South African MR handicapping system

Valid points made by most imo - I also think the MR system is the only practical system we have - I would love for the detractors to come up with something better? It's easy to say that something 'does not work'; not always so easy to come up with something better. No system is perfect and we will always get the anomalies (the Springboks losing to Japan :ohmy: ) - the goal should be to keep the anomalies to a minimum and strive to get better.

But I also agree with Craig in that the system needs some 'tweaking' - first of all imo the 8 point increase limit is not right - also the line horse(s) should be the most consistent runner(s) in the race - whether that's the winner or not - not always so easy to apply in practice though....

Frodo wrote: Valid points made by most imo - I also think the MR system is the only practical system we have - I would love for the detractors to come up with something better? It's easy to say that something 'does not work'; not always so easy to come up with something better. No system is perfect and we will always get the anomalies (the Springboks losing to Japan :ohmy: ) - the goal should be to keep the anomalies to a minimum and strive to get better.

But I also agree with Craig in that the system needs some 'tweaking' - first of all imo the 8 point increase limit is not right - also the line horse(s) should be the most consistent runner(s) in the race - whether that's the winner or not - not always so easy to apply in practice though....

Frodo,we had something better for years IMO...............the race figure system.
General question:a)We seem to have too little stakes for too many horses...............so why do we need reborn careers?
b)I find it beyond belief that a genuine punter would prefer the MR system over the Race Figure system ................chalk and cheese!(mind you,explains why so many throw their money away at roulette)
c)An adjustable handicap system can have no efficacy or integrity without strong regulation of the consistency and "run on merit rules............that is a simple fact and shown up by the ridiculous history of our plate races.

Perhaps I am cynical,but,about a week before the MR system was introduced I was at a function and at our table was the trainer of one of the bigger stables in the country (he has since relocated overseas ) and his comment was "they are now going to let me handicap my own horses by performance and If I don't take advantage,others will,and I will be at a disadvantage".......................what on earth do you think that meant?

Interesting aspect to the MR system is reading the reasons why its "better for racing" than the RF system ..........except..................I cannot recall any article ever complaining about the fairness of the RF system in all it's years that I raced (same goes for the old objection rule) and nor is the current state of local racing much of an endorsement of the "new and improved" handicapping system ..............in fact the financials would suggest to the contrary!

Rob, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one ...........for me, I can't figure out how a system where a winner gets 'penalized' by 6 Race Figure points whether it wins by a short-head or 10 lengths :ohmy: can be 'better' than the current MR system

But then I suppose it depends on where you are coming from - yes for a punter it is easier to identify the 'good things' using the RF system - but some 'sure thing' (granted not as many as with the MR system) will still find a way to get beat; so from a punters point of view the RF system is probably 'better' - but then I'm not so sure that we had more 'successful' punters in the old days - but I'm open for debate on that.

Yes we do seem to not have enough prize money for racing, but that's not the fault of the MR system imo - I think it's case where there is not enough of a difference between stakes for a 'minor' and a 'major' handicap and 'feature' races - 'minor' handicaps belong in 'minor' centers imo - and then it's up to the owner to decide if it's worth it to continue.

The object of a handicap is surely to give every contestant the same theoretical chance of winning and I think the MR system is the best way to do that - and as regards to the comments of the trainer, you will always find those trying to beat the system whether you have Race Figures or Merit Ratings - like that old joke about Churchill (I think it was) who asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a thousand pounds ............Yes .......and how about 10 pounds .......Certainly not, what do you think I am..........We have already established that, we are now just haggling about price

Frodo wrote: Rob, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one ...........for me, I can't figure out how a system where a winner gets 'penalized' by 6 Race Figure points whether it wins by a short-head or 10 lengths :ohmy: can be 'better' than the current MR system

But then I suppose it depends on where you are coming from - yes for a punter it is easier to identify the 'good things' using the RF system - but some 'sure thing' (granted not as many as with the MR system) will still find a way to get beat; so from a punters point of view the RF system is probably 'better' - but then I'm not so sure that we had more 'successful' punters in the old days - but I'm open for debate on that.

Yes we do seem to not have enough prize money for racing, but that's not the fault of the MR system imo - I think it's case where there is not enough of a difference between stakes for a 'minor' and a 'major' handicap and 'feature' races - 'minor' handicaps belong in 'minor' centers imo - and then it's up to the owner to decide if it's worth it to continue.

The object of a handicap is surely to give every contestant the same theoretical chance of winning and I think the MR system is the best way to do that - and as regards to the comments of the trainer, you will always find those trying to beat the system whether you have Race Figures or Merit Ratings - like that old joke about Churchill (I think it was) who asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a thousand pounds ............Yes .......and how about 10 pounds .......Certainly not, what do you think I am..........We have already established that, we are now just haggling about price

Frodo ,I seldom disagree with your logic,so I see your point of view ................what we disagree on is the principle!
Racing is and has always has been,like any big money pastime, fraught with manipulation,so introducing a system that creates even more unregulated opportunity is a concern.
Its like having a motor race based on handicap ..............you can't have some cars handicapped while running on 3 cylinders!!!!!...................which is what is happening with racing!

(BTW remember ,whether a horse wins by a short head or 10 lengths can be manipulated too!)

rob faux wrote: Interesting aspect to the MR system is reading the reasons why its "better for racing" than the RF system ..........except..................I cannot recall any article ever complaining about the fairness of the RF system in all it's years that I raced (same goes for the old objection rule) and nor is the current state of local racing much of an endorsement of the "new and improved" handicapping system ..............in fact the financials would suggest to the contrary!

Way back I recall Peter Duffield of the Rand Daily Mail crying out for change from the Race Figure system because Denim Dandy was rated 1kg or 2kg more than Wolf Power for the Germiston November... He cried out before the race and the result was 1st Wolf Power and Denim Dandy last. (I think it was Denim Dandy)

Mac wrote:

rob faux wrote: Interesting aspect to the MR system is reading the reasons why its "better for racing" than the RF system ..........except..................I cannot recall any article ever complaining about the fairness of the RF system in all it's years that I raced (same goes for the old objection rule) and nor is the current state of local racing much of an endorsement of the "new and improved" handicapping system ..............in fact the financials would suggest to the contrary!

Way back I recall Peter Duffield of the Rand Daily Mail crying out for change from the Race Figure system because Denim Dandy was rated 1kg or 2kg more than Wolf Power for the Germiston November... He cried out before the race and the result was 1st Wolf Power and Denim Dandy last. (I think it was Denim Dandy)

The only way that could have occurred is if Denim Dandy had won more races than Wolf Power............so how unfair is that? (also running last suggests the rating wasn't the problem) Mr Ronnie Skjoldhammer was the owner of Denim Dandy and that is a story all of its own!

rob faux wrote:

Frodo wrote: Rob, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one ...........for me, I can't figure out how a system where a winner gets 'penalized' by 6 Race Figure points whether it wins by a short-head or 10 lengths :ohmy: can be 'better' than the current MR system

But then I suppose it depends on where you are coming from - yes for a punter it is easier to identify the 'good things' using the RF system - but some 'sure thing' (granted not as many as with the MR system) will still find a way to get beat; so from a punters point of view the RF system is probably 'better' - but then I'm not so sure that we had more 'successful' punters in the old days - but I'm open for debate on that.

Yes we do seem to not have enough prize money for racing, but that's not the fault of the MR system imo - I think it's case where there is not enough of a difference between stakes for a 'minor' and a 'major' handicap and 'feature' races - 'minor' handicaps belong in 'minor' centers imo - and then it's up to the owner to decide if it's worth it to continue.

The object of a handicap is surely to give every contestant the same theoretical chance of winning and I think the MR system is the best way to do that - and as regards to the comments of the trainer, you will always find those trying to beat the system whether you have Race Figures or Merit Ratings - like that old joke about Churchill (I think it was) who asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a thousand pounds ............Yes .......and how about 10 pounds .......Certainly not, what do you think I am..........We have already established that, we are now just haggling about price

Frodo ,I seldom disagree with your logic,so I see your point of view ................what we disagree on is the principle!
Racing is and has always has been,like any big money pastime, fraught with manipulation,so introducing a system that creates even more unregulated opportunity is a concern.
Its like having a motor race based on handicap ..............you can't have some cars handicapped while running on 3 cylinders!!!!!...................which is what is happening with racing!

(BTW remember ,whether a horse wins by a short head or 10 lengths can be manipulated too!)

To me it seems as if you do not have a problem with the MR system in terms of it giving all contestants in a handicap the same theoretical chance of winning - you do have a problem because it lends itself to manipulation. I would argue that this is not the fault of the system, is it not the failure to regulate and control that is really the problem? One does not throw away a car, just because you can't drive it properly ?

And with that I will bow out of this discussion - some of us still has to work for a living

There's a fascinating story about Skjoldhammer, Denim Dandy and Terrence Millard of the Arctic Cove Met. Shall repost if I can find.

Back to the topic:
In a "handicap" race should a horse who has won say seven bread and butter races be weighted more than a horse who has won say six group races?
What if the former horse has won all his races in Kimberley?
What if both horses have subsequently lost their form over many races? Should that be the end of their racing careers?

In "handicaps" what about weighting horses on income earned over a lifetime or a period. Past value of money would have to be normalised into present value but thats not difficult.

Race 7 at Fairview today is an example of why the MR system is making horseracing a lottery .
Every single horse is rated between 2.5 and 18.5 lengths below the best ability rating it has previously earned..........................Anybody having a bet is guessing which one may suddenly run to it's ability!
Having a bet in most handicaps is like equine roulette so it is no wonder 95% of punters lose!
MR handicaps are full of these anomalies and its also why P6 carryovers are the norm!

Mac wrote: There's a fascinating story about Skjoldhammer, Denim Dandy and Terrence Millard of the Arctic Cove Met. Shall repost if I can find.

Back to the topic:
In a "handicap" race should a horse who has won say seven bread and butter races be weighted more than a horse who has won say six group races?
What if the former horse has won all his races in Kimberley?
What if both horses have subsequently lost their form over many races? Should that be the end of their racing careers?

In "handicaps" what about weighting horses on income earned over a lifetime or a period. Past value of money would have to be normalised into present value but thats not difficult.

Mac,that makes some sense and maybe worth consideration.............what is unfair is a 1 x winner being denied a 2nd win by an 6 yr old 6x winner who is now running 30 points below it's previous best ..........................my biggest gripe with the system is the way "ability" can be reduced!!!!!!just asking for manipulation.

Mac wrote: There's a fascinating story about Skjoldhammer, Denim Dandy and Terrence Millard of the Arctic Cove Met. Shall repost if I can find.

Back to the topic:
In a "handicap" race should a horse who has won say seven bread and butter races be weighted more than a horse who has won say six group races?
What if the former horse has won all his races in Kimberley?
What if both horses have subsequently lost their form over many races? Should that be the end of their racing careers?

In "handicaps" what about weighting horses on income earned over a lifetime or a period. Past value of money would have to be normalised into present value but thats not difficult.

Mac ,I know of a July story .................due to betting patterns,Denim Dandy was given a pre-race dope test, which I think was the first time it had been done in SA!