curious

Between .05 and .2 of a length but it varies depending on ground etc. Yes. Why? The filly has 50kgs of body weight less to carry. But if you look at the data in the above study, yes, the male will tend to be more likely to win. If they are first starters, they'd likely be in a maiden race, not a handicap. I didn't say there should not be an allowance in set weight races such as maidens. Actually, that's exactly the reason why you need a greater weight spread within the rating bands. Nothing to do with sex but to mitigate the advantage that higher rated horses have with the current system. Then, if horses can't win from the bottom of the rating band, they have probably reached their level in the handicap system and unless they can drop back or some other system is available to cater for them, e.g. claiming races, they probably need to find a new career.

No. I was asked by Purcell. Not necessarily unfair, but that it may have been contributing to changes in the results (and possibly the racing population) for both genders. No recommendations. p.s. I keep attributing the 2011 review to Carpenter. It was Mark Webbey sorry.

The alternative was put up by Carpenter in a previous review and binned by NZTR. Our evaluation simply showed that the binning had worsened the impact of the handicapping system cf. what handicapping systems are supposed to do, i.e. equalise the chances of all runners. The alternative to achieve that or something close is simple. Scrap the female allowance and handicap/rate all horses on demonstrated recent ability. Ensure that horses are re-rated much more quickly in both directions to a level where they are competitive. Have say a 7.5kg weight spread (1.5kgs per rating point) in each rating band to get rid of the bias in favour of higher rated/better horses. Pilot that, review and adjust as required.

Nope. Wrong. don't know him. Never wrote any handicapping proposal for NZTR or anyone else. Wrong. The sentence you read, if you'd read the rest of the article, was based on what I've already told you. You can't draw that conclusion ... without also adjusting for the ability of each runner, which we did, and could reach the conclusion that the female allowance (or something) was biasing results in favour of females (in handicap races), so you are wrong again.

You've been proven correct CS. And it appears he can only read one sentence and not comprehend the article.

For those that are interested, I note that James previously published a similar analysis of the impact of 3yo allowances. This also calls into question the widely spruiked idea that the impact of weight increases with race distance. https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/does-weight-age-give-3-year-olds-unfair-advantage-you-decide/

It probably is, more importantly though, the interpretation of it. It's beyond others as well obviously including NZTR unfortunately which is why we have a completely stuffed handicapping system. That said, this is not some sort of arrogant campaign to bamboozle those who have a maths phobia. It's the principals that are important here. While I can write the kind of software queries required to do this sort of analysis, I usually get help because the more competent can do what would take me days in minutes. Neither Thomaas nor NZTR among others seem able to grasp this when examining the impact of any variable on results. I may try to explain this in simple understandable terms when I have time. For now, I'd just say that the above has been done right and is appropriately tempered with caution that it is not conclusive and can not be without adjustment for the chance/ability of all runners.

And here's some fairly robust analysis that suggests that the Admiral was wrong and the allowance should probably be removed although I note that's not what you asked. https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/why-fillies-mares dont-need-weight-allowance-highest-level/

Off the top of my head Freda, I think it's 2kgs Oz, NZ, Japan. 3lbs UK, Europe? 4lbs Hong Kong.

I thought you did and of course I agree. You can not draw conclusions from strike rates whether it's jockeys or trainers or females cf males with comparing them to a reasonably accurate assessment of chance the horses would have had with that variable excluded. That's just dumb and one of the main reasons why most punters lose. Do that kind of assessment on the female allowance in the wfa scales and you will arrive at a different answer I suspect.

Check your maths ATA. 2.279m turnover @ say .15 gross revenue is about $340,000. Say half that net = 170,00. What did they give away in stakes? Unsustainable business I'd say.

What does retrospective mean Thommo? Going backwards like you are?

Did you go blind in the Maldives as well or are you off your meds again Thommo? I think you'll find one was a H10 and the other H11, not both H11 as you suggest.

Could easily be done. In the US almost all races are only 30 minutes apart. Horses for the next race should be in the back parade ring, saddled, ready to come in while the previous race is run. Simple. As to the adjudication. Imagine if it took the world cup video ref 10 or 15 minutes to make a decision on a run out. There's be a riot and then next time everyone would go home.

The only problem with that Reefton is that the gross margin on turnover is more like 12-15% so I don't see how you can pay out 25% on average to clubs after all other expenses?

Good idea to move them closer to the contending horse population. Trying to think of a NI track suitable to host them. Castlepoint?

That's certainly a lot more sensible than anything Messara or NZTR have come up with barryb.

Saw that. Who would do it though?

They manage at trials 10-12 minutes apart and a lot more of them. Of course they have to weigh in and out that would take a bit more organisation but they'd have much shorter days for their efforts.

Think you'll find those are the same boring old 35/40 minutes apart. An hour for the million. Not what barryb is proposing at all.

Not sure at this point. It may be too late to turn around. 5 or 6 years ago there seemed to be a glimmer of a hope if things were sorted quickly but it really needed to happen a decade or two ago. The focus needs to be on the product, both the TR product and the wagering product. On the first, it's the same old things. Integrity, handicapping system, track surfaces, stakes structure etc. as well as ideas like Barryb's Racing 20. Such a thing could be piloted at virtually no cost and I think would not only appeal to track goers but also those who might gather for a couple of hours in pubs, clubs and homes to have a drink, a bite to eat, watch a few races and have a few bets. Potential there to expose the young ones too. The wagering product is pretty obvious I think. Hard to believe that NZ has gone from being a world leader with the introduction of off course betting in the 50s to the parlous state it is in today and that mainly by way of delayed reaction to, rather than anticipation of, social change. We now have more of the same with the introduction of the PoC tax further increasing costs to punters and encouraging the TAB to price even less competitively. It's a sad day to have to say this, but I'm not sure if all the necessary fixes were put in place tomorrow that the ship won't still go down. I'm also not convinced that moving the deck chairs by way of closing/building tracks are likely to provide any more than additional costs, put more pressure on already failing tracks, and ultimately worsen rather than improve the product.

Tried to get the Trainers' Association to push for that in the late 90s. Wouldn't hear of it. Too hard. Requires extra staff and organisation, not enough lead time for betting, etc. etc.

Presumably not nominated by the recommendations panel.

Nice idea but when TR is struggling to generate enough revenue to cover half its stakes costs at the moment let alone anything else, how the hell is such a venture likely to cover operating costs, let alone recover the capital costs?

Add to that, the 1951 and 1952 Melbourne Cups were also won by the topweight, making 7 topweights in the last 69 years. And Tobin Bronze won the Caulfield Cup in 1967. Making that 7 in 64 years. Not bad To make things worse, the last winning topweight of the Caulfield Cup wasn't Dunaden. It was Best Solution last year and before that it was Admire Rakti in 2014. That's makes it 9 in 64 years.