New Handicapping System for the TrotsHarness & Greyhounds

JayJay

To be fair, I think the Nugget was done "out of a hat", not computer generated.....and with 6 out of the 12 runners, there had to be some drawn along side each other....but there is a Turvey/Turvey in gate 3 and 4 in an earlier race. Will wait for other weekend fields to come out but I'd be booking that computer in for plugs, points and filter if it were mine.

MorganJames

Turveys 2 horses that drew 3 and 4 ..

Drew 1 and 2 last week as well and in the same order as this friday night as well.

savethegame

Narrogin longest price winner 1.40.. first four races but the good old stand will save the day..for value players funny that.

aussiebattler

Dead heat in the last race but favourites took out every race at Narrogin tonight at pretty short odds for most of them

JayJay

At the risk of being labelled a recalcitrant, or not understanding the new system or of being out of touch or whatever, tonight's Narrogin meeting clearly highlights what many in the Industry (not a "representative sample" according to some, just a bunch of "change resistors", 105 of them, all prepared to put their name to paper) see as problems with the new system, problems that have been clearly articulated at recent negotiations but which we were basically politely told were not really a problem and give it time and all will be well.Well, I respectfully suggest that all is not well.

One of the stated aims was to have horses racing "like against like".....well, it didn't happen tonight. Very short priced long odds on favourites in the first 4 races ($1.20, $1.10, $1.40 and $1.30, the $2.60 favourite wins the stand (and should have been much shorter, it was gifted that race with its 30m handicap as an M3 running against a moderate field of M0, C4 types....but stand handicapping is a separate issue all on its own , and one which was forcefully raised at last Wednesday's  meeting but gained little traction); a return to status quo with a $1.70 winner of the sixth race and a deadheat in the last with one of the dead heaters being the $1.70 favourite returning $1.00 the win for its grateful backers.

Hand in glove with the "Like Against Like" racing was a stated aim to reduce the number of long odds on favourites with quote "more favourites winning around the 'sweetspot" of $2.20 to $1.80". Yes, just one meeting, just like the November 30 Friday night when 8 out of 10 races were won by very short odds on favourites was "just one meeting".....and the Bunbury Cup meeting the next night was just "one meeting" ....and plenty of other examples as well. Last weekend at GP and Bunbury were definitively better courtesy of Im Soxy, Millview Sienna and company, which at $90 the win will seriously distort any short term facts and figure presented on average price of winners.....statistics can be made to produce whatever conclusions you want if you put in the appropriate parameters.

Again, one of the specific problems highlighted, and I have rabbited on about it ad nauseum as has @curmudgeon, is 3 year olds running in 'Open Age" maidens or open age HWOE< $6,000 races. They start in these races, beat up genuine maidens and lower ability horses, get a discount on their win earnings and because of that discount, can rock up and repeat the process the next start against the same horses....at odds on prices. Harry Goodmate did just that tonight, Our Virtuoso, In My Heart plus others. I don't think we made any impression whatsoever on this point at the meeting.

The handicapping in stands has been highlighted with the Tanaka Eagle example(s) and that was a gift for Always Arjay tonight but again, no one thought there was really a problem with the handicapping in stands. Maybe I am just a cynic but can I wonder out loud just how genuine the "come and talk to us, we will listen, we might not have got it 100% right, we welcome feedback" statements are? There appears to be almost no room for movement, could be wrong, hope I am.

Offthebit

Jay jay I respect everything you say.
But the lay of the land now is big stables vs small stables.
That was never the case in times gone by.
I'm not sure any handicapping ideas will ever fix the gulf between big and small stables

JayJay

Yes, of course, that gulf will always be there...as it was when Johnson, Coulson, Schrader, Lindau etc dominated. I think the lay of the land was always Big stables v Small stables.  But there is, from my perspective, things that could be done within this new model to make it a bit more of an even playing field. All we are doing is trying to highlight those things, for there to be open dialogue and with time (appreciating the need to be patient), some adjustments to be made. But people are still having to pay bills, mortgages etc and some at the lower end are burning.

aussiebattler

They certainly took the cap off the handi horses so they could win a few more races while handicapping others for every hard earned dollar Hurting this little Aussie Battler that’s for sure.

curmudgeon

I have heard that glib "change resistor" claptrap ad nauseum throughout life JJ. The statements usually emanated in my previous occupation from people who deliver power point presentations and quote convenient statistics quaintly cobbled together with arguments that totally support the "new wave" thoughts. It is an Orwellian attempt to subdue critical examination in actual fact.

Appears to have parallels here somewhat eg ...."barrier draws don't matter".

Here is the way you find out whether that is a legitimate point of view.......ask people who drive regularly in races or draw on your own experience of having done so. When 100 out of 100 people with experience say barrier draws matter SIGNIFICANTLY in determining race outcomes as a general rule and you refuse to let that information override your interpretation of any statistical notion you have nurtured ....ie refuse to acknowledge timely and rapid adjustment to newly introduced change is required.... in order to rectify an imbalance caused by the overlay of an immature system .....well that is as close to the definition of obstinacy as you will find. 

How many car manufacturers would get away with introducing a new model with the rider " look we haven't quite sorted this out but when the brakes fail hang on for a bit and we will look into your situation."

curmudgeon

One significant improvement delivered by the new system is the nomination and eligibility projections for any horse in a trainers stable. Made it very easy to navigate via the My Stable feature on Harnessweb. Kudos for the software update there.

savethegame

Seems like time has  come for  , people left in the industry to find 6  people with the belief and passion that the old system is workable with certain  changes and rearranges ,spend 4-6 weeks, to see if  possibe that  it could  have  been altered for the betterment,of the industry, with the changes, they come up with being able to be viewed on weekly basis for input.. from other others...

With rwwa at the same time hopefully trying to alter the new system,Nothing ventured nothing gained..The industry is in dire straights few more at rwwa must have a foot on the banana skin.all in it together the only difference there paypacket is set....

Not my idea, was told few years ago every win by two-yearolds  three yearolds  and aged horses should have automatically lost a r-class..thought made sense to me.. Money bar should be implemented to affect c class..if the prizemoney exceeds 50k to the winner or more at any age level you lose two c classes..Top horses will always find there right level...Slow horses which there is a lot more  they need to  compete against each other...…

Mentioned before should be c1-c4 homebrand  25k one week, then following week c5-9 25k. at g.p.your only allowed to win 2 in a season. purely for westbreds..no m penalty  obtained,  to make our breeding industry more attractive, along with your  other westbred entitlements …if we are fair dinkum about our breeding industry. Theres a lot others that could come up with  better ideas..only thing most only squeal when things affect there own horses.

Then also address  imports, stands ,,metro,countryracing  sometimes the old kiss method is best.

curmudgeon

Noticed quite a few decently enough performed horses whose futures have been detrimentally affected by the transition "formula" have been advertised for sale recently. Poor buggers....people can see the writing on the wall for them and are cutting and running it seems. 

JayJay

Yes, noticed that....not all will be shifting house because of the change but a lot more horses advertised of late....Star Armbro, Ultimate Major, Khun Lek, Baylan Jett, Georgie Mae, Empty The Till, Whenthegroundshook plus others......to be fair,hard to draw any concrete conclusions.

Rocket_Reign

curmudgeon said:

Noticed quite a few decently enough performed horses whose futures have been detrimentally affected by the transition "formula" have been advertised for sale recently. Poor buggers....people can see the writing on the wall for them and are cutting and running it seems. 

Gee that’s clutching... Most of the ones named above got in very well on the new system especially Ultimate Major

JayJay

I'll tell you whats not clutching Rocket....an undersubscribed 3 year old race at Wagin on Sunday with just 8 runners....and 3 year olds starting in the Maiden HWOE $0 3YO+ race (who if they win will get the 3yo win discount on ther HWOE) ....and who by starting in that maiden, prevent other genuine maidens from obtaining a start.....in a race that is NOT selected on Reverse Points because reverse points races have disappeared it seems forever and if you have a low points maiden, forget about nominating......until they stop 3 year olds from running in open age maidens WHERE there is a 3 year old race programmed on the card, and until they reintroduce reverse points races at Community Meetings....that's not clutching, that's reality and the battlers are giving up the ghost in sheer frustration and filling up my inbox in the process. And in spite of what now seems a fairly pointless 3 hour meeting with the powers that be over a week ago, absolutely no response, not a word, not even a short email saying thanks for coming but we don't accept what you were saying, go jump into Herdesman Lake. That's not clutching either,that's fact.

JayJay

And on Ultimate Major and Star Armbro for example, I can see why they would be on th emarket. Star Armbro has won about $47k in stakes, is with respect, hopelessly out of form, and comes over as a HWOE $27,500 and is probably destined for a lot of 6-8  hour return float trips which "trainers willingly undertake to race like against like". Ultimate Major with $114k in the bank comes over as $37, 500 courtesy of Juvenile discounts ....if he wins one more race....anywhere.... he jumps into the +$40k band (unless they utilise a concession) and will be racing against horses with HWOE's of up to $81,000 (with concessions).......I can readily see why the connections would sell....and their may well be other reasons which we know nothing of.

JayJay

Just received a forwarded copy of this:

From: Harness Information [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 14 December, 2018 7:38 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: NEW BUSINESS MODEL UPDATE – HANDICAPPING

 

The
new handicapping system has been in operation since the 16thNovember
2018.  Since that time we have received suggestions for changes from
Industry participants individually as well as through the representative
eligible bodies.  RWWA is still committed to making changes to the new
handicapping model based on feedback received in an effort to make
improvements while still maintaining the need for harness racing to be
more commercial.

 

The
following list of potential changes is based on the feedback received
to date and areas identified by RWWA as needing review.  Further review
and refinement will continue.

 

Program Changes

It
has been noted that the existing race program did not have sufficient
races programmed for 3YO, WESTBREDS and Fillies and Mares.  It was also
noted that the concessions had not been judiciously applied with almost
all concessions being applied to all races.  This had an immediate
negative effect on the concession driver opportunities and needed to be
rectified.

 

Work
is currently underway on an ongoing basis to ensure these races are
scheduled as soon as possible. Adjustments to existing race programmes
are being made and in some cases a ninth race will be added to the
programme to ensure adequate coverage of the current horse population.
Where possible, every attempt will be made to not alter race programmes
dramatically but this is unavoidable in some situations.

 

Trainers
and Owners should refer to Harness.org.au and Harness Web on a regular
basis to see the changes being made to the programmes and to ensure they
don’t miss racing opportunities.

 

Standing Starts

Consideration
is been given to introducing a second handicapping option for standing
starts based on assigning handicap marks within narrower bands to assist
the more lower assessed horses.   These will be predominantly run at
the Community level meetings as well as being interspersed with the
current conditions handicapped standing starts at Northam Narrogin,
Bunbury, Pinjarra and Midweek. 

 

3YO Racing in Open Company

The
rationale behind this decision was to assist owners/trainers with
poorly performed three year olds to be able to choose a race within
which they may be more competitive.  This was predominantly seen as
being at the maiden level.  Feedback received has been mixed however it
is acknowledged that the current system needs to be reviewed. 
Consideration is being given to only allowing three year olds to start
in open age races when certain conditions are met rather than just a
3yo+ policy as is the case currently.  When making any changes in this
area due consideration needs to be given to the impact any changes may
have on the WESTBRED bonus’s while not restricting racing opportunities
for horses potentially not competitive enough in the three year old
races.

 

Preferential Barrier Draws

Participants
will begin to notice more preferential barrier draws being introduced
into the system. Barrier Draws may rotate between Random Draws, Grouped
Preferential Draws on HWOE and Grouped Preferential Draws on HWOE/L2.

 

HWOE Groupings

Consideration
is being given to introducing varying HWOE groups to those currently
existing so that trainers and owners will have more options where to
place their horses depending on where they are within any given HWOE
level.  The introduction and rotation of these varying HWOE groups will
mean horses could alternate between being at the higher HWOE level one
week and then the lower of the group the next week rather than being
stuck at the upper level every week.

 

Splitting of Races

Where
there are sufficient nominations to split a race into two or more
races, horses will continue to be selected on a descending HWOE dollars
basis.

 

Also Eligible Conditions

While
the also eligible conditions were introduced to give out of form horses
the opportunity to drop into a lower level HWOE grouping, feedback has
been received that the current levels are perhaps too high. 
Accordingly, the criteria for Also Eligible conditions will be varied
now to better reflect the class and circuit of the race and those horses
normally competing in those races.

 

$L5 Levels

Consideration
is been given to the current start levels assigned in the $L5 races to
ensure that those horses who wish to aspire to racing in upper “group
type” races can do so without unduly effecting their normal race pattern
for the next 5 starts.

 

Concessions

Work
is currently underway to correct the omissions for Concessions and
Owners trainers should continue to check Harness.org and Harness Web to
ensure they can take advantage of any concessions available.

 

Punters Guide

Work is currently underway to provide an explanation of the new model for the wagering customer.

 

curmudgeon

 

Rocket_Reign said:

curmudgeon said:

Noticed quite a few decently enough performed horses whose futures have been detrimentally affected by the transition "formula" have been advertised for sale recently. Poor buggers....people can see the writing on the wall for them and are cutting and running it seems. 

Gee that’s clutching... Most of the ones named above got in very well on the new system especially Ultimate Major

You are nothing if not consistent @Rocket .....couple of weeks ago you in your own words "struggled" to see an issue developing with the mix of 3 y/o's avoiding juvenile age races and going (sometimes unraced ) straight into open age races.

 The RWWA communique re this says "  The
rationale behind this decision was to assist owners/trainers with 
poorly performed three year olds to be able to choose a race within 
which they may be more competitive.  This was predominantly seen as 

being at the maiden level.  Feedback received has been mixed however it 

is acknowledged that the current system needs to be reviewed.  "

So you put "poorly performed first start" 3 y/o's in open age races and cause ballots to aged horses that have been struggling around the traps for a lot longer than the unfortunate lesser competitive 3 y/o's  when there is a 3 y/o race programmed ??? ie You assist one group of 3 y/o trainers and owners by causing detriment to another group who generally have been subject to the cost of racing their horses for a lot longer than those being assisted ???....and the latter have zero options for racing below community level unlike the 3 y/o's. Where did the rationale stem from ??? .....you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see it is flawed at many levels.

The RWWA Review list is an acknowledgement that this system has been implemented in a very immature state and needs addressing across the board. If that happens then the ship may be righted in time for business as usual in as fair a manner as possible for all stratas of the industry.

If perceived issues aren't aired then nothing will be done. The live trial run of the system is throwing up all sorts of anomalies and they need to be addressed effectively and quickly. This is not a personal criticism of those involved in the implementation .....we all know a lot more in hindsight but it would be foolhardy to think it is done and dusted at this point and sit back in the traces.  

The point I made in reference to the horses advertised for sale is that there has been an upsurge in number and quality of horses for sale recently. WA horse trading lists are usually the domain of broodmares and the odd frustrating knee knocker el cheapo horses. I think you would have to be a bit naive to think it has nothing to do with maybe some connections looking into the short term futures of their horses and not seeing much there under the new handicapping regime as it stands. Some people pull the ripcord a lot sooner than others. 

Betonme

Ok that's a step. Sounds like they are listening. 

Rocket_Reign

curmudgeon said:

 

Rocket_Reign said:

curmudgeon said:

Noticed quite a few decently enough performed horses whose futures have been detrimentally affected by the transition "formula" have been advertised for sale recently. Poor buggers....people can see the writing on the wall for them and are cutting and running it seems. 

Gee that’s clutching... Most of the ones named above got in very well on the new system especially Ultimate Major

You are nothing if not consistent @Rocket .....couple of weeks ago you in your own words "struggled" to see an issue developing with the mix of 3 y/o's avoiding juvenile age races and going (sometimes unraced ) straight into open age races.

 The RWWA communique re this says "  The
rationale behind this decision was to assist owners/trainers with 
poorly performed three year olds to be able to choose a race within 
which they may be more competitive.  This was predominantly seen as 

being at the maiden level.  Feedback received has been mixed however it 

is acknowledged that the current system needs to be reviewed.  "

So you put "poorly performed first start" 3 y/o's in open age races and cause ballots to aged horses that have been struggling around the traps for a lot longer than the unfortunate lesser competitive 3 y/o's  when there is a 3 y/o race programmed ??? ie You assist one group of 3 y/o trainers and owners by causing detriment to another group who generally have been subject to the cost of racing their horses for a lot longer than those being assisted ???....and the latter have zero options for racing below community level unlike the 3 y/o's. Where did the rationale stem from ??? .....you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see it is flawed at many levels.

The RWWA Review list is an acknowledgement that this system has been implemented in a very immature state and needs addressing across the board. If that happens then the ship may be righted in time for business as usual in as fair a manner as possible for all stratas of the industry.

If perceived issues aren't aired then nothing will be done. The live trial run of the system is throwing up all sorts of anomalies and they need to be addressed effectively and quickly. This is not a personal criticism of those involved in the implementation .....we all know a lot more in hindsight but it would be foolhardy to think it is done and dusted at this point and sit back in the traces.  

The point I made in reference to the horses advertised for sale is that there has been an upsurge in number and quality of horses for sale recently. WA horse trading lists are usually the domain of broodmares and the odd frustrating knee knocker el cheapo horses. I think you would have to be a bit naive to think it has nothing to do with maybe some connections looking into the short term futures of their horses and not seeing much there under the new handicapping regime as it stands. Some people pull the ripcord a lot sooner than others. 

Yeah and your point? I stand by what I said don’t confuse me with someone that wants to reward mediocrity.. Now that’s within reason so don’t jump down my throat but I’m not a firm believer of terrible horses and terrible trainers being gifted races.. Again within reason

curmudgeon

The old reward mediocrity slogan...there is a section of this industry that relies heavily on that brain dead chant to counter any proposition being discussed or debated. The reality is it is a tactical statement from someone who perceives themselves to operate on a higher plane than others. It's nothing but verbal narcissism but feel free to continue with it .... in fact using it is like being the first to mention Hitler in an argument....once you go there you have no further recourse of intellectual significance.

I doubt anyone who in your arbitrary view has a terrible horse or is a terrible trainer is asking to be gifted anything. They are generally from my experience quite happy with their lot and have no need to give or receive unqualified assessments by or from others ....all they aspire to is to be able to carry out their pursuit without being disadvantaged unfairly by such things as overnight radical handicapping changes. They also generally don't have an ego that needs shoring up by heaping scorn on the efforts of others.

Within reason of course.

Rocket_Reign

Wasn’t even directed at you but if the shoe fits feel free to chuck it on.. Once again you’ve missed my whole point and taken personal offence, my point of not rewarding mediocrity is not based on my or your performance the meaning I have behind it is in what world do sportspeople get rewarded for being bad at what they do? Everyone should strive to get better in one way or another and as you say the “battlers” who are happy with what they have and what they do is fine but don’t get on here or any other social media platform and then complain

KTQ

It's fine to not want to gift terrible horses and trainers with wins but no one wants to see them lose week in week out. How demoralising when you cant afford $100k horses or $15k stallions and are relegated to never even placing.
This industry needs the little guys. How do they improve, how do they keep going if they lose all the time?

Itd be great to have an audit of trainers state wide and see how many horses theyve had in work season over season. I would bet my ass that there are huge reductions for 80% of trainers. 10 pro trainers an industry does not make. Nor does a group 1 with 5 trainers. How uninteresting and demotivating for the industry to see all newly bought horses contest the biggest 4yo race. What's the f-ing point of breeding.

Rocket_Reign

KTQ said:

It's fine to not want to gift terrible horses and trainers with wins but no one wants to see them lose week in week out. How demoralising when you cant afford $100k horses or $15k stallions and are relegated to never even placing.
This industry needs the little guys. How do they improve, how do they keep going if they lose all the time?

Itd be great to have an audit of trainers state wide and see how many horses theyve had in work season over season. I would bet my ass that there are huge reductions for 80% of trainers. 10 pro trainers an industry does not make. Nor does a group 1 with 5 trainers. How uninteresting and demotivating for the industry to see all newly bought horses contest the biggest 4yo race. What's the f-ing point of breeding.

That’s true KT but you don’t need to spend 100k on horses to make a living out of the industry you can still be somewhat successful without spending ridiculous amounts of money never in my time did we spend 100k on a single horse

aussiebattler

did someone mention a Battler ;) think I fit the Category there we use to train up to 10 horses breed up to 10 foals a year hoping to get the battler big break which we got in the form of a state sires series what a night 20to1 shot mowing them down out wide to beat the big stables then return trip home (3 hours) got home when the sun came up (was a very merry trip with many stops along the way ) we don't buy them from NZ and you'd be lucky to afford a good one in AUS so have relied on trying to breed them over the years and have had some Nice types over time .

since implementation of the drop back rule though must admit its been tougher for horses to work through the grades like the old days and don't foresee it getting any easier for them under the new business model so we have reduced numbers while we weigh up our options going forward .Breeding program has reduced to 1 numbers in work reduced to just a couple so about an 80% reduction of horses would be an assessment of our stable we don't rely on the industry to make a living but do like being competitive winning some stake money to help pay the feed bill and maybe buy a few beers on the way home 

 

curmudgeon

Rocket_Reign said:

Wasn’t even directed at you but if the shoe fits feel free to chuck it on.. Once again you’ve missed my whole point and taken personal offence, my point of not rewarding mediocrity is not based on my or your performance the meaning I have behind it is in what world do sportspeople get rewarded for being bad at what they do? Everyone should strive to get better in one way or another and as you say the “battlers” who are happy with what they have and what they do is fine but don’t get on here or any other social media platform and then complain

You misunderstand unsupportable complaint and fact based assessment. Anyone....Big boy, battler or boofhead who pays for their licence and has their participation adversely and in their view unfairly affected by changing administrative circumstances are quite entitled to bring that argument appropriately to the attention of the relevant body through whatever forum they choose. RWWA monitors this site and facebook and twitter and a conglomerate of opinion is probably of more benefit than single conversation or exchange of emails.The relevant body in the handicapping arena has actively sought feedback on these matters and in fact the statement issued today reflects that position ...and the benefit of resultant diverse feedback from a large number of participants on many platforms....public and private. Who are you to be issuing instructions on who can be involved in or what is an appropriate topic of discussion on any forum? You can backpedal and deflect all you like mate but anyone who has followed our exchanges will be in no doubt as to where the personal attacks and smartarrse remarks have originated. You also owe me an apology for breaching the public ID protocol of this forum in a hostile manner.

Rocket_Reign

curmudgeon said:

Rocket_Reign said:

Wasn’t even directed at you but if the shoe fits feel free to chuck it on.. Once again you’ve missed my whole point and taken personal offence, my point of not rewarding mediocrity is not based on my or your performance the meaning I have behind it is in what world do sportspeople get rewarded for being bad at what they do? Everyone should strive to get better in one way or another and as you say the “battlers” who are happy with what they have and what they do is fine but don’t get on here or any other social media platform and then complain

You misunderstand unsupportable complaint and fact based assessment. Anyone....Big boy, battler or boofhead who pays for their licence and has their participation adversely and in their view unfairly affected by changing administrative circumstances are quite entitled to bring that argument appropriately to the attention of the relevant body through whatever forum they choose. RWWA monitors this site and facebook and twitter and a conglomerate of opinion is probably of more benefit than single conversation or exchange of emails.The relevant body in the handicapping arena has actively sought feedback on these matters and in fact the statement issued today reflects that position ...and the benefit of resultant diverse feedback from a large number of participants on many platforms....public and private. Who are you to be issuing instructions on who can be involved in or what is an appropriate topic of discussion on any forum? You can backpedal and deflect all you like mate but anyone who has followed our exchanges will be in no doubt as to where the personal attacks and smartarrse remarks have originated. You also owe me an apology for breaching the public ID protocol of this forum in a hostile manner.

Sorry

2lifetimewinners

KTQ said:

It's fine to not want to gift terrible horses and trainers with wins but no one wants to see them lose week in week out. How demoralising when you cant afford $100k horses or $15k stallions and are relegated to never even placing.
This industry needs the little guys. How do they improve, how do they keep going if they lose all the time?

Itd be great to have an audit of trainers state wide and see how many horses theyve had in work season over season. I would bet my ass that there are huge reductions for 80% of trainers. 10 pro trainers an industry does not make. Nor does a group 1 with 5 trainers. How uninteresting and demotivating for the industry to see all newly bought horses contest the biggest 4yo race. What's the f-ing point of breeding.

Is Jack Mac locally bred???

curmudgeon

Apology accepted. Shall we move on ?

Rocket_Reign

curmudgeon said:

Apology accepted. Shall we move on ?

We shall until next time we find something to disagree on