Does this not open it up a bit more though?? What you're saying is that your horses are significantly quicker with different conditions so therefore those conditions should be implemented because that's the way your horses win?

I understand exactly what you're saying and why you're making the point. But a 2 yo is a 2 yo and should be treated as such. Opening up the classes would be something which would need to be researched extensively by more than one person over a significant amount of time where the results could be replicated without any doubt over their consistency. Otherwise it just isn't fair, it could be seen as giving you an advantage where everybody else has trialed and entered under different conditions...

What you're saying isn't logical either Cat . The constant here is the game and CK that Mark has designed. I am simply operating within the parameters that Mark has programmed. It would be simple enough if Mark could confirm that there is a difference in the way CK handles 2 year olds in the two conditions listed above asthere is a significant difference that I have observed.

As for giving me an advantage, how? If we run the race as 2,3 year olds and only 2 year olds enter, everyone is running under the same conditions. It's not like I am proposing everyone run their horses under different conditions. I would hope the best horse would still win. Mark has said that the differences in horses are magnified in CK and I think the variable for the 2 yr old only races is different from the other settings. Either that or I am doing something consistently wrong in my testing procedure that throws up this difference.



Funny

I do get what you're saying. But we can't just change it upon the findings of one person. Unless Mark can come here and say that the game is programmed in that way it is unfair to change the conditions because you have found that your horses are faster under those conditions. It's basic scientific procedure.

Shouldn't the conditions be the same for everyone? As in if my horses are faster then either I am right in which case it's the same for all. Or I am wrong in which case it's still the same for all. Basic science states that it's a closed environment (Mark's program) and we are simply observers of the environment.

Not if only one person has found that those conditions are favourable. Otherwise those conditions might not be the same for everyone.

any thoughts on the rules Supercat

surley 2yo conditions for 2yos is the only way to go

HOW?? That is so illogical . How can I influence the program?

2 year olds for 2 year old races the only option really.

What about adding some lower grade handicaps to the schedule. What are people's thoughts on that. It would give newer trainers races to aim for.

Proposed Business Rules
Horse can't enter a group race if a maiden
Top 16 horse by handicap eligible for group 1 the rest get elimanated

By not allowing maidens to enter group races, you may be preventing some of the best horses in the league from competing. You also run the risk of group races being under-subscribed with just a handful of horses being eligible for each one resulting in races with as few as 4 or 5 runners, maybe less.

Eg. In the last US league season I had a horse that remained a maiden all season, can't remember the name but it was the subject of Ryan's classic "he's gone up his arse" commentary, but was placed in two legs of the triple crown and finished close up in the BC Classic (finished 5th beaten about 1.5 lengths) as well as several other group races. Under the proposed maiden rule, it would not have been allowed to run in the TC races or BC thus denying it the opportunity to show how good it was. I'm sure other trainers have their own examples of horses running well in top races thoughout the season without managing to win.

Fields for all group races should be made up of the highest rated horses eligible for the race regardless of win status.



Agreed

1)I would like to see low rated handicaps included its must in my opinion like leon said we need to attract new trainers to the league and if we do it is most likely they wont have been breeding fanatically like some.
2) want maidens included later in the season one or two a week
3) 2yo should be 2yo races
4) I agree with Kevcon maidens over a certain rating bracket say 100 should be able to tackle group races.

There are enough 0-70 and 0-85 handicaps during the season? And also the 0-100/110 later on in the season you might get in off a very low weight?

Having a stable of three isn't going to help you win any races? The schedule is good, though it is a bit heavy on Group races. But we need as many people as possible to enter a full team to make the schedule better. Maybe we can add some lower grade handicaps later on in the season. But there wont be any point doing that if not everyone enters a large stable.

Have you looked at the schedule?

2yo's as 2yo's

Maidens should be able to enter a Group race. But we should also impose a maximum runners on G2/3's.


Should Group winners be allowed to enter Listed races?

Id also like to see prize money in one currency and the correct prize money from 2012 calender.

Yes matt I did looked at the schedule and yes Handicaps are in there but mostly the ones you expect to be in there like Lincoln etc. that's no good to me if my horses which the last season I had runners in couldn't hardly get above 80 ratings I don't run any in groups races that would be stupid for trainers like myself who are not constantly breeding for the league.

The schedule is fine if what you want is a league aimed at the top end of the trainers but what about the people who just play for fun we all don't breed monsters.

I said I would put three in just for the three Gamebred horse races in the schedule as its most likely I would be more on a level par with others like I said its pointless me having a big stable of 20 when they will be all handicappers at best and there's not that many handicaps (lowly rated ones 0-70/0-80) in the schedule for me to have a big stable.