I agree with you Crash, KV has raised an interesting point about logical rules & I guess we all have them, even if they are not formalized into a system as such.

For instance anyone who compiles their own ratings works to a set of rules of some description, even if those rules are only loosely adhered to.

KV fails to see the logic in having a lower limit weight, and while I'm not sure what Panther had in mind when he started this thread, having a lower weight limit appears to be quite logical for mine.

As an example, at Ascot on Saturday of the 78 starters, 29 of them were limit weight horses, of which only one (City of Ruins) won, so while the limit weight horses represented 37.2% of all runners, they represented only 12.5% of winners.

Now I know that this is just a one off example, and certainly not unique in nature as this is a very common outcome re limit weight horses, certainly in Perth, but any rule that can eliminate so many no-hopers is IMO quite logical.

BTW, for those interested in analysing Perth races, the handicapper provides a very useful tool with the publication of their ratings in the racebook.