Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Coming ×
Bit Of A Yarn

Why fillies and mares don’t need a weight allowance at the highest level


Chief Stipe

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Thomass said:

3 Horses finally meet in a Race...all on Rating 70...a 4yo Colt....a Mare who's so far started in 2 Mares only races...and an early season 3yo filly who's also started only in her age group...

Would you start all horses off the same weight with their 70 rating?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking a 'Ratings based system' here...you're talking something that's not available any more...HK, AUS, SINGAS

...an RBS where sexs need to mix due to the fact our population base is decreasing..

Imagine that Mare being compared to the Colt and having her performance analysed in comparison...

...she's back racing against her own sex after winning...but only receives a marginal increase in her re -Handicap to the runner up...who has to cop it sweet in your world?

Then forcing a new season 3yo Filly to race against older 4yo Colts at level weights off a similar rating is looney tunes...

Once the Handicap race has been run off a fair system of WFA allowances then a rating adjustment can be more accurately assessed...

I know of no system in the World that forces a same age Filly and Colt to race off the same level weight in a first start Handicap as your system requires either..

No wonder your 'ideas' were turned down by NZTR

 

 

Edited by Thomass
  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Quote

Then forcing a new season 3yo Filly to race against older 4yo Colts at level weights off a similar rating is looney tunes...

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.

1 hour ago, Thomass said:

Once the Handicap race has been run off a fair system of WFA allowances then a rating adjustment can be more accurately assessed...

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.

 

Edited by curious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, curious said:

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.

 

Pretty well explained I should have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, curious said:

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.

 

Houston we have a problem...a number in fact

When you commented that due to a Filly carrying less body weight...she should be just as capable of beating a more robust Colt....which is plain rubbish 

Then you failed to acknowledge  that a Filly having been re-handicapped for running 2nd to a Colt...would then be giving weight to another first starter Colt of equal ability to the last one...

Then you tried to tell us that 0.2L (2kgs= 0.2L) was neither here nor there...which NO HANDICAPPER IN THE WORLD accepts...

You also ignored the fact Horses winning in their respective sex/age Bands HAVE to be treated the same as each category, I.e. 2- 2 1/2 kgs for winning...penalised in relation to again facing the same group of horses next time...

Wrt the Rating 70 band example...the 4Yo Colt with 4 wins could have had 2/ 3 recent misses through illness/training off/ unreported injury...any number of things...therefore dropping 4/5 points...While still retaining a higher than 70 ability sight unseen by an unsuspecting Handicapper...

...who then meets a Mare having raced solely in Mares races...and an early season 3yo Filly with an inexperienced 5 starts...at your equal weights...BARMY

Thats how subjective your 'Handicapping' is..

Then, after a Maiden Colt and Filly win at set weights with the sex allowance...both in impressive fashion...you expect them to revert to equal weights in a Handicap next start...is that correct?

Let me tell you..that doesn't happen anywhere else either 

Imagine NZ going alone on this..along with your wider spread...which is extremely unpopular with Trainers/Stakeholders as you know

There'd be a mass exodus to other jurisdictions...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

41 minutes ago, Thomass said:

When you commented that due to a Filly carrying less body weight...she should be just as capable of beating a more robust Colt....which is plain rubbish

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.

         
           

 

 

           
           
Edited by curious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/08/2019 at 2:22 PM, Thomass said:

So infinitesimal difference then....even though the experienced BHA handicappers believe otherwise?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, curious said:

Next.

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

I'm sick of playing your silly little games of miscomprehension....

Moi.."If starting off at level weights without a Fillies allowance, the physically superior Colt should win."

You.."Why? The filly has 50kgs of body weight less to carry."

Clearly your'e suggesting the Filly will be competitive with less body weight...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Thomass said:

I'm sick of playing your silly little games of miscomprehension....

Moi.."If starting off at level weights without a Fillies allowance, the physically superior Colt should win."

You.."Why? The filly has 50kgs of body weight less to carry."

Clearly your'e suggesting the Filly will be competitive with less body weight...

 

 

I don't think the extra 50kg body has much to do with it at all.  Afterall in some cases it would be fat not muscle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what he said..not me

Youre in denial if you think the sex component is on a par physiologically...

Its like Carsa Semenya telling us her bits are all tickety boo..claiming an allowance...then finding she's got other add ons...

The Industry could weigh all horses to level the physical deficit in sex and age...

...or simply accept WFA has always been accepted as a means to find the best athlete...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, curious said:

Stakeholders have read all this stuff....

How absurd to suggest a Mare should receive a penalty for winning a G1 WFA

Itd be like a more solidly built Stallion penalised for beating a less physically developed Gelding at WFA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Stakeholders have read all this stuff....

How absurd to suggest a Mare should receive a penalty for winning a G1 WFA

Itd be like a more solidly built Stallion penalised for beating a less physically developed Gelding at WFA

The question is not if the mare should receive a penalty but if it shoulf receive and allowance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Stakeholders have read all this stuff....

How absurd to suggest a Mare should receive a penalty for winning a G1 WFA

Itd be like a more solidly built Stallion penalised for beating a less physically developed Gelding at WFA

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, curious said:

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.

And you're too thick to realise WFA includes not only age but sex allowances..

ITS A GENERIC TERM FFS

Hes talking about ENABLE winning in a WFA race then receiving a penalty for winning...

"Or, we could say that a horse gets the mares allowance only until she wins a Group One against males. After that, she must race against males on level terms. It would be a pretty simple tweak to make and there’s no way it would stop a horse like Enable from going back to the Arc after she’s won it once."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, curious said:

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.

F me...is this a wind up?  You're as stupid as your mate...

Oh yea you're right about there being a shit load of non G1 WFA races over there eh?

And when he mentions the 'ARC' it's probably about the Auckland RC and not the WFA ARC at Long f in Champ...in the FUTURE.?

FFSx 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pointless debating you mate...

Your knowledge base is coming from base ignorami...a disease that has its feelers all over the net...

"Yeahh... Thommo's's having  a 'mare isn't he? 

Now I think I need a drink before I can face reading any more of Thommo's nonsense."

Then you doubled down with a spray that included fake shit

" Group 1 Euro 'Handicaps'...where no Euro Group Racing included Handicaps

...and you thought The Arc was a Handicap 

You also believe in tooth fairies...as Jockeys claiming 2kg=0.2L...

Perhaps you really mean 0.2 secs which is the correct one and universally accepted by those with gravitas..

NZ's smaller than ever horse population is extremely suited to the RBH system...

..it allows an easy transfer between unisex Band racing for more racing opportunities for one...

...and it especially allows a greater movement of Mares into higher Bands with the better Stake money that includes..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by curious
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%

Edited by curious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...