 2005 base metro stakes increased to $12k so increase since then has been 50% since that initial boost of 20%
    • Similarly country base stakes averaged out at about $3500 so increase since then is approximately 114%


  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    2,417 posts
    edited January 2020
    Thanks for those figures Chariots.
    My point was that when the defibrillator pads were applied in 2004 there was a significant increase in stakemonies in just 12 months that was due to input factors provided by a deliberate stimulus via reduction in government tax takeout.
    eg ...A C1/C3 race at the now defunct GMTC went from $2500 in 2004 to $4200 in 2005 ...an increase of 68% of the 2004 gross stake...in 12 months.
    In 2017 when the GMTC bit the dust the corresponding race was worth $7000 ....an increase of 66 % of the 2005 level over the entirety of the 12 subsequent RWWA controlled years.
    A race sulky in 2004 was worth approx $2,000 but now is worth approx $10,000 ....a increase of 500% in that same period.
    As with most stats I guess the definition of performance over time is all relative to your point of view and how you drill down into the figures.....

  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    277 posts
    Using a excel spreadsheet system to sort out noms for the race I nominated for to gauge an idea of what the field may look like and finding that the conditions may not only provide for lower priced favourites of horses on a lower mark than the preference to clause but in winning GP form gaining a start due to low noms and preferences and higher hwoe horses with 3 wins at gp in the last 10 but no form in the last 5 gaining a start under also eligible conditions  ,then assessing other opportunities to race and seems that by winning a community LT$40k $4.5’ race has made my horse ineligible for a L5LT$12k race as it is classed as a level 9 win ,I understand the parameters set but mix that with a mainly RBD or a GPPBD/HWOE (which we fall in the second half of draws ) barrier draw system and it makes for an unsustainable earning potential for a lot of horses not only mine after you factor in travel costs and expenses 
    Like for like racing should be about grouping horses of similar ability together in a race the HWOE $ system doesn’t always represent that, it seems and there a plenty of examples over the past 12 months or more that could be presented as evidence of the fact
    Nominating is as easy as the push of a button but placing horses where they have a genuine chance to earn is not easy 

    JayJay, curmudgeon likes this post.

  • savethegamesavethegame    2,788 posts
    Harness has some tough calls to make in the next 12 months...What I can see the front line managers who liason with the partcipants have the industry at heart,...What I also can see at the moment harness stand corrected, you receive 25 millon for distribution., looks like it will probably stall at that figure.,


    .To late for local breeding industry to,reload and rebound to numbers that are required ,Figures from last yearling sale sold on the day 122 odd, near 50% of the yearlings were provided by three vendors, See one of those that has very strong passion for the industry,would be in his seventies.

    Like for Like racing who trotted that out ,How can you call it that, Under the circumstances w.a harness operates,....Unraced kiwi can run mile 1.56 brought for 150k.Unraced three year-old in  w.a qualifys what 2.6.can rock-up to kella. cannon fodder for two free hits to the kiwi,Hardly anyone nominates it starts 5/1on.punters don't play novelties are worth a pie and sauce,.

    .Some of the kiwis reach fast class before they arrive at like-for like racing.,ones that don't cut the mustard go to u.s.and the next plane load arrives,and the process starts all over again   ,Having said that.we must have the kiwis otherwise we are ten toes-up.

    M.H.O we have got very little leg room,can ill afford for too many more to leave the industry,Provided we can lock in the 25 million to be distributed  if we cut meetings. I would think seriously about closing a couple of tracks,and top up the stakes at other country venues from the savings.

    Get your spread sheet out number of horses in training, number that carry the n.z. brand,--The number of trainers licenced ---the number that are active, westbreds in training , aus. breds, active trainers that haven't tasted success for 12 months or more ,con drivers,--&-drivers that have say  not tasted success for 12 months,program a meeting based on battler component once every six weeks, bet you that meeting wouldn't throw too many odds-on horses---,punters don't care if horse wins going 2.10.---

    Success to say 30-50 paticipants that wouldn't normally win one, over 12 month period may stabliizer your base. in pyramid operation is a must.. May entice some back to the sport who just love working with the animal, and they can relate to that level of competition,.

    Seen trots at its best,regards the crowds,only two things why you wouldn't go to the trots if you were in jail or you were---- frightened of the dark---., Now if you see someone at g.p on a tues out of the norm -----there lost.

  • PictureSon1973PictureSon1973    138 posts
    savethegame as always in life money will always create issues and none is more evident than
    W.A'S three Racing Codes all competing for a larger share that is allocated to them by RWWA
    in order to improve Welfare, Infrastructure, Prizemoney etc.
    As I have said before we need someone who is very clever and thinks outside the box
    at the Trots we need a additional revenue stream outside of income from RWWA Distribution.

    Doing away with S.Starts & Drivers Having their own Colours is not the saviour for Harness
    what is required is a new revenue stream injecting money into Harness and as we know people
    always will be compelled to participate where by they are able to make money.

    I am totally Ignorant in suggesting this but if the TAB no longer paid the Product Fee to
    NSW & Victoria and put that Money into Thoroughbred racing in W.A what would
    1- Minimum Prizemoney be for Country & Metro Gallop Races be?
        ( Would this create a minimum of $ 100 000 Metro Stakes for every Race? )
    2- W.A Thoroughbred Racing would be invigorated with more participation as the
         Level of Racing will be higher and W.A Breeding would get a huge lift.

    If the Gallops prospered would there be a flow on effect ? or would it be to the detriment
    of the other 2 codes as greed would dictate why should we share our prosperity with the
    other 2 Codes?
  • JayJayJayJay    7,630 posts


    Nominating is as easy as the push of a button but placing horses where they have a genuine chance to earn is not easy 
    This is the crux of the problem...and the programming, a major, major issue....which seems to make it nigh on impossible to find races for your horse.....it would seem that  trainers have little choice but to race up and coming 3 year olds (eg those with a HWOE higher than say $3k),  in open age events in country meetings raising the ire of those with less able horses in the regions who have had their earning potential removed from underneath them.

    curmudgeon, TrackBias, VillageKid likes this post.

  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    277 posts
    JayJay said:


    Nominating is as easy as the push of a button but placing horses where they have a genuine chance to earn is not easy 
    This is the crux of the problem...and the programming, a major, major issue....which seems to make it nigh on impossible to find races for your horse.....it would seem that  trainers have little choice but to race up and coming 3 year olds (eg those with a HWOE higher than say $3k),  in open age events in country meetings raising the ire of those with less able horses in the regions who have had their earning potential removed from underneath them.
    BLETCHLEY PARK can get into L5LT$12K but Just Barney cant because won $4,500 race at Narrogin work that one out  

    JayJay, TrackBias, VillageKid likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,630 posts
    Anomalous with like v like racing.....The NR system, even with its faults, a far better option, and importantly, it is being modified as it goes along....probably too slowly and still has issues but Australia MUST end up with uniformity as far as handicapping goes.
  • JayJayJayJay    7,630 posts
    Genuine inquiry, the FFA this Friday night, race 4. Advetrised as a Level 15 GPPBD/HWOE.....no horse in the field has a HWOE of greater than $150k. They have published two tables in the handicapping rules referring to FFA racing (Level 15)....Table 1 for horses HWOE $100k+ and table 2 for $50,000 increments to the HWOE for the purposes of "grouping" the horses. The HWOE of the acceptors ranges from $72971 (Touch Of Success Barrier 9) up to $122090 (Argyle Red Barrier 6). There are 7 acceptors with HWOE above $100k and 5 acceptors under $100k. Is it the case that horses with HWOE less than $100k are in the "first" group and that horses with earnings between $100k+ and $150k are in the "second group" with respect to the Group Barrier Draw/PBD or are they all thrown into the same group?

    It would seem to me (and will stand readily corrected) that all horses in the field have been placed in a single group with a vast range in HWOE's and therefore, it reverts to a straight random barrier draw. If so, why is the race labelled a GPPBD when it is clearly a RBD? Punters reading the conditions would conclude that being a GPPBD/HWOE, the higher earning horses have drawn the worst barriers, when very clearly that is not the case. May that not be construed as misleading and should the conditions for FFA racing be refined to create greater clarity.

    I have stated from the outset that the conditions, complexity and jargon of the new handicap model can only create a labyrinth of confusion and doubt in not only the owners and trainers minds but also the minds of the punters. As an owner of one of the participants, who one week benefits greatly and another week doesn't,  I am genuinely confused by how this all works and I suspect I am not alone. You nominate on a wing and a prayer each week for a GPPBD race with no idea of what will eventuate barrier wise. That is okay if it is a "real" RBD, that's the chance you take but I believe what we have at the moment is wholly unsatisfactory. Under NR PBD conditions, it is simple....the higher your NR the worse your barrier....you know where you stand. There was no other race for my horse this week, so it was go into the raffle or stay home.

    Gilgamesh, cisco, TrackBias likes this post.

  • MarkovinaMarkovina    2,890 posts
    Idont think the Vic handicapping system is that flash 

    Last week at Ballarat - a trotter and $1.80 favourite - Showemyourmuscles - was listed front line no 4 - and some people like me - put their bets on for all meetings in one hit during the day 

    On the night - the stewards rehandicapped that horse to 10 metres - the reason being that 4 days earlier at Ararat - it ran 2nd - and under this rating score/nonsense ( which i totally ignore from a punting aspect ) it got 1  lousy extra rating point - and that pushed it back 10 metres

    What a load of Codswallop
  • curmudgeoncurmudgeon    2,417 posts
    edited March 2020
    Markovina said:

    Idont think the Vic handicapping system is that flash 


    Last week at Ballarat - a trotter and $1.80 favourite - Showemyourmuscles - was listed front line no 4 - and some people like me - put their bets on for all meetings in one hit during the day 

    On the night - the stewards rehandicapped that horse to 10 metres - the reason being that 4 days earlier at Ararat - it ran 2nd - and under this rating score/nonsense ( which i totally ignore from a punting aspect ) it got 1  lousy extra rating point - and that pushed it back 10 metres

    What a load of Codswallop
    At least the NR system gives its basic structure in a simple matrix Marko. If you wanted to appraise yourself of its intricacies it would take you 5 minutes. The HWOE model is an encyclopaedia of terminology and clauses that are not at all obvious nor absolute by comparison. Punters view the end product and do their best to find a result...owners and trainers are juggling competing priorities to make the fields up with as much chance for themselves to earn as possible.

    cisco likes this post.

  • getthechangegetthechange    310 posts
    JayJay said:

    Genuine inquiry, the FFA this Friday night, race 4. Advetrised as a Level 15 GPPBD/HWOE.....no horse in the field has a HWOE of greater than $150k. They have published two tables in the handicapping rules referring to FFA racing (Level 15)....Table 1 for horses HWOE $100k+ and table 2 for $50,000 increments to the HWOE for the purposes of "grouping" the horses. The HWOE of the acceptors ranges from $72971 (Touch Of Success Barrier 9) up to $122090 (Argyle Red Barrier 6). There are 7 acceptors with HWOE above $100k and 5 acceptors under $100k. Is it the case that horses with HWOE less than $100k are in the "first" group and that horses with earnings between $100k+ and $150k are in the "second group" with respect to the Group Barrier Draw/PBD or are they all thrown into the same group?

    It would seem to me (and will stand readily corrected) that all horses in the field have been placed in a single group with a vast range in HWOE's and therefore, it reverts to a straight random barrier draw. If so, why is the race labelled a GPPBD when it is clearly a RBD? Punters reading the conditions would conclude that being a GPPBD/HWOE, the higher earning horses have drawn the worst barriers, when very clearly that is not the case. May that not be construed as misleading and should the conditions for FFA racing be refined to create greater clarity.

    I have stated from the outset that the conditions, complexity and jargon of the new handicap model can only create a labyrinth of confusion and doubt in not only the owners and trainers minds but also the minds of the punters. As an owner of one of the participants, who one week benefits greatly and another week doesn't,  I am genuinely confused by how this all works and I suspect I am not alone. You nominate on a wing and a prayer each week for a GPPBD race with no idea of what will eventuate barrier wise. That is okay if it is a "real" RBD, that's the chance you take but I believe what we have at the moment is wholly unsatisfactory. Under NR PBD conditions, it is simple....the higher your NR the worse your barrier....you know where you stand. There was no other race for my horse this week, so it was go into the raffle or stay home


    The race was advertised as group pref draw and as such wouldn't be changed at acceptances,

    to change it acceptances would be misleading and possibly have owners quizzing trainers as to why they didn't start their inform horse if they thought it was RBD. 

    Im Full of excuses, el jcko were nommed for the race and had HWOE of $158k and $159k and would have drawn the two worst designated draws had they started (group HWOE $100k - $150k)

    had handsandwheels (236k - group HWOE $200k - $250k) been entered he would have drawn outside of Full of excuses and el jacko .

    Had Our Jimmy Johnson (HWOE $324k - group HWOE $300kn - $350k been entered he would have drawn outside them both.

    One suspects that one or more of these horses would have fronted up if it was RBD race so even though all starters went into the draw the preferential draw affected which horses started and as such needs to remain as was advertised -A RBD FFA would be a different field.

    the group pref draw is almost the same as pref draws on C or M under MCR

    In a C1/C4 race with pref draw on C the C1 horses were drawn first then C2 etc

    In a HWOE race with grouped pref draw the lowest level horses are drawn first then the next level etc

    A C0 starting in a C1/C4 drew with the C1 horses -  the same principle applies in HWOE grouped draw races

    a C1 which had won more races or more stakemoney than other C1 horses went into the draw as C1 horses - the same principle applies in HWOE grouped races ie horses are drawn within their levels regardless of the HWOE of the horse in that group

    the only real difference is that concessions can only be used to get into a race and not to get a barrier

    there are special groupings in fast class - see attachment

    wherever we go we see synonyms or abreviations - rd (road), st(street), av (avenue), dr  (drive) Gt Eastern  Hwy ( Great Eastern Highway), RPH (Royal Perth Hospital) are some I saw when going to GP this morning, SGIO - GIO - RAC - WHO - CSIRO  to name a few more and lets not forget the dreaded PDS

    we lived with the pref draw abreviations  of C,M, LTW, $WL3 ,$WL5, sex. SS,MS and understand stewards abbreviations so I am sure that owners and trainers can with a little effort understand the HWOE terminology

    attached is the RWWA ( another one) explanation for barrier draws


    pdf
    pdf
    20190312 Barrier Draws v1.a.pd.pdf
    612K

    JayJay likes this post.

  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    277 posts

    JayJay said:

    Genuine inquiry, the FFA this Friday night, race 4. Advetrised as a Level 15 GPPBD/HWOE.....no horse in the field has a HWOE of greater than $150k. They have published two tables in the handicapping rules referring to FFA racing (Level 15)....Table 1 for horses HWOE $100k+ and table 2 for $50,000 increments to the HWOE for the purposes of "grouping" the horses. The HWOE of the acceptors ranges from $72971 (Touch Of Success Barrier 9) up to $122090 (Argyle Red Barrier 6). There are 7 acceptors with HWOE above $100k and 5 acceptors under $100k. Is it the case that horses with HWOE less than $100k are in the "first" group and that horses with earnings between $100k+ and $150k are in the "second group" with respect to the Group Barrier Draw/PBD or are they all thrown into the same group?

    It would seem to me (and will stand readily corrected) that all horses in the field have been placed in a single group with a vast range in HWOE's and therefore, it reverts to a straight random barrier draw. If so, why is the race labelled a GPPBD when it is clearly a RBD? Punters reading the conditions would conclude that being a GPPBD/HWOE, the higher earning horses have drawn the worst barriers, when very clearly that is not the case. May that not be construed as misleading and should the conditions for FFA racing be refined to create greater clarity.

    I have stated from the outset that the conditions, complexity and jargon of the new handicap model can only create a labyrinth of confusion and doubt in not only the owners and trainers minds but also the minds of the punters. As an owner of one of the participants, who one week benefits greatly and another week doesn't,  I am genuinely confused by how this all works and I suspect I am not alone. You nominate on a wing and a prayer each week for a GPPBD race with no idea of what will eventuate barrier wise. That is okay if it is a "real" RBD, that's the chance you take but I believe what we have at the moment is wholly unsatisfactory. Under NR PBD conditions, it is simple....the higher your NR the worse your barrier....you know where you stand. There was no other race for my horse this week, so it was go into the raffle or stay home


    The race was advertised as group pref draw and as such wouldn't be changed at acceptances,

    to change it acceptances would be misleading and possibly have owners quizzing trainers as to why they didn't start their inform horse if they thought it was RBD. 

    Im Full of excuses, el jcko were nommed for the race and had HWOE of $158k and $159k and would have drawn the two worst designated draws had they started (group HWOE $100k - $150k)

    had handsandwheels (236k - group HWOE $200k - $250k) been entered he would have drawn outside of Full of excuses and el jacko .

    Had Our Jimmy Johnson (HWOE $324k - group HWOE $300kn - $350k been entered he would have drawn outside them both.

    One suspects that one or more of these horses would have fronted up if it was RBD race so even though all starters went into the draw the preferential draw affected which horses started and as such needs to remain as was advertised -A RBD FFA would be a different field.

    the group pref draw is almost the same as pref draws on C or M under MCR

    In a C1/C4 race with pref draw on C the C1 horses were drawn first then C2 etc

    In a HWOE race with grouped pref draw the lowest level horses are drawn first then the next level etc

    A C0 starting in a C1/C4 drew with the C1 horses -  the same principle applies in HWOE grouped draw races

    a C1 which had won more races or more stakemoney than other C1 horses went into the draw as C1 horses - the same principle applies in HWOE grouped races ie horses are drawn within their levels regardless of the HWOE of the horse in that group

    the only real difference is that concessions can only be used to get into a race and not to get a barrier

    there are special groupings in fast class - see attachment

    wherever we go we see synonyms or abreviations - rd (road), st(street), av (avenue), dr  (drive) Gt Eastern  Hwy ( Great Eastern Highway), RPH (Royal Perth Hospital) are some I saw when going to GP this morning, SGIO - GIO - RAC - WHO - CSIRO  to name a few more and lets not forget the dreaded PDS

    we lived with the pref draw abreviations  of C,M, LTW, $WL3 ,$WL5, sex. SS,MS and understand stewards abbreviations so I am sure that owners and trainers can with a little effort understand the HWOE terminology

    attached is the RWWA ( another one) explanation for barrier draws


    Good to see your still around Thought you had gone MIA easy enough explanation on the RBD component of GPPBD/HWOE and referenced.Should a FFA have bottom limit anyway when the abb. FFA is Free For All  
    Maybe the race should be written in the Program better and take off the FFA,call it as it is HWOE$100k plus GPPBD/HWOE 
    then it would take out the confusion in the terminology and people wouldn't have to ask or search for elusive manuals on handicapping conditions they can still nominate up in Grade if they wish 
    just a suggestion to keep it simple pass it on to programmer if you wish or not 

    JayJay likes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,630 posts
    Horses are nominated out of their class because there is no other race option for them if their HWOE is in the $85k to $100k range.....their are no other races for them. With a concession, and if their HWOE is sufficiently low (under $85k, they can race in the HWOE $70k race but not all horses suited to junior concession, added to which Friday night co meetings at Albany, Northam etc reduces greatly the pool of juniors available, and there are not a lot in the pool at the moment, so go in the $100k+ FFA  and race out of your class in what eventuates as an RBD, or stay home.
    I dont accept the argument that it would be misleading to relabel the race as an RBD....because that's what it is, that is the reality. The possibles and probables of horses with HWOE greater than 150k possibly starting and so on, all of that is hypothetical. As it evolved, it is an RBD, plain and simple. So that is what it should be labelled as post acceptances. Horses caught in the 85 to 100 bracket are compromised and must enter the RBD raffle....which granted can work favourably for you or it can result in you wasting your time, effort and investment.
    Has the exodus of "fast class" horses to the USA created a population vacuum at that end the HWOE scale....if so, the export rate will continue and it becomes a downward spiral in terms of horse quality and the problem gets worse....based on the premise that the administrators see it as a problem or maybe they perceive it as just as a bunch of whingeing owners. I had numerous txt messages from other owners and trainers last night, all thinking along similar lines.  Can the programming and conditions not be fluid enough to adjust for the changing horse population?

    TrackBias likes this post.

  • getthechangegetthechange    310 posts

    JayJay said:

    Genuine inquiry, the FFA this Friday night, race 4. Advetrised as a Level 15 GPPBD/HWOE.....no horse in the field has a HWOE of greater than $150k. They have published two tables in the handicapping rules referring to FFA racing (Level 15)....Table 1 for horses HWOE $100k+ and table 2 for $50,000 increments to the HWOE for the purposes of "grouping" the horses. The HWOE of the acceptors ranges from $72971 (Touch Of Success Barrier 9) up to $122090 (Argyle Red Barrier 6). There are 7 acceptors with HWOE above $100k and 5 acceptors under $100k. Is it the case that horses with HWOE less than $100k are in the "first" group and that horses with earnings between $100k+ and $150k are in the "second group" with respect to the Group Barrier Draw/PBD or are they all thrown into the same group?

    It would seem to me (and will stand readily corrected) that all horses in the field have been placed in a single group with a vast range in HWOE's and therefore, it reverts to a straight random barrier draw. If so, why is the race labelled a GPPBD when it is clearly a RBD? Punters reading the conditions would conclude that being a GPPBD/HWOE, the higher earning horses have drawn the worst barriers, when very clearly that is not the case. May that not be construed as misleading and should the conditions for FFA racing be refined to create greater clarity.

    I have stated from the outset that the conditions, complexity and jargon of the new handicap model can only create a labyrinth of confusion and doubt in not only the owners and trainers minds but also the minds of the punters. As an owner of one of the participants, who one week benefits greatly and another week doesn't,  I am genuinely confused by how this all works and I suspect I am not alone. You nominate on a wing and a prayer each week for a GPPBD race with no idea of what will eventuate barrier wise. That is okay if it is a "real" RBD, that's the chance you take but I believe what we have at the moment is wholly unsatisfactory. Under NR PBD conditions, it is simple....the higher your NR the worse your barrier....you know where you stand. There was no other race for my horse this week, so it was go into the raffle or stay home


    The race was advertised as group pref draw and as such wouldn't be changed at acceptances,

    to change it acceptances would be misleading and possibly have owners quizzing trainers as to why they didn't start their inform horse if they thought it was RBD. 

    Im Full of excuses, el jcko were nommed for the race and had HWOE of $158k and $159k and would have drawn the two worst designated draws had they started (group HWOE $100k - $150k)

    had handsandwheels (236k - group HWOE $200k - $250k) been entered he would have drawn outside of Full of excuses and el jacko .

    Had Our Jimmy Johnson (HWOE $324k - group HWOE $300kn - $350k been entered he would have drawn outside them both.

    One suspects that one or more of these horses would have fronted up if it was RBD race so even though all starters went into the draw the preferential draw affected which horses started and as such needs to remain as was advertised -A RBD FFA would be a different field.

    the group pref draw is almost the same as pref draws on C or M under MCR

    In a C1/C4 race with pref draw on C the C1 horses were drawn first then C2 etc

    In a HWOE race with grouped pref draw the lowest level horses are drawn first then the next level etc

    A C0 starting in a C1/C4 drew with the C1 horses -  the same principle applies in HWOE grouped draw races

    a C1 which had won more races or more stakemoney than other C1 horses went into the draw as C1 horses - the same principle applies in HWOE grouped races ie horses are drawn within their levels regardless of the HWOE of the horse in that group

    the only real difference is that concessions can only be used to get into a race and not to get a barrier

    there are special groupings in fast class - see attachment

    wherever we go we see synonyms or abreviations - rd (road), st(street), av (avenue), dr  (drive) Gt Eastern  Hwy ( Great Eastern Highway), RPH (Royal Perth Hospital) are some I saw when going to GP this morning, SGIO - GIO - RAC - WHO - CSIRO  to name a few more and lets not forget the dreaded PDS

    we lived with the pref draw abreviations  of C,M, LTW, $WL3 ,$WL5, sex. SS,MS and understand stewards abbreviations so I am sure that owners and trainers can with a little effort understand the HWOE terminology

    attached is the RWWA ( another one) explanation for barrier draws


    Good to see your still around Thought you had gone MIA easy enough explanation on the RBD component of GPPBD/HWOE and referenced.Should a FFA have bottom limit anyway when the abb. FFA is Free For All  
    Maybe the race should be written in the Program better and take off the FFA,call it as it is HWOE$100k plus GPPBD/HWOE 
    then it would take out the confusion in the terminology and people wouldn't have to ask or search for elusive manuals on handicapping conditions they can still nominate up in Grade if they wish 
    just a suggestion to keep it simple pass it on to programmer if you wish or not 

    JayJay said:

    Genuine inquiry, the FFA this Friday night, race 4. Advetrised as a Level 15 GPPBD/HWOE.....no horse in the field has a HWOE of greater than $150k. They have published two tables in the handicapping rules referring to FFA racing (Level 15)....Table 1 for horses HWOE $100k+ and table 2 for $50,000 increments to the HWOE for the purposes of "grouping" the horses. The HWOE of the acceptors ranges from $72971 (Touch Of Success Barrier 9) up to $122090 (Argyle Red Barrier 6). There are 7 acceptors with HWOE above $100k and 5 acceptors under $100k. Is it the case that horses with HWOE less than $100k are in the "first" group and that horses with earnings between $100k+ and $150k are in the "second group" with respect to the Group Barrier Draw/PBD or are they all thrown into the same group?

    It would seem to me (and will stand readily corrected) that all horses in the field have been placed in a single group with a vast range in HWOE's and therefore, it reverts to a straight random barrier draw. If so, why is the race labelled a GPPBD when it is clearly a RBD? Punters reading the conditions would conclude that being a GPPBD/HWOE, the higher earning horses have drawn the worst barriers, when very clearly that is not the case. May that not be construed as misleading and should the conditions for FFA racing be refined to create greater clarity.

    I have stated from the outset that the conditions, complexity and jargon of the new handicap model can only create a labyrinth of confusion and doubt in not only the owners and trainers minds but also the minds of the punters. As an owner of one of the participants, who one week benefits greatly and another week doesn't,  I am genuinely confused by how this all works and I suspect I am not alone. You nominate on a wing and a prayer each week for a GPPBD race with no idea of what will eventuate barrier wise. That is okay if it is a "real" RBD, that's the chance you take but I believe what we have at the moment is wholly unsatisfactory. Under NR PBD conditions, it is simple....the higher your NR the worse your barrier....you know where you stand. There was no other race for my horse this week, so it was go into the raffle or stay home


    The race was advertised as group pref draw and as such wouldn't be changed at acceptances,

    to change it acceptances would be misleading and possibly have owners quizzing trainers as to why they didn't start their inform horse if they thought it was RBD. 

    Im Full of excuses, el jcko were nommed for the race and had HWOE of $158k and $159k and would have drawn the two worst designated draws had they started (group HWOE $100k - $150k)

    had handsandwheels (236k - group HWOE $200k - $250k) been entered he would have drawn outside of Full of excuses and el jacko .

    Had Our Jimmy Johnson (HWOE $324k - group HWOE $300kn - $350k been entered he would have drawn outside them both.

    One suspects that one or more of these horses would have fronted up if it was RBD race so even though all starters went into the draw the preferential draw affected which horses started and as such needs to remain as was advertised -A RBD FFA would be a different field.

    the group pref draw is almost the same as pref draws on C or M under MCR

    In a C1/C4 race with pref draw on C the C1 horses were drawn first then C2 etc

    In a HWOE race with grouped pref draw the lowest level horses are drawn first then the next level etc

    A C0 starting in a C1/C4 drew with the C1 horses -  the same principle applies in HWOE grouped draw races

    a C1 which had won more races or more stakemoney than other C1 horses went into the draw as C1 horses - the same principle applies in HWOE grouped races ie horses are drawn within their levels regardless of the HWOE of the horse in that group

    the only real difference is that concessions can only be used to get into a race and not to get a barrier

    there are special groupings in fast class - see attachment

    wherever we go we see synonyms or abreviations - rd (road), st(street), av (avenue), dr  (drive) Gt Eastern  Hwy ( Great Eastern Highway), RPH (Royal Perth Hospital) are some I saw when going to GP this morning, SGIO - GIO - RAC - WHO - CSIRO  to name a few more and lets not forget the dreaded PDS

    we lived with the pref draw abreviations  of C,M, LTW, $WL3 ,$WL5, sex. SS,MS and understand stewards abbreviations so I am sure that owners and trainers can with a little effort understand the HWOE terminology

    attached is the RWWA ( another one) explanation for barrier draws


    Good to see your still around Thought you had gone MIA easy enough explanation on the RBD component of GPPBD/HWOE and referenced.Should a FFA have bottom limit anyway when the abb. FFA is Free For All  
    Maybe the race should be written in the Program better and take off the FFA,call it as it is HWOE$100k plus GPPBD/HWOE 
    then it would take out the confusion in the terminology and people wouldn't have to ask or search for elusive manuals on handicapping conditions they can still nominate up in Grade if they wish 
    just a suggestion to keep it simple pass it on to programmer if you wish or not 



    fast class with RBD = FFA

    Fast class with group pref draw = HWOE $100k+

    Sounds good to me

    TrackBias dislikes this post.

  • JayJayJayJay    7,630 posts
    I agree, that would be better...but the GPPBD races may still end up as quasi RBD's given the noms that applied to Friday nights race (appro pro that farcical Pinjarra Cup day "FFA" Trotters race ). Doesn't solve the void in the 70 to 100k bracket....we have 20 to 40, some 40 to 55 and 40 to 70, and some up to 85 races and then jump straight to 100k+.
  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    277 posts
    edited March 2020
    JayJay said:

    I agree, that would be better...but the GPPBD races may still end up as quasi RBD's given the noms that applied to Friday nights race (appro pro that farcical Pinjarra Cup day "FFA" Trotters race ). Doesn't solve the void in the 70 to 100k bracket....we have 20 to 40, some 40 to 55 and 40 to 70, and some up to 85 races and then jump straight to 100k+.

    Not a big jump in reality 85 to 100 k plus just drop it to HWOE$85k plus to fix the GPPBD issue 

    There’s the solution 
  • getthechangegetthechange    310 posts
    JayJay said:

    Horses are nominated out of their class because there is no other race option for them if their HWOE is in the $85k to $100k range.....their are no other races for them. With a concession, and if their HWOE is sufficiently low (under $85k, they can race in the HWOE $70k race but not all horses suited to junior concession, added to which Friday night co meetings at Albany, Northam etc reduces greatly the pool of juniors available, and there are not a lot in the pool at the moment, so go in the $100k+ FFA  and race out of your class in what eventuates as an RBD, or stay home.
    I dont accept the argument that it would be misleading to relabel the race as an RBD....because that's what it is, that is the reality. The possibles and probables of horses with HWOE greater than 150k possibly starting and so on, all of that is hypothetical. As it evolved, it is an RBD, plain and simple. So that is what it should be labelled as post acceptances. Horses caught in the 85 to 100 bracket are compromised and must enter the RBD raffle....which granted can work favourably for you or it can result in you wasting your time, effort and investment.
    Has the exodus of "fast class" horses to the USA created a population vacuum at that end the HWOE scale....if so, the export rate will continue and it becomes a downward spiral in terms of horse quality and the problem gets worse....based on the premise that the administrators see it as a problem or maybe they perceive it as just as a bunch of whingeing owners. I had numerous txt messages from other owners and trainers last night, all thinking along similar lines.  Can the programming and conditions not be fluid enough to adjust for the changing horse population?

    reality is there aren't always races programmed to suit and even when they are they don't always hold up

    reality is that under this terrible handicapping system your horse has won $35,000 in his last five starts

    reality is that you still  have a race to start in

    reality is that if he doesn't win Friday he will be eligible for the L5$ LT $30,000 race the following week

    reality is that next week there is also the 4yo/5yo championship and with a concession driver he is eligible also eligible for the HWOE LT $85k race

    reality is that under MCR your horse with five metro wins including the Northam Cup would be an M4 - 1 drop back

    reality is that under MCR in 2018 the fastest class GPM races run in March were

    2nd March - 8 races - Sales finals - fastest open age race M2/M4

    9th March - 10 races - fastest open age race Open Mares - No fast class - 3 x M1/M3

    16th March - 10 races - fastest class 4/5 yo championship - no fast class - M2/M4

    23rd March - 10 races - no fast class - fastest class - 3 x M1/.M3

    29th March - 10 races - Easter Cup - next fastest M2/M4

    Was the lack of fast class races in March 2018 caused by the new handicapping system that at that stage wasn't operating?

    Hopefully the sun rises tomorrow because if it doesn't it will no doubt be the handicapping systems fault


  • aussiebattleraussiebattler    277 posts
    Not sure why I’m giving input was going to step back from commenting on either system as it’s like no ones listening ,said that to a former trainer today he said don’t waste your time hasn’t changed in 30 years they’ll never listen lol

    curmudgeon likes this post.

Sign In or Register to comment.