We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 372 comments are related to the topic:
Harris Tweed - Ebor
Harris Tweed - Ebor
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 372
|
By:
The italics and underlining are mine, but confirms, I’m afraid, what Headmaster has been saying. In essence, a 3yo’s official rating is higher than what the horse’s form is actually worth at that time.
The italics and underlining are mine, but confirms what Headmaster has been saying. In essence, a 3yo’s official rating is higher than what the horse’s form is actually worth at that time. |
|
By:
zilzal1 19 Aug 10 17:51
So theoretically you cannot give a horse a "Real rating" until its reached full maturity and Sea The Stars and Dancing Braves rating was a projection of them at the end of their 4yo careers making Youmzain and Shadari the actual better horses at the time they met??? That is the logical conclusion, Zil. |
|
By:
anyone spotted the difference yet?
|
|
By:
So is every ratings service based on this??, it would appear that on Timeforms highest rated you could only include Ribot,Brigadier, Mill Reef and Dubai Millenium as true 140 horses as they did race at four
|
|
By:
I'm afraid your meaning escapes me.
|
|
By:
lol wospo
|
|
By:
no one?
|
|
By:
So Phil Smith send the same reply, but deleted two words from the last paragraph , hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
By:
i mean paul ....
PMSL |
|
By:
wospo that paragraph was written by Stake not paul
|
|
By:
Unlucky MWospo.
 |
|
By:
But it appears in both "emails" does it not?
|
|
By:
Stevie - that paragraph was written by Paul.
|
|
By:
quick change of tact from old stake there, UL yfsc
|
|
By:
oh right, sorry I thought you had added that bit in when I read it the first time
|
|
By:
It was written by paul, he sent the same reply to the headmaster- but felt the need to change two words in the last paragraph
you two fking bluffers |
|
By:
Stevie Gerrard Joined: 06 Dec 01
Replies: 1064 19 Aug 10 18:27 oh right, sorry I thought you had added that bit in when I read it the first time you are correct in this assumption |
|
By:
maybe he wasn't afraid the headmaster was correct this time
|
|
By:
Presumably (I don't know for sure) he changed those two words (I'm afraid"), because they do not apply if the reply is to The Headmaster?
Fancy that side bet yet? |
|
By:
ffs your nose is growing all the time pinocchio.
|
|
By:
Put your money where your mouth is then....
|
|
By:
zilzal1 Joined: 05 Oct 03
Replies: 3192 19 Aug 10 18:17 So is every ratings service based on this??, it would appear that on Timeforms highest rated you could only include Ribot,Brigadier, Mill Reef and Dubai Millenium as true 140 horses as they did race at four Zilzal, timeform also have ratings for 2yos which are really high, Celtic Swing recorded a 138 for example. But we all know he isn't actually a 138 horse at that stage of his career. It has the maturity built into it |
|
By:
Where is the Phil Smith email?
|
|
By:
Never had you down as a bottler, Wo-Sopo....
|
|
By:
Maybe you can go halves with your mate Bolty
|
|
By:
Stake, I am not betting with anyone on this forum again- I was knocked by 2 clowns - one on ante post, a certain Benji
I would love your "special friend" the Headmaster to post that Phil Smith email, but alas he wont. |
|
By:
ttt
|
|
By:
wospo, bolt.
when you finally concede you were wrong, will you be apologising to the headmaster for ridiculing him earlier on? |
|
By:
Good shout Stevie G....I think we all know the answer to that one, though
 Stake & Chips Joined: 10 Jul 01 Replies: 1489 19 Aug 10 18:34 Put your money where your mouth is then.... I am IN, Stake. Come on big balls......name yer price and put it in. |
|
By:
I am still waiting for an answer to the "paragraph in email" conundrum, and the email from the Handicapper.
Should Headmaster forward this to me at perpetual62@hotmail.com, and It is clear, then I will concede defeat. Sadly he seems unwilling to provide the email |
|
By:
I have found this whole thread fascinating, confusing and amusing all at the same time. I'm a relative newcomer to racing and had no idea which side was right but somewhere in this thread didnt somebody say something like...
a three year olds rating has to be artifically increased against older horses (in handicaps). If the job of the BHA in all age handicaps is to get all horses to cross the line together then the rating of the 3 year olds has to be increased otherwise they would all be "well in" by whatever the WFA was at that time of the season. Doesnt that sum it up and make sense? Apologies if Im being dense  I am still slightly confused by the Group Races though. Am I right in thinking the offical rating of the 2 year olds in the RP is - again - higher than their actual form is worth? In a Group 1 race the handicapper surely has no concern about the horses all finishing together? |
|
By:
Why would you believe a word of a pasted e-mail that could be knocked up in seconds, wospo?
The only answer is for you to e-mail them directly, which I have already suggested, ring the BHA, which I have already suggested or wait for Mr Smith to knock seven shades of **** out of your thinking next week, which I have also already suggested. You can hide behind this e-mail nonsense if you want but it ain't washing. ( Hello Hat - welcome aboard....our numbers are steadily growing  ) |
|
By:
forward it to me then
|
|
By:
Again, i'm trying not to get involved too much here as i'm still kind of on the fence but the Nunthorpe today is fascinating in relation to this discussion. Let's take 2 of the runners and theoretically say that they met in a handicap today:
Starspangledbanner OR 121 Stone Of Folca OR 101 WFA over 5F is 24lbs. So, moving on, if they met in a handicap surely the weights should be something like : Starspangledbanner 10st Stone Of Folca 6st 12lb Stone Of Folca is officially rated 20lbs inferior to SSB, add on the WFA allowance and he would be getting 44lbs from SSB so surely his 102 can't be "artificially inflated"? Of course, i may have got this completely wrong as my modus operandi isnt really handicaps and most of my betting is done on US racing, which doesnt really use WFA anyway. Over to u guys. |
|
By:
Stop trying not to get involved (if that makes sense), gg! The more the merrier.
It is artifically inflated, although in your example it looks a scary difference because we're comparing the leading all-aged sprinter against a 2-y-o maiden (albeit a good one). Think of it this way, if the rating wasn't inflated and Stone Of Folca made normal improvement, what would he be rated for the 2012 Nunthrope as a 4-y-o? The wfa scale says he'll make 24lbs worth of improvement so that means the handicapper reckons he's going to be a 125 rated horse! Today's fav is only on 121 and he's knocked off a July Cup and a Golden Jubilee. |
|
By:
I'm still not getting involved, just wanted to throw that one out there!
|
|
By:
If you believe the wfa is accurate and the rating of 101 doesn't underestimate him then basically his real ability at this age suggests he would dead-heat with a 77 rated older horse off level weights.
|
|
By:
the rating is just an estimate, most molecomb stakes placed horses generally go on to be around 100-105 older horses but if you think it was a particularly good renewal of the molcomb stakes and the wfa is advantageous to 2yos then SOF could be worth a bet.
|
|
By:
ffs Headmaster the wfa scale doesn't suggest Folca would make 24lb improvement,your crackpot theory does.
The wfa scale and the handicappers rating of him suggests he's a 101 horse rated 24 lb behind Starspangledbanner. Every time you post you are trying to twist things to suit your argument. |
|
By:
Your maths are correct ,Stevie.
|