Barney Curly

[EC1]

You can't blame Jonjo...........the handicapper is off his trolly. He gets beat by a horse rated 15lbs ahead of him getting 15lbs and he jumps him up 10lbs......How the hell did he work that one out?

he had to raise him a good bit..take out Neptune C and he has won the National by 5 lengths and 7 lengths..the 2nd was an improving horse..as was the 3rd

did Neptune Collonges just run a 157 to win the biggest handicap of the season?

what should Sunnyhill's rating be in your opinion?

 

[doomster]

I'm half way between both sides of the argument.

You can't blame Jonjo...........the handicapper is off his trolly. He gets beat by a horse rated 15lbs ahead of him getting 15lbs and he jumps him up 10lbs......How the hell did he work that one out?

He wasn't raised at all for the National run, but for the previous win at Cheltenham. Neptune was raised 11lb.

It all seems logical, but the problem is the race is handicapped as a one off to a certain extent, but then consideration is then taken in re handicapping the beasts on the basis of the National run.

I'm not sure if there's a solution; maybe a handicappers amnesty

Leave the ratings after the event ? I can see the all the objections, but it would be interesting.

 

[EC1]

I'm half way between both sides of the argument.




He wasn't raised at all for the National run, but for the previous win at Cheltenham. Neptune was raised 11lb.

It all seems logical, but the problem is the race is handicapped as a one off to a certain extent, but then consideration is then taken in re handicapping the beasts on the basis of the National run.

I'm not sure if there's a solution; maybe a handicappers amnesty

Leave the ratings after the event ? I can see the all the objections, but it would be interesting.

but if he hadn't been raised for the Cheltenham win he would have been raised for his national run to a similar level..his national run would incur a bigger increase than the Chelenham one tbh..both runs put him at least a 150 horse minimum..142 is clearly the mark Oneill wants him at ..hence him being fav off that mark after being pulled up in Qauntitative's race..and then winning off same mark at Cheltenham

 

[chroniclandlord]

I've been surprised that he has been running in hurdles and not running unplaced in chases to get his chase mark back down a bit.

 

[reet hard]

If there's a problem, it's that the weights are set in February, and nothing changes afterwards, regardless.
Jonjo can hardly be pilloried for taking advantage, as any trainer worth his salt does it with early-closing races, flat or jumps.

 

[Tanlic]

but if he hadn't been raised for the Cheltenham win he would have been raised for his national run to a similar level..his national run would incur a bigger increase than the Chelenham one tbh..both runs put him at least a 150 horse minimum..142 is clearly the mark Oneill wants him at ..hence him being fav off that mark after being pulled up in Qauntitative's race..and then winning off same mark at Cheltenham

Doomster my bad thanks for correcting me.

EC think about what you are saying mate of he had run off his current mark of 152 in the National where would he have finished.

The fact he put him up for winning the Kim Muir 11lbs is a joke it itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you beat or how you beat them....read on.

If Doomster is correct and he went up 11lbs it appears he's dropped him a pound since the National down from 153 to 152.

He ran of 142 in te Kim Muir and beat a complete monkey of a horse who hasn't won a thing since 2010 when he won a bloody awful beginners chase.

The horse in question Becauseicouldntsee ran off 140 he beat him 4 1/2 lengths. Alan Berry must have been knackered as the horse was under pressure for 5 fences. He won going away but he was all out to do so.
So the handicapper decides 4 1/2 lengths = 11lbs.

The year before Junior won the race in a canter by 27 lengths from Fassal guess what? he put him up 11 lbs so suddenly we have 27 lengths = 11lbs.

Ballabriggs like Junior beat Fassal by 1/2 length he put him up 10lbs
Seems like 26 1/2 lengths now = 1lb

You can go back 10 years and almost every horse no matter how well they won or how close a finish it was has been put up 9 to 12lbs,,,, 11lbs seems to be his fav number and he adds or deducts a 1lb for luck.

The only horse who escaped his wrath was John Quinn's Charachter Building.

It seems to me it is rule of thumb if you win this race you are going to go up around 11lbs and handicapping as it should do does not exist.

 

[doomster]

Tanlic, SB ran off 142 in both races, as the National is an early closer with no penalties. The poor Synchronised was also "potentially" well in for the Grand National.

From Colin's thread; The thoughts of the handicapper, which explains it clearly.

Neptune Collonges was on 11st 6lb at Aintree, the highest weight a winner has carried since Red Rum's third victory in 1977. It seemed sensible after the race to put the now retired Neptune Collonges back to 168 from the 157 he ran off, especially as Sunnyhillboy ran off 142 in the race but was due to go to 152 after his Cheltenham Festival victory.

I took the view that Sunnyhillboy had replicated his Cheltenham run in the Grand National so as he was due to go up 10lbs. Neptune Collonges' final rating will be 157+11=168. This is the highest rating a Grand National runner has achieved since Suny Bay was second to Earth Summit off 170 back in 1998.

It seems to me it is rule of thumb if you win this race you are going to go up around 11lbs and handicapping as it should do does not exist.

I think the nature of the race means you won't really get a well treated 7yo, who has Grade 1 winning potential and wants to take the h/cap route up the ladder. There are few mid 130 horses winning the race and it tends to go to the decent chaser who has already got near it's peak and this race is the final
step of their career or the chaser who was purely trained with the race in mind.

Synchronized was probably the exception in that he was specifically aimed at the National, but the Gold Cup became the afterthought after his Lexus performance.

It is slightly strange we have the weights framed for the race by Phil Smith, for a one off race, then retro fit those results, for the purpose of normal h/capping. Without checking the figures my guess is this only applies to small sample of the finishers.

 

[reet hard]

Doubt they are 'retro-fitted', Doomster?
My take would be they're handicapped as normal, though it's ignored until they're next entered for a handicap, (Often, after the National.).
Junior, for instance, was up 5lb in his subsequent race, even though he fell in the big one.

 

[EC1]

it don't matter whet he beat in the KM Tanlic..it was the KM..he had to go up...you can win a towcester handicap and go up 8lb so i'm sure winning a KM is going to get you 10 unless the race is a bunch finish

not sure how you can expect to win handicaps at the top meeting of the year and not go up a decent amount in the weights

 

[Tanlic]

Had to EC? what does that mean? He's a handicapper not a hanging judge.

I would say Sunnyhillboy ran to a 142 spot on in the National and had he run of his new mark he probably wouldn't have been sighted.

Does it mean nothing that every horse that winds the race gets roughly 11lbs ? as I say he is not doing his job he's just slapping the same figure or near enough itn on any horse that wind the race.

If he reckons a 1lb = 1 length then it should be uses to the letter. The only exception being if the horse wins like Junior did.

You go ahead and explain to me how 2 horses running off the handicap he allotted them end up going up the same amount yet one scrapes home by the skin of his teeth but the other one wins by nearly a distance. Both beating the same horse into 2nd

 

[Marble]

I've long thought the idea of 'fairness' in the handicap is a total oxymoron, and all this idealistic notion (that is projected from the BHA does) is create handicaps that become even harder to solve. And I unashamedly say that, as a punter, not person working for the BHA. The example I can give, is how many times people fall for a horse in a handicap, (me included), that has been dropped a few pound in the weights, with no form whatsoever. Diamond Harry in the Hennessy this season was a fine example.

The shrewd opinions at the time seemed to be, that he was now well handicapped. But weren't people clutching at some very large straws? What does it tell us, when it takes punters to pick horses with a dozen duck eggs next to its name just to try and get an edge in one of the biggest handicap betting races of the year?

And I'd like handicappers to judge horses more on what they've done, not what they might do, allowing plots to take place and punters to beat the bookies. This is not a crime,... what is a crime is bookmakers cleaning out punters year in year out through tough handicaps where most punters can't get any real edge.

Trainers always being apprehensive about their horses rating, often on television on a Saturday afternoon, is a sign of the negativity which is no good to anybody in trerms of fairness. The only angle in recent years to get in handicaps is really that most of Paul Nicholls and increasingly Nicky Henderson's horses, (in the case of the former often his french ones), will be a few pound well in.

We saw this in the Lanzarote last week, well it was crystal clear to see how well the Henderson winner was handicapped after the race anyway, but good things like that should be more easier spot as 'blots on the handicap' imo.

I just empathise for the smaller time trainers trying to have their day with a horse and being penalised based on concepts of 'potential improvement'. Perhaps I am a crook aswell.

The improvement may very well be coming, but by factoring it in on every occasion (if you look at it objectively) the handicapper is pre-empting it, which about 90 percent of the time is usually proven as incorrect when these types of horses lose.

In short, I'd like to see a more liberal approach to handicapping from the BHA, and less of this totalitarian nonsense....

 

[EC1]

Tanlic - if you think a horse can win a top handicap at Cheltenham and then near on win the national..without going up at least 10lbs then you are living in dream land

you don't handicap a race from the front backwards

in your world a horse can win a 2k handicap at warwick or stratford..and go up anything like 16lbs in some cases..but you get all shirty when a horse goes up 10lb for winning and near on winning the top handicaps of the season...just because its trained by a certain trainer

if i were a handicapper..i'd always sting Oneils winners extra as they nearly always have at least 10lb in hand when they win anyway..especially at Cheltenham..but i'm not the handicapper..so he just bangs em up to what he thinks on paper they should be..no matter who trains them..so actually oneill is lucky its someone doing it fairly

 

[Gamla Stan]

And I'd like handicappers to judge horses more on what they've done, not what they might do, allowing plots to take place and punters to beat the bookies. This is not a crime,... what is a crime is bookmakers cleaning out punters year in year out through tough handicaps where most punters can't get any real edge.

How would punters know such plots were taking place? It's not like connections are going to tell them.

Secondly, if all punters suddenly started beating the bookmakers overnight, where do you think the levy contributions would come from? Or should I say, who do you think would be forced to pay levy contributions?

 

[Marble]

How would punters know such plots were taking place? It's not like connections are going to tell them.

Because the knowledgeable ones (like me !) would see that were well handicapped and punt them accordingly, simples.

Secondly, if all punters suddenly started beating the bookmakers overnight, where do you think the levy contributions would come from? Or should I say, who do you think would be forced to pay levy contributions?

I'm under no illusions, but a fairer takeout for punters that actually back horses to win races either through high street bookies or exchanges would seem reasonable to most punters.

We've got a system that serves the layers at present imo.

 

[reet hard]

If memory serves, a 7lb rise used to be a rare impost for the winner of any race, and it's only in recent years (of what's laughingly called the "competitive racing initiative") that double figure penalties have been handed out like parking tickets.
Marb does have a point, imo, and it's deliberately engineered so the same group pays the levy that always have - even if it's not directly.

 

[Marble]

handed out like parking tickets.

lol

 

[Tanlic]

Tanlic - if you think a horse can win a top handicap at Cheltenham and then near on win the national..without going up at least 10lbs then you are living in dream land

you don't handicap a race from the front backwards

in your world a horse can win a 2k handicap at warwick or stratford..and go up anything like 16lbs in some cases..but you get all shirty when a horse goes up 10lb for winning and near on winning the top handicaps of the season...just because its trained by a certain trainer

if i were a handicapper..i'd always sting Oneils winners extra as they nearly always have at least 10lb in hand when they win anyway..especially at Cheltenham..but i'm not the handicapper..so he just bangs em up to what he thinks on paper they should be..no matter who trains them..so actually oneill is lucky its someone doing it fairly

People disagree with the handicapper all the time and to try and find winners they do handicap backwards as you put it. eg

Do you know that if Hold On Julio were to meet Neptune Collonges tomorrow Neptune would be 2 lbs better off for a 9 length defeat because he lumped NC up 11lbs to fit in with Sunnyhillboy's rating? They should have gone up about 4lbs instead of 11 lbs IMO. Had he put him up 4lbs and NC 4lbs then NC and HOJ would be handicapped to about dead heat if they met tomorrow.

My point is you can so anything with figures and he just says 11lbs that'll do and to hell if they never win another race for the rest of their lives.

Go back and look through Cheltenham Festival Hanicap winner I had a quick at 2007 and 8 handicapper winner at the meeting won a couple of novice chases between them and a 4 horse grade 2.

Can't all be down to the handicapper being too harsh but a lot is. IMO

 

[EC1]

Do you know that if Hold On Julio were to meet Neptune Collonges tomorrow Neptune would be 2 lbs better off for a 9 length defeat because he lumped NC up 11lbs to fit in with Sunnyhillboy's rating? They should have gone up about 4lbs instead of 11 lbs IMO. Had he put him up 4lbs and NC 4lbs then NC and HOJ would be handicapped to about dead heat if they met tomorrow.

but NC would still probably win IF in the same form as when winning the national

you can't say that the NC that finished behind HOJ was the same performance as in the national..he was back to somewhere near his best there..but not when behind HOJ

you can't expect two horses to meet one day..then 3 months later after they won or not won races to meet on the same terms..it doesn't work like that

do you think that the handicapper just pulled the increase out of mid air?..maybe he did..but if thats the case then why has he still got a job..do you think he just don't like Oneill?

i've heard lots of trainers in the past moan about how much a horse goes up..then it wins off that mark..and nothing is then said

the trouble with such as oneill is that he wants 10 in hand before he even considers winning with a horse...so when they do win after a string of boll0x runs it looks like the horse has actually improved..so gets thumped by the handicapper

if he ran them more on their merits maybe they wouldn't be judged as improvers when they aren't..basically..he brings it on himself omi

 

[Aragorn]

In one breath Jonjo's a very clever man for engineering handicap marks then the handicappers a rogue for putting him up when he wins one of the years most competitive handicaps?

You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[EC1]

In one breath Jonjo's a very clever man for engineering handicap marks then the handicappers a rogue for putting him up when he wins one of the years most competitive handicaps?

You can't have your cake and eat it.

correct..he plays the system..same as Curley..but has the ammo to do it in big races

i don't know if he complains or its just other people like Tanlic that cry for him when his horses get hit.. but like you say..he can't have it both ways...he himself probably accepts thats how it is.

come Cheltenham..you know he is going to be in very good form though..even if looking woefully out of form the fortnight running up to it.

 

[doomster]

i don't know if he complains or its just other people like Tanlic that cry for him when his horses get hit.. but like you say..he can't have it both ways...he himself probably accepts thats how it is.

come Cheltenham..you know he is going to be in very good form though..even if looking woefully out of form the fortnight running up to it.

I don't have any access to a database system, but is it just the JPM horses that are campaigned this way for Jonjo.

 

[Tanlic]

but NC would still probably win IF in the same form as when winning the national

you can't say that the NC that finished behind HOJ was the same performance as in the national..he was back to somewhere near his best there..but not when behind HOJ

you can't expect two horses to meet one day..then 3 months later after they won or not won races to meet on the same terms..it doesn't work like that

do you think that the handicapper just pulled the increase out of mid air?..maybe he did..but if thats the case then why has he still got a job..do you think he just don't like Oneill? I just think it's too much of a coincidence that 9 out of the last 10 winners of the Kim Muir went up near enough 11lbs. I don't think the handicapper is ante Jonjo at all if he were I think the BHA wouldn't bee to pleased he was singling out the top NH owner.

i've heard lots of trainers in the past moan about how much a horse goes up..then it wins off that mark..and nothing is then said

the trouble with such as oneill is that he wants 10 in hand before he even considers winning with a horse...so when they do win after a string of boll0x runs it looks like the horse has actually improved..so gets thumped by the handicapper

if he ran them more on their merits maybe they wouldn't be judged as improvers when they aren't..basically..he brings it on himself omi

 

[EC1]

why is it a coincidence though? ...you could say its a coincidence that most CH winners get an average rating of 168..or that Derby winners get an average rating of 120..its the level of oppo and winning margin thats being rated...same as in other races

if the handicapper has suddenly stopped looking at actual results and just has a list with every handicap on with how much he is putting each horse up..ie..Lanzarote +7...Betfair +8...National +10..Kim Muir+11.....the maybe we should be looking into this..seems a tad lazy to me

 

[Tanlic]

When you think about it probably he does have a rule of thumb to work to. He must have people working under him that he gives guidelines to as he couldn't possibly do every handicap himself......or does he?

 

[Desert Pilot]

Armstrong's a fake unlike Curley

Wrong 'uns can still give money to charity.

Armstrong only got interested in a cancer charity because he was personally affected, unlike Curley who did it from the heart and, furthermore, actually spent long hours with those suffering. Don't recall Armstrong ever cradling cancer-suffering babies/children.