http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/head_of_handicapping.asp

Head of Handicapping's Blog:

WHY WE ELIMINATE BY WEIGHT NOT RATING IN HANDICAPS
25th August 2010

There has been much discussion over the last week about the elimination of three year olds from the Tote Ebor Handicap at York. Perhaps I should again explain why we eliminate as we do at present.

I will again use the example of the John Smith’s Cup also run at York earlier in the year.

The core reason is the weight for age scale and how horses are allocated ratings. In early April over 10 furlongs a 3 year old receives 19lbs from an older horse. If they dead heat and the older horse is rated 95, the 3 year old is rated 95 but is intrinsically a 19lbs inferior animal. He has been given the weight for age to compensate him for a lack of maturity, experience and ability.

If they were then both entered for the John Smith’s Cup in early July at York the 3 year old would only receive 11lbs because of the assumption that he has made “normal” improvement of 8lbs in the intervening time. However, the older horse is still his superior by 11lbs.

If the 95 rated 3 year old was given priority over say a 94 rated older horse then you would be including a horse that was 10lbs inferior to the older horse.

The only way that this could change would be if the connections of the 3 year olds were happy to carry 11lbs more. They cannot have it both ways, on the one hand to be given a weight allowance and on the other to get priority into the race.

Owners and trainers of 3 year olds complained for many years that they didn’t want to take on older horses early in the year as they (incorrectly) considered the weight for age scale didn’t compensate them enough against the older horses.

As a result BHB (BHA) introduced a raft of three year old only handicaps early in the year. Surely a quid pro quo of changing the system of elimination in big handicaps in July and August would be to take away 3 year old only handicaps early in the year. Very few owners and trainers would buy into that.

A further way of ensuring a 3 year old gets into races like the John Smith’s Cup and the Ebor would be if connections campaigned them more aggressively and got their ratings up. This would be in accordance with the BHA principle of meritocracy. There is no reason why a 3 year old rated 106+ couldn’t have entered last week’s Ebor and got a run.

The reality, of course, is that some people want to give the three year olds an advantage either because they own them, train them or find them easier to select if they wish to back in the race. However from a competitive racing point of view the current system should remain.

One of the strengths of British racing over the last five years has been that more and more older horses are being kept in training, particularly fillies. If we changed the system then what incentive would there be for the connections of the older horses to take on unexposed, progressive 3 year olds AND give them weight for age?

Some pundits have said that in the Ebor there was "cluttering up of the weights by exposed older horses”. This could be rephrased to say “high quality older horses honestly campaigned and fairly handicapped made the race as hugely competitive as usual”.

However, I admit that finding the winner would, for a punter, have involved hours of study comparing form lines, assessing going and trip requirements. The inclusion of an improving unexposed three year old would have made selecting the winner a lot easier.

Owing to the popularity of the big handicaps there has to be an elimination process and there will be winners and losers whatever the process might be. It is the view of the BHA and their Handicapping team that the current system is the correct one.


Flyingbolt?  You there lad???

think we all agreed on that part anyway headmaster?

Its all been about wording imo

The opening Salvo by the Headmaster in that "WFA IS BUILT INTO A RATING" is impossible imo as you would have to have several different ratings depending upon distance, however the rating IT RUNS OFF IS totally different and depends on the time of the year and the distance of the race

Yes but he hasnt been given the"Compensation" in a numerical mark?? only the MARK he runs off, it would be a totally different mark if he ran in a 10f race, a 8f race or a 5f race so his original mark bears no compensation because it would have to be different each time to be artificial, Surely??

Its all in the wording

As I've stated before, I've no particular axe to grind and was of the view at the start of this debates that The Headmaster was wrong, however, his opening statement was thus:-

The Headmaster
Joined: 14 Nov 01
Replies: 336 11 Aug 10 12:26   
He's only rated higher because he's 3 and the wfa is built into his rating, wospo.  The older horses are the better, higher-rated horses in real terms so should get in first.

And the Handicapper has put it like this:-

In early April over 10 furlongs a 3 year old receives 19lbs from an older horse. If they dead heat and the older horse is rated 95, the 3 year old is rated 95 but is intrinsically a 19lbs inferior animal.

It seems to me that he was right, its a rating not just a mark that it runs off, although I also suspect that you're all right to a certain extent and as Zilzal says, it's all in how you have chosen to express it.

Stevie, its all in the wording

I would agree with "All horses are rated as being mature" but i cant agree with WFA being built in

Because its on a scale and would give different numerical figures on the same day over a different distance, so the rating is ABSOLUTE and the COMPENSATION is different, if WFA was built in its handicap mark would change accordingly.

The MARK it runs off is a different matter

In the wording, imo

Think thats the crux of it Stevie

See 17.05 Steve

Some people think a horse's rating is a pure reflection of its form and wfa is deducted off it's back when the weights are set.  Madness, I know!

Other people think, and I'll risk repeating this, that wfa is added into a rating to start with and it is then taken back off when the weights are set. Bleedin' obvious really.

This is most definitely not about wording, zilzal.  The people in the second group understand the system completely while the people in the first group would have 3-y-os up and down the country **** up everytime they met their elders.

The only bit you seem to be struggling with is how much wfa is added into a rating, zil. The answer is down to the distance of which ever race you're rating.  If the form's over a mile - the 3-y-o gets the mile boost in his RATING. If he then races over 1m 4f, he'll get the 1m 4f wfa deducted off his WEIGHT

Some people think a horse's rating is a pure reflection of its form and wfa is deducted off it's back when the weights are set.  Madness, I know!

Other people think, and I'll risk repeating this, that wfa is added into a rating to start with and it is then taken back off when the weights are set. Bleedin' obvious really.

This is a well worded post on a topic i never fully understood, well done.

1. How can the handicapper boost a rating without knowing what trip the horse will be running over?
2. If a three year old rated 70 runs in May, then waits till November to run again, why is his rating not altered?
3. Why do horses that retire at 3 keep the rating given?


My god, even after it has all been explained umpteen times you still don't get it wospo. You must be completely and utterly thick. I've wasted enough time on this thread

From the Betfair blog preview of the King George

Timeform's Flat Editor Jamie Lynch confirmed: "Harbinger has proved unstoppable so far this season, now ready and able for the next challenge of a Group 1. His Timeform rating of 131+ from the Hardwicke would be good enough for him to win an average King George, but this is shaping up to be no ordinary renewal, with his year-younger stable-companion Workforce rated as an exceptional Derby winner at 132p.

"Even after weight-for-age is factored in, Workforce comes out only 1lb ahead of Harbinger on Timeform's adjusted ratings.

Taken from the Timeform website, regarding timefigures, but their form figures are calculated on the same basis.

Immaturity & Improvement
One further point should be understood. The fact that timefigures are calculated at weight-for-age has important consequences

Very important Figgis!  As stated, 'Camp Two' would have 3-y-os bolting up left, right and centre if they ran racing.

Don't blame you Stevie, but I'll have another go!

1. How can the handicapper boost a rating without knowing what trip the horse will be running over?
The handicapper doesn't set the weights so doesn't need to know future running plans.  What he does do is set ratings, which he does by rating individual performances in individual races.  He therefore knows exactly what wfa to use as the distance of the race he's rating will hopefully be included in the form somewhere. Now, when that horse goes on to contest his next race, the weight he is alloted will be calculated by taking the rating of the horse and then adjusting it downwards using the wfa scale of the distance of that particular race.  Example (and I'll dip into the one the Head Of Handicapping has used on his blog): It is early April and a 3-y-o and 4-y-o run in a Maiden over 10 furlongs. The weights are set in line with the wfa scale - 3-y-o has 8-08 and the 4-y-o carries 9-13 (Leicester, 08/04, Maxim Gorky, for instance). In other words, the 3-y-o is receiving 19lbs.  One of the older horses consistently runs to a mark of 95 and dead-heats with the 3-y-o.  Will the 3-y-o get a mark of 76 (95, the rating of the older horse, minus 19, the weight the 3-y-o received....which would be an accurate interpretation of the form allowing nothing for age)? No. The 3 year old is rated 95, because the wfa is added in, although he's intrinsically a 19lbs inferior animal at that stage. He has been given the weight for age to compensate him for a lack of maturity, experience and ability.
Let's say the horse, having got a rating of 95, then steps up in trip and runs the next week against that older horse (who carries 10st) in a handicap over 1m 4f. This time the wfa is 21lb and the 3-y-o races off 8-07.  So you see, the handicapper does not need to guess where the horse goes next.   
   
2. If a three year old rated 70 runs in May, then waits till November to run again, why is his rating not altered? Because he's already got the age boost in his rating.  He is maturing at the same rate the wfa allowance comes down, so everything is balanced nicely and his rating stays the same.  If there was no initial boost a 70 rated 3-y-o would not still be rated 70 in November because the wfa scale says the horse must have improved even if he's standing in his box.

3. Why do horses that retire at 3 keep the rating given It's a good question and one zilzal touched on with his 'false gods' post.  I'd imagine a few of us thinks it's all a bit of a nonsense. Olympic Gold Medals aren't dished out at Junior level based on a projection of where the kid will be in five year's time. Others will disagree with me on that one, though.

AFTER A STEWARDS ENQUIRY, WEIGHED IN WEIGHED IN


GO COLLECT, THE HEADMASTER

I have posted plenty of examples to support the case - clearly you never bothered to read them....

You bought nothing to the table stake, apart from agreeing with the Headmaster. This thread had died a natural death on the 26th August, and then a c0ck posted this...

Stake & Chips     31 Aug 10 20:25 
AFTER A STEWARDS ENQUIRY, WEIGHED IN WEIGHED IN


GO COLLECT, THE HEADMASTER

Fawning idiot.

Exactly Stake.  This thread will NEVER DIE. [smiley:crazy]
Not until flyingbolt comes on and admits he's a numpty, anyway)

Wospo, would you not say Stake was very brave piping up because at the time I was fighting a very lone battle against a heavy onslaught? All this sidekick, butlicker nonsense does you no favours...especially as it's been proved he was right all along?

What a confusing read [smiley:crazy]

Anyone think Harris Tweed might hack up tomorrow at Chester