Ratings - True to Form

[Barny]

Would the Ratings followers please explain why NONE of the Top Rated horses won at MV yesterday? I very rarely look at how ratings are going, but decided to for yesterday's races. An untrained monkey could do better, and to think some people take ratings seriously Ho-Diddly-Ho !!!!!

R1 - 7
R2 - LAST
R3 - 2
R4 - 4
R5 - 2 @ $1.30
R6 - 6
R7 - 2
R8 - 2, 3 & 5 (3 were Top Rated)
R9 - 3

[Barny]

Just had a look at Rosehill.

It get's worse !!

There were 13, yes 13 horses rated @ 100. I guess the Ratings people were so excited that they thought there would be a few dead heats, the odd triple deadheat and so on.

13 Top Rated horses at Rosehill and guess how many saluted ????

N-O-N-E, Diddly Squat, Zero, ZIP, Calbashooka !!!!!!!!!!

Gimme a Break

[Try Try Again]

Hi Barny,

Yesterday was certainly not a good day for the 100 pointers with none saluting in Melb or Syd and only one greeting the judge in Bris & Adel. That's 40 bets for 2 winners ($2.60 & $3.80 at BOB) - Very ugly!

As the say in the classics "one swallow does not make a summer".

Since 7th July I have been able to "etch" out a 80% POT by having 5 selection rules.

Yesterday I only ended up with one qualifier which ran unplaced. Currently my strike rate is 29.4% over the 4 states, all of which are showing profits.

This is only one of the methods I run and October has not been kind and has shown a minor loss. A sign of more chances in races as better class horses are plentiful?

It will be interesting to see where this method takes me over the next few months.

[Barny]

None, Naught, Nought, Zilch, Nil. sweet f / a, nowt, nil, non, emptiness annihilation, aught, bagatelle, blank, cipher, crumb, diddly, duck egg, extinction, fly speck, goose egg, insignificancy, naught, nihility, nix, no thing, nobody, nonbeing, nonentity, nonexistence, not anything, nothingness, nought, nullity, obliteration, oblivion, scratch, shutout, trifle, void, wind, zero, zilch, zip, zippo, zot insignificancy, naught, nil, nobody, nonentity, nought, nullity, squat, Zilch, Nada, Nowt, Nil, Luv, Nul, Null, Nichts, Niente, Sifir, ************ <O:p</O:p

[Barny]

Since 7th July I have been able to "etch" out a 80% POT by having 5 selection rules.

Now that's impressive, well done ! ;)

[darkydog2002]

Depends on WHO rated them.?

UNITAB is NOT the only Rating service in Australia.

[Barny]

I would have thought that they'd all go from a similar blue print.

OK, darkydog2002, Melbourne and Sydney, how did your Rating Service go yesterday ?? Your bet of the day ran last, so I'm assuming that was Top Rated.

[darkydog2002]

Only rated the Cox Plate (On top and won).
See "Sands " thread.

[darkydog2002]

Not only that but the
Quin $34
Ex $73.90
Trifecta $262.40

Cheers.

Oh.And what bet of the day was that since I didnt post one.

[Barny]

Where's the "sands" thread darkydog2002 ? I certainly don't doubt you at all, it's just that I may learn something seeings how you are such a strong advocate for ratings. I've taken to reading other threads on here recently, and one inparticular with garyf was most insightful regarding "d" and "c" on the formguide. A hobby horse of mine for quite a while now. Going to get some fish and chips now and sit on the banks of the Mighty (cold) Murray and contemplate life itself !!! ;)

[darkydog2002]

See - 27 October Cox Plate GP 1

[darkydog2002]

OOPS.Sorry Barny but the thread was started by "Myhatmycoat"

[domenic]

I have been using ratings for around 25 years. If during that time I backed my top rated horse only, I would have been broke years ago.

From my point of view I use ratings to sort out the main chances in the race, and if I consider it a betting race then the market will dictate if I bet or not.

It is extremely difficult to profit long term from backing only 1 horse per race, unless you have a lot of patience.

[norisk]

Uni/Tatts Ratings always have been limited in their accuracy & usefulness imho

[darkydog2002]

Ah Domenic.
A sane punter at last.
Thank you.
Cheers
darky

[Barny]

My mind is not a closed shop, I hope not anyway. But to have a public Ratings System throw up (** you pick the word from the list below **) winners at all in Sydney and Melbourne, during the Spring Carnival, where there's a wealth of information on the competing horses ..... We'll I'd sack the Ratings Person for their "fatuous" and unprofessional efforts. To the best of my knowledge, the word fatuous hasn't been used on this forum b4 !!!

[Barny]

OOPS.Sorry Barny but the thread was started by "Myhatmycoat"
There's no info there darkydog2002, just your tips. What good is that to man or beast ?! If I'm to be lured to the dark side, then I need some information and a breakdown of results, the hows whys and whats of the Rating System. Which one do you recommend Darkydog2002 ?? Genuinely interested here ..... ;)

[Barny]

Not only that but the
Quin $34
Ex $73.90
Trifecta $262.40

Cheers.

Oh.And what bet of the day was that since I didnt post one.
darkydog2002, The Herald Sun tipsters did just the same. Three picked Ocean Park to win, one had the Q, one had the exacta, and one had the Tri ..... there you go.

[darkydog2002]

Hi Barny,
2 of the best are

racing service.com.au (Mick Fagin) allows you a free trial.

lucky88.com.au
(free)

Both give excellent summaries of their bets prior to the race.

Hope thats what your after.

In my case I review whats on offer with all of them (not just with these 2) and then make a personal judgement as to what I eventually go with.

In my opinion its one own judgement of whats on offer that will make or break one as a bettor.

Cheers.

[Barny]

Thanks heaps darkydog2002, I'll have a good look at these and go in with an open mind, which is not being handed everything on a plate ..... as you've alluded to.

[Vortech]

I have been using ratings for around 25 years. If during that time I backed my top rated horse only, I would have been broke years ago.

From my point of view I use ratings to sort out the main chances in the race, and if I consider it a betting race then the market will dictate if I bet or not.

It is extremely difficult to profit long term from backing only 1 horse per race, unless you have a lot of patience.
This is statement of the month!! Well Done

[Barny]

domenic posted .....

I have been using ratings for around 25 years. If during that time I backed my top rated horse only, I would have been broke years ago. That's confirmation that ratings cannot pick winners at such odds that allow you to win. Exactly what I've been saying for as long as ..... and I've given reasons why.

From my point of view I use ratings to sort out the main chances in the race, and if I consider it a betting race then the market will dictate if I bet or not. I really don't understand what you're saying here dominic. Are you suggesting that you only look at certain races to bet on, or are you saying that you have a minimum price with which you'll bet on ?

It is extremely difficult to profit long term from backing only 1 horse per race, unless you have a lot of patience. I've never understood the logic behind this theory. Can you elaborate please ?

And to Vortech, what exactly is it that makes this the statement of the month. There's no substance to it.

[domenic]

domenic posted .....

I have been using ratings for around 25 years. If during that time I backed my top rated horse only, I would have been broke years ago. That's confirmation that ratings cannot pick winners at such odds that allow you to win. Exactly what I've been saying for as long as ..... and I've given reasons why.

From my point of view I use ratings to sort out the main chances in the race, and if I consider it a betting race then the market will dictate if I bet or not. I really don't understand what you're saying here dominic. Are you suggesting that you only look at certain races to bet on, or are you saying that you have a minimum price with which you'll bet on ?

It is extremely difficult to profit long term from backing only 1 horse per race, unless you have a lot of patience. I've never understood the logic behind this theory. Can you elaborate please ?

And to Vortech, what exactly is it that makes this the statement of the month. There's no substance to it.Barny,
Over 5 years plus my strike rate is around 27% at an average price of $4.50 for Saturday Metro. This is the only day I bet. The notion that if you use ratings you can't win is a nonsense.
I am selective with the races I bet on, and if I don't consider there is value I don't bet. Last Saturday I bet on 16 races (33 bets) across 5 states for 9 winners at an average of $4.57.
Regarding betting 1 horse per race, well each to their own, it simply does not suit my style of betting.
With regard to ratings in general I have never used any of the free ratings available so I cannot comment on their accuracy or otherwise. Using ratings requires a considerable amount of work but the reward is there.

[darkydog2002]

Hi Domenic,
The other thing I feel should be pointed out Re free or paid for Ratings is that there for the SOLE purpose of pointing one in the right direction and not necessarily to garuntee a Daily,Weekly,Monthly or yearly profit.

I wish things were that simple.

Cheers
darky

[Barny]

domenic and darkydog2002, thanks for the responses. My input here is completely biased based on what I have previously said re; Ratings being overbet 'coz .... Before I make a complete idiot of myself I'll look into this and use darkydog2002's recommendation for Ratings service.

My perception about the sole reason for Ratings services, ie provide winners, looks to be off the mark ? I do find that wierd, but it's a wierd caper this gambling isn't it ?!

[evajb001]

Barny, in my short time in the caper i've managed to get my own ratings together based on one of Shaun's spreadsheets using data from cyberhorse. I can't comment on how useful unitab's ratings are however in my testing i could've made a flat stakes profit betting my top rater in every race i've tested (both backtesting and forward testing) since 1 April 2012.

Also across that period on Good/Dead tracks a very high level of those winners were 100 raters on tatts. I can post the graph/details when i'm home on lunch break if you wish.

Ratings can be as good as the inputs you have at your disposal to put in to them, and I also think the calculations in which you use the detail can make quite a difference too. You also have to look at how many favourites lost on Saturday as well, typically tatts 100 raters will be 1st or 2nd favourite and so win quite regularly without making a POT due to being overbet. Quite a few of the winners on saturday (to my knowledge) weren't favourites and were paying $10+. Its not very often you'll find a 100 rater on tatts paying $10+.

[Barny]

Any info would be great evajb001. My selections on raceday only take a short while and I've bagged out ratings for long enough under the premise that "If everyone knows about them then they're overbet", so I like to either have some more ammo to bag them out, or find out that I'm wrong, or find out that they're a useful tool. Related to ratings, I do believe that you need to concentrate on one selection method (eg; Privateer and his Pareto method) and become an ************ in that area, otherwise you're all over the place. So I'll look at Ratings from the perspective that the followers use them as a guide.

[ixlat0]

ratings -- for comparison i have used skyform and racingzone ratings which are both free
http://skychannel.com.au/tab/form/index.php (http://skychannel.com.au/tab/form/index.php)
http://www.racingzone.com.au/ (http://www.racingzone.com.au/)

parameters: startingbank $100 -- betting 1 unit on each selection where 1unit = $5.00

Seymour 30-10-12

==================================================
Top selection
(1) skyform final bank $113 won R8 #7 paid $8.6 (R1 and R3 excluded insufficient horses rated)
(2) racingzone final bank $116.50 won R6 #3 paid $9.30 (R1and R3 excluded insufficient horses rated)
==================================================
Top 4 selections
(1) skyform final bank $131.50 level stakes
(2) racingzone final bank $133 level stakes
==================================================
i don't know how these ratings perform long term but in each case backing more than 1 runner in a race produced a better result :)
also, i'm inclined to think that dutch betting would be the way to go however, not with market prices -- you would have to produce your own priceline!

good luck!

[darkydog2002]

Or use one of the better Handicappers Price line.
i.e
r+s
Wizard online.

Cheers
darky

[ixlat0]

ok! -- i got you (i think) -- so for rank #1 you would adopt the rank #1 price from R&S -- clever!!

[Try Try Again]

Hi Barny,

Swings and roundabouts with these Unitab 100 pointers after last weeks poor performance!

Today there were 34 selections (A,B,M & S) for 12 winners.

8 of these paid <$4 but the other 4 paid $12.00, $16.90, $26.00 & $31.00 - these prices are based on best tote or Top Fluccuation.

Win S/R = 20.9% with 132 winners from 632 bets. 26 winners were Odds on while 11 winners were >$10 on each Saturday since 7th July 2012.

This would have brought you slightly in to the black if you had backed all qualifiers from each of the 4 states.

I would have to say it was a helluva long time waiting to get on the playground though!

[darkydog2002]

ixlatO,
Thats correct.
Cheers

[darkydog2002]

Hey Barny.
Are these 2 the Smokys in the Melb Cup?
Green Moon
Mourayan.

[darkydog2002]

Hope you were following Malcolms tips in the 4th @Goulburn.

[ianian]

FROM 2005 -6 IT WAS INTRESTING -PLACE WAS A BETTER RETURN - FROM MY SAVED BITS AND PIECES MAY BE OF USE

Ratings for 100
Selections : 24582
Win $ : 20998.6
Place $:21739.2

Ratings for 99
Selections : 8259
Win $ : 7291.7
Place $:7332.9

[Try Try Again]

Hi Ianian,

From your figures the clear outcome is you can not just back every 100 or 99 point selection as they are clear losers.

You need to either dispense with some type of races, some days of betting, some type of beast or maybe the horses age or sex or some horses in particular price ranges.

For the latter I generally eliminate any horses priced <$3.30 and >=$10 in prepost markets. This improves S/R and POT% immensely.

Anyone else's thoughts?

[Barny]

I haven't got any stats on Ratings, but I do have 5 years worth of Herald Sun formguides so I'll have a butchers. I agree with your Pre-Post restrictions, this was one of Privateers best filters. I have nothing to back this up but in one of my systems, prizemoney went into profit at $29,999, continued to increase until $99,999 then petered out at $199,999. This was uncanny as it rose as if some perfect mathematical formula, then drifted down until it ran out of steam, Each increase in P'money met with an increase in POT, then each decrease in P'money after $99,999 met with a decrease in POT. It was gradual and consistent and this system had nothing to do with form, so it makes the P'money an even more reliable indicator for mine. So P'money from say $30k to $200k might be worth a look. I'd also look at the number of starts for each runner, and something like 10 to 20 starts will give you a horse that's still got improvement in it, and I'm assuming that the rest of the field will have had enough starts to be able to have whatever formula it is, applied as a Rating. Not much point having horses with very few starts next to their name. I'd only go with Metro.

Anything else, like introducing or deleting your own 'form' and you're **************ising the formula.

There you go, I've got opinions on subjects I know very little about ..... it's one of my more endearing qualities ;)

[Barny]

LG posted that the difference between a 100 Rated horse and a 95 Rated horse was the equivalent of one length ..... Is this correct ??

[Try Try Again]

Hi Barny,

I also look at horses with limited starts (5-20) as I believe they have better chance of improvement than horses with more starts.

The prizemoney - is this average prizemoney or total prizemoney earned?

Horses that start 7 days or multiples there of seem to have a positive effect on POT% and the bank. Your thoughts?

[Barny]

Hi Barny,

I also look at horses with limited starts (5-20) as I believe they have better chance of improvement than horses with more starts.

The prizemoney - is this average prizemoney or total prizemoney earned?

Horses that start 7 days or multiples there of seem to have a positive effect on POT% and the bank. Your thoughts?
Race Prizemoney Try Try Again, its' a race filter, nothing to do with the horse as I'm assuming horse Prizemoney would be part of the Ratings formula.

I don't really take too much notice of days between runs.

[Try Try Again]

Thanks Barny.

My mistake.

[garyf]

LG posted that the difference between a 100 Rated horse and a 95 Rated horse was the equivalent of one length ..... Is this correct ??100=Top.
99=0.25
98=0.5
97=0.75
96=1.0
95=1.25
94=1.5
93=1.75
92=2.0
91=2.25
90=2.5
89=2.75
88=3.0.

Basically every 4 points from the top down = 1.0 lengths.
That's the scale i have always used with them others may be different.

These are for Skyform ratings i have never used,
100 pointers on Unitab as to many horses are rated,
On the same rating sometimes and way to close together,
For me to make heads or tails of, others may have a formula for them.

Cheers.
Garyf.

[garyf]

100=Top.
99=0.25
98=0.5
97=0.75
96=1.0
95=1.25
94=1.5
93=1.75
92=2.0
91=2.25
90=2.5
89=2.75
88=3.0.

Basically every 4 points from the top down = 1.0 lengths.
That's the scale i have always used with them others may be different.

These are for Skyform ratings i have never used,
100 pointers on Unitab as to many horses are rated,
On the same rating sometimes and way to close together,
For me to make heads or tails of, others may have a formula for them.

Cheers.
Garyf.As i was in the process of entering Race=6 at MT-gambier onto,
My spreadsheet now i will use that as an example.

R6
TATTS SKY
1= 100 95
2=90 85.
3=95 100.
4=93 92.
5=90 72.
6=96 83
7=96 80.
8=80 62.
9=89 65.
10=85 73

The winner was 3 $4.0 best tote.

If you look at horses within 3.0 lengths of the top rated on Tattsbet,
Down to 88 points there are 9 horses because they are so tightly marked.

If you look at Skyform there are realistically 3 chances only (3-1-4)

As i said i just used this as i am on this race now.

Cheers.
Gary.

[Try Try Again]

Hi garyf,

Based on the Skyform ratings how do you work out a price for each horse?

Do you use Don Scott methods?

Using the Mt Gambier race 6 as an example #3 was the 100 pointer and the winner, what price would you allocate it?

I have found pricing the most difficult aspect to come to grips with when working with ratings (sorry Barny!).

Garyf - you're advice would be most appreciated.

[garyf]

Hi garyf,

Based on the Skyform ratings how do you work out a price for each horse?

Do you use Don Scott methods?

Using the Mt Gambier race 6 as an example #3 was the 100 pointer and the winner, what price would you allocate it?

I have found pricing the most difficult aspect to come to grips with when working with ratings (sorry Barny!).

Garyf - you're advice would be most appreciated.All depends what you want to do with the ratings once you get them,
For example over the years with these ratings i have found these factors,
To have the most influence on them.

lAST START FINISHING POSITION
T/RATING COLUMN
STRIKE RATE
PRIZEMONEY(AVERAGE)
POINTS IN THE CONSENSUS PANEL.

Most of these are already taken into account before they are produced,
Just i found they have the most influence on the raw ratings themselves.

Mt-Gambier R=6.

1=5.0
2=8.5
3=4.2
4=6.5
5=31.0
6=9.0
7=15.0
8=81.0
9=51.0
10=21.0

Hope this helps don't really want to go into the pricing side of it,
You will just have to experiment a bit.

Don't be to concerned with pricing and betting to overlays all the time,
If you can't price them while this is the preferred option just set a minimum,
Price on a horse until you get better at it.

With the right selection technique you can still win money at the races,
Without having to price them.

Try experimenting with different filters to improve strike rates and profits.

Hope this helps.

Cheers.
Garyf.

[michaelg]

The Tattsbet/Unitab rankings have been mentioned in this thread.

I use them in a Laying the Field method where all runners for a qualifying race must have a minimum of three starts, and it also depends on the price of the fave. The liability for each horse is calculated exclusively on Unitab's rankings and am currently showing a profit on 74 for every 100 races.

If a winning horse is under the odds as per Unitab's ratings there is more often than not another horse over the odds that compensates for it and consequently provides a profit on the race.

I don't know if this is important to anyone but it has got me currently thinking about betting the field as per Unitab's ratings. Maybe someone might also consider Unitab's ratings?

[Barny]

I have found pricing the most difficult aspect to come to grips with when working with ratings (sorry Barny!).


Don't apologize Try Try Again, I've got no idea how you could possibly price a horse from Ratings !

[Barny]

A simple task with notionally backing every runner from Saturday for it's last five (or less if it hasn't had 5 runs !) starts. First column is Race number, second column is the Win S/R% and the third column is the POT. Obviously the negative comments on this scenario is that to "follow them for 5 starts", in some cases where they've only had a handful of runs, you'd have to know they were City Class in advance ?!. The other side of that argument is that there's some seasoned horses running that are being specifically set for The Melbourne Cup and are probs not expected to win ?!

Take it as you will, but I recall Shaun posting that if you back a horse that's won at Metro for it's next 5 runs it will win again in 70% of cases. So assuming the price is OK, in 70% of cases you'll finish square / in front ??, and in some cases well ahead because of the odds or multiple wins.

Is it easier to find a decent horse and follow it rather than try and rate a field ??

R1 .. 22 .. 24
R2 .. 17 .. (21)
R3 .. 20 .. 49
R4 .. 41 .. 53
R5 .. 13 .. (44)
R6 .. 29 .. 40
R7 .. 26 .. 81
R8 .. 31 .. 119
R9 .. 16 .. 76

[norisk]

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/bloggers/simon-rowlands/post-222-040810.html

[Barny]

What are you doing to me norisk ??! ;) Bring back the punt before computers / scientific modelling came in to being !!

[norisk]

Live & learn Barny;)

Seriously though, I have found the pricing technique described in that link very useful.

[Barny]

You're using a scientific approach to finding the 'true' odds of a horse using information that's available to everyone, and your edge is in your consistent approach ? I think I get it, just cannot put it on to paper ..... now where's my abacus gone ? ;)

[Shaun]

I have never done any real stats on this most has been from observations but i still believe that following runners is the best option.

There has always been 2 issues stopping me from doing this.

1) Finding the right horses to follow, although this is less of a problem if we use the old placed at group level idea.

2) The amount of money out compared to money returned, this type of bet would be regarded as a floating bet because you would be adding funds every time a horse ran and the funds returned when it won.

The best option for this is to set some type of time period or runners in the stable, if we continually add runners then we would always be in a negative return.

You have to decide if you are happy with bets spaced over weeks rather than days, you could decide to run with a stable of 20 horses and only adding to that stable once you were down to 5 horses, you also need to decide if you are only going to follow them until they win or continue to follow them.

I still believe that over a lifetime the top grade performers would be in profit, but could you only follow some horses for maybe 7 years of racing, maybe a few but hard to do for all your punting, this would be a long term investment like stocks, but like stocks if you find the right horse it could return some nice profits.

Lets just look at the winners last Saturday in Melbourne.


B2P = bet to prices
Race 1 8 Starts 2 Wins B2P 116.8%
Race 2 18 Starts 8 Wins B2P 53.3%
Race 3 5 Starts 2 Wins B2P 130.9%
Race 4 4 Starts 3 Wins B2P 78.4%
Race 5 33 Starts 10 Wins B2P 112.4%
Race 6 15 Starts 3 Wins B2P 86.4%
Race 7 9 Starts 4 Wins B2P 304.8%
Race 8 11 Starts 4 Wins B2P 176.7%
Race 9 14 Starts 8 Wins B2P 78.8%

I know this seams very random but you could do this any Saturday as this shows over a lifetime good horses make a profit.

[Barny]

Shaun, there was also a poster on here who only looked at Group Placed horses. Can't recall who the poster was but I'll look for it later.

This poster allocated points for a Win or Placing in a Group event. That is he / she Rated them. The better the race, the more points allocated for the Win / Place ..... ? So these horses had a Rating based soely on Group level performance. He / She gave examples of backing a horse that hadn't won for yonks but was the Top Rated horse in this particular race based on it's Rating. The logic was that even a good horse out of form for a while would come back and win sometime, somewhere. I think the one example was for a horse racing in Tassie which won at good odds. It was backed because it was the only "Rated" horse in the race.

This system didn't invlove backing these horses all the time, it Rated the horses based on how they'd performed at Group level.

I also recall the comments about Adelaide Oaks winner / placings earning less Ratings points that a Qld event. My memory's a bit vague, but essentially this poster did not assume every Group 1 event for example, should have the same amount of points allocated. He / She actually rated the Group events and allocated points accordingly.

Sounds like a cracking idea to me.

[Barny]

Remember Tears I cry ? Fluked a Group 1, then didn't win for almost 20 years, then strung together 3 wins in a row ?? Now I would think is an extreme case, not the norm, but you'd still get a result because when it put together a few wins it was down very much in class and I doubt there would have been any other Group horses in those races.

Riches await ..... YeeeeeHaaaaa ;)

[norisk]

You're using a scientific approach to finding the 'true' odds of a horse using information that's available to everyone, and your edge is in your consistent approach ? I think I get it, just cannot put it on to paper ..... now where's my abacus gone ? ;)


not exactly, but what the hey, that's close enough especially the bit about 'consistency' - without that we are doomed, whatever our pursuit.

[garyf]

Can somone help me please.


As we all know ratings as a way of identifying the best chances,
In a race doesn't work so can someone tell me this.

'WHY DO RACE CLUBS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD EMPLOY
Handicappers who use ratings to assess the best horses,
Getting more weight than the lesser performed horses.

Can somone tell me the method we need to adopt in racing,
As 'RATINGS" don't work.

Have now lost all respect for Lloyd Williams as an owner,
As he employed Jim Bowler chief handicapper for the V.R.C.
To come and work for him using "Ratings" as a way of assessing,
His horses and the lead up races to which races he should set,
His horses for.

Obviously Lloyd has got it wrong.

Aside from that i want the process the clubs race handicappers now,
Need to adopt to assess horses (not ratings) the melbourne cup for example please.

Cheers.
Gary.

[TheSchmile]

Hi Garyf,

I found this:

VRC HANDICAPPING GUIDE (http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/asset/cms/Racing%20Operations/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20RACING%20VICTORIA%20HANDICAPPING%20GUIDE.pdf)

[garyf]

Hi Garyf,

I found this:

VRC HANDICAPPING GUIDE (http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/asset/cms/Racing%20Operations/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20RACING%20VICTORIA%20HANDICAPPING%20GUIDE.pdf)Hi T.S.

Thanks for that i fully understand this have used,
That plus more.

What i want to know is this.

If Ratings as a process don't work in assessing horses,
Why then do race clubs employ handicappers throughout,
The world to use ratings when clearly we have been told,
They don't work.

I am not saying Don Scott unitab skyform etc backing all,
The top rated every race every day lose of course they will.

Name me 1 stat that only has 1 selection in every race that,
You can bet on every day in Australia that does.

What i want to know is the process we need to adopt,
That accurately weighs up what weight each horse should,
Be allocated (BUT NOT RATINGS AS THE PROCESS DOESN'T WORK)

I myself use ratings as a method of selection then play around a bit,
With the main chances apply some prices, filters, and away i go.

But as ratings don't work i need to know what process me and,
The club handicappers need to change to.

Remembering t.a.b. 1 wins more races than 2 morethan 3 etc.
Done by the clubs handicapper using ratings but how can this be right,
As ratings don't work?.

Cheers.

[norisk]

If Ratings as a process don't work in assessing horses,
Why then do race clubs employ handicappers throughout,
The world to use ratings when clearly we have been told,
They don't work.



hmm, well they do work, just not for everybody;)

[Barny]

Glad you've come out from the Dark side garyf. In answer to your question about what system we should adopt ..... I'm of the opinion that we should allocate say 59kgs to all horses, because weight doesn't matter at all either.

The only reason number 1 wins so often is that it's the best horse in the race, it's that simple.

I seriously don't know whay you people like to confuse things.

[garyf]

Glad you've come out from the Dark side garyf. In answer to your question about what system we should adopt ..... I'm of the opinion that we should allocate say 59kgs to all horses, because weight doesn't matter at all either.

The only reason number 1 wins so often is that it's the best horse in the race, it's that simple.

I seriously don't know whay you people like to confuse things.Doesn't really answer the question (process to adopt) but thanks for trying anyway.

Cheers.

[garyf]

Doesn't really answer the question (process to adopt) but thanks for trying anyway.

Cheers.Let me add this i certainly want you on the forum Barny at,
Least you have a go and stimulate debate whether i or anyone,
Agrees or disagrees is irrelevant it's that you post that matters.

I am in the corner that the barriers and lack of genuine speed,
Unlike last year, may bring about the defeat of Americain and Dunaden,
More so than the weight.

Cheers.
Garyf.

[Barny]

Doesn't really answer the question (process to adopt) but thanks for trying anyway.

Cheers.Yes it does garyf, the process would be to allocate 59kgs to every horse.

I also advocate a flat tax rate too. That will never happen because of the ability of Government's "sleight of hand" to screw it's citizens with so many taxes and such a complex system that no-one can ever come to grips with it ..... Hey !! ..... sounds a lot like the handicapping system to me.

[Barny]

Let me add this i certainly want you on the forum Barny at,
Least you have a go and stimulate debate whether i or anyone,
Agrees or disagrees is irrelevant it's that you post that matters.

I am in the corner that the barriers and lack of genuine speed,
Unlike last year, may bring about the defeat of Americain and Dunaden,
More so than the weight.

Cheers.
Garyf.I think your posts are equal to the best I've read on this site garyf :) It's only recently that I've read some of your posts in the General thread etc. Thanks for your input, I'm sure you've helped many members here, and probably made quite a lot realise that there's hard work to be done to make a quid.