Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I enjoy listening to Mark Holder, he talks alot of sense, (BTW Mark! what did Steve Gough say to you?
) I would like to hear the forum opinions on Mark's statement that H'Cap ratings are nonsence! is this one of his edges? ( remember he's been in the game for 30+ years and has required a great deal of knowlege so with respect!.
Thank You Very Much
Elvis
) I would like to hear the forum opinions on Mark's statement that H'Cap ratings are nonsence! is this one of his edges? ( remember he's been in the game for 30+ years and has required a great deal of knowlege so with respect!. Thank You Very Much
Elvis
Show More
i have to agree !!! it does make me laugh when you hear TV "experts" prattling on about handicap marks .......all the time it is just laziness......its the race conditions relative to the opposition very often a horse doesnt have to run anywhere near its "mark" to win yet will still go up in the weights next time .........ignore them and use your own judgement........
It all depends what sort of handicap ratings you're talking about.
If it's a set of private ratings, like the ones you find on the Racing Post or Timeform, then no, I don't take any notice of them.
But if you're talking about a horse's official rating, then I don't think you can simply ignore it. Each and every horse running has a theoretical rating on or above which it will struggle to win, in handicaps at any rate. Clearly, this is subject to change, but if you knew with certainty just what that rating was, then all other things being equal, you'd have information which would be of great value.
The problem, of course, is with the caveat 'all other things being equal' ; most of the time they're not. As such, sometimes horses will win even off a mark that looks beyond them simply because the opposition on a given day were unsuited by the conditions : draw, pace, going, trip, and so on. Nevertheless, to understand that a horse has won, but hasn't actually improved - thus not warranting a rise in its rating - is itself of value since you would now be pretty certain that the horse is now very poorly handicapped and worth opposing in future.
If it's a set of private ratings, like the ones you find on the Racing Post or Timeform, then no, I don't take any notice of them.
But if you're talking about a horse's official rating, then I don't think you can simply ignore it. Each and every horse running has a theoretical rating on or above which it will struggle to win, in handicaps at any rate. Clearly, this is subject to change, but if you knew with certainty just what that rating was, then all other things being equal, you'd have information which would be of great value.
The problem, of course, is with the caveat 'all other things being equal' ; most of the time they're not. As such, sometimes horses will win even off a mark that looks beyond them simply because the opposition on a given day were unsuited by the conditions : draw, pace, going, trip, and so on. Nevertheless, to understand that a horse has won, but hasn't actually improved - thus not warranting a rise in its rating - is itself of value since you would now be pretty certain that the horse is now very poorly handicapped and worth opposing in future.
Aren't official handicap ratings and private ratings the same thing, namely one persons assessment of a horses ability. Giving a numerical value (a handicap rating) to each performance by a horse helps determine under what conditions it is most effective.
big aitch 29 Aug 22 10:18
Elvis has left the building.
At 1 post per year in his 20 years on here we will come back for his reply next year on Bank Holiday Monday.
Elvis has left the building.
At 1 post per year in his 20 years on here we will come back for his reply next year on Bank Holiday Monday.
Refering to Oficial ratings. oppologies to Sparrow for only 1 chat In 10 years but, = 151 days banked! 
Aug 29, 2022 -- 11:22AM, sparrow wrote:
big aitch 29 Aug 22 10:18
The trouble with ignoring official ratings is that connections don't ignore them. The official rating is the first thing you look at if you own a horse: is it officially well-in? is it worth having a go here? what rating do I need to get it down to before I take the handbrake off?
Ratings give the trainers and connections an excuse to stop and start their horses
Possibly on youtube...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5NCgFC_sk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5NCgFC_sk
Just like to thank you guys for your comments and Sparrows help on my browesr issue . BTW no joy, so Ive given up. Tried everything bar throw the laptop away. Im suprised others on the site who use Microsoft Edge have not had the same issue, reading up on it seems a common problem! shame correcting the issue was the same!
Aug 29, 2022 -- 6:50PM, G Hall wrote:
Where did the op see this
Podcast Smart Betting Club
Elvis, I use a laptop with the Chrome browser and back ups Edge and Firefox with no problems. Perhaps you should just use Firefox and forget about Edge as you say it works ok for you on the laptop.
Elvis, was it just a sweeping statement that Mr Holder made about handicap ratings, or was there some context / examples?
He said in one of the interviews that he concentrates solely on hurdle races, mainly 2m -2m4f.
He said in one of the interviews that he concentrates solely on hurdle races, mainly 2m -2m4f.
how the fck can h/cap marks not be relevant? walofs
Edge is my latest computers default browser, never used it as have never had any problems with Chrome so installed that.
Elvis has been having problems with his browser, and others on here have been giving him the benefit of their advice. It's simply a spill over from another thread.
I remember the article that was in the Racing Post.
His point was that the rating alone is not the be all and end all. It is one of 20 odd things that he would look at.
If a horse has won off a mark of 120 and several rubs later is down to that mark again does not necessarily mean he is "well in".
He would look at why the horse won off that mark. Did every other horse run to their merit.
Is everything in the horses favour again running off 120.
Something along those lines.
A do enjoy listening to the man, personally.
His point was that the rating alone is not the be all and end all. It is one of 20 odd things that he would look at.
If a horse has won off a mark of 120 and several rubs later is down to that mark again does not necessarily mean he is "well in".
He would look at why the horse won off that mark. Did every other horse run to their merit.
Is everything in the horses favour again running off 120.
Something along those lines.
A do enjoy listening to the man, personally.
Rico-Dangleflaps 30 Aug 22 15:49
whats edge relevance with mark holder please?
Value, Rico. Puts in a lot of form study, prices up the races, and bets accordingly. As above, hurdle races, mainly 2m - 2m4f.
But he did say, and you'll like this, that he'll happily bet the 50s on in a photo at Brighton if it's clear a horse has won and there's no danger of a stewards, cuz that's value.
whats edge relevance with mark holder please?
Value, Rico. Puts in a lot of form study, prices up the races, and bets accordingly. As above, hurdle races, mainly 2m - 2m4f.
But he did say, and you'll like this, that he'll happily bet the 50s on in a photo at Brighton if it's clear a horse has won and there's no danger of a stewards, cuz that's value.
Along the long lines, he also talked about "going", just cuz a horse has won on heavy, for example, doesn't mean a horse acts on it.
A horse's rating doesn't fall to zero just because they're running on the wrong going, but it could be they got away with it because of the opposition they were facing.
And he made the point, punters will look at form and say, oh look, it's got winning form on heavy, but it could be when you delve into the form, it didn't beat much or was up against horses who similarly were racing on going that wasn't ideal.
A horse's rating doesn't fall to zero just because they're running on the wrong going, but it could be they got away with it because of the opposition they were facing.
And he made the point, punters will look at form and say, oh look, it's got winning form on heavy, but it could be when you delve into the form, it didn't beat much or was up against horses who similarly were racing on going that wasn't ideal.
GEORGE.B 30 Aug 22 16:58
Rico-Dangleflaps 30 Aug 22 15:49
whats edge relevance with mark holder please?
Value, Rico. Puts in a lot of form study, prices up the races, and bets accordingly. As above, hurdle races, mainly 2m - 2m4f.
But he did say, and you'll like this, that he'll happily bet the 50s on in a photo at Brighton if it's clear a horse has won and there's no danger of a stewards, cuz that's value.
microsoft edge george
Rico-Dangleflaps 30 Aug 22 15:49
whats edge relevance with mark holder please?
Value, Rico. Puts in a lot of form study, prices up the races, and bets accordingly. As above, hurdle races, mainly 2m - 2m4f.
But he did say, and you'll like this, that he'll happily bet the 50s on in a photo at Brighton if it's clear a horse has won and there's no danger of a stewards, cuz that's value.
microsoft edge george
GLASGOWCALLING 30 Aug 22 14:06
Edge is my latest computers default browser, never used it as have never had any problems with Chrome so installed that.
Edge is my latest computers default browser, never used it as have never had any problems with Chrome so installed that.
Interesting issue is just how much subjectivity goes into getting a rating for a horse, and then applying a master rating for future races.
In the 3:10 novice stakes at Haydock this afternoon, both PAISANO and TELLATELLER have adjusted RPRs of 90. One would assume, therefore, that both ran to RPRs of 78 on their debuts.
Not so : TELLATELLER did, but PAISANO ran a 76.
Clearly, the RPR analyst for this race has assumed PAISANO will improve 2lb, perhaps with the step up in trip, but this is purely subjective and there's no concrete reason to suppose it will. Furthermore, why not increase TELLATELLER's rating too ? Surely it too could improve from its debut with that experience under its hat.
For more exposed horses, I also understand the RPR analysts will often adjust a horse's rating up or down according to the conditions it faces, but where do you draw the line at that ?
In the 3:10 novice stakes at Haydock this afternoon, both PAISANO and TELLATELLER have adjusted RPRs of 90. One would assume, therefore, that both ran to RPRs of 78 on their debuts.
Not so : TELLATELLER did, but PAISANO ran a 76.
Clearly, the RPR analyst for this race has assumed PAISANO will improve 2lb, perhaps with the step up in trip, but this is purely subjective and there's no concrete reason to suppose it will. Furthermore, why not increase TELLATELLER's rating too ? Surely it too could improve from its debut with that experience under its hat.
For more exposed horses, I also understand the RPR analysts will often adjust a horse's rating up or down according to the conditions it faces, but where do you draw the line at that ?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539