In this Discussion
- Amyquil November 2017
- carey December 2017
- Chelsea November 2017
- Gilgamesh December 2017
- H-BOMBER December 2017
- hollda09 December 2017
- Jell December 2017
- jum December 2017
- Ngawyni December 2017
- Ridersonthestorm33 December 2017
- RIO December 2017
- Rodent November 2017
- saxonsaxoff December 2017
- seanmac November 2017
- spinking December 2017
- The_Bull December 2017
- thefalcon December 2017
- Tivers November 2017
Who's Online
0 Members & 122 Non Members
Comments
all the handicapper is saying is that roganella will be 2.5kg higher in ability in august than it is now.
it's bullchit.
but i already know complaining will get them nowhere, because it's part and parcel of how they do it.
their methodology makes perfect sense........to them!
it's their methodology that needs fixing.
as far as roganella is concerned, it had a rating before the race of 64 and that would give a 4yo a weight of 55.5 in that race yesterday.
but as it's a 3yo then it would have had 53kg(2.5kg allowance) if possible, so it was to them 1.5kg out of the handicap.
so their rating for it winning had to be what the rating would be for a 3yo in this race with 54.5 which is 67.
then it gets 5 points for winning by a long way.
there is your 72 points.
RIO likes this post.
i would say the opposite personally.
don't forget it still gets an allowance going forwards if in open aged handicaps
72 would be 59kg in 62+ now, but it would be 56.5(if still 2.5 allowance) for roganella being 3yo.
the 3yo races are all set weight penalty until april i think, so it matters not what their ratings are there.
they get their weight depending on wins not ratings.
those set weight races also make it IMPOSSIBLE to fairly re-rate horses out of them.
but they will have some method they use, but it has to be wrong.
because, unless the weights match the rating always, then one can't possibly be fair to all.
peronally, i would take a broom to the entire rwwa racing/handicapping department.
this is probably what you get, when nobody that matters, can mark them.
he is far more polite than me, so did not say straight out it was bullchit.
but left me in no doubt that is what he thought.
he could not figure how the race was given the 111.
he asked me if i wanted him to check with RWWA for an explanation.
i said only if he wants an answer for his own benefit.
if he can't see how, and i can't see how, then i already know the answer, and don't need further confirmation that it's crap(the 111 of the perth cup 2016).
RIO likes this post.
2106 Tabtouch-Perth Cup (2400m) (G2) 3yo&up SW
% field that has won at each race type level.
Strike rate of winners to have contested each race type.
% of race types contested by total field.
* All Statistics relate to the previous twelve months period leading up to the race.
what has the above got to do with the offical handicap ratings, and if the 2016 perth cup was a true g2(it wasn't)??
not to mention...i am the time expert here!!! =))
RIO likes this post.
There's a massive difference between the raiting you run too in a particular race and the raiting you deserve for your actual career point.
My really simple idea would be to have a table where on one access you have a prive money band and on the other have a raiting band, in the content have raitings points increase/decrease.
So for example if you are a 60 raiter you fall in the 60-64 band if you earn 40k prizemony regardless of the grade of the race (you could win a 60+ or run 2nd in a group 2 desnt matter) you know you are going to go up 4 points.
Similar fo if you aren't earning, dropping points from a certain raiting would be in the table too.
Keep it simple so trainers/owners can map out a program. I'm a 60 raiter, if i win this this and this at my next 3 starts I will be a X raiter and I would hav earned Y amount of prizemoney.
Surely it isnt that bloody hard?
Why does The Shoe carry 1kg more than reykjavic on Saturday when reykjavic has a higher rating?
Tell me to shut up if its obvious but i cant work it out
~X(
swp
should at the very least be reserved for stakes racing only, and for
the first month or two, for 2 years olds while they sort themselves out,
but never for ordinary open 3yo's
and it also makes it IMPOSSIBLE
(regardlesss of what the so called experts says) to rate horse out of
them in a fashion that is fair to all.
and why does trap for fools cop 4 points for winning that race yesterday?
somebody is on planet fairyland and it 'aint me.
it was the only runner in the race that was not out of the handicap; varying by .5kg dark alert & bollywood to 9kg!! juicing carrots & CB
in other words it was less than substandard
but rerated as if it was a fair dinkum 88+!!!
and it's even worse for dark alert that cops 3 points for beating the rest which were mostly all a zillion miles out of the handicap.
you have to be kidding mr.....i was going to call you mr handicapper, but i refuse to tell lies!
Trainer Mr M. Lane was interviewed by Stewards regarding his comments on Racing Radio on Tuesday, 19 December 2017 in relation to GEEBOSS being penalised 6 rating points following its win at Ascot on Saturday, 16 December 2017. He was subsequently found guilty to a charge of improper conduct under AR.175(q) for making an inappropriate comment in relation to the Senior Handicapper and he was subsequently fined the sum of $200.00. When assessing penalty Stewards took into account that Mr Lane intends to apologise for his comment and that he expressed remorse.
what did he say?
does anybody know?
think they need to pick their complaints better, as that one looks about right in so far as the points it got for winning are concerned.
your handicappers(and maybe others) mistakenly think that wfa are the same or better than comparable handicaps and they're not.
at wfa the best meet the inferior on equal terms depending on age and sex, handicaps they have to give weight to those same inferior horses.
the horse that won the kingston town for instance went from 96 to 107, which I don't know if is fair or not because i have not studied it
but knowing who does it, then i would guess it's wrong!!
RIO likes this post.
I think the same, but I wanted to make sure. Seems you can !
Ridersonthestorm33, RIO likes this post.
After hours of deliberation, I’ve finally come up with the reason the handicapping is so skewed:
HANDICAPPING ANALYSIS
Jell, Ridersonthestorm33 likes this post.
Handicapping is just one of the issues plaguing WA racing at the moment and granted it seems like an important one. There is a myriad of issues though, including TABtouch being partially managed by corporate's (I bang on about that one more than a pornstar).
If anyone from Perth Racing or RWWA reads these forums how about getting together people from all areas of the industry and coming up with some solutions. I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is and stand in front of anyone and voice my concerns, I'm not one to hide behind a keyboard. As I just sold my last shares in my dogs, I'm no longer an owner but I'm more than happy to represent the degenerate gamblers in the industry.
Even with all it's problem, I still love WA racing and don't want to see it further down faecal creek without a paddle.
Ridersonthestorm33, H-BOMBER, thefalcon, RIO, Gilgamesh, jum likes this post.
The segment didn't last too long..wonder why ? :-?? Freedom of speech only applies when the speech favours the establishment, otherwise it's not so free...literally!! ( Michael Lane, Rio haha )
RIO, rustyh, jum likes this post.
RIO, rustyh likes this post.
rustyh, jum likes this post.
spinking dislikes this post.
spinking, jum likes this post.
RIO likes this post.
thefalcon, RIO, jum likes this post.