What factors does the handicapper ignor?

[Dirk Gently]

I have been thinking that by concentrating on factors that the handicapper doesn't factor into his calculations when setting weights, a new angle might deliver some value horses. My own method of handicapping often throws up TAB no. 1 horse, which means I agree with the handicapper.....its when it throws up a number greater than 5 (or at least a horse near the limit) that I get interested. Does the handicapper take into account Jockey, trainer, days since last run etc?

[jose]

None of the above

[La Mer]

None of the above

Neither does he have any say in set weights or WFA races either but you can also add track conditions, running style and pace to the list as well.

[Chrome Prince]

Recent form and days since last run.

[Dirk Gently]

Maybe I should have just asked how the handicapper does his ratings. From your replies I gather that he rates the horses purely on past performance but not recent(last few weeks maybe?) form? If that is his brief does it really stick to it? A friend of mine invited me to the members at Caulfield once and I found myself not three empty seats from the handicapper, should have asked him then......but then again, I'm sure its Not The Done Thing.

[La Mer]

Maybe I should have just asked how the handicapper does his ratings. From your replies I gather that he rates the horses purely on past performance but not recent(last few weeks maybe?) form? If that is his brief does it really stick to it? A friend of mine invited me to the members at Caulfield once and I found myself not three empty seats from the handicapper, should have asked him then......but then again, I'm sure its Not The Done Thing.

That's not quite correct about recent form. The handicapper certainly takes that into account. If the horse won or placed it would receive a penalty and if it failed it could even drop down in the weights. The penalites are explained on the Racing Victoria web site at:

http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/

In part, the handicapping policy reads

"In normal circumstances expect the winner to be elevated by 1½ to 2½kg and in terms of the beaten margins the second horse may go up 1kg, the third horse increased by ½kg whilst 4th and 5th horses may remain unchanged. All other runners may incur a weight decrease."

[Chrome Prince]

Somehow this doesn't translate to reality. There are many horses up in the topweight area, but have very poor recent form. Perhaps because they have achieved in that class before, whereas others haven't even contested that class.
For mine, the whole thing is flawed because the handicapper does a poor job, more topweights win than any other handicapped horse. It should be somewhere around level if the impost is correct - which it's not.

[Dirk Gently]

I agree that the system is flawed and that is what got me thinking about ways to exploit the flaws. Another point is that the range of weights available can't be sufficient to accurately cover the range in horses abilities i.e. there's a bunch of horses on the limit but some are okay and others would be better off on the dole. At the other end I would argue that some horses should be carrying 65kg or more but you just never see it.

The approach I'm considering is targeting horses which are in the middle to low weights that rate the best considering only the factors the handicapper DOESN'T use.

[Chrome Prince]

Spot on Dirk, I also think this is where a great deal of value lies.
It's just getting the right handicapping method to sort them out correctly.

Good Luck.

[Mr ed]

I think the main factor the handicapper doesn't use is luck in running, if a horse gets trapped three wide without cover, and boxes on gamely, or gets trapped for a runs but flies home and just misses out.

[Dirk Gently]

Thanks for the link La Mer, I think I found the reason why I do better mid week and better in Qld than Vic.: Qld and mid week races have a narrower spread of weights than Vic and Saturday races. Also interesting that in Vic (don't know about other states) they allot the top weight first and work their way down and therefore (by their own admission) there will be a group of horses at the limit which will be disadvantaged by the weight scale. Perhaps this is why topweights do well i.e. they are carrying an appropiate weight while those on the limit should be carrying less a lot of the time.

Mr Ed, you raise a valid point but personally I've never been one to back a horse after an unlucky run because I figure maybe that was their big chance this preparation and they blew it. Being hard ridden out wide or whatever must take its toll as well. Do many out there do well out of their "black book"?
Just because the Jock stuffed up last time doesn't mean they'll get it right next time!

[Mr ed]

Dirk, no different to a horse who has been ridden out fully to win a race, but many people will back it next start even though it is either up in class or weight or both. I am a firm believer that horses are of the most part a consistent animal, i base my selections predicting either an improved showing due to fitness or an equal performance of their last start. I don't subscribe much to over the top or past its peak until i witness it in a race, i don't try predicting it. As for having a hard run, it is not always the case many horses finish full of running because they haven't been given the chance to fully extend, and alot of the time if a horse has had a tough trip and no chance the jockey nurses the horse to the line. Just because its losing margin may be increased a good form student should be able to identify where the horse could have or would have finshed with a decent run. Anyway enough of these coulda, shoulda, wouldas i'm off to bed.


Good night, Ed