The thoughts of the handicappers.

[Slim]

Kevin Blake has posted some interesting thoughts on his attheraces blog on the national hunt programme. His solution is for far less condition races in order to prevent too many small runner fields with short priced favourites and force the best horses to meet more often. I agree on what the problem is and think the solution lies in not only converting several races (back) to handicaps and using this prize money better, but also changing the nature of these top grade handicaps.

Instead of trying to give every horse the same chance of winning (which isn't what is being achieved anyway), why not give the better horses an advantage but one that is diminished compared to condition races.

Put more money into the top handicaps (as well as boosting a series of 0-140 handicaps a bit as a consolation for lesser horses) and then for every 3 pounds over a 140 rating for chases (130 for hurdles) a horse carries 2 extra pounds on raceday.

So a 170 rated chaser would run off an effective mark of 160 in handicaps. The historic races such as the Tingle Creek, King George and Gold Cup would remain level weights but many others such as the 2m January Ascot chase (Clarence House/Victor Chandler) would be handicaps with significant prize money, which combined with the new method of handicapping would hopefully give us some compelling races.

My full plan is more detailed but that is the bare bones of it and i think it would be a massive improvement on the status quo in terms of the spectacle whilst also rewarding the best horses appropriately such that the sales side of the industry remains viable.

What do people think?

They could at the very least trial something different.

 

[reet hard]

Agree: there are too many conditions races (flat and jumps), resulting in small fields - generally of horses just out for a spin. Pretty sure NH's fixation with the Cheltenham Festival just adds to the problem, too.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I'm not sure Kevin Blake's idea is that well thought out, to be honest, which is unusual for him.

Every year the usual suspects go into whinge overdrive about the classier horses being allowed to get into the National off lower ratings. We'd be mired in controversy all year round if all the big handicaps saw the same scenario.

In my opinion, nearly all of racing's ills come down to one root cause: bookmakers. They are taking far too much out of the industry.

It should be the case that winning one race of any description at least just about covers the yearly costs of keeping a horse in training.

Mark Johnston (trainer) often bemoans the system, complaining of too many handicaps and has argued in favour of a change of system but I don't imagine he would agree with KB either.

I would be in favour of Slim's idea of at least trying something. I can still remember when some of the bigger races were handicaps. I remember Desert Orchid put up one of his most impressive performances in giving Panto Prince 22lbs in the Victor Chandler (is that race still a handicap? Is it still sponsored by VC? Is it now called the Clarence House?)

I think giving better horses an added incentive to beat lesser ones in a valuable handicap is anathema to the idea of handicapping. (The National is a different argument and worth further discussion on a more appropriate thread.) I'm disappointed someone of KB's intellect would promote such an idea. The whole point of the handicap is to allow lesser horses to compete for prizes.

Why should horses who are naturally better be given an added boost to their chances?

Still, it's certainly debate worth having.

 

[Grasshopper]

Off the top of my head:

Make every Grade 3 hurdle/chase a handicap with a 14lb weight range.

Make every Grade 2 hurdle/chase a handicap with a 10lb weight range.

Have open-ended Grade 1 hurdle/chase at 2m, 2m4f and 3m every season, with a series of Qualifiers (must be placed) throughout the year. Run them at the Sandown meeting, which we transform into the Handicap Finals meeting, and put-up massive prize-money.

 

[redundant pal]

Kevin Blake has posted some interesting thoughts on his attheraces blog on the national hunt programme. His solution is for far less condition races in order to prevent too many small runner fields with short priced favourites and force the best horses to meet more often. I agree on what the problem is and think the solution lies in not only converting several races (back) to handicaps and using this prize money better, but also changing the nature of these top grade handicaps.

Instead of trying to give every horse the same chance of winning (which isn't what is being achieved anyway), why not give the better horses an advantage but one that is diminished compared to condition races.

Put more money into the top handicaps (as well as boosting a series of 0-140 handicaps a bit as a consolation for lesser horses) and then for every 3 pounds over a 140 rating for chases (130 for hurdles) a horse carries 2 extra pounds on raceday.

So a 170 rated chaser would run off an effective mark of 160 in handicaps. The historic races such as the Tingle Creek, King George and Gold Cup would remain level weights but many others such as the 2m January Ascot chase (Clarence House/Victor Chandler) would be handicaps with significant prize money, which combined with the new method of handicapping would hopefully give us some compelling races.

My full plan is more detailed but that is the bare bones of it and i think it would be a massive improvement on the status quo in terms of the spectacle whilst also rewarding the best horses appropriately such that the sales side of the industry remains viable.

What do people think?

 

[barjon]

Blimey, where do I start?

Firstly, Desert, I think that without bookmakers there would be no industry. It’s mainly the publics’ desire to gamble that supports horseracing.

Next, I hate handicaps. Do athletes at the Olympics have to carry back packs of varying weights? Are Liverpool players going to be given five pound weight football boots so that other teams have a chance? The whole idea of sport is to sort the wheat from the chaff and compete to find the best on a level playing field. And if horseracing is supposed to be a sport rather than a betting vehicle then that’s how it should be.

Handicaps are killers from a punting perspective - that’s why bookmakers love them - and so open to manipulation by “astute” trainers. They are a far cry from the level playing field they are designed for and no-one watching them would ever imagine that the field was indeed level.

I would much prefer level weights with more Classes, more tightly drawn to give the lesser lights races in which they could be competitive and earn their corn.

 

[Grasshopper]

Can’t agree with any of that, barjon.

Betting turnover on handicaps surely massively outweighs that which is generated on small-field Graded races with short-prices, and is therefore good for the industry.

Adopt your proposal, and the same horses win the same races every time, and interest in the sport - even from die-hards - would start to dwindle.

Comparing horse-racing with football, athletics, or any other sport is false-equivalence, imo. The horse population is too great, and the variance in talent equally so.

 

[barjon]

Can’t agree with any of that, barjon.

Betting turnover on handicaps surely massively outweighs that which is generated on small-field Graded races with short-prices, and is therefore good for the industry.

Adopt your proposal, and the same horses win the same races every time, and interest in the sport - even from die-hards - would start to dwindle.

Comparing horse-racing with football, athletics, or any other sport is false-equivalence, imo. The horse population is too great, and the variance in talent equally so.

You’re probably right, Grassy, it’s because I’m hugely prejudiced against handicaps. Alex Bird told me as a young man never to back in handicaps (except the Grand National where he made a lot of money because the fences were so severe at that time that you could cross out most of the runners, then play with the remainder). It was advice that I haven’t fully complied with over the years - much to my cost.

 

[Slim]

If Alex Bird was betting today he would be doing it differently.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Firstly, Desert, I think that without bookmakers there would be no industry. It’s mainly the publics’ desire to gamble that supports horseracing.

While I support the idea of doing away with bookmakers, I deliberately avoided saying as much in my post above, barjon.

I said they took far too much money out of the industry. That's the truth of it.

Authorities like Hong Kong and Australia seem to thrive with an absence of bookmakers. Prize money is vastly superior. In France, racing might not be as popular or as well attended as here but prize money is substantially greater and the sport is more affordable for that reason. Can you imagine the crowds we'd have at decent meetings if it only cost a tenner to get in?

Handicaps are, as GH says, generating huge amounts for the bookies. That's why they sponsor the Heritage Handicaps.

When I started studying the form about 45 years ago the form book contained about 5000 races for the Flat and 3000 for NH. Now it's up to 10000 Flat and over 8000 NH, most of the increases boil down to handicaps, driven by bookmaker demands.

I accept we're never going to do away with bookmakers in this country in my lifetime. I accept Celtic are never going to win the Champions' League in my lifetime either. But I can dream :lol:

 

[barjon]

I’m not sure how they take money out of the industry, Desert. They certainly set the agenda, but isn’t it punters they take from?

 

[Desert Orchid]

I’m not sure how they take money out of the industry, Desert. They certainly set the agenda, but isn’t it punters they take from?

They generate billions of pounds in profit every year from punters, yes. They are licensed by the authorities to do so, on condition that they put back so much money (ie the levy) into the industry. They start a war with the authorities every time discussions about the levy come up and flex their muscles claiming the industry want too much from them but in real terms they're paying a pittance relative to their profits.

Maybe they should pull the plug on the industry, quit racing and concentrate on other sports. Racing would struggle in the short term but eventually a pool system would take over and we'd work our way towards a similar footing to Hong Kong. Who knows, we might even get horses disqualified when their riders break the rules

 

[barjon]

Yes, it’s not so much that they take out of the industry, but that they don’t put enough in. As you say their contribution is a pittance compared to their profits. Nonetheless, it is a symbiotic relationship and it is quite difficult to see how one would get on without the other, although I appreciate your point about Hong Kong. Aaaaargh, the rules, the rules

 

[G-G]

Off the top of my head:

Make every Grade 3 hurdle/chase a handicap with a 14lb weight range.

Make every Grade 2 hurdle/chase a handicap with a 10lb weight range.

Have open-ended Grade 1 hurdle/chase at 2m, 2m4f and 3m every season, with a series of Qualifiers (must be placed) throughout the year. Run them at the Sandown meeting, which we transform into the Handicap Finals meeting, and put-up massive prize-money.

This I think is a really good idea.

Apologies if completely stupid but why are the ranges of handicaps not more numerically narrow in range? Tomorrow, the BBB running in a 0-145. top weight is 11 12, bottom 10 2, so selfish motives aside ( BBB has 11 10 - again - ) why could handicaps not be 0-70/75, 76/80-100, 100- 130, 140-155...or something along the line of logic I am trying to get across? With some field sizes being limited would that not give more horses more chance of getting into a race on more of an equal footing? I see that someone would want to run 10 2 against 11 12 but that's a very wide range, especially if in a smallish field.
Trying to explain handicapping to someone today and they asked if there was such a thing as a maximum initial handicap a horse can be given, which I didn't know. Talking NH horses here more than specifically than flat horses, although guess the same thing might be applicable if exists, although my answer today was I doubted it. Thank you.

 

[granger]

A large bonus for taking in a big handicap would help box office races but would be a bit of an elephant in the room approach. Include something like the Hennessy and Irish equivalent with the Christmas G1s culminating in March

There are in the UK at least too many graded races which really dilute my beloved novice chases

 

[reet hard]

Agree: there are too many conditions races (flat and jumps), resulting in small fields - generally of horses just out for a spin. Pretty sure NH's fixation with the Cheltenham Festival just adds to the problem, too.

In this case, the NH signifies National Hunt - though it's hard to argue Epatante and Altior weren't recent examples of the above phenomenon.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Nonetheless, it is a symbiotic relationship and it is quite difficult to see how one would get on without the other, although I appreciate your point about Hong Kong. Aaaaargh, the rules, the rules

Yes. I think a radical approach is needed.

We've had bookmaking in this country for almost as long as we've had horseracing. I presume back then bookmaking was illegal but suppose we'd never legalised it? It would have been underground for a while, as it was/is in so many other countries, but they allowed pool systems to operate and as they became more popular bookmakers became less relevant.

I think our authorities need to encourage bookmakers to walk away. Insist on a serious levy or don't allow them to take bets on our sport, if that's legally possible.

Take us back to square one and start again. As a nation we love our betting and when you see how vast the Lottery has become - remember, some folk reckoned it was doomed from the start - I think a UK pool system would grow to rival the biggest elsewhere in the world, especially if the authorities allowed access to punters in other countries. Pools would be vast and better reflect the market. We could offer a minimum of £20k for winning any race with every decent Saturday handicap worth £100k to the winner. Classics could be worth millions.

Just a dream of mine...

 

[Marb]

Chatham Street Lad entered in Fairyhouse Jan 16th. A valuable handicap over 2M1F.

 

[Maxbet]

Yes. I think a radical approach is needed.

We've had bookmaking in this country for almost as long as we've had horseracing. I presume back then bookmaking was illegal but suppose we'd never legalised it? It would have been underground for a while, as it was/is in so many other countries, but they allowed pool systems to operate and as they became more popular bookmakers became less relevant.

I think our authorities need to encourage bookmakers to walk away. Insist on a serious levy or don't allow them to take bets on our sport if that's legally possible.

As a nation we love our betting and when you see how vast the Lottery has become - remember, some folk reckoned it was doomed from the start - I think a UK pool system would grow to rival the biggest elsewhere in the world, especially if the authorities allowed access to punters in other countries. Pools would be vast and better reflect the market. We could offer a minimum of £20k for winning any race with every decent Saturday handicap worth £100k to the winner. Classics could be worth millions.

Just a dream of mine...

The kids betting today are mainly interested in Football, about 70% of them don't even bet horses!

 

[Maxbet]

They generate billions of pounds in profit every year from punters, yes. They are licensed by the authorities to do so, on condition that they put back so much money (ie the levy) into the industry. They start a war with the authorities every time discussions about the levy come up and flex their muscles claiming the industry want too much from them but in real terms, they're paying a pittance relative to their profits.

Maybe they should pull the plug on the industry, quit racing and concentrate on other sports. Racing would struggle in the short term but eventually, a pool system would take over and we'd work our way towards a similar footing to Hong Kong. Who knows, we might even get horses disqualified when their riders break the rules

Of the near £14.5 Billion gambled in this country every year, only 4% of it is on horse racing... £580 million!

£1.015 Billion is gambled on football!

 

[barjon]

Of the near £14.5 Billion gambled in this country every year, only 4% of it is on horse racing... £580 million!

£1.015 Billion is gambled on football!

Er, I think off-course turnover is about £4.2 billion (1918/19) down from £5.5 billion ten years previously.

 

[Grey]

I've sometimes wondered, but here it's being said openly: The British handicappers will endeavour where possible to rate their best horses higher than their Irish counterparts in order to keep them at the top of the tree. This is an extract from an article in the Weights And Measures section of the Sporting Life:

With Energumene now rated 163, Shishkin has been raised another couple of pounds to 164.

Chris Nash, the BHA handicapper in charge of deciding the ratings for steeplechasers over two miles, explains why:


"The rating change for Shishkin was simply a reaction to the revised mark of Energumene. That mark of 163 is his published chase rating in Ireland but we keep our own figures for all Irish jump races and I had actually put 164 on him for Leopardstown before I knew what the Irish had done.


"I assumed that if I left Shishkin at 162 when Energumene was 163 in Ireland then the “headlines” would be that the handicapper thinks Energumene is the better horse and that was an argument I didn’t want to get into. For that reason, I went back to the Doncaster race that Shishkin won last time and decided that I could make him 164 quite comfortably.


"I had him running a bare figure of 158+ that day – beating the 149 rated Eldorado Allen by 8½ lengths at level weights. I could have added on almost anything for the ease of victory and I initially went 4lbs to get him to 162 – conscious of the fact that that had him high enough for a novice at that stage of the season. The figure subsequently given to Energumene encouraged me to go 164.


"Whilst I understand the interest, I am not a big fan of novices being judged on their current ratings as they are obviously formative and often have more to do with what they have run against than actually how good they might be. It is not difficult to argue that the form of Energumene has more substance than that of Shishkin at this stage. It is also not difficult to argue that the ease with which Shishkin has won his races makes him nigh on impossible to assess.


"My opinion on the race is that it should be an absolute cracker. I hope both get there and I hope both run their races if they do. They may well have identical ratings in the race card come the day and I strongly feel that the post-Cheltenham ratings are the ones that the bulk of the discussion should relate to."

 

[Grasshopper]

Is this handicapping, or ‘making it up as you go along’?

 

[Maxbet]

Is this handicapping, or ‘making it up as you go along’?

One-upmanship!!!

 

[Desert Orchid]

I'm usually quite defensive of our handicappers but this rings alarm bells.

At the same time, it kind of backs up a comment I occasionally make, namely that the handicappers are constrained by their own procedures, something a lone ranger like myself doesn't have to worry about. I would have Energumene in the high 160s, which is very high at this stage of the season, and Shishkin closing in on 180, which is just ridiculous for a novice.