There has been no "evidence" presented.

You and your boyfriend spouting your (wrong) opinions doesn't constitute "evidence".

Let him cut and paste this non existent e-mail from Phil Smith. That would go some way to producing evidence.

Facts     15 Aug 10 19:53 
This is getting silly now ! I don't profess to know the answer - its not an aspect that forms a criteria in my 'rules' for a bet.However - as someone said on here - this has been written in tablets of stone for the past 200 years.So there must be a definitive answer.It has to be written down somewhere! Someone must be able to produce a statement of fact that once and for all spells out what the process is and how the wfa/handicap rating relate.
Please

In response to the facts post please see below:

How handicapping works

You can vary the time it takes any athlete to run his race by giving him a weight to carry.  For example, it would take Usain Bolt longer to run 100 metres if we strapped lead weights round his ankles.  In fact we could produce an exciting race between Bolt and just about anyone else if we could work out the right amount of weight to make things equal.
Exactly the same approach works with horse races.  We can give different weights to each horse to make things equal.  That way every horse, owner, trainer and jockey has a chance of winning the race.
The weight that you see in the race card is the total burden that the horse will have to carry.  This is the jockey plus his saddle.  If that still does not add up to the weight that the Handicapper has specified then strips of lead are put into the saddle until the total burden weighs the right amount.
Each handicap race has a maximum and a minimum weight that we can allocate and this will be stated in the race conditions. 




Why have handicap races?

For most owners, handicaps offer their best chance of winning a race. Without them, the top horses would almost always win and there would be no point in owning anything other than a top horse. 
For any athlete other than the very elite, there would be no point entering any sprint race that included Usain Bolt.




How a horse qualifies for a handicap rating

In most cases, a horse runs three times in non-handicap races before it is allowed to run in handicap races. 
On the Flat those non-handicaps would typically be maiden races (for horses that have never won).  There are other races for which they would be eligible including Conditions races, Novices, Claiming and Selling races. 
Over obstacles they would typically run in Novice races but there are other races for which they are eligible including all the race types above as well as Beginners races. 
Once they have run three times, the Handicapper can give the horse a handicap rating as long as he feels that there is enough evidence on which to base it.  Understandably, if you fell on all three starts then there will not be enough evidence. 
If you win one of your early races then we may be able to give you a handicap rating sooner.  Over jumps you might also be able to get a handicap rating by finishing in the first four on both of your first two starts.



What is a handicap rating?

A handicap rating is a way of expressing the merit of a horse’s performances on the racecourse.  The higher the number, the better we think the horse’s performances are under that code.  The very best horses on the Flat have ratings in the 130s.  The very best Jump horses have ratings in the 180s.  The scales differ because horses carry more weight in Jump races.
The average rating of all horses on the Flat is about 60 and the average for jumping is about 95.
The handicap ratings will translate into the weight that the horse will actually carry in a race.  If horse A is rated 100 and horse B is rated 90 then horse A will have to carry ten pounds more weight than horse B.  That is the difference that we think would make for an equal race between them.



How the system operates

Once a horse has qualified to run in handicaps, we will usually publish a handicap rating for it.  A full list appears every Tuesday morning on the BHA’s Racing Administration website.
Most handicaps are limited to horses with handicap ratings in a specific range.  If a Flat race is for horses rated 56-70, for example, then nothing rated higher than 70 is eligible for entry.  Horses rated lower than 56 are allowed to run but they would normally be given weights as if they were rated 56 irrespective of how much lower than this they are actually rated.  It would not normally make sense for the trainer of a horse rated 46 to enter.  He would have to carry ten pounds more than the weight that we think would give it an equal chance.  Any horse running under those circumstances is said to be “out of the handicap”.  It would be better to run in a race where he would have his proper weight and a proper chance.
In most races, the deadline for entering a horse is noon six days before the race. 
Once that deadline has passed, the BHA publishes the list of horses entered together with the weights they have been set to carry.  The trainers then looks at the opposition, consider all the variables and decides whether they want the horse to run in the race.  On the Flat that decision has to be taken by ten o’clock on the morning two days before the race.  Over jumps the deadline is usually ten o’clock on the morning before the race.





Penalties

The Handicappers only get the chance to change their ratings once a week, in time for the publication on Tuesday morning.  The latest form that they are allowed to take into account is up to the end of Saturday.
If a horse wins a handicap then its rating will almost certainly go up.  Since we thought that every horse had an equal chance, the winner will normally have run to a higher level than his current rating. 
The average amount that the rating of a handicap winner goes up is eight pounds for jump racing and six pounds for Flat races.  It would not be fair to let the winner run again off the handicap rating from which it has just won since this would not give its opponents an equal chance.  If connections want to run again before we have had the chance to reassess the rating then they can do so but must carry a penalty.  This is typically the same as those average rises; and it is added to the weight calculated from the old rating.  It is the fairest way of making things equal before the new ratings come into effect.


Weight for age (WFA)

Just as there are athletics races for schoolboys, horses can start racing before they are fully mature.  In school athletics there would be no point in getting the best 13yo to run against the best 18yo because the older boy would beat him every time.  You would need to give the youngster a head start if you wanted an exciting and interesting race.
The same is true for horses.  If you want a 3yo to run against older horses then you have to make allowances for his immaturity.  You do this by reducing the weight that the 3yo has to carry to even things up.
The BHA publishes charts showing how much the weight has to be reduced to take account of the immaturity.  These are called “Weight For Age” allowances.  There are separate charts for Jumps and Flat.  Obviously, the allowance gets smaller as the months pass and the young horse becomes more mature.  The allowance also varies according to the distance of the race – generally the longer the race the more allowance is needed to make things equal.
The WFA scales apply to non-handicaps too and are always in the race conditions.  Otherwise it would be impossible to make a fair and exciting race between horses of different ages.
The Handicappers take account of this allowance when calculating their figures.

Apprentice and Conditional jockey allowances

This is a similar concept to that of the WFA allowance for horses.
It is unreasonable to expect a jockey in his first few rides to be able to compete with the very top jockeys.  They need some help in order to even things up.  Without it, owners and trainers will never give them a chance and it would be impossible for new jockeys to get started.
The allowance is based on the number of winners that each has ridden.  Against experienced professionals the allowances are:


Flat races
7lbs until they have won 20 races; thereafter

5lbs until they have won 50 races; thereafter

3lbs until they have won 95 races

Jumping
7lbs until they have won 20 races; thereafter

5lbs until they have won 40 races; thereafter

3lbs until they have won 75 races

Special rules and allowances apply when they are taking on only other inexperienced jockeys.

Research has shown that these allowances do an excellent job of giving apprentices the same chance as full jockeys.  They are the allowances which, on average, they need to offset their inexperience.  Because of this, the Handicappers add the allowance back in when they are making their calculations.



How do Handicappers calculate the merit of the performances?

Every time that a horse runs we try to work out the merit of that performance.  We do it by looking at our previous assessments of the opposition.  We then make calculations based on the weights that the horses carried and their relative finishing positions in this race.
In Flat races one length is typically reckoned to be worth three pounds in sprint races, two pounds in mile races and one pound in staying races.  Over Jumps one pound per length is typical but it might be less in long distance races or on very tiring ground.
As an example, suppose that the winner of a mile race is considered to have run to 90.  A horse that finished five lengths behind it at level weights might be considered to have run to 80. 
Even the simplest calculations of each performance will take into account the distance of the race, the going, the weight carried, the immaturity of the horses, any apprentice allowances, the distance the horse won by or was beaten by and the quality of the opposition.
In reality, calculations are never even that simple for two reasons. 
Firstly, in every race there is a wide variation in the possible level for the ratings.  The form of one opponent might suggest that your horse has run to 100, the form of another horse might suggest 80.  It all depends on which of the opponents (if any) we believe has reproduced their previous form, which have improved and which have disappointed.  Every race throws up a range of possible interpretations.
Secondly, the data from each race is never “clean”.  There are so many factors to be taken into account.  Horses are slowly away, unsuited by the draw, raced too keenly, hampered or get unbalanced in the race.  Things might not have been to the horse’s liking – the going, the track, the distance, the pace of the race and so on. 
The job of the Handicapper is to consider all these variables.  The skill of the Handicapper is the interpretation of form.  To help him he will go through the recordings of every one of his races again and again.  The Handicappers maintain a database with every run of every horse, the level of performance decided by the Handicapper together with notes on every race and every performance.



How those performances affect handicap ratings

For every race that a horse runs the Handicapper has a figure for the merit of that performance together with notes on the race and on that performance.
When a horse is eligible to run in handicaps, the Handicapper must now consider what handicap rating to give a horse.
In its simplest terms, a horse than runs to 80 on each of his first three starts (with no unusual notes) will always be given a handicap rating of 80. 
But what about a horse that ran to 80 then 50 and 30?  Was the debut run a fluke?  Were the conditions of the other two runs very different?  Or is there something unusual and untrustworthy about that first run?  The Handicapper must take a very close look at all three runs before deciding on a handicap rating.
Once a horse has a handicap rating, it may be raised if the horse performs above that level; and it will be dropped if the horse keeps performing below that level. 
Every rating is an interpretation based on the evidence available at the time.  Each time there is new evidence, the Handicapper will consider whether he is still happy with the handicap ratings.  The new evidence might be when the horse has run again; but it might be when other horses have run again.
As an example, imagine that a horse finished second in a handicap.  In the following weeks the first, third, fourth and fifth each comes out, wins a race and go up in the ratings.  The Handicapper must consider whether he under-valued the form in the first place.  If so then he will want to revalue it and the rating of the second might go up even if he has not raced again.  Far more often, the other horses will have been disappointed and he will want to bring down the rating of the second horse even though it has not run again.  When we move a horse because of the form of other animals we call it a “collateral” change.

In an average week, two thirds of those collateral changes are downwards.

Yes, finally it looks like the penny has dropped with them. Shame it took so long to get there. Sharp minds...

You too to$$ers should get a room.......oh you probably already have.

The fact of the matter is I and probably everyone else is bored senseless with your one trick rhetoric that is purely your (wrong)opinion and offers no evidence whatsoever.

Now why don't you Headmaster go and learn some basic maths and you Stake jog on to some other thread where you can offer your usual incredibly unfunny uttering of "It cannot be done "

You all geared up for the naked bagpipes, wospo?  Will flyingbolt be riding pillion?

Cut and pasted from equiname.co.uk's post of 16 Aug at 08.56

Weight for age (WFA)

Just as there are athletics races for schoolboys, horses can start racing before they are fully mature.  In school athletics there would be no point in getting the best 13yo to run against the best 18yo because the older boy would beat him every time.  You would need to give the youngster a head start if you wanted an exciting and interesting race.
The same is true for horses.  If you want a 3yo to run against older horses then you have to make allowances for his immaturity.  You do this by reducing the weight that the 3yo has to carry to even things up.
The BHA publishes charts showing how much the weight has to be reduced to take account of the immaturity.  These are called “Weight For Age” allowances.  There are separate charts for Jumps and Flat.  Obviously, the allowance gets smaller as the months pass and the young horse becomes more mature.  The allowance also varies according to the distance of the race – generally the longer the race the more allowance is needed to make things equal.

The WFA scales apply to non-handicaps too and are always in the race conditions.  Otherwise it would be impossible to make a fair and exciting race between horses of different ages.

The Handicappers take account of this allowance when calculating their figures.

I think that they key sentence is the one highlighted above - i.e. the WFA allowance is included in the Handicapper's Official Rating.

Is that good enough evidence for you, flyingbolt?

You have just seen a paste from the BHA website that says handicappers take account of wfa in their rating.  Yet you still insist handicappers base ratings solely on form and allow nothing for age.

I have reached the unavoidable conclusion that you are impenetrably thick, flyingbolt.

I do not know why I am daft enough to get involved in this squabble but I answered “Facts” request so:

The Handicappers take account of this allowance when calculating their figures.

First, surely you can all agree that a “handicap rating” is solely the opinion of a person, or persons, based around a set of guidelines. Thus, in an all age handicap, if Horse “A” beats Horse “B” by 10 lengths, and it carried the same weight, then on the basis of  “1 lb. equals 1 length”  “A” was 10 points superior for rating purposes. (I know it varies by distance)
If the “A” and “B” were the same age, or there was no WFA, “A” would be rated 10 higher than “B” on that run. If “A” on WFA were receiving 10 lbs this would be taken into account.

I think we have difference of opinion and both parties are trying to argue their case, with little assistance from the BHA.

I can see both views, the BHA is surprise, surprise, ambivalent on the subject.  This means in theory you are both right and wrong.

The Handicappers take account of this allowance when calculating their figures.

What does “take account” mean? It is generally defined as  “aware of”.
If somebody drives to and from the pub they take account of the “Drink Drive Laws” , when they drink. These are generally perceived as “two pints is legal” it does not mean they have two pints! It might be more, it might be less.

What the BHA certainly does not say is that the WFA poundage is added or subtracted pound for pound; if that were the case I would have expected them to state it thus, or in similar fashion.

I think what we are debating can be summarised by this example:

A 3 year old and a 4 year old race against each other, both carrying 9 stone, over 1 1/2 miles in August and finish in a dead heat.

The handicapper now needs to give an Official Rating of each horses performance.

If we assume that the 4 year old ran to his correct Official Rating of 100, then the 3 year old will be given an Official Rating which is higher, say 110, or whatever the necessary adjustment is to take account of its relative immaturity.

If they meet in a handicap 1 month later, the 3 year old's weight to carry will be based on its Official Rating of 110, less say, 9lbs, as it is now 1 month nearer to full maturity.

I repeat, the weight for age adjustment is therefore already considered in the handicapper's Official Rating figure.

Or am I going nuts imo? [smiley:crazy]

You are not going nuts, Stake.  Don't let the buggers get you down imo!

Errrrrrr no.

In my example above, if the WFA adjustment was not taken into account in the official rating, then both horses would be given an Official Rating of 100. This is the thinking which (I think!) flybolt, Wospo et al are taking, and one I believe to be incorrect.

Equiname,

If your logic is correct, and they are given the same rating, then if they meet again, the 3 year old would get the WFA allowance, and will be "well in" by the same amount.

This would not fit with the theory behind handicapping that the aim is for horses to be brought as closely together to make the races competitive.

The reason why trainers try and exploit the WFA allowance, is that they believe the WFA scale itself is flawed (i.e it overduly favours the younger horses at certain points in the season).

ok, one more attempt....

Let's take Sea Lord's win at Goodwood on 30/7 beating Invisible Man.

Official Rating Sea Lord = 106
Official Rating Invisible Man = 101

Sea Lord received 3 lbs.

According to your logic, if we assume Invisible Man's rating to be ok, then Sea Lord's rating should be the same as IM's of 101, less say 3 to reflect the weight he was receiving, to give a rating of say 98.

But, since the official rating needs to then be inflated, to take account of the WFA allowance, Sea Lord's rating is increased by 8, to get to the 106 which you can see it has been given.

              HORSE/SP    AGE    WGT    TRAINER/JOCKEY    OR    TS    RPR    

«    1 16          Sea Lord (IRE) 6/1     3    9-33     M Johnston    106    *    *    »
Royston Ffrench
   


«    2 17    ¾      Invisible Man 8/1    4    9-6 b    Saeed Bin Suroor    101    *    *   
Frankie Dettori
   

Or that is at least how I am reading it....?

any sign of that email yet headmaster?

Haven't a RP. What does it say please ?

Well as far as I am concerned the Ebor argument should be about this. Should the older horses (that have justified their mature ratings) have preference, or should the 3YOs with higher ratings (that assume that they will make average improvement) be given preference. To me proven ability is always more worthy than this assumed improvement so I would stick to weight as the deciding factor in which horses get into the Ebor.

Blackheath, you appear to know exactly what you're talking about and have swelled the number of people who do on this thread to 3.  Hats off.


Facts,
Mr Hutton enters the Ebor debate today (sticking up for the 3-y-os) and, while making an error in para 2, goes on to say in para 4 "The official handicapper will say that a three-year-old's rating is a projection (that word again, wospo!) of how good a horse will be when fully mature, granted normal improvement"

You may find almost that exact same sentence repeated over and over again on this thread and consistently denied by the majority.

Still think you know what you're talking about, flyingbolt???

Excellent news, The Headmaster. I can cancel my appointment with the psychiatrist [smiley:crazy]

But already knows more about it than you... [:D]

I think something's troubling you way beyond the wfa scale, flyingbolt.  Far too many gay refernces for comfort.  You're either a closet or a hater (or potentially both - which would be disastrous).

Anything you'd like to share with the class???

I am not gay and have no problem with people who are, flyingbolt.

You appear to have an issue with Ben because his missus has the nickname 'Bob'?  Shall we add 'intolerant' to thick, old chap???