If you'd indulge me, I would like to have a bash at this. Long time since I've done weight ratings (my spreadsheet still returns old-fashioned odds), but here they are:

3. Ruben 11/4
6. Hardy Steele 11/4
5. Pink Fit 13/2
7. Call Me Syd 8/1
2. Under the Bridge 10/1

My current method (consistency, fitness, class, form) has Ruben $3.80, Hardy Steele $5.50, Cauvery $7.20, Under the Bridge $7.30 and Pray in Vain $7.90.

The way I've been going, this should give people a guide on the ones to avoid!

The horse Foreplay is going to cause a few problems for tipsters and racecallers. On the radio this morning, I heard things like "I like Foreplay a lot' and "I'm very keen on Foreplay today".

HAHA.

Glenn

__________________
There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear.

Retired or retarded? Much the same. I'm retired...

First-uppers bamboozle me as well. I ********** a bit and go to the Wizard formguide to try to see if their previous first-up run is relevant. In the case of Close Encounter, Wizard rated his previous first-up run (beaten 0.4 lengths over 1200 on a good track at Kilmore) at 46.0. The best run of that preparation was his Flemington win 5th-up (56.0). If 56.0, plus a bit of age improvement, was his "expected peak" for this campaign, then his first-up run was going to be some 10kg worse than that. For the "weight ratings experiment", I penalised him 9kg and left him out. Looking back through the other results, I see that the first-up winner Super Elegant (Rubiton Stks) had at his previous preparation received his best rating first-up. If we ignore that preparation (because all 3 runs were on heavy/slow) and look at the previous one, his first-up rating was only 3kg below his best achieved for the preparation. So I wouldn't have docked him very much at all. I don't do weight ratings any more (except for the "experiment"-lots of fun and thanks to all concerned!) but on first glance it looks to me like Super Elegant would have been miles in front. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Yes that's true. I didn't penalize Super at all, he's a great horse who almost always performs, he carries weight and he was always going to be trying to win that race. I returned him his peak on my figs and that made him top pick. He prob didn't run to his best but close was good enough. Again, they are really a case by case thing I reckon. Using their last first up rating means you back a lot of losers, let me assure you of that, as they most certainly do NOT necessarily repeat again. One of Mark Read's comments in this respect is "out well, in well" and that does hold. (ie if they went out to a spell in bad form they come back in bad form, if they went out in good form, they come back in good form).

I'll let you ponder that one, grasshopper.

Duritz.

Well, what I've been doing is taking an average rating from the horse's last start and the horse's last first-up start, but I wasn't confident that was the right way to go. Going by what you reckon Mark Read said, perhaps it may have some merit?

Yeah it may, but as I said, there is really no correct answer. Again, if we had the horse's weight (of course I am talking about it's physical weight, not weight to carry) it would be of extreme benefit, as well as published records of their work. Australian racing is so very cloak and dagger though, there exists this attitude of secrecy, hidden track gallops etc. Backing the horse when it wins, beating the bookie, tricking them, seems to be so important to all concerned, when perhaps the attitude should be that the prizemoney is what we race for. Obviously backing them is a great thrill (I have a small share in a horse who won it's maiden at Benalla yesterday, backing it was a great thrill), however we don't need to be so secretive so that we can get a better price. If it wins, and we back it, we still win, so I think we should publish the track gallops and the horse's weight, have all the information at hand, because - as Hong Kong shows - this makes punting a better proposition, which increases turnover, which ultimately helps the industry. As it stands, I - and I assume therefore others also - don't bet when there's too many horses first up, and the industry loses this combined turnover, simply because the cloak and dagger attitude exists.

Duritz.

I think ALL horses should have to trial publicly before they're allowed to race.

There is a chance of that happening. I think they're trying to get it off the ground in Melbourne aren't they?

i am looking forward to this compitition...i have tweaked my ratings and went 16/14 yesterday with top 4

and today am 7/7 so far