The thoughts of the handicappers.

I got a text from the brother earlier today suggesting I check out an article in the RP.

He summarised it along the lines of "you should rate races as low as you can".

I don't know where to start...
 
Annie Mc (+3) 145
Buzz (new) 139
Chantry House (new) 140
Clondaw Castle (+6) 149
McFabulous (new) 132
On The Slopes (+7) 136 *
Perfect Harmony (+7) 129
Pic d’Orhy (+8) 152
Rouge Vif (+7) 157
Shishkin (new) 153
 
Kim Bailey and ante post backers of Imperial Aura will be relieved.

The BHA could conceivably have put Imperial Aura (and Simply the Betts) up based on the 7lb rise they gave On The Slopes for winning at the back end of last week. In the case of the former that would likely have ruled him out of the novice handicap.
 
Copperhead +10 (155)
Welsh Saint +4 (138)
Silva Eclipse +2 (130)
Kilbricken Storm -2 (140)
Ramses De Teillee +3 (152)
Greaneteen +3 (150)
Senior Citizen +9 (134)
Caltex +9 (127)
First Flow +7 (148)
 
Last edited:
As I write Unibet (who do the Henderson blog) the only ones to have shortened him up today.

Edit, should be her of course.
 
Last edited:
Diamond Geezer said:
As I write Unibet (who do the Henderson blog) the only ones to have shortened him up today.

Edit, should be her of course.
Click to expand...

They will all cut her later. No one manages these markets properly. Front Row got put up 1lb today in Ireland and Coral/Ladbrokes finally realised pushing him to 25s for the Martin Pipe had been a bad idea.
 
No surprise seeing Cornerstone Lad rated so highly (in relation to the other runners). G1 winner etc, but has a CH field ever looked so bereft of quality on official ratings?
 
Official ratings are balls. The year BUV won his first CH Petit Mouchoir and Yanworth were rated 164. Nonsense.

I don't and never have taken OR's into account when betting in conditions races, flat or jumps. It's a crutch people use.
 
I think it's a mistake to be so dismissive of ORs.

I know how much time I spend over the years arriving at my own ratings and, while I have enough faith in them to back them, I'm not averse to checking what the official handicappers think. After all, they're professionals who probably spend at least eight hours a day checking the evidence and arriving at conclusions. I imagine if they weren't any good at their job they wouldn't last very long in it.

They're far from infallible otherwise you wouldn't get wide-margin winners of handicaps but I reckon on the whole they do a pretty good job.

I also often check RPRs although I find I'm less convinced by them. I seldom refer to Timeform. I've checked them occasionally down through the years and tend to find myself disappointed in them.

Still, I don't see anything wrong with having a second or third opinion and as I'm not in a position to study form in depth for myself at the moment I do find myself checking ORs and RPRs more often than I used to.
 
Back
Top