The 2000 Guineas (and beyond)

EC1 said:
I don't use future handicap marks..I use the current ones..future ones imo are misleading in the fact that some will be incorrect..ie too much and horse can't win off it.
Click to expand...

A horse's handicap mark going into a race is history; it's the level of form they showed when producing the actual time being rated that's important. You wouldn't want to depress the ratings across a card because you're keying off the old OR of some Mark Prescott yoke who got his mark running over the wrong distance, would you?

Given that its in the official handicapper's interest not to under-rate horses, especially in handicaps, using their new mark is actually more likely to inflate the time ratings of other races. For example, when a horse wins a handicap easily and the handicapper rates the bare form, and then adds a few pounds on top of the winner's rating. However, with close inspection of the new ratings given to the placed horses (who usually go up by a pound or two also) you can usually figure out how the official handicapper rated the bare form, and go with that instead.

I doubt anyone would use future marks Gareth when making figures
Click to expand...

Really? I'd bet the Racing Post use the form ratings (RPRs) achieved in the race itself as a starting point for their Topspeed ratings, rather than whatever they had the winner's rated at before the race.
 
Season is bubbling up nicely - 3 year old milers are sorting themselves out and a clash with the older milers will be a race to savour.
 
don't forget Gareth that the OHR's used when calculating figures are just to find the expected time..its not giving a final rating..this isn't a big issue thats skewing anything. Also a handicapper will put a horse up automatically..without recourse to whether that horse is capable of winning off that higher mark..again ...you are using a ..might be OHR ..against an OHR based on the the form up to that point is.

Future OHR's are no better or worse than using the current one ...its swings and roundabouts....I don't use individual OHR's anyway so this isn't an issue for me anyway..I think its an issue you are over estimating its importance of though.

if on a card you had all handicaps

if the winner in a race is ahead of the handicapper..say..wins by 3 and shows a time that backs it up..you will see it in the bare time figure earned before you assess you going allowance..because the bare rating for that race for the winner will be out of line with the other races..thats why I use the times of the first 4 home to get the allowance..any horse running above its OHR stands out straight off..you don't need the future rating...in fact if you use a future rating you won't even spot the improver in your speed figures as it will show as a par time..but a par time future horse..so you won't realise its ahead of the handicapper as you have it as that par future horse..

As said..I bet other figure makers work of the OHR in the results section.

but..as no one on here wants to discuss how THEY make figures..it won't happen :lol:

Gareth..why don't you take these queries to teh thread I started..its bogging this thread down..I'm sure you will get lots of replies on that other thread :)
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
don't forget Gareth that the OHR's used when calculating figures are just to find the expected time..its not giving a final rating..this isn't a big issue thats skewing anything.
Click to expand...

Why would I set my expectations by the horse's old handicap mark when he has almost certainly improved in order to win the race?

That makes no sense at all.
 
EC1 said:
I've laid my views out now Gareth..I question the whole 12/14 lb per second thing..and I've clearly shown why.
Click to expand...

Fine; here's my view, clearly laid out:

If two horses of the same age carry the same weight and record the same time on the same day over the same course and distance, they should be accorded the same time rating and those time ratings should be realistic given the level of form they have shown in their races.

I would treat any time handicapping methodology which doesn't follow this logic at a minimum with scepticism.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled 2000 Guineas thread :o
 
=Gareth Flynn;370130]Fine; here's my view, clearly laid out:

If two horses of the same age carry the same weight and record the same time on the same day over the same course and distance, they should be accorded the same time rating and those time ratings should be realistic given the level of form they have shown in their races.

I would treat any time handicapping methodology which doesn't follow this logic at a minimum with scepticism.
Click to expand...

replied on other thread
 
Last edited:
I doubt anyone would use future marks Gareth when making figures
Click to expand...
I'd suggest it might depend on your definition of 'use'.

I usually check the official handicapper's take on a race when considering my own so I do check the future ratings.
 
Great to see Canford Cliffs put in a performance like that, and good to see early season 2 year olds can win classics. That was as impressive an Irish Guineas win I've seen in quite a few years.
 
Any excuse for his owners to large it in France! :lol: Hopefully, the champagne costs a bit less in its home country than it does at British courses - they know how to lay waste to a few bottles, win or no win.
 
Sheikh said:
I don't think that is a valid comparison. Form ratings are based on what a horse has achieved. Dosage is some kind of equation that claims to quantify the amount of stamina passed through the generations.

Steve reckons Canford might get a mile because Busted is back on Tagulas pedigree on the dam side !
Click to expand...

Missed this earlier... What Dosage actually does is to look at only “prepotent” (i.e. significant) influence and discard that which is insignificant. Consequently it does not treat all parts of the pedigree the same. While it is not the answer to the meaning of life, it does help to see past “received wisdom” on occasion. ;)
 
Good call Steve, and I saw the point you made about prepotency to someone else yesterday and I do see the merit in that. You where right Re: Canford at the Curragh. I thought I was right at Newmarket when it turns out I was just plain old Lucky :)
 
Sheikh said:
Good call Steve, and I saw the point you made about prepotency to someone else yesterday and I do see the merit in that. You where right Re: Canford at the Curragh. I thought I was right at Newmarket when it turns out I was just plain old Lucky :)
Click to expand...

Big of you to say so Sheikh, wasn't rubbing it in... not much anyway.
 
Galileo said:
Corals go the following prices for the St James Palace -

Canford Cliffs 7/4
Makfi 2/1
Steinbeck 5/1
Dick Turpin 5/1
Click to expand...

I see Makfi is now 11/4 in places - that looks very big, for all I was really impressed with Canford in Ireland.
 
Back
Top