Different Aspects to Programming

[Tangles]

I see the best way is to increase claiming races for all ages of horses and classes.

If you set a value on your horse then if it is too cheap it gets claimed, if placed in a too higher priced claimer against better class horses you are uncompetitive.

70% of all races could be programmed as claimers with varying prices and barrier draws reflecting the price.

Accept with a $1.10 favourite and risk losing it with a claim . Handicapping becomes market driven.

It will stop the 1:54 3yr old appearing on a 5k - 8k claimer against a 2.02 3yr old.

[aussiebreno]

I see the best way is to increase claiming races for all ages of horses and classes.

If you set a value on your horse then if it is too cheap it gets claimed, if placed in a too higher priced claimer against better class horses you are uncompetitive.

70% of all races could be programmed as claimers with varying prices and barrier draws reflecting the price.

Accept with a $1.10 favourite and risk losing it with a claim . Handicapping becomes market driven.

It will stop the 1:54 3yr old appearing on a 5k - 8k claimer against a 2.02 3yr old.

Biggest hurdle: Who is going to be putting their horses in claiming races - especially as they are coming through the grades? Lot of people out there who won't sell which restricts this idea.

Also benefits past disqualified trainers. There is a wariness of buying horses from previously disqualified trainers and this allows these trainers to get a good bargain in claimers races.

[Tangles]

Programme claimers as well for the 60k-80k
30K-40K as well as 150- 200k etc

Play around with the programming, the yanks have been doing this for decades as well as programming stakes, futurity events, cups etc

[alphastud]

I met with a member of HRA recently and gained some insight into some thinking, submissions, ratings based schemes etc.
It seems that they are trying their best under difficult circumstances with multiple problems, ideas, agenda's etc. from the states, authorities, participants etc. . I think that they will produce an improved system in the short term.

However, I'd like to make the following points and highlight some pitfalls and why it may fall over:

1. it's the HANDICAPPERS job to determine the class, ability etc. of a horse.

2. HANDICAPPERS should have the authority, skill and capability to assess a horse and grade them accordingly to organise the best matched field. And so, they should already consider average mile rate, LTS, trainer etc. .

3. the HANDICAPPERS priority seems to be to produce "fuller fields" ahead of a "better matched field". i.e. they seem to include an “out of class horse” if it helps to make up a full field.

4. HANDICAPPERS are sometimes restricted or constrained by race programming.

5. HANDICAPPERS don’t seem to be required to handicap to an overall strategy.

6. HANDICAPPERS already have the flexibility to organise a field in races with CLASS and CONDITIONS such as:
C1 Or Better.
The HRNSW Handicapping Panel will frame race conditions and select race fields from the nominations received.

7. Preferential Barrier Draw should preference horses per the most successful barrier draw of that track and NOT in sequential order from 1 to 10 etc.
i.e. if the most successful barrier draws at Penrith are 3, 4, 2, 1, 8, 9, 5, 10, 7 and 6 then priority or preference should be given in this order.

8. Reduced number of racehorses. HANDICAPPERS have less horses to select to organise a “better matched field.” This makes their job even more difficult.

Some SUGGESTIONS beyond those previously highlighted:
1. Give HANDICAPPERS the freedom to organise and “better match fields” without the need to make “full fields”.
Does a “better matched field” incr betting turnover more than a “full field” when the “full field” includes a short priced fav?

2. Coach and Train HANDICAPPERS to develop their skills and capabilities.

3. Set secondary outcomes for HANDICAPPERS so that they are organising fields in alignment with the overall strategy of HRNSW.

4. Make HANDICAPPERS accountable and measure their success.

.* (note - this is from my knowledge of the HRNSW system only).

[arlington]

Yeah, time would have to come into the gallops ratings assessment but it would only be one of many factors so I guess that makes it complicated however to the punter it isn't as the authorities spit it out as simply Class 58, Class 70 etc.
Is this what harness would do for the average times?

Looks like Richard has addressed this in post #24. Great post Richard.
The example in my posts, the way supplementary races in Vic are framed, the handicappers are already doing this for the punter. Once again it doesn't have to be average times and, again, wouldn't be surprised if times are looked at when framing the field and barrier draws.
Maybe HRV handicappers have had a champagne breakfast in the car park at Epsom road with Greg Carpenter and his team.

[strong persuader]

I met with a member of HRA recently and gained some insight into some thinking, submissions, ratings based schemes etc.
It seems that they are trying their best under difficult circumstances with multiple problems, ideas, agenda's etc. from the states, authorities, participants etc. . I think that they will produce an improved system in the short term.

However, I'd like to make the following points and highlight some pitfalls and why it may fall over:
1. it's the HANDICAPPERS job to determine the class, ability etc. of a horse.

2. HANDICAPPERS should have the authority, skill and capability to assess a horse and grade them accordingly to organise the best matched field. And so, they should already consider average mile rate, LTS, trainer etc. .

3. the HANDICAPPERS priority seems to be to produce "fuller fields" ahead of a "better matched field". i.e. they seem to include an “out of class horse” if it helps to make up a full field.

4. HANDICAPPERS are sometimes restricted or constrained by race programming.

5. HANDICAPPERS don’t seem to be required to handicap to an overall strategy.

6. HANDICAPPERS already have the flexibility to organise a field in races with CLASS and CONDITIONS such as:
C1 Or Better.
The HRNSW Handicapping Panel will frame race conditions and select race fields from the nominations received.

7. Preferential Barrier Draw should preference horses per the most successful barrier draw of that track and NOT in sequential order from 1 to 10 etc.
i.e. if the most successful barrier draws at Penrith are 3, 4, 2, 1, 8, 9, 5, 10, 7 and 6 then priority or preference should be given in this order.

8. Reduced number of racehorses. HANDICAPPERS have less horses to select to organise a “better matched field.” This makes their job even more difficult.

Some SUGGESTIONS beyond those previously highlighted:
1. Give HANDICAPPERS the freedom to organise and “better match fields” without the need to make “full fields”.
Does a “better matched field” incr betting turnover more than a “full field” when the “full field” includes a short priced fav?

2. Coach and Train HANDICAPPERS to develop their skills and capabilities.

3. Set secondary outcomes for HANDICAPPERS so that they are organising fields in alignment with the overall strategy of HRNSW.

4. Make HANDICAPPERS accountable and measure their success.

.* (note - this is from my knowledge of the HRNSW system only).

I think that we are finally getting somewhere Whilst as a trainer, I loathe those races where the handicappers determine the conditions after noms close, I can see that it does allow for the production of better matched races. Who would have thought that it would be so simple, just shifting the emphasis from full fields to better matched fields makes a world of difference. Great job Richard, I sincerely hope that these thoughts become actions at a higher level.

[Messenger]

I think that we are finally getting somewhere Whilst as a trainer, I loathe those races where the handicappers determine the conditions after noms close, I can see that it does allow for the production of better matched races. Who would have thought that it would be so simple, just shifting the emphasis from full fields to better matched fields makes a world of difference. Great job Richard, I sincerely hope that these thoughts become actions at a higher level.

Maybe it is being selfish and not putting the industry first but I cannot think of anything worse for an owner/trainer - it makes horse placement pretty much impossible.
A numerical rating a la the gallops at least forewarns you as to what grade of horse you are going to have to face.
The only thing I would add to Richard's post is that we are going to have to pay the handicapper a serious wage for serious responsibility/accountability

[aussiebreno]

Is barrier 4 at Penrith better than barrier 1 at Penrith? Or is #1 just that outclassed it can't make use of the barrier?

Race fields are getting way to complicated. Leave it up the horses. Equal number of wins RBD. They will win their share of races and then be in their right class.

Scenario 1

Week 1. C1 PBD race. Horseymchorseface is #1 and $5. Horsesforcourses is # 10 and $1.90. Horseymchorseface gets sprint lane and wins, Horseforcourses 3wide last lap gets beat 1/2 length.

Week 2. C1 race Horseforcourses $1.60. C2-C3 Horseymchorseface $20

Scenario 2.

Week 1. C1 RBD race Horsemchorse face #5 is $10, Horsesforcourses #6 is $1.50. Horseforcourses wins.

Week 2. C1 Horsemchorseface is $5 (no longer has to compete with superior Horsesforcourses) while C2-C3 race Horsesforcourses is $8 (more suited to C2-C3 races than Horseymchorseface)


By evening it up you just make the better horses odds on more regularly, and the lucky PBD winners longer roughie odds when they're up in class. Week 1 might have been all good but week 2 is where it hurts and week 2 carries on longer than just that week because Horsesforcourses can continue getting beat because the PBD system screws him, whilst Horseymchorseface continues to be long odds because he can't compete in that grade.

10 start drop back rule is crap too. Fields are sizes of 10. You should win 1/10. That you didn't win in that 10 is just a basic statistic anomaly. Those horses are then going back to horses they are superior than.

If horses have made their way to a Rating 80 or an Ave MR 1.59 but have since dropped off in form shouldn't be given the opportunity to race in Rating 60 or an Ave MR 2.01 against horses who have never ever made it past Rating 60 or Ave MR 2.01

[strong persuader]

Is barrier 4 at Penrith better than barrier 1 at Penrith? Or is #1 just that outclassed it can't make use of the barrier?

Race fields are getting way to complicated. Leave it up the horses. Equal number of wins RBD. They will win their share of races and then be in their right class.

Scenario 1

Week 1. C1 PBD race. Horseymchorseface is #1 and $5. Horsesforcourses is # 10 and $1.90. Horseymchorseface gets sprint lane and wins, Horseforcourses 3wide last lap gets beat 1/2 length.

Week 2. C1 race Horseforcourses $1.60. C2-C3 Horseymchorseface $20

Scenario 2.

Week 1. C1 RBD race Horsemchorse face #5 is $10, Horsesforcourses #6 is $1.50. Horseforcourses wins.

Week 2. C1 Horsemchorseface is $5 (no longer has to compete with superior Horsesforcourses) while C2-C3 race Horsesforcourses is $8 (more suited to C2-C3 races than Horseymchorseface)


By evening it up you just make the better horses odds on more regularly, and the lucky PBD winners longer roughie odds when they're up in class. Week 1 might have been all good but week 2 is where it hurts and week 2 carries on longer than just that week because Horsesforcourses can continue getting beat because the PBD system screws him, whilst Horseymchorseface continues to be long odds because he can't compete in that grade.

10 start drop back rule is crap too. Fields are sizes of 10. You should win 1/10. That you didn't win in that 10 is just a basic statistic anomaly. Those horses are then going back to horses they are superior than.

If horses have made their way to a Rating 80 or an Ave MR 1.59 but have since dropped off in form shouldn't be given the opportunity to race in Rating 60 or an Ave MR 2.01 against horses who have never ever made it past Rating 60 or Ave MR 2.01

Maybe this is where a good handicapper comes into play. Why not a race for the Rating 80 horses with $ This Season less than x. May not be a full field of 12, but perhaps a race with 7-8 horse all being a live chance would be a better betting proposition than plonking them back in the Rating 60 category as $1.10 shot.

As much as they think they police it, trainers are not immune to winning a race then after 4 or 5 unsuccessful runs, going around another half dozen times quietly, or dead for the usual term, to get the drop back. Isn't any inconvenience when you have a few horses, you're already going, so why not take 1 dead one with you as well.

The stewards are probably aware of it, but proving it is another matter. I was informed early on in my career that there were many ways of getting beaten without causing alarm.

[trish]

If someone doesn't put Horseymchorseface in for a name I will. Love it.