Sorry but could I find the Schedule we are going to use

i have a copy i can email it to you mate

Thanks PJ

The only thing I have to say about the handicapping is that Steve's method would have been quick, simple and painless. Handicapping is tedious and trying and takes FOREVER! I can tell you that from experience, you'll need a team of 2-4 to decide upon ratings plus another 2-5+ maybe to enter the ratings depending on the amount of horses that run each week. In the interest of getting going Steve's method would be quicker and his idea about handicap ratings denoting the level that the horse can run at is a good one.

I think unless we have a team of 2+ handicappers plus others who are willing to enter ratings it is going to be difficult to do. DB would be a good person to ask about that because he used to send me the races to enter the ratings for. As there isn't too much interest on the handicapping side would it not be better to agree on a Steve-esque method, run the maidens to those ratings and then handicap according to runs, distance won/lost and distance raced over etc.

I am on the NH side of handicapping but have loads of free time on my hands so if the flat side needs help i am willing to do both sides.

PJ still not received the schedule

sorry mate did not have your email address here it is for everyone to look at

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?9o2ldrdw4o1u73u

The problem with that method is that a horse beaten 5 lengths by one of AHKCs in a maiden will have the same rating as a horse beaten 5 lengths in a poor maiden. Looking at the schedule there is only 1 week of maidens, personally I would have 2 weeks so that every horse has a chance to run in one. Even having more races the first two weeks so that every distance is covered twice, alot of people will have more than one horse at a distance and might be forced to run in listed or group races with horses who shouldnt be in those races.

I agree 1 week of maidens is not enough

I agree again. Enough's enough.

If you have time could you look at the whole schedule and see what you think, Joe? The schedule was designed for a balanced stable which I realise not everyone should have, nor should they be forced to. In week1 there is no 12 or 14f maiden for 3yo's.

There is scope to add races or edit the schedule. Last season I thought we needed races for horses too highly rated to win a handicap but not good enough for Group races. Are there enough listed races for the horses in the middle?

But obviously one would have to employ common sense... If someone destroys a maiden then obviously they get the top rating. If you get a bit of a bunch finish then ratings will be handed out more evenly. Also the times of the races will be a factor, if one horse destroys it's field but runs 4 seconds slower than the bunch finish the you would have to rate it to have finished somewhere at the back of the bunch.

The other thing I thought about last night was having graded maidens. There would be G1, listed and open class maidens in week 1, so AHKC could enter all his top horses in the G1 maidens, PJ could enter his into the listed ones and I (though I almost definitely won't enter, I'm using myself as an example of a trainer with mediocre horses in order to not offend anyone) could enter mine in open class. Then in week 2 you can have further grades for those who didn't make the class in G1, and listed. So you can have G2 for those who finished 4th -7th, G3 for those who finished 8-12th, listed for those in open class who were a cut above the rest (including easy winners of OC races), and then more open class maidens for those who didn't cut it before. Those who were 2nd-4th in G1 can run again in G1 class. Then it will be really obvious how to rate many horses using Steve's method. It should also mean that it is quite hard to hide away a horse for a handicap coup. I still haven't looked at the schedule, but if they were graded in name rather than status so that horses don't get weight penalties etc then I think it will give lots of people lots of chances at winning and placing in all kinds of races.

I have the schedule from Leon & have opened it ready to edit but to me its like a foreign language
so i would be delighted if someone could look at it

Its never going to be perfect. Pace of a race can make a huge difference with the winning time and I think Joe will get a feel of what is a very good maiden. And as in real life some horses might get a very attractive mark and some might get one too high. But I like the idea of adjusting ratings after week2 as well, though this is a lot of work for Joe.

So we agree then, every race should be judged individually taking into account all the factors.



I dont have a copy of the schedule, the one pj has posted doesnt show the distances.

I would like to see something like this for the first week.

1. 2yo 5f Maiden
2. 2yo 6f Maiden
3. 2yo 1m Maiden
4. 3yo 6f Maiden
5. 3yo 1m Maiden
6. 3yo 1m2f Maiden
7. 3yo 1m4f Maiden
8. 3yo+ 1m6f Maiden
9. 3yo+ 2m Maiden
10. 3yo+ 2m2f Maiden
11. 4yo+ 5f Maiden
12. 4yo+ 1m Maiden
13. 4yo+ 1m2f Maiden
14. 4yo+ 1m4f Maiden
15. 4yo+ 2m4f Maiden
16. 3yo+ 5f Group Race
17. 3yo+ 6f Group Race
18. 3yo+ 1m Group Race
19. 3yo+ 1m2f Group Race
20. 3yo+ 1m4f Group Race

All run at the same track, Newmarket maybe. Not very realistic but ideal for handicapping. The 2m4 race would have to be run elsewhere. Or split the lot between 2 tracks, maybe best not to run the 3yo mile at Newmarket as obviously the guineas could be done and dusted before we get to it!

Yes, and no. I think a handicap tier would be good to make it easier. But an element of common sense and race watching would be needed too. I wasn't suggesting (nor was Steve) that 1st gets 125, 2nd 115, 3rd 108 etc etc. Obviously that wouldn't be fair. But graded maidens would work that out, plus every horse running twice would help everyone get a fair rating.