Phil Smith's Handicapping Of The National

[Maruco]

To me the only alternative to the handicap system is no handicap system, not one man's tinkering.

DO you said it yourself when you said what if there was a 4f race run for a million pounds. The answer is simple, it wouldn't be a handicap! Phil Smith is trying to take some kind of hybrid approach to the National and it's fundamentally unfair on 90% of the runners.

Surely that's evidenced by a 50% win rate in the last 4 years by horses advantaged by Smith from little more than 10% representation. He is deciding the result not the handicap system which horses have run to for their entire career.

 

[Desert Orchid]

The thing is DO..he isn't doing it to correct a scale for all runners..he is doing it to encourage Grade 1 hosses to take part.

Why weren't they taking part? Because they were disadvantaged! Why would an owner bang his horse's head against a brick wall trying to give away the same weight as they would in a 3m race over a race 50% further and bigger fences?

 

[Desert Orchid]

To me the only alternative to the handicap system is no handicap system, not one man's tinkering.

DO you said it yourself when you said what if there was a 4f race run for a million pounds. The answer is simple, it wouldn't be a handicap! Phil Smith is trying to take some kind of hybrid approach to the National and it's fundamentally unfair on 90% of the runners.

Surely that's evidenced by a 50% win rate in the last 4 years by horses advantaged by Smith from little more than 10% representation. He is deciding the result not the handicap system which horses have run to for their entire career.

Four runnings are hardly basis enough on which to draw meaningful conclusions, are they? And those two winners just got lucky on the day.

Many Clouds got lucky because none of the other serious contenders ran their race. If TDN had stood up he'd probably have won by some way and we wouldn't be having this debate. We'd be having an altogether different one (see below). Neptune Collonges got lucky because SHB idled when he was out on his own. On another day he might not have been close enough or might have been on the wrong side of the verdict. And Synchronised might have stayed on his feet and won by miles. There's no way he wouldn't have stayed.

If people want to have a pop at someone or something they're missing a much more obvious target.

If TDN had won by a wide margin (as I strongly believe he would), the debate would be all about how he manged to get in 10lbs too light and the outcry would be for the return of penalties. That is much more the whim of the handicapper than the science that tells him that over the extreme test of the National the higher-weighted horses would otherwise be at a disadvantage that deserves redressing.

 

[Maruco]

Why weren't they taking part? Because they were disadvantaged! Why would an owner bang his horse's head against a brick wall trying to give away the same weight as they would in a 3m race over a race 50% further and bigger fences?

For half a million pounds DO. Both Neptune Collonges and Many Clouds would have gone close irrespective of Phil Smith's meddling.

 

[Maruco]

Many Clouds got lucky because none of the other serious contenders ran their race. If TDN had stood up he'd probably have won by some way and we wouldn't be having this debate. We'd be having an altogether different one (see below). Neptune Collonges got lucky because SHB idled when he was out on his own. On another day he might not have been close enough or might have been on the wrong side of the verdict. And Synchronised might have stayed on his feet and won by miles. There's no way he wouldn't have stayed.

And by saying so you surely make the argument for not changing the handicap? As you say all three may well have won anyway, but we're left with the feeling that other connections have been cheated of the win.

 

[Maruco]

If TDN had won by a wide margin (as I strongly believe he would), the debate would be all about how he manged to get in 10lbs too light and the outcry would be for the return of penalties. That is much more the whim of the handicapper than the science that tells him that over the extreme test of the National the higher-weighted horses would otherwise be at a disadvantage that deserves redressing.

Don't get me started! I was saving that one for another thread!

I also disagree with the handicap being drawn up before the 5 day stage. Those that have run up until that stage should be handicapped to their current mark.

I also have a view about a mark that's been protected over hurdles, which is another debate again.

 

[Desert Orchid]

For half a million pounds DO. Both Neptune Collonges and Many Clouds would have gone close irrespective of Phil Smith's meddling.

So would Dawn Run against Wayward Lad...

 

[Maruco]

We definitely agree on that one.

 

[simmo]

Surely that's evidenced by a 50% win rate in the last 4 years by horses advantaged by Smith from little more than 10% representation. He is deciding the result not the handicap system which horses have run to for their entire career.

Only it's not. and repeating it over and over like a mantra doesn't make it so. Neptune Collonges ran off a fair mark based on his runs that season. The new system of handicapping for the National has been on the go for 10 years+. So it's actually 1 winner from 10% of runners over 10 years............

Which I think is what folk refer to as average. Under the old system, there would probably have been no winners from that 10%, which would mean those runners were actually disadvantaged.

 

[EC1]

which would mean those runners were actually disadvantaged.

no it wouldn't really imo

the thing about top weights in Grand National's is that they are usually horses that are shoved in it after a long season trying Graded races..its not the weight that stops them..its that the race isn't their target..its an afterthought after running in better class races

i haven't checked..but i'll wager if you looked at the number of races top weights have had throughout the season is higher on average than the average winner.

Because top weights struggle.. Smith has assumed its the weight that stops them..imo it isn't..its a peak performance factor...most top weights are tatored by April..this year we have a horse that has stood up to his season..but you wouldn't say the race was his main target would you when you look at where he has competed

 

[Maruco]

That is a seriously good point that I'd completely overlooked.

 

[simmo]

i haven't checked..but i'll wager if you looked at the number of races top weights have had throughout the season is higher on average than the average winner.

You'd lose. No winner has run less than 3 times in a season since Minnehoma. The average number of runs since then is 5.5 per season.

I only have sparse data for three of the past 4 years handy re top weights as follows (average runs for the top 5 in the weights)

2015 3.6
2013 2.2
2012 3.4

Looking at the names of the horses in question - they have generally been Gd2/3 type horses, with the odd Gd1 type thrown in (Synchronised/Imperial Commander)

The lack of runs would point me in the direction of believing that the GN is the main target for most of these horses, and despite Phil Smiths best efforts, none of them have won till now.

 

[EC1]

You'd lose. No winner has run less than 3 times in a season since Minnehoma. The average number of runs since then is 5.5 per season.

I only have sparse data for three of the past 4 years handy re top weights as follows (average runs for the top 5 in the weights)

2015 3.6
2013 2.2
2012 3.4

Looking at the names of the horses in question - they have generally been Gd2/3 type horses, with the odd Gd1 type thrown in (Synchronised/Imperial Commander)

The lack of runs would point me in the direction of believing that the GN is the main target for most of these horses, and despite Phil Smiths best efforts, none of them have won till now.

I'd lose because you used the top 5 weights..i was talking about top weight to be fair

In a race where there are 40 runners..there are no real conclusions to be drawn anyway from just a few races either

Synchronised would be an example of what i mean to be fair..a horse who clearly wasn't targetted at the race

To prove anything with stats we need a lot of data when a race has 40 runners.

What we do know is that the National has traditionally been hard to win with topweights..same can be said of all the other Nationals.carrying weight over extreme distance isn't easy ..thats just a physical fact.

But if its so hard to do...maybe thats why the race is special.

Its also worth bearing in mind that over a period of time...as most of the field are carrying less than 11.00..that most winners will carry less than 11.0..so if we get 20 winners in a row winning with less than 11.0..it doesn't signify anything because statistically you could go 40 years without a higher weight winning..just because of how many horses run in each weight group

I still believe that actual top weights in the main..are there as an after thought though..including Many Clouds


We aren't talking about every year top weight will win because he changed it..there are so many other things that can stop a horse winning..so saying that loads haven't won because he helped them doesn't statistcally prove anything. But when a horse rated lets say 170 wins off a mark of 164 or 165..then its obvious that people will scrutinise it.

 

[simmo]

You'd lose because you are mistaken. The point sounds plausible on an intellectual level, but is incorrect when viewed statistically.

The top weights in question were Synchronised (5 runs), Imperial Commander (targeted - 1 run) and Lord Windermere (4 runs). Others include Tidal Bay (4 runs, possibly targeted given his programme that year), Don't Push It (4 runs, targeted), Madison Du Berlais (4 runs, prob targetted), Cloudy Lane (5 runs - targeted)

All below the average, but, with the exception of IC, in the bracket for number of runs required (3+) and most of them targeted specifically at the race.

 

[EC1]

You'd lose because you are mistaken. The point sounds plausible on an intellectual level, but is incorrect when viewed statistically.

The top weights in question were Synchronised (5 runs), Imperial Commander (targeted - 1 run) and Lord Windermere (4 runs). Others include Tidal Bay (4 runs, possibly targeted given his programme that year), Don't Push It (4 runs, targeted), Madison Du Berlais (4 runs, prob targetted), Cloudy Lane (5 runs - targeted)

All below the average, but, with the exception of IC, in the bracket for number of runs required (3+) and most of them targeted specifically at the race.

you could have 30 horses ..60 even...targetted that lose though...targetting doesn't make a winner in a 40 race field...where you can lose at the first or second fence

to be fair some of those wouldn't have won a national anyway..MDB at that stage was shadow of his best

whatever the reason is..its very hard to win a national..its very hard to win with top weight..and so it should be..that is the test it is..its not impossible though to do it without altering ratings

 

[Maruco]

That's the point isn't it. Neither Many Clouds nor Neptune Collonges needed the handicappers help to go close, and who is to say they wouldn't have won anyway. I can't say for certain and nor can anyone else.

The basic point was that the handicapper has helped them though and the connections who finished second have every right to feel cheated.

Sunnyhillboy and Saint Are will be forgotten as time passes but the winners won't.

I'll also add that plenty of horses carrying 11st placed in the National before Smith decided to interfere, so it's not as if horses who can see the trip out haven't been competitive despite their weight. We did have a period where horses carrying more than 11st didn't win and this was what he attempted to mistakenly correct.

Now he is handling a stout classy a stayer an unfair advantage.

And given the counter points to this why isn't he applying the same approach to the Scottish National? Aren't the horses at the top of the handicap at the same unfair disadvantage he perceives?

 

[EC1]

That's the point isn't it. Neither Many Clouds nor Neptune Collonges needed the handicappers help to go close, and who is to say they wouldn't have won anyway. I can't say for certain and nor can anyone else.

The basic point was that the handicapper has helped them though and the connections who finished second have every right to feel cheated.

Sunnyhillboy and Saint Are will be forgotten as time passes but the winners won't.

I'll also add that plenty of horses carrying 11st placed in the National before Smith decided to interfere, so it's not as if horses who can see the trip out haven't been competitive despite their weight. We did have a period where horses carrying more than 11st didn't win and this was what he attempted to mistakenly correct.

Now he is handling a stout classy a stayer an unfair advantage.

And given the counter points to this why isn't he applying the same approach to the Scottish National? Aren't the horses at the top of the handicap at the same unfair disadvantage he perceives?

1966-2004
Scottish National
11.05+
6 winners

Welsh National
11.05+
6 winners

English Grand National
11.05+
4 winners

since 2004

Scottish National
11.05+
1 winner

Welsh National
11.05+
1 winner

English Grand National
11.05+
3 winners

In the 66-04...38 year period ..there wasn't much in it between the races re carrying weight..since 2004 we have had 3 times as many 11-05+ winners in our national..as in the other two...has it made a difference?

this new method should surely apply to all 3 races for consistency i would have thought if it has to be used

it shows though..that our National is no different from the others re carrying weight,,but he has only changed the rules for one of them

 

[Maruco]

Thanks Alan

The stats still prove that it's possible to carry a big weight and win.

The reality is that these are handicaps and when horses get to the top of handicaps in whatever band they are always going to be more vulnerable to those that are less exposed. History tells us that.

In my opinion the Nationals are handicaps just the same as any other handicap and should be treated as such.

Realistically a horse stepping up from 3 miles to 4 miles is no different to a horse stepping up from 2 miles to 3 miles. If it's good enough and it get's the trip it can win. I'm not saying it's not difficult, but that's the point of a handicapping system that pushes horses beyond them and into graded races. If connections choose to take on a handicap off a big weight for the lure of half a million pounds they should do so on the same basis as every other horse.

The reality with The National though is that the vast majority don't get the trip and never would irrespective of what the handicapper does. Those classy types that do see it out have as good a chance as those off lighter weights that are attempting to do the very same. Connections are taking the chance that there horse gets round, sees the trip out and is good enough.

Nicholls tells us every year his horses will get the trip, and from countless entries he's only ever been right once! Yet Sherwood thought his horse wasn't ready for the race, wasn't sure about the trip and the ground, and even whether he had enough experience. As it turns out he was tailor made for the race! So why did Phil Smith gave him an unnecessary helping hand? How can he possibly know whether he's advantaged a horse or whether its made no difference, particularly when the trainers themselves have no idea!!! Is he Mystic Meg, because he's taking the crystal ball approach and it's just wrong.

The reason I introduced the other Nationals into the debate is that Phil Smith conveniently overlooks them, and only regards Aintree as different. Why would that be? It suggests the motive for doing so is to actively advantage higher rated horses to attract them to the race, rather than to level the playing field as he asserts. And that is precisely what I take issue with, particularly as there is no way he can prove the future impact of his approach in handicapping terms.

 

[Grey]

In my opinion the Nationals are handicaps just the same as any other handicap and should be treated as such.

Reduce the prize money for the Grand National by a factor of ten and I might agree with you, but until then it shouldn't be done.

The race is worth twice as much as any other race in the jumps calendar, the Gold Cup included and it is run over a distance that is more extreme than any other race. Why would you not go to the trouble of devising a fairer handicap specifically for such a special and important race?

 

[Colin Phillips]

"fairer handicap"????........really?

 

[Maruco]

That's the point though Grey. It's not a fairer handicap. It's fundamentally unfair to advantage horses at the whim of one man against a system that has stood the test of time and generations.

 

[EC1]

Reduce the prize money for the Grand National by a factor of ten and I might agree with you, but until then it shouldn't be done.

The race is worth twice as much as any other race in the jumps calendar, the Gold Cup included and it is run over a distance that is more extreme than any other race. Why would you not go to the trouble of devising a fairer handicap specifically for such a special and important race?

you are suggesting that the handicap system is wrong at 4m+....if that is the case..where is the point where it starts being wrong..it can't suddenly start full on at some point..it must be a gradual slope of incorrectness. Logically it must start kicking in somewhere..so where is that point?..is it 2 miles..3 miles?

and if it just starts at 4m2.5f then why are not all the horses handicapped using the same formula? If a horse rated 170 is deemed incorrectly handicapped at that trip..then one rated 150 must also need the same adjustment surely

i don't think its a handicapping problem at all tbh..because if it was it would apply to every runner and more than one race.

 

[Grey]

We don't know yet if the new approach is entirely fair because as EC1 points out we haven't got enough data yet, but we do know that the old system was not fair and wasn't working. Where was the fairness in a race that higher weighted horses couldn't win? And what was good for racing about having as its main event a race that good horses avoided?

The big exception is Red Rum, who was the greatest horse in the history of the Grand National, yet he couldn't win anywhere else (ok, he did win as a 2yo, but even that was at Liverpool!). After several attempts L'Escargot could only beat him when his mark was reduced and he was getting some weight. But maybe the rules of thumb used for lengths and pounds, designed with other races in mind, meant that for the purposes of the National he got too much weight off and Red Rum was then left with an impossible task?

 

[EC1]

We don't know yet if the new approach is entirely fair because as EC1 points out we haven't got enough data yet, but we do know that the old system was not fair and wasn't working. Where was the fairness in a race that higher weighted horses couldn't win? And what was good for racing about having as its main event a race that good horses avoided?

The big exception is Red Rum, who was the greatest horse in the history of the Grand National, yet he couldn't win anywhere else (ok, he did win as a 2yo, but even that was at Liverpool!). After several attempts L'Escargot could only beat him when his mark was reduced and he was getting some weight. But maybe the rules of thumb used for lengths and pounds, designed with other races in mind, meant that for the purposes of the National he got too much weight off and Red Rum was then left with an impossible task?

the scottish National/welsh national have a similar record with top weights..should not that be altered as well?..especially now that the GN has 3 times a many 11.05 winners. should we also allow the lower horses the same concession to balance it up?

in fact..not much point decent horses going for the scottish one now..its easier at Aintree.

i can't see how a handicapping system can only apply to one band of runners but ignore the rest in the same race..or other races where it looks hard to carry weight

i've also not seen any evidence that would show a change to weight for distance handicapping is needed. Big handicaps anywhere are tough to win with any weight..throw in 40 runners and its not surprising that top weights only win once in a blue moon.

Its a bit like saying..over the last 30 years only one horse has carried exacly 10-8 to win a race..there must be something wrong with that weight...until you factor in that with 40 runners you could go years without any winner with that weight..just due to weight of numbers in a race.

There is a difference in these two stats although they both concern top weights..top weights win once every 30 years in race A..top weights win once every 15 years in race B

in race A there are 40 runners each year..in race B there are 20 runners each year

the weight is not deciding the outcomes in both examples..the number of runners in the field is

 

[Maruco]

Let's bring the 3m7f cross country race at Cheltenham into the equation. It's only 1f short of 4 miles yet top weights and those towards the top of the handicap have a fantastic record. If the trip is the issue it's not showing up. Why would that be?

I have a view which also translates to the National debate, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions why this would be?