curious

Exactly Chief. No-one is suggesting that a "good" apprentice with a 3kg claim won't make a positive difference to a horse's chance. What I think those posters are saying is that depending which statistics you believe, you can't apply apprentice claims to your assessment across the board whether you think it's positive or negative. It has to be applied to the individual horse. Most would also say that and carried weight in general is a relatively small contributor to chance in NZ racing. Plenty of evidence backs that up. On the other hand, similar evidence suggests that the effect of a .5kg increase in the female allowance may have impacted female win rates on average across the population. As ATA notes, there is considerable variation in assessments of chance in a single race such as have been used in that exercise. You have to remember though that some of those posters are just learning to frame markets and others are not familiar with doing so on NZ racing. That said, I don't agree that it's about backing winners per se. Of course you have to back some winners but whatever rate you do that won't bring success unless you are doing that on runners at value (that is having a better chance and winning at a higher rate than the available pricing indicates). That requires reasonably accurate assessment on average. Some will rely more heavily on one factor than the other. So, some rate significantly based on speed maps, others primarily on time based ability assessments. If you look at the summary of those assessments to date from 370 bets only 11 of those have been on a winner but the ROI is still over 100%, not that I'd expect for a moment that to be achieved in the longer term but the point is it's not the win strike rate that matters to in order to gain a POT.

Interesting. I doubt anyone on the other channel would say claims don't make a difference ATA. Just that the evidence suggests that those carrying claims win at a lower than expected rate compared to those with non-claimers, particularly on heavy tracks.

And it's very different from other Coaches/Trainers in Professional Sport who are employed/contracted by the sport. He is employed by himself and can do what ever he sees fit to that is in compliance with the rules of racing.

There seems to be a proclivity in some of these track drainage projects to try and get it to do otherwise. About to try that here but from my limited engineering design skills and if the understanding about gravity hasn't changed since I went to school, I'm pretty sure that will require a pump. I'm putting one in anyway just to be on the safe side.

What's plain wrong?

At the bottom of the handicap it equals a big fat ZERO. So if you are doing any real analysis of the effect of the allowance you need to leave out those horses not carrying their rated weight.

Did they fix it? Or Fuxx it up?

Not sure I understand the point in your question?

Yep, because that will leave the other 13 runners continuing to run on a competitive basis and thus generating punter interest, turnover and revenue. None of which we have with the current system. Hence declining stakes, foal crops and ownership interest. You surely don't think a Phar Lap type maiden winner should then be competing at the next level with your average type maiden winner at level weights? It's insane to operate a handicapping system like that.

Agree. Not that keen on the idea of the prosecutor and judge being one.

Yeahh agree. Done that plenty of times and didn't fall over (till later) and managed to get the saddle on the right horse (I think). Some of them maybe need more practice.

Burgess Special Review Report - For Consultation - 29 July 2019 (1).pdf

Final Terms of Reference for Special Review of Integrity Bodies.pdf MinisteNo.38 - 26-04-19 - NZTR Circular FY18-19 - Special Review of Integrity Services.pdfrial Advisory Committee Communications Release - Appointment for the Special Review of the Integrity Bodies.pdf

No they didn't. They indicated what you quoted him saying above. That females were not dominating in handicap races (and also that neither were males.) Read them again.

I've posted heaps of data showing the effect. Where's your evidence that it has had less effect?

If you define working as giving females a diisproportionate win rate and getting them through the classes more easily than males, that's true. But in terms of the mission, reversing the 1. Declining foal crop and 2. Declining Broodmare Numbers, no dice.

If you look at the provided stats as well you will see that the 1.5 kg allowance was about right. So why would he recommend increasing it. Not to make the handicaps more competitive but because "to assist the breeding platform an increase in opportunity for this sex must be considered." To identify and confirm the opinions expressed a review of statistics published in the New Zealand Fact Book places the concerns in perspective. The statistics identify: 1. Declining foal crop 2. Declining Broodmare Numbers While it may be perceived that these issues are not relevant to a review of handicapping and race programming, I remain of a differing opinion and am fearful unless these concerns are addressed there will be a continued decline in the racing pool. Bad reason.

Have you even read the NZ Handicapping guide? Horses may receive an increased rating for placing within their own rating or higher rating bands, which may mean that this horse moves into the next ratings band.

oops... pressed play by accident ... This all seems to be consistent with the data in the head post article. It's tricky though because that was evident in the years after the allowance change whereas %s were about equal before it. And we can't say for certain that the allowance caused the shift, at least not directly. There was also a significant drop in starts by lower rated males for example, perhaps due to the perception of the impact of the increased female allowance. There may have been an increase in export of better males. Even more tricky would be the palatability of changing it back to see if that corrects the situation. Especially when it is accepted in Australia and the WFA scale and thus many including the likes of Thommo and the BHA handicappers believe it is correct if you are going to have a RBH + allowances system rather than a pure handicapping system.

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.