the "ringside grannie" has put the gloves squarely on now

That's much more like it, FB.  Good to clear your position up so when the H'capper explains this (AGAIN) on his blog we can be clear who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

Just one Q for now, if the rating is not inflated initially and is a pure expression of the horse's form, why would we bother having to reduce his weight when he races against his elders???  If the mark was bang on AND you applied a 12lb WFA allowance to a 3-y-o's weight, which, let's remember, had been calculated off the back of a rating that hadn't been artificailly boosted already, you would be letting the bloody thing in 12lb light ffs.  Blimey.

Finally, the early bath had to come.

OUT..OF...YOUR...DEPTH.

Just a quick one.

Nideeb.

Rated 106 when he last ran on Oct 1st 2009. If his rating was artificially boosted because of his age why is he still rated 106 today over 10 months later not having run in the meantime ???

Err no . That is the opposite of what you said.

That is what Win Only,Zilzal and I said.


You said the rating was "artificially boosted".

Now jog on you silly man.

You don't get it FB and are being insulting too, but I shall keep trying.  (Have given up on wospo so will let him mug himself off from the sidelines).

Let's take Nideeb.  His rating of 106 was artifically boosted because of his age. It is not an expression of his pure form.  It is a projection.

To use your example, you may want to ask yourself the reverse question:  If Nideeb's original rating had not been boosted artifically, why is he still rated 106 10 months later when the world and his wife knows horses have to get stronger and faster (99% of the time) between 2 and 3? Surely, in keeping with the weight for age scale, the horse should now be rated in the 120s as the August 3-y-o Nideeb will be a lot better than the October 2-y-o Nideeb.  The answer, FB, is that the original rating is artifically boosted to account for age.  It may help if you accept the idea of ADDING wfa into a rating rather than the more common understanding of taking it off a weight.

A predictable, but nevertheless depressing, response.

I'm not sure you've got any grasp of the facts at all FB tbh, but I shall reisit the urge to sink to the level you and wospo seem so keen to operate on. 

Now why on earth would I want to e-mail those boys?  I strongly suspect they'd row in with the popular misconception that pervades on this thread.  I'll e-mail Phil Smith instead as it's his team's techniques that we're debating.....word of warning to FB et al, brace yourself for the response.

Swagger a good question that I don't know the answer to.
Headmaster, it seems to me that you and your sparring partners are saying the same thing in a different way, and much heat is being generated about not a lot.

The handicapper rates a horse on its merits and gives it a numerical rating for its form - irrespective of age, or the age allowance known as weight for age. The handicapper does not allow anything at all himself, nothing, zero zilch, for age.

However becuase there exists a weight for age scale, when the weights for a race like the Ebor are published, the handicap is made up of horses that have the weight they are set to carry automatically adjusted by the weight for age scale to allow for the age of each horse. This is nothing at all to do with the handicapper - he just gives a horse a rating.

So for example a 4yo rated 100 against a 3yo rated 100, would be required to give the 3yo weight. The weight concessions starts off quite high in May and getsa progressively less through the year. Again the handicapper boosts no actual rating. The weight for age scale does it all automatically.

Some people like brough Scott have argued for the end of the weight for age scale. others, like Timeform, argue very well that some weight for age allowances are wrong (they think 2yo's get too much weight in races like the Nunthorpe and they are right actually! All these points are arguments about the merits of the weight for age allowances. That is not at all the same thing as a handicapper making hisn own arbitrary adjustments of a horse's abilty rating according to its age. he does not do this.

Hope that is clear.

good post

Thanks FB - that makes sense as that equates with how the RP have listed the runners from Demolition down to McCarthur. So it looks like my fancy Red Cadeaux will just about get in the Ebor, hopefully Fallon will be booked as well.

I thought it was a random ballot tbh, unfair any other way.

Strange thread btw, not really sure what you're all trying to prove given you all understand that 3 year olds improve in general.

Right then - Day 3

cot, if you don't mind I'll turn to you as you seem an eloquent chap and hopefully won't start hurling insults if I dare to disagree with you.


The handicapper rates a horse on its merits and gives it a numerical rating for its form - irrespective of age, or the age allowance known as weight for age. The handicapper does not allow anything at all himself, nothing, zero zilch, for age.

This statement is fundamentally wrong, although I realise I'm in a minority of one and seemingly unable to convince people otherwise.

The handicapper absolutely factors in age when giving a horse a rating, by adding on the weight-for-age allowance to a horse's mark.  FB, wospo and a few others won't have this at all but hopefully you will understand.  Let's look at this example....

18/06 Newmarket
Man Of Action 9-02
Sarasota Sunshine 9-01

MoA beat SS a length so what are both horses rated on their next start? MoA is on 96 and SS is on 79.  Now according to the majority that would be a ridiculous turnaround in the weights.  There is now 17lb between them when previously MoA only gave SS a pound and only beat her a length.  The answer is that MoA is a 3-y-o so his rating has the wfa allowance/projection, call it what you will, added onto it.  When they actually meet on the racecourse the difference won't be 17lb because MoA will then get the wfa allowance deducted back off his rating to set the weights.  If the system worked as everyone thinks it does MoA would probably be on 81 as opposed to 96 because the handicapper 'doesn't allow anything for age' and is just loooking at horse A giving horse B a pound and beating it a length. 

If the handicapper didn't allow for immaturity, every 2 and 3-y-o's mark would have to go up a pound every two and a half weeks or so in line with the wfa scale.  As FB keeps pointing out for the wrong reason, the marks stay the same because they have wfa built in.

I'm VERY glad you're on this thread, Stakey!!

Think it may have a chance of getting in the race,needs 10 to come out,a couple of the 5 day decs say they will not run.

I have wospo, it starts off...

"You are correct in all you say."

Do I need to say anymore?  Will you just accuse me of lying? Do you actually own a set of bagpipes or will you be renting them?

^wospo

Maybe the second sentence of the reply will tempt some of the luddites back out again....

"It is a projection granted normal improvement."

What a silly @rse you are ,Headmaster.