RV and Nass, I completely understand what you are saying but there is no way that the handicapper can start bandying about ratings willy nilly on what he thinks might have happened. He has to go on what did happen otherwise the system loses all validity (if it had any to start with but that is a different question!). Even in the Champion Stakes Nathaniel ran to 125 and that was over an inadequate trip. He was rated 128 after the King George too. Pour Moi's Derby can't be rated any higher because he won by a head and the form is rubbish. He might have been much better than the result, and he probably was, but there is no way of knowing for certain. The handicapper simply has to base his ratings on the form and that means he has no choice but to award them their respective ratings. You, and I'm sure many others, may disagree, but you can use your opinion to judge what you think, the handicapper must use the facts.
Just some fancys, not betting on most of them tho... Ffos... 1.15 Sapphire Night, 3/1 1.50 Mountainous, 11/8 2.25 Rockabilly, 6/4 3.00 Changing Lanes, 7/2 3.35 Paradise Expexted, 11/8 Donc... 1.40 Gottany O's, 13/8 2.50 Artic Actress, 7/2 3.25 Qule Ballistic, 2/1 Not great racing today for me with some of them being a bit tough or hard to call... May play along with these as the day goes by... Good luck to all who have and will play today...
Zen, thats a false statement though, the handicapper does his ratings on more things than the bare numbers, he looks at how 'easily' a horse wins by and also what mitigating facts are in the race. Take the race Nathaniel won, he could have easily said that the only horse that ran to form was Nathaniel and refused to alter the ratings of the race because of the way the second hung and the third was ridden negatively. Take handicapping at the lowest form, the handicapper can (and has put a winner up 1lb for a win, suggesting that he was the only horse in the race who confirmed or slightly improved form). In the Champion I have him running to about 120, with the form through Midday, Snow Fairy and Green Destiny which would make SYT running to under his rating and also Cirrus to around that ones mark of 125. Nathaniel was rated 115 before the big win, how can the handicapper suggest that he improved almost a stone between runs. That would suggest that his upwards curve was more exponential rather than bell in style, something that I can't agree with. This is just the Harbinger situation again, a false race on a horses for courses track. One last thing, just because a horse wins a stakes race, it doesn't mean that it has improved. Even if its beating higher rated rivals.
Have backed two small E.W in the opener at Fairyhouse- both likely to do better in handicaps but this is a poor race TRAZAR 40-1 HIGH KINGS 14-1
Via PP on twitter - "@Nassauboard All customers who backed the horse in question @ 8-1 have been contacted by customer services @AskPaddyPower Right, time to wind them up
I see your point Nass but to throw it back as it were. If you take the Derby form, after that race Pour Moi was put up 8lbs, Treasure Beach went up 13lbs, Carlton House went up 4lbs, Memphis Tennessee went up 8lbs. You could easily argue that the Derby his hugely overrated and that Pour Moi is deserving of a much lower rating. Let us just consider that this race was not 'The Derby' but another race of insignificance. I doubt very much whether those ratings would have been given. And, as I say, I'm not disagreeing because I think you might well be right, but what the handicapper has done is perfectly logical and not laughable as you suggest! There can be no doubt that Pour Moi was probably capable of far better but he never proved it. However, that is not to say that some of their ratings are not laughable and inexplicable. I think the worst one ever is giving Pacha Du Polder 150. I should think that is 20lbs wide of the mark.
or Poungach 155 but because he was only beaten 2 lenghts by Oscar Whisky when it could have been 100+ he will probs remain the same or go up
You see I am a big fan of Poungach. He will make a smashing chaser next season. However, how people seriously considered that he could beat Oscar Whisky over 2m4f on good ground over hurdles is beyond me. I am deadly serious when I say that 4/6 about Oscar Whisky that day was the best value of the season. He should have been at least 1/5.
It isn't logical. How can a horse improve 13lbs in one race and then run to 6lb+ lower than that on his next start? Does logic not dictate that the handicapper got it wrong? Thats logical.
Don - I'll be climbing in very soon I think, Hills had the best combined odds I believe. PP are PR experts, if they're out to get Quevega they're doing it with a clear driver, unlikely they know anything we don't but they're desperate for the huge payout (their Supreme offer of last 3 years ?) so they can milk that for all it's worth, in fact they may well have insured themselves against it ! Cheltenham is offers capital, well worth staying sober for half an hour and weighing them all up
How then can you support Pour Moi's rating of 121 when he was put up 8lbs, Treasure Beach went up 13lbs, Carlton House went up 4lbs, Memphis Tennessee went up 8lbs. By your logic it is easy to argue that the Derby form is overrated. As to answering your question, the Champion Stakes was too short, on ground that was too fast and he had to do his own donkey work. I see your point but I don't see how you can think that the ratings don't make sense.
Pour Moi's race was run at a honest pace with a big field and fancied horses finishing in the high positions with very few with excuses. The form of the others in retrospect might not live up to their marks but at the time it was hard to suggest that TB hadn't improved massively from beating Nathaniel at Chester, Carlton House improved from the falsely run Dante and MT improved from Leopardstown with Native Khan in the next place having solid Group 1 form in shorter distanced races. The handicapper got that race right, but if he was able to do a timeform he would have a + next to PM. So Nathaniel ran under par in the Champion because trip was too short, ground was too fast and had to do his own work, I thought the handicapper had to go on what he sees in the race and not on excuses? The fact is that if the handicapper has to handicap on the facts, Nathaniel would have dropped to 120 maximum after the Champion Stakes. However, as many wise trainers often state, it takes one good run to shoot up the handicap and many poor ones to drop back down. The rating for Nathaniel simply doesn't make sense in regards to his form pre and post that one big win.
