curious Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 18 hours ago, curious said: 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. Seriously..let it go...then take some comprehensive comprehension 101's Of course you referred to his opinion when you said...." he wasn't referring to WFA racing"... ....when he was...'GENERICALLY' speaking...do you even know what that means? After he said..."Or, we could say that a horse gets the mares allowance only until she wins a Group One against males." You said.." he went some lengths to be clear he WAS NOT referring to WFA racing" When not only G 1's in Europe are all WFA but the ENTIRE Group system As for RBH " contributing to the rate of decline in revenue" What a load of unadulterated crap... You and the other Sultan of Sophistry dreams of a return to some other system that none of our competitors have and expect the World to suddenly start investing here? pfttt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 18 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Haven't we made it worse though by increasing the fillies and mares allowance to 2kg? Have you even read the NZ Handicapping guide? The IDEAL system for NZ's decreasing population is clearly this one...rubber stamped by our neighbors By treating all horses as 4yo Males the transparency of the system is clear for all to see and plan for... These other clowns want a system that includes a neddy putting in a Phar Lap type performance first up...going straight to Open class... ..where owners have no chance of working progressively through the Grades... Thatll go down well with the likes of Jelly Williams trying to educate inexperienced horses into a long career won't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 36 minutes ago, Thomass said: Have you even read the NZ Handicapping guide? The IDEAL system for NZ's decreasing population is clearly this one...rubber stamped by our neighbors By treating all horses as 4yo Males the transparency of the system is clear for all to see and plan for... These other clowns want a system that includes a neddy putting in a Phar Lap type performance first up...going straight to Open class... ..where owners have no chance of working progressively through the Grades... Thatll go down well with the likes of Jelly Williams trying to educate inexperienced horses into a long career won't it? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Of course and G 1 placed maidens...into the NEXT grade BUT NOT THROUGH TO OPEN CLASS...as you want 'pure' Handicapping bliss...where inexperienced 2-3 start 3yo's get hammered by older hardened 20 start Geldings..off the same 'handicap' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Thomass said: Have you even read the NZ Handicapping guide? The IDEAL system for NZ's decreasing population is clearly this one...rubber stamped by our neighbors By treating all horses as 4yo Males the transparency of the system is clear for all to see and plan for... These other clowns want a system that includes a neddy putting in a Phar Lap type performance first up...going straight to Open class... ..where owners have no chance of working progressively through the Grades... Thatll go down well with the likes of Jelly Williams trying to educate inexperienced horses into a long career won't it? Why is the horse population declining? Giving fillies and mares the 2kg allowance seems to have exacerbated the issue. Why is the handicapping system "ideal" when it seems to be failing? Just because someone else does something similar? Analysis indicates that the bias is now skewed favourably towards fillies and mares which I guess only helps one part of the industry and that is the breeders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 15 minutes ago, Thomass said: where inexperienced 2-3 start 3yo's get hammered by older hardened 20 start Geldings..off the same 'handicap' Where is your quantitative analysis to support this "theory"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Where is your quantitative analysis to support this "theory"? As I say...read the Handicapping guide..do you want the link? Then go on to read the review we had... Read and learn From the statistical information included it is difficult to justify the decision to have a reduced fillies and mares allowance in the handicap events. The figures suggest that the female sex are not dominating any class of race save for the recently introduced Rating 70 set weight events where the age and sex allowance is incorporated within the actual race condition weight. An interesting fact contained within the statistics is the anomaly in the ratio between the male and female sexes as the quality of races increase. If there are a significant number of colts being sold on and thus reducing the overall pool of that sex, then why are the females not dominating the horse pool number wise at all levels of competition? This can only suggest that the fillies and mares are not competitive under the current structure or there are lack of programming options that ensure connections can see reason for keeping their fillies and mares in training. It is apparent that the mares unlike other regions are unable to collate a significant number of wins in New Zealand, whilst competitive at the one and two win level, unless stakes performed, opportunity soon decreases and as the quality of competition increases to success rate of the mares decline. On reviewing the differentials between the mare pools within Australia and New Zealand it is noticeable that the better performed fillies and mares in Australia win significantly more races. This fact cannot be denied, to assist the breeding platform an increase in opportunity for this sex must be considered. Edited August 6, 2019 by Thomass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Thomass said: The figures suggest that the female sex are not dominating any class of race save for the recently introduced Rating 70 set weight events where the age and sex allowance is incorporated within the actual race condition weight. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, curious said: 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. Exactly a decision made to support the breeders but with unintended consequences i.e. it hasn't stopped the declining foal crop and declining broodmare numbers primarily because it has made it harder to make any money racing a gelding! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, curious said: 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. Seriously? A 0.5kg in 'your' World is sfa of 5/8 of f all though.... =? You tell moi...when it gets to infinitesimal I'm totes lost He identified the problem to a tee...Mares were having trouble getting through the classes...what I said RBH is perfect for that process...and it's working Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 Just now, Thomass said: Seriously? A 0.5kg in 'your' World is sfa of 5/8 of f all though.... =? You tell moi...when it gets to infinitesimal I'm totes lost He identified the problem to a tee...Mares were having trouble getting through the classes...what I said RBH is perfect for that process...and it's working Perhaps but to the detriment of fair and equal handicap races! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Exactly a decision made to support the breeders but with unintended consequences i.e. it hasn't stopped the declining foal crop and declining broodmare numbers primarily because it has made it harder to make any money racing a gelding! 0.5 kgs is having that much affect eh? Wake up... without a RBH system we'd be in dire straits Have you read...ANYTHING yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: Perhaps but to the detriment of fair and equal handicap races! Obviously not...go away to bed and read it...or you just enjoy making ill informed statements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 Just now, Thomass said: Obviously not...go away to bed and read it...or you just enjoy making ill informed statements? Read what? The section you selectively quoted? The bit you need quote has F-all quantitative evidence to back it up and is purely subjective speculation no doubt paid for by the big breeders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, Thomass said: 0.5 kgs is having that much affect eh? Wake up... without a RBH system we'd be in dire straits Have you read...ANYTHING yet? I've posted heaps of data showing the effect. Where's your evidence that it has had less effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Read what? The section you selectively quoted? The bit you need quote has F-all quantitative evidence to back it up and is purely subjective speculation no doubt paid for by the big breeders. He's posted 6 years of figures indicating the need for what he suggested they do.... Have YOU READ ANYTHING YET...or do I have to post all links?? The RBH has absolutely nothing to do with our present situation...it improved our dire straits But then we had the massive influx of ridiculous SW& f all Penalty races that helped aging Geldings no end... ...to the detriment of Punting friendly Handicaps Edited August 7, 2019 by Thomass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 Perhaps he did post a shyte load of figures but the analysis was WRONG! The things that he was trying to fix and gone in reverse. Now there is an inequitable bias towards females! To the detriment of all other participants AND good competitive ("Punter Attractive") handicap racing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Thomass said: He's posted 6 years of figures indicating the need for what he suggested they do.... 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. Edited August 7, 2019 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Perhaps he did post a shyte load of figures but the analysis was WRONG! The things that he was trying to fix and gone in reverse. Now there is an inequitable bias towards females! To the detriment of all other participants AND good competitive ("Punter Attractive") handicap racing! Go away... You're simply making wild claims of a non factual assumptive basis... ....and then your fellow agent provocateur thinks reducing the allowance back by 0.5 kgs will make 0.05/8 ths of f all of a length difference cop on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 16 minutes ago, Thomass said: Go away... You're simply making wild claims of a non factual assumptive basis... ....and then your fellow agent provocateur thinks reducing the allowance back by 0.5 kgs will make 0.05/8 ths of f all of a length difference cop on Pot Kettle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 20 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Perhaps he did post a shyte load of figures but the analysis was WRONG! The things that he was trying to fix and gone in reverse. Now there is an inequitable bias towards females! To the detriment of all other participants AND good competitive ("Punter Attractive") handicap racing! Says a website owner who gets confused reading race results v an actual Handicapper with GRAVITAS in the game How did the bedtime reading go last night? Did you take into account the fact our blue blood boys get shipped...and smart operators like Davo realised this... ...and simply go out and buy superior speedy Aussie breds? Remembering our system should stay true to 'Pure' World Handicapping and refuse to accept we're special needs with special rules...if indeed you believe Females are dicking the poor Males...which they're not Edited August 7, 2019 by Thomass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Thomass said: Remembering our system should stay true to 'Pure' World Handicapping and refuse to accept we're special needs with special rules...if indeed you believe Females are dicking the poor Males...which they're not "Pure" World Handicapping isn't as "pure" as you suggest. That aside a handicapping system is supposed to equalise every horse's chances in a particular race by using weight. Given that every jurisdiction is different in terms of horse composition and racing environment one size cannot fit all. Curious has provided some analysis that show females are at an advantage over males with the 2kg allowance. Before it was increased he shows that there was little significant difference. When the 2kg allowance was first mooted the objective was to increase "fillies and mares participation" as well as the other non handicapping objectives stated earlier in this post. There was also discussion around that fact that females have less average starts than males. In my opinon having looked at the analysis increasing the allowance would NOT achieve the objectives but would distort the handicap to the detriment of fair and equal racing. Not surprising the average start per female has not increased. I also doubt that female participation has increased. Although Mr Saundry has stopped providing us with regular data as Mr Purcell did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.