I wonder, because my two best horses in Hall of Fame has won nothing and been retired to stud after 3 and 4 races. My best rated horsed on the list, rated 157 and 160 are 3 and 4 in the rankings. How does the computer define the rankings?

Cannot speak for anyone else, but mine is a total mess, horses no longer add to it as it filled up, horses appear multiple times and at multiple ages and the filtering seems to be on money but have lots that never listed that won more than the one in first. Pooling and transfers etc seems to be when it goes squiffy

Agree with Githyanki - it's a mess along with a lot of the other databases within the game (historical champion jockey/trainer for example). I really hoped Mark would have addressed the historical storage of data by now as statistics are very important within a strategy game.

So it is not just me then. It is a shame. The historic statistics adds valuable depth to the game.