curious

That's certainly what we found a couple of years or so after the change and I'd already shown the same in a prior analysis of 8 months of data. starts wins expected % Last 8 months female 924 115 91.5 125.7% male 1304 133 131.0 101.5% And if you only look at carded weight = carried weight, to remove any apprentice allowance effects: Last 8 months female 721 86 69.5 123.7% male 994 96 96.5 99.4%

Except that I don't think I ever mentioned nor thought about "Group 1 Euro Handicaps" nor mentioned the Arc but never mind. There was also nothing fake in that post on the other channel, sorry. I don't really care if you continue to believe that 2kgs = .2 seconds or that you like the RBH system as it is because of the sex anomalies it creates. I do care that among other things it has contributed to an increasing rate of decline in revenue and real stakes in TR here though. Shame really.

OK. I'm not arguing about his opinion in that article. That's not the point which was the BHA comment. You still haven't answered my question on that.

No. He's talking about enable winning a G1 not necessarily a WFA G1 and he clearly doesn't expect that to apply to future G1 WFA races. But you didn't answer my question about the BHA comment. They certainly should be clinging to their day jobs there if they don't want to starve.

Did you read it? It's just an opinion and he went to some lengths to be clear that he WAS NOT referring to WFA racing. I'm not sure if it's your reading, comprehension or maths that's the problem. Probably all three. Did nothing jump out at you there? You've completely missed the point. This is what the esteemed handicappers at the BHA who you hold in such high regard had to say. Is it a pre-requisite for that role to have failed primary school maths? Btw how are your remedial classes going in that regard? “Of course, there are very occasionally fillies who prove to be beyond average." Think about that if you can.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/jul/24/talking-horses-enable-unfair-advantage-mares-allowance-king-george-queen-elizabeth-stakes-ascot-horse-racing-tips

I don't read that as saying that weight makes no difference. If you do, then I'd suggest it is you that has the problem with the English, no? The issue of the impact of apprentice allowances is another matter but all the evidence I have seen suggests that the weight advantage does not make up for the rider inexperience on average. I think that is well established. Here's an example: Allowance 0lbs 3lbs 5lbs 7lbs 11.0L 12.2L 11.7L 12.3L Overall apprentices are a bad thing. In standard races the only allowances claimed are 3, 5 and 7lbs. Each of these riders lose a 1.2, 0.7, 1.3 lengths more respectively than a professional. https://www.flatstats.co.uk/blog/effect-of-weight-in-horse-racing.html You've yet to produce any evidence to the contrary that I've seen.

I think it was you that suggested it made an infinitesimal difference. Not me. And if the BHA handicappers believe differently maybe that's why they have to keep their day jobs? I'm yet to see you or them produce any evidence to support those beliefs which seem to be contreary to that in the headpost article here.

Can't say I've seen any poster on that site claim that weight makes no difference ATA and I'd be very surprised if any of them thought that. Same for posters on the site that Ashley referred to. Can one of you point me to where someone claimed that?

Next. Wrong again. Where did I say that? Certainly not in this thread.

Thommo, I agree that there are multiple problems here but they are yours, not ours. Some of your problems I clearly can't help you with but I'll try to assist with the ones that you mention. I suggest we do that one at a time in line with the topic thread and headpost that CS posted. There may be a major exodus if changes are made but as far as I can see there is a major exodus now with the present handicapping system. I accept, as did Webbey, that there is no appetite from stakeholders for major change to the handicapping system, so let's see how we could improve it within the current framework. Your first point. That's not what I said. I suggested that it is a mitigating factor in the difference on a population basis and that the study in the headpost found that there is a difference. I'm not totally opposed to the rating system having a female allowance incorporated. I just don't think it's necessary and that you would have truer handicaps if each horse was individually assessed to equalise chance regardless of age or sex. When we examined the NZTR data from after the changes, i.e. the female allowance increase from 1.5kgs to 2 kgs., what we found in the 2+ years of data was as follows. It was approximately equal prior to the change. starts wins expected % NZTR provided data female 2927 348 292.9 118.8% male 3512 379 353.2 107.3% And for where carded weight=carried weight: NZTR provided data female 2387 286.5 234.9 122.0% male 2821 310 277.4 111.7% We didn't make any suggestions to NZTR in part because that was not part of the terms of reference but we did do some further modelling using a type of logistical regression to try and determine the optimum levels for weight spread per rating point and for sex allowance. We did share that with NZTR after further discussion. That modelling indicated that the optimum level for the latter was 1.45kgs, about what it was before the changes.

First of all Thommo, for at least the third time, I made NO suggestions to NZTR. I analysed the impact on results that followed the changes NZTR made after the Webbey review based on the pre and post data that NZTR provided. Probably the key point in that review that was ignored or overridden by NZTR was this: The implementation of Ratings Based Handicapping (RBH) was introduced into New Zealand at a similar time to many of the states of Australia. Over the ensuing years since the inception of RBH there has been a definite modification from the traditional and accepted handicapping practices and procedures that have stood the racing world in great faith over a long period. To my disappointment it is apparent that over the past 6 or 7 years the role of the Handicapper in Australia and New Zealand has become that of a ratings adjuster with little similarity to the handicappers of past eras, where there was far more subjectivity and opinion evoked, this traditional style of handicapping remains the standard in Europe and Asia today. If they have the same rating AND they shouldn't be racing at level weights as you suggest, then the handicapper has surely stuffed up the ratings? It's looney tunes to suggest otherwise. You can't have it both ways Thommo. A race run off a system of WFA allowances is NOT a handicap. It's a set weight allowance or weight for age race, such as is available for first starters in maiden races here which is where most first starters begin before receiving a proper handicap assessment.

Long time big Crusaders fan but I kind of agree HS.

Somehow accidentally stumbled on this old thread. And now the threepeat! Traveled at least once on the Lyttleton-Wellington ferry. 1971. Not quite sure but I think it was the Rangatira? Quite flash in them days. A member of the Canterbury-Westland Pony Club Championship team headed for Masterton. We stayed in a house on the Williams' Te Parae property for the course of the event. Team coach was Mavis Harris who trained a couple of pretty good gallopers around that time in Donnybrook Fair and classy sprinter The Blues. Now centurion thoroughbred trainer Barbara Blackie provided some of the preparatory dressage training. Long time ago but still great memories. I think Kaye Cottle won the A1 Trophy that year. We went ok but not in the money. Think I may have felled quite a bit of timber with a tired horse in the show jumping!

Of course, assuming it's a handicap race. Not much point giving them a handicap rating and not weighting them accordingly when they are deemed to be of equal ability by the handicapping system. No conundrum there.

Exactly!

I'm not sure that it is me that relegated the Admiral to cabin boy. He thought that 2yos should have a 10kg+ allowance from 3yos, right? What did NZTR decide to give them? 2kgs?

Wrong again. Mertyl has close to an even chance of beating Bertyl as it is (on average). And once there is performance to base handicapping on then that's what should be used. Handicapping must be based on INDIVIDUAL performance assessment, not averages for sex or age. That defeats its whole purpose. In fact it's plain stupid if you want competitive racing, punter interest and increased revenue.

Wrong again. Under my revised handicapping system the filly which finished .2 lengths from the winner would be re-handicapped in line with it's performance and the ratings of the horses it beat or that finished just ahead of it.

Yeahh..they'd be out of the handicap and start on the minimum.

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.