South African MR handicapping system

Mr Eudey, if merit ratings lack integrity then certainly take FLY to the Jhb Merchants.

Mr Faux, if the integrity of merit ratings were always verified then the prices of the best horses would always be about 1/20 in plate races and 1/50 in WFA races I guess.

Mac,it is Craig please. I cannot win at the weights. Lucky to run a place.

craig have you used the appeal system with the hcapers regarding ffc?

Mac wrote: Mr Eudey, if merit ratings lack integrity then certainly take FLY to the Jhb Merchants.

Mr Faux, if the integrity of merit ratings were always verified then the prices of the best horses would always be about 1/20 in plate races and 1/50 in WFA races I guess.

So Mac , punters should be grateful horses rated 54 beat horses rated 100,receiving 3kg , on merit ........it creates value.... ........silly me!

The dilemma is, that the situation cannot occur.....it is impossible, unless at least one of the horses is incorrectly rated or did not run on merit!
If that is not true then the entire handicap tables are wrong and need to be recalculated.....except we know that to also not be true !!!!
It is with this knowledge that the question of integrity comes in.The NHA are licensed to regulate the industry and unless they do so, the entire handicapping system will continue to be in question....along with the integrity of racing.
You cannot have an adjustable handicap system without strong monitoring and regulation of the consistency factor-a merit rating only has a value if horses are raced on merit!
Let's see how the regulators handle yesterday's situation!

I fully agree with what you are saying Rob.The MR system is a joke...that's why I have learned to study without the use of the MR system.Sure I glance at it but only way after I've done my 'things'.Let's not forget that the MR is allocated to horses by humans using a line horse,and as Craig points out,it can be shit sometimes(or most times).But let's also remember that the handicappers are human and I'm sure that they to follow a set of rules when applying points ect.So we should be looking at ways to overcome those flaws that are currently weighing our traditional form study off.Coz if the roots are shit,what chances do we have of finding the actual winner.
P.s plate races in PE are the worst by far.lol

I'm not sure what's a better system? Generally the MR rating system does ok but clearly fails at some points. I could argue all sorts of cases where I think it is wrong but don't have a system which would be better that many others couldn't find massive flaws in in individual cases?
does anyone?

Pirates, from what I gather the appeal system is flawed. The guys that have tried and spoken to me say that you write your reasons down and pay your money and they choose the points they want. You are not entitled to argue your case in person. Told me to not even bother. More aggravation than getting the penalty and very little chance of over turning their decision as it would prove that the MR system is flawed and that would cause bigger problems. Another trainer has just appealed from here so lets see how his appeal goes.

Rob Faux has hit the nail on the head. Even our best International Trainer, MDK, agrees that we need our OWN SOUTH AFRICAN handicapping system and that MR is not working.
Craig, as per Robs post, you now get punished, not handicapped, because you have a good horse. Racing is about winning and historically, the better horses won more races....Compare number of wins of Cohiba and Fly.... which is the better horse and which horse has won more races ?
Hilton, the appeal process is simply not effective at all. You appeal on writing, may not attend the appeal and this appeal is given to the Handicapper who responds. Basically, as long as the handicapper has not made a blatant error and he can explain why the rating is as it is, it will be overruled. No appeal against the ratings has ever been successful and in spite of your having a good case, the appeal fee is forfeit. The appeal process simply humours us....

while I do not want to get into a fight about the mr system I am totally for it as its primary aim in my opinion is to give every horse a chance to be competitive when it runs in handicaps...this gives owners and trainers a chance to earn with horses who haven't got the same ability as others in the race ..as I have said on a number of occasions not all horses have top ability but the operators has to put on races for the weaker horses in order for them to be competitive and the handicapper has the task of keeping them competitive..the biggest problem facing the better class horse is that the program doent suit them and when plate races are put on for them the field size is often small which doesn't fit in with the operator who knows that bigger fields bring better turnover which drives the game ...another way of rewarding better horses would be to make the prizemoney for their races far higher than what the lower hcap horses earn ..craig if we reverted back to the old system before merit ratings I can tell you that while ffc would benefit finding neverland mr of 51but winner of 4 races ,discourse winner of 4 races with an mr of 61,threshold mr of 61 and winner of 4 races and nightlock winner of 3 races with an mr of 69 allof them would have been retired very early because they wouldn't have been competitive ..yes the mr system has its faults which I wont get into but its the only way forward to meet the majority of the requirements of the operator..

Pirates you are right in your comments about those horses. They are competitive off those ratings. The horses that get hammered are the horses that are just below Group 2 winners probably. FFC is too high off a 107. I think that the rules might need tweaking. If the winner is the most consistent runner and looks to have run to his rating then the handicapper should be able to use him as the line horse and drop the horses behind him and not have to find a horse behind him that is not as consistent and who could quite possibly have run below his rating and therefore pushed the winner up when he had actually run to his rating.

I can remember one of St John Gray's horses, Aluminium I think, was sucessfully appealed.

As a punter I would still want true merit ratings to remain. True ie merit ratings without constraints. For me so far its the only system which makes sense.

As a punter I want opportunities to banker the "good thing" on the day. I want to take 1/3 on a horse that should win like a 1/3 should, barring unforseen circumstances. I don't want moderate horses to be competitive and throw up spook results. I couldn't care less what the operators want, I care what is best for my punting rand.