Betfair Hurdle

It's predominantly if your initials are GE that Phil Smith screws you [emoji6].
IIRC Rashann was an Irish horse that was horribly violated by Smith. I noticed he won on the flat in Dundalk on Friday night. Not sure he holds any festival entities now, but he's rated 139 over hurdles in Ireland (gone up from 131 when beating Apples jade)and I think Smith gave him something ridiculous like 148 (I stand to be corrected) when he was entered in a UK h'cap hurdle ?
 
It's not harsh at all. This was a point brought up by Kevin Blake and I fully agree with him. Why don't they just agree a standard conversion for every horse that comes across the water?

Any horse that ran at Leopardstown today should be assessed by the Irish handicapper, given a new mark and then the standard conversion is applied should they come over to Cheltenham. That seems much fairer than Smith playing his guessing game where he will just go safe more often than not.
 
@Bear they're using a different set of figures to try to equate the 2 horses populations, and for the most part the irish horses when coming over are winning more races overall than what a british handicap horse should, I think Phil Smith even proved this with figures in Chapper's last show.

@Marble, the 1lb per length is not fixed, the 3m+ on bottomless ground I believe they use 0.5lb per length, but it mostly depends on the pace of the race and trip. I don't know how you got to 6f sprints but for that the poundage is higher, between 2 and 3lb per length.
 
I agree he should leave it to the Irish handicapper in races like The Grand National and staying flat races etc.
However, he should be able to alter ratings for other types of races, over shorter distances, for reasons I stated in my last post.
 
Last edited:
Double Handful said:
IIRC Rashann was an Irish horse that was horribly violated by Smith. I noticed he won on the flat in Dundalk on Friday night. Not sure he holds any festival entities now, but he's rated 139 over hurdles in Ireland (gone up from 131 when beating Apples jade)and I think Smith gave him something ridiculous like 148 (I stand to be corrected) when he was entered in a UK h'cap hurdle ?
Click to expand...

I think Smith was proved right because look what AJ did nto. And remember AJ was jointly I given a mark of 153 at the end of last season so when how could they rate Rashaan just 139 for beating her?
 
Aughex said:
@Marble, the 1lb per length is not fixed, the 3m+ on bottomless ground I believe they use 0.5lb per length, but it mostly depends on the pace of the race and trip. I don't know how you got to 6f sprints but for that the poundage is higher, between 2 and 3lb per length.
Click to expand...

This is what I've argued is the right method, so cheers Aughex. :)
 
Last edited:
@Aughex - But it was AJ's first run of the season and first run for Elliott after the switch from WPM (And she'd only been with GE a couple of weeks). It's been well documented that all the transferred horses didn't perform fto after the switch. Don Poli biggest case in point. Rashaan was fully tuned and fully fit having had 5 runs in 2 months leading into that race. And there's no way AJ ran anywhere remotely close to 153 that day!
 
Last edited:
The record does suggest that Irish horses are not particularly well treated - especially in Festival handicap chases.

Irish-trained horses appear to do best in the Coral Cup and County Hurdles - often with those less-prominent in the betting, suggesting that the Official Handicapper doesn't quite land everything in his net.

Perhaps laziness might be at-play; with only the 'name' horses incurring his full wrath, and the lesser-fancies receiving a degree less scrutiny?
 
Last edited:
Aughex said:
@Bear they're using a different set of figures to try to equate the 2 horses populations, and for the most part the irish horses when coming over are winning more races overall than what a british handicap horse should, I think Phil Smith even proved this with figures in Chapper's last show.
Click to expand...

All that's need is a big old conversion table. If the horses is rated x in Ireland they are rated y in the UK. The mark given by the Irish handicapper will have taken into account everything that Smith does.

Stopping Irish horses winning should not be seen as a success.
 
Grasshopper said:
The record does suggest that Irish horses are not particularly well treated - especially in Festival handicap chases.

Irish-trained horses appear to do best in the Coral Cup and County Hurdles - often with those less-prominent in the betting, suggesting that the Official Handicapper doesn't quite land everything in his net.

Perhaps laziness might be at-play; with only the 'name' horses incurring his full wrath, and the lesser-fancies receiving a degree less scrutiny?
Click to expand...

I couldn't answer this one myself.

Does he ever actually lower an Irish horses mark, over 3 miles + lets say.... for an upcoming English jumps race?

What goes up... must come down etc. Every man knows this. :)

The law of averages suggest for each Irish horse that he thinks needs to be upped a few pound, there's another one, that isn't actually worth his mark in Ireland, let alone being upped in England.

Similar to arguments about publishing the weights of horses before races, maybe we should see the official handicappers notes aswell, etc? :)
 
Last edited:
TheBear said:
All that's need is a big old conversion table. If the horses is rated x in Ireland they are rated y in the UK. The mark given by the Irish handicapper will have taken into account everything that Smith does.

Stopping Irish horses winning should not be seen as a success.
Click to expand...

Nah..they need accountability, publishing any notes or arithmetic they've used, each and every time.

This would make it interesting for punters, where we could challenge documented (official) assessments, to create our own ligitimate angles/edges. :)

Where there's disagreement in racing, there's opportunity. :)

Let the officials have their view, let us know what their actual view is..then we can enjoy forming our own.

More repetitive conversion scales' and secrecy will cause added problems, or amplify the ones already there.
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
Nah..they need accountability and to publish any notes or arithmetic they've used, each and every time.

This would make it interesting for punters, where we could challenge documented (official) assessments, to create our own ligitimate angles/edges on races. :)

Where there's disagreement in racing, there's opportunity!

Let the officials have their view, but let us know what their actual view is..and then we can enjoy forming our own.

More repetitive conversion scales' will cause more problems, or amplify the ones already there.
Click to expand...

I don't mean how they get to their figures, I mean just for when they cross the Irish Sea.

Everyone knows the ratings in each country should be different but what I'm asking for is for consistency in how that discrepancy is adjusted.

Lets take Brelade as an example who ran today at Leopardstown. Elliott decides he's going to run him in the County Hurdle at the festival. The process should be:-

1) The Irish handicapper assesses him for his run today and gives him a mark, maybe 140.

2) A standardised adjustment is made to his mark when he crosses the Irish Sea (lets say 5lbs)

3) Phil Smith keeps his dirty mitts off and he runs in the County off 145.

I don't see how anyone can have an issue with that, as long as the adjustment figures are agreed between the two countries. The handicappers should just respect that their counterpart will get it right. At the moment Phil Smith is basically saying that the fellas across the water a **** at their job.
 
A standardized mark increase adjustment? What about a standardised decrease adjustment?

This 5 lbs increase in your example, why shouldn't punters be able to know why its being done. Why would you be against that. He must document his notes on files etc, why doesn't he just publish them?

Basically, your proposing a worse scenario than we have now, with more increases, (all dished out evenly I suppose to each horse that crosses the Irish Sea), but with no accountability or explanation, Bear.
 
Last edited:
It's an increase/decrease purely because of the known discrepancy between the Irish and UK ratings. It has nothing to do with their assessment of the horse.

Whether they should show their working out for rating horses is another argument. Maybe they should but I can't see it happening, probably because some of it is subjective.
 
TheBear said:
Whether they should show their working out for rating horses is another argument. Maybe they should but I can't see it happening, probably because some of it is subjective.
Click to expand...

There is some sort of discrepancy, yes, which often comes to the fore in certain races at Cheltenham, but specifically why this is happening is inherently subjective too.

Therefore dumbing the BHA down...........for more conversion scales is not the answer.

That's exacerbating the problem.

I'm not necessarily after fairness here either, nothing can ever be 100 per cent fair, including life. So we shouldn't expect that from handicap hurdles or chases. Punters don't need things to be overly 'fair' anyway, the best gambles we ever saw that came off we know in our hearts weren't fair... turning the BHA into a clone of the nanny state is shooting our self in the foot.

Look at Ballyandy yesterday 10, 15. maybe 20 pound well-handicapped, this wasn't fair, but he went off favourite then won. There's nothing wrong with that.

I only want to see the subjective analisis of the official handicapper on each horse, especially the Irish horses running in England. That's a good place to start.

Show us the workings out, then we can decide what's fair, when considering whether to bet a horse, instead of relying on engineered conversion scales.
 
Last edited:
It's 00.41am here I'm just back in the hotel having an earlier-than-normal night of it (since I plan to overdo it tomorrow night ahead of coming home) so have really just skimmed the foregoing posts.

As far as I'm aware, the Irish & UK handicappers collude to arrive at a common rating where the horse is reckoned to be 150+. Lower than that, the UK handicapper assesses any raider on his own interpretation of the form but generally speaking when Irish handicappers run here they are on average 6lbs higher. Whether that's the UK officials saying the Irish chaps are a bit lenient is a moot point as their decision is final.

As far as showing the workings out are concerned, the handicappers' blog at the BHA site often (and regularly copied here by Perpetual) explains their thinking and is always worth reading regardless of whether you agree with them.
 
Timeform put Ballyandy up 12lb to 143p. For comparison, they have given Movewiththetimes 142, Bacardys 149p and Bunk Off Early 144p.
 
I thought Movewiththetimes looked much more inexperienced than Ballyandy and found himself in front three out when he would much have preferred cover . Not sure I would back the Twisty horse to beat him again .
 
Desert Orchid said:
I can't see it being anywhere near the 20lbs that would imply, Marble.

Clyne was 5lbs well in, so will probably be deemed to have run to his new mark of 148 (since he was technically nowhere near winning) so the winner will, I would guess, go up to more or less that mark. I'll be very surprised if it's more than 13lbs. But that's still quite a hike.
Click to expand...

Pretty close with that one, I reckon… (Did the handicapper bring Clyne down by 1lb?)


Marble said:
I'm surprised you fellas feel this way, I wish we was all in a bar together discussing this over a pint, with adjusted ratings to be published imminently, and you could all lay me a score at even money on 155+. :)
Click to expand...

Saved yourself a small fortune there, Marble.:p



Desert Orchid said:
Ballyandy was getting 8lbs. The six lengths quoted would equate to 7lbs. Technically and purely from a mathematical perspective, Ballyandy should be rated 1lb behind Clyne. After that it's the handicapper's discretion to adjust it beyond that. I think it's hard to see it being anywhere near another 8lbs beyond that.
Click to expand...

The handicapper has stuck to to the slide rule by the look of it, unless he's taken Clyne down again.


Desert Orchid said:
I had the biggest bet of my life on a certain team winning a certain league this season. I got 1/3 at the start of the season. They were 1/1000 when the bookies stopped offering the market. I would be willing to bet more on the handicapper not putting Ballyandy up to 155 :)
Click to expand...

Another 1/1000 shot goes in.


Digger said:
Ballyandy - 147.
Click to expand...

Quod erat demonstrandum ‘n that :)
 
Still find it strange that Ballyandy is rated 1lb lower than Clyne, having just beat him 6L.

Anyways, Eddiemaurice should still be on nice mark for future races..
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
Still find it strange that Ballyandy is rated 1lb lower than Clyne, having just beat him 6L.

Anyways, Eddiemaurice should still be on nice mark for future races..
Click to expand...

We'll know tomorrow for definite what he's done with Eddiemaurice. I honestly won't be surprised if he's dropped him.

Re Ballyandy versus Clyne, the weight concession was 8lbs. The six lengths equates to between six and seven lengths and the handicapper has has rounded it up - I expect. Like you, I'd back the winner to confirm the form on the revised marks but the handicapper may be taking the view that Clyne is better than he showed, having possibly done too much up front (even though he didn't make the pace).
 
Back
Top