New Handicapping System for the TrotsHarness & Greyhounds

aussiebattler

opposite views but heading in the same direction bit like these 2

aussiebattler

Rocket_Reign

aussiebattler said:

opposite views but heading in the same direction bit like these 2

Very good haha

savethegame

RWWA inception 2003. Remember   attending a  fraternity  meeting listening to General Manager of  rwwa  ken. norquay  approx. 2007 -2008  first time heard anyone mention payment which encouraged mediocrity, he said he was getting calls from trainers re geraldton  thanking  him  for paid holidays because they received the 100 unplaced money per starter which I thought was a lota bull.who would keep a horse to earn a hundred a start.he was against it.

.The unplaced payment was inoperation from 2000 prior to rwwa(2003) then was removed in 2009 ..geralton closed in 2010..no doubt it contributed to there demise, then the payment  was reinstated 2017-18, but Kalgoorlie  hit the deck as well 2017..gypsy trainers or the locals with 5 -10 horses looked at it like a small insurance policy   for them to get from one meet, to the next,espically if  they had bad draws and bad luck,a 2/1on favourite can get checked and run last,nothing to do with mediocrity   so ive always looked upon it as small payment  to  the trainers for putting the show  on.imagine the circus owner not paying the trapeze artist because he expected a 500 crowd not paying him because only 300 turned up..Always thought rwwa removed it but botra was behind it as well , but botra have done 360,degrees  with it ...........2003 there was 549 drivers 757 trainers     2017 341 drivers 486 trainers..Like the little boy that piddled in the sea said everylittle bit helps...but places like kalg. gave battlers and there,horses a chance.as its the end of the road for a lot horses  re-ability, but gee a lot horses have been rehomed over the years in goldfields Esperance regions as well.and a second chance which does make a lot genuine horse people happy .Not forgetting the juniors that aren't getting drives .

KTQ

2lifetimewinners said:

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???

No but we bought him as a yearling and raised him. We buy a few yearlings but also breed 10-20 mares a year.

JayJay

Just an observation.....Melton, Globe Derby, Albion Park, wherever you look this up coming weekend....even way out at Broken Hill, many races have PBD conditions...in some cases a majority of the card, some based on class, some on win earnings etc.

We have 28 races coming up at GP, Albany and Northam on Friday and Saturday night.....and in spite of this being a primary source of concern and anxiety weeks and weeks ago, and in spite  of lots of "Yes, we are looking at that, "point taken etc etc" being uttered at many meetings, not a single PBD for this weekend that I can see.

Maybe they are on the horizon but RWWA website only lists programming Nov 16 to Dec 15. Will check HRA Calendar later, maybe they are listed there? Hope so.

curmudgeon

JayJay said:

Just an observation.....Melton, Globe Derby, Albion Park, wherever you look this up coming weekend....even way out at Broken Hill, many races have PBD conditions...in some cases a majority of the card, some based on class, some on win earnings etc.

We have 28 races coming up at GP, Albany and Northam on Friday and Saturday night.....and in spite of this being a primary source of concern and anxiety weeks and weeks ago, and in spite  of lots of "Yes, we are looking at that, "point taken etc etc" being uttered at many meetings, not a single PBD for this weekend that I can see.

Maybe they are on the horizon but RWWA website only lists programming Nov 16 to Dec 15. Will check HRA Calendar later, maybe they are listed there? Hope so.

Used to have an admin man at work in my previous life.........called him "mirrors" ....always looking into it.  

aussiebattler

When the fields are all like for like RBD is all you need lol

aussiebattler

Just had a look ahead at the next 8 weeks very few GPPBD races mostly RBD but with the rolling changes guess they will look into it ............TBC

JayJay

Just had a look at the "Calendar"....don't know how up to date it is, there are some PBD's  but very, very few. Will keep looking for changes as they "are rolled" out....whatever that means.

JayJay

Have a look at Race 2 at Albany with a horse with a HWOE of $22k plus drawing 1 and horses with HWOE like Startamotor of zero drawing out in gate 5.....hopeless situation.

savethegame

Whats the story g.p. mister ardee race 2 no11..full field;; race 3 no4 mister ardee  scratched   was a full field someone missed a start at headquarters  any  reason.. how this happens..

Estocada race 6 at no.6  g.p. scratched racing at Albany race6 no2.

JayJay

I listened intently to the information session on TAB radio on Friday with Barry, Trent and Richie and recorded it so I could replay it. It is good that they are out there trying to make it easier for the punter. It is no easy task explaining the complexities of the system, so I reckon that is a tick for effort there. It remains tremendously confusing to the hard crowd at the Manji Pub TAB.....to quote "What is all the level 12, level 11 RBD Last 5 starts crap et al"....It is a very hard sell to your average rusted on high viz after work pub punter....."Bugger it, I'll go have a mystery trifecta on the dishlickers, far easier" unquote. It will need persistent and repetitive clarification ....they have just about given up on my explanations, "you may as well be speaking to us in Swahili JJ". But lets not give up, and Friday's session was a worthy effort.

I have to say I cant fathom the reluctance to implement simple PBD handicapping. Saying that it is unfair for the good quality horse to draw the widest gate....well, I just don't get it. It is a "handicapping system" for goodness sake, so what is the problem with actually "handicapping" the better performed higher earning horses. To say people don't like it....who doesn't like it? Don't speak in generalities, is it the big stables who own the best horses? If so, I don't blame them for wanting to retain RBD, it is very much to their advantage. I'll tell you who hates the RBD....the trainer with a genuine battler who draws 12 (randomly) who has to front up to the best and most expensive horse in the filed drawing (randomly) in gate 1. Not having PBD races is the equivalent of not giving extra  weight to winning horses in the gallops. Horses that win at Ascot get extra weight, don't they? And yet we persist by not using the most potent handicapping tool available to produce even racing and less odds on favourites with the subsequent deleterious effect on turnover. And by having RBD, the best horse has just as much chance of drawing gate 1 as the poorest performer in the race.....and subsequently starting at $1.04.  As far as the convoluted "group barrier draw" PBD's where the field is divided in half and the worst 6 go into a draw for the best 6 gates and the best 6 are randomly drawn in the worst gates, I think that goes half way to defeating the purpose. There are a few (very few) PBD's appearing with the draw being done on stakes earned last two starts. Far fairer in my view. Surely a 50/50 split of RBD/PBD using HWOE or $L2 (with feature,classic races exclude) is far fairer.

Someone texted in to the discussion about the preponderance of very short priced favourites. There was a flat denial to their claim, it was summarily dismissed but there were no stats provided. In a previous life when I was analysing data and stats and presenting that data at conferences, there were always reference points and methodology provided. Apparently, there are less "odds on favourites" since the new system was introduced. Compared to what? The same period last season? The previous 2 months? 5 years ago? Are outliers like $90 winners and 1.04 winners excluded or included? What is the actual data? Present it for goodness sake.

I have been recording stats since the new system started. Initially, it was disastrous. Over a period of 34 races at GP, Narrogin, Bunbury, Pinjarra and Northam (34 races in total), there were 21 of 34 races won by odds on favourites (11 of those under $1.30) and a further 8 winners under $3.60, with just 5 winners above $3.60. I presented that data and was told variously that it wasn't valid, I was wrong, the system was in it's embryonic stages and that it was probably just an aberration. Fair enough, I'll accept that, along with the assurance that things will get better.

So, I now have data for the last 9 meetings, including Northam tonight., which covers meetings at GP x 2, Northam x 2, Albany x 2, Pinjarra, Busselton and Bunbury, A representative sample by any measure.

82 races have been contested with 34 odds on favourites successful, 17 under $1.30 and a further 14 under $3.00. So it seems, the person who sent in the text message question had a point (it wasn't me, I play a straight bat) and didn't deserve to be summarily dismissed with a "Well, that is simply not true" response.

However, even the above seemingly damning data does mean much unless we can compare it to what was happening at the same time last year. It may well be that there are in fact less odds on pops saluting, that the system is fairer, that turnover is up etc etc. But without providing that data (I don't have it), we are left to question the validity of the claims that there are less odds on favourites under the new system. So please, lets see the numbers, it's not a natural secret is it?

It would seem that the 3 month trial is now being pushed out to 6 months, no doubt 12 months is about to emerge as the next contender. The deeming HWOE's which advantaged so many horses in transition now seems to have disappeared as a debatable issue but a few minor tweaks are appearing, interspersed with a number of muck ups which were always going to happen (ala dual acceptance on the same night at GP and Albany) and it seems the stand handicapping is being looked at. Gawd, I hope this has all been worthwhile, I really do....but forgive me for having very grave concerns that we haven't thrown the proverbial out with the bathwater.

sonny

Well said JJ. .The trots will implode. Racing must be the only business that doesn't listen to the patrons.( punters ) Big stables and good on them buy the expensive ones and Im sure that they would not mind the PBD for the sake of the industry. I gave up listening to tab radio long ago. They bought Dominic B over for the gallops for his input but as far as I know dismissed his opinion.. All the best for the New Year JJ.. Keep them honest..

curmudgeon

It is becoming apparent that having a completely different handicapping terminology to every other harness jurisdiction may well be counterproductive in terms of turnover. Punters are being asked to assess events held in WA that are essentially identical to events in various other locations around the country as though they are completely different entities. The feedback I receive is that they cannot be bothered deciphering the script.

 The lack of homogeneity with WA being the outlier in descriptive terminology is alienating for most ...even rusted on ....harness punters.

WA terminology now presents as a convoluted system in comparison to other states.....and any thought of other jurisdictions adopting the system seems to be a very lengthy bow to draw .....now or in future.

JayJay

The facts concerning the number of odds on favourites, much complained about in  the "old system" and a driver for introducing the new handicap model, versus the planned reduction of odds on favourites under the "new model" has been the subject of much discussion and a lot of anecdotal commentary.  Below are the facts from November 16th 2018  up to December 29th 2018, for all races (both Metro and Midweek) contested at GP, November 16 being the date the new model was introduced. They are compared against the exact same period of racing (from November 17th 2017 up to December 28th 2017) under the old handicapping system. In that time period, the exact some number of meetings were held (11 meetings) consisting of 104 races (there was one 11 race program conducted) in 2017, and 103 races in 2018. I chose the Gloucester Park meetings as the comparison tool for turnover reasons and for consistency of data. The bench mark of a win dividend of $2.00 and under was chosen (even money in the old lingo), it being the midpoint of the so called "sweetspot" of punter satisfaction so often stated at between $2.20 and $1.80. Further data is provided on the number of win dividends between >$2.00 and less than or equal to $4.00.

2017: 104 races, 37 winners paying less than or equal to $2.00. 23 winners paying between  >$2.00 and up to and including $4.00.

Overall, 60 winners paying $4.00 or less under the old handicapping system.

2018: 103 races, 37 winners paying less than or equal to $2.00.  27 winners paying between >$2.00 and up to and including $4.00.

Overall 64 winners paying $4.00 or less under the new handicapping system.

There has been an increase in the number of winners paying $1.10 or less under the new model - from 12 under the old system to 15 under the new model.

Conclusion: There are more winners at Gloucester Park paying lower win dividends under the new handicapping model than under the previous system. Remarkably, there are exactly the same number of winners paying even money or less. Before the shouts start emerging that it is a limited data set, those claiming that the new system is producing better value for punters are doing so off the exact same limited data set.

VillageKid

Great work JJ.

Chariotsonfire

Unlike some I am prepared to give the new system some more time but there is also little doubt that changes are needed.

I am of the opinion that no handicapping system in harness racing can be effective without a large proportion of PBDs, at least 50/50 and probably higher.

When HWOE started I anticipated that my strike rates would decrease if the new system was effective. In reality my win strike rates have increased from 42.2% to 44.6%and the winner from top four has also increased from 80.7% to 84.1%.

Probably too small a sample to draw any conclusions as I think we need at least three months before changes are made and then another three months of data to evaluate where it is heading.

The bottom line should not be overlooked. Stay as we were and you can rest assured that harness racing distribution would diminish.

Gilgamesh

I have some time for Hamilton and his efforts but I just couldn't fathom what he was saying friday morning. "we want to draw in new punters by offering more value, the best way to handicap a race is through barrier draws, we wont be using pref barrier draws the random draws will sort it out".

It is right in front of your face how to even up the fields, you know that is how to do it but you wont do it!

This crap about splitting the field in half through pref and then doing the random draw for each half, lets just keep making it more and more complicated.

People complaining that they continue to draw bad if its pref draw, that means your horse must be earning some bloody money! If they are all random draws you can draw 9 every time you nom, go back to dollars last 3 starts and even if you are "double handicapped" by winning a race if in 3 starts you can't earn you are a assured of a good draw, you can have 3 starts in a fortnight and bang you are going to draw well. It's not like you will get balloted at least from headquarters with the current field sizes.

Why why why are we trying to make this so complicated and so against doing the bloody obvious!

And the whole crap about punters liking the odds on favs because they can work out how a race will be run and load up on the novelties leader, leaders back, 3 back. Yep the punters love it when the over bet novelties come in they pay peanuts far more than where they can use their brain and actually get a decent collect.

JayJay

Chariotsonfire said:

Unlike some I am prepared to give the new system some more time but there is also little doubt that changes are needed.

I am of the opinion that no handicapping system in harness racing can be effective without a large proportion of PBDs, at least 50/50 and probably higher.

The bottom line should not be overlooked. Stay as we were and you can rest assured that harness racing distribution would diminish.

No doubt changes were needed, I don't think anyone disagrees with that premise. There were a lot of fairly straight forward tweaks that could have been made without throwing out the baby. The new system isn't going away but no doubt changes needed, especially in the PBD area....and I think the terminology and language is way too complex for average Joe Punter to comprehend. It is stark in its contrast to how race conditions are described in all other jurisdictions in Australia.

The data I have posted is just that, raw data on where we are currently sitting, and runs counter to some of the anecdotal stuff that is doing the rounds without supporting evidence.

curmudgeon

Chariotsonfire said:

Unlike some I am prepared to give the new system some more time but there is also little doubt that changes are needed.

I am of the opinion that no handicapping system in harness racing can be effective without a large proportion of PBDs, at least 50/50 and probably higher.

When HWOE started I anticipated that my strike rates would decrease if the new system was effective. In reality my win strike rates have increased from 42.2% to 44.6%and the winner from top four has also increased from 80.7% to 84.1%.

Probably too small a sample to draw any conclusions as I think we need at least three months before changes are made and then another three months of data to evaluate where it is heading.

The bottom line should not be overlooked. Stay as we were and you can rest assured that harness racing distribution would diminish.

No one is suggesting we "stay as we were" ....and if we did whose fault was the system ? I will tell you one thing for free ....no one in the administrative arena is attacking the vehicle for harness vision ...Sky Channel ...for it's third rate harness coverage.....punts to SKY @ will ....split screens in 1/4's with international gallops,dogs and budgie races taking precedence. One half hour NSW /Vic  centric panel show for about 40 % of the year. It's a joke and the biggest influence on turnover there is.  Forget the peripheral handicapping system as an anchor to expansion......the biggest influence is vision and SKY has been stagnant for decades in the harness arena because it has it's own agenda. FFS....someone grasp the nettle and pull them on.

 

JayJay

Just one more thing on the number of odds on favourites.....the figure for 2017 is arguably skewed by the Interdominion Carnival and associated features with champions from the All Stars Purdon team and other Eastern States Champs accounting for a large number of odds on winners.....Lazarus at $1.10 and $1.90, Ultimate Machete at $1.20 and $1.10, Lenny at $1.10, Tribeca at $1.20 and $1.60, Picadilly Princess $1.90....so in effect, that is 8 extras amongst the 2017 figure of 37. Take them off and the scoreboard reads 37 for 2018 v 29 for 2017....odds on favorites are a growth industry ......a substantial increase. It has also been said that the spread of wins amongst trainers is far greater under the new model. I wonder if the wins of "visiting" trainers from the 2017 carnival were excluded meaning that fewer local trainers would by definition have had less wins in 2017 compared to 2018 when Purdon, Aitken, Manning and co are not here?

curmudgeon

Nothing disappoints me more than to see our devotee harness correspondents huffing and puffing around the track interviewing drivers /trainers etc on our big nights....Inters/Pacing Cup/Miracle Mile/Hunter Cup etc etc... or even the weekly meetings....all the usual suspects doing their best.....and being given 3 seconds of live screen after watching 3 minutes of loading crank gallopers at Cranbourne gallops or a dog race in Britain where the callers don't have the ability to call names. 

It was only 2 years ago when the turnover boost in WA at places like Kellerberrin was discounted by RWWA administration as being too cost ineffective to pursue....even on SKY 2. That didn't take long to be exposed as a naive point of view once the vision was belatedly telecast.  Harness racing Australia wide is being given a raw deal by SKY and although twitter and Facebook in the age of digital & internet delivery provide opportunities for human interest and explanatory items SKY remains the prime mover of turnover.

curmudgeon

Back onto the precise topic ....the 6 months "settling in period" may well be considered a fair enough period of grace. The flip side of the coin however is that there are issues that need responding to on a weekly basis so as to not disadvantage those with demonstrably legitimate concerns ...not to dismiss them as perennial baseless whingers. It's a two way street. 

Gilgamesh

Just the two $1.20 favs tonight to go with the $1.60 and $1.70. That value is sure to draw return business from the once a year punters who have a play before the fireworks tonight.

JayJay

TAB touch fixed lists 5 odds on pops Miss Tivoli $1.60, Jungle Jolt $1.24, Bettor B Abeliever $1.70, Courage Tells $1.70 and Whereyabin $1.22. James Butt in race 4 of some interest....he was advertised by NZ agents some time back, looked (from only watching replays) to be a big guy, a bit one paced but he tried hard on what I saw. Didn't strike me as being too well suited to the hurly burly of high tempo GP racing but I have been totally off the mark dozens of times before and the market would indicate I am out for lunch yet again. Pretty short first up from gate 5 at around 2 bucks.

Gilgamesh

What sort of money would a horse like that set you back JayJay landed?

JayJay

I think from memory he was around $25k NZD or maybe $30k ...cant quite recall but in the ball park. So working on the $30k figure, add on airflight to Melbourne or Sydney...~$5.5k plus customs, NZHR clearance $600,NZ GST at 10% on all of the above $3610, road transport to Perth $2k, HRA rego $2240 ...comes to  around $44,000 .....other immeasurables are a vet check in NZ (around $600 standard), any floating to get him to Christchurch or Auckland, insurance (about $450  on $35k for 3 months)....thus a $30k horse ex NZ costs about $45k to rock up at your stable door. (It all depends on exchange rate ...at the moment about 1.05 so a bit of a saving there of about $1500).

If he was $25k, the outlay is about $40k at your farm gate. (rego fee for HRA is less if a mare or filly, considerably less if she is 4yo or older).

curmudgeon

R 6 GP tonight......can anyone tell me why that race should not have been PBD LTE ? ....instead it was a gift race to the highest LTE horse drawn gate 1 in the RBD...( but not HWOE highest....in fact the least earner LTE was equal highest HWOE at $57.5 K.....despite being some $260 K poorer LTE)  Puhleese!!!!! What a joke. Do we have another 6 months of this coming ?

aussiebattler

curmudgeon said:

R 6 GP tonight......can anyone tell me why that race should not have been PBD LTE ? ....instead it was a gift race to the highest LTE horse drawn gate 1 in the RBD...( but not HWOE highest....in fact the least earner LTE was equal highest HWOE at $57.5 K.....despite being some $260 K poorer LTE)  Puhleese!!!!! What a joke. Do we have another 6 months of this coming ?

they really have falsely labelled the GPPBD it not a preferential barrier draw at all as it is still RBD just 50/50 split ,it should be labelled as GRBD Grouped Random Barrier Draw effectively no PBD exists in this new system