Reply to thread

I'm at work at the moment and so I can't look it up but there have always been nurseries in the first half of July. There's a 6f one at Ponte on a Tuesday and a 5f one at York's Magnet Cup day later the same week and I think there might even be one or two earlier than that now, possibly at Salisbury.

 

But you're right. Official marks aren't published in the early stages of the nursery season and we have to rely on the Post's "estimated handicap marks". I think they're pretty accurate but I've never understood why the official figures aren't given out. They must exist to enable Horse A to receive 7lbs from Horse B so why not publish them? Everybody would recognise that they represent a work in progress and are of necessity very fluid. Plenty of people use handicap ratings to assist them in deciding whether or not to have a bet (e.g. "X is up 10lbs for that impressive win the other day and I reckon that's lenient/excessive") so why not give them the information?

 

In the same spirit of glasnost, why only publish in the Update and Weekender changes in the handicap marks of horses who have a rating already? Time was when you'd get details of the marks allocated to horses entering the handicap system for the first time but not any more. It's of interest to me, for example, that last week's Newbury winner, Flambeau, gets an initial mark of 80. I think it's lenient but others may disagree. I only know the figure because I subscribe to Raceform Interactive - I wouldn't otherwise. You can argue that when she does run in a handicap for the first time her mark will appear in the Post but where does that leave someone who doesn't have time to study the form during the week? If he knew the mark in advance, he might note her down as a horse to follow (or oppose) and have a bet in a race he would have otherwise ignored. It's a small thing but it couldn't have a negative effect on betting turnover, could it?

 

Back to work...