Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold  (Read 310132 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-07, 08:16 PM Reply #1450 »


I give up.................. when the lights are out the penny never drops

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 30455
« 2022-Apr-07, 08:22 PM Reply #1451 »
What’s your problem  ? Can’t face the truth peter?

You’ve been schooled in honesty and you’ve failed



« Last Edit: 2022-Apr-07, 08:25 PM by wily ole dog »

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7828
« 2022-Apr-09, 01:18 PM Reply #1452 »

I give up.................. when the lights are out the penny never drops

Really? You give up? Finally ................

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-20, 01:28 PM Reply #1453 »


Due warning: restricted class racing at Caulfield on Saturday

2021-22 VOBIS GOLD Premier Race Series

All VOBIS Gold nominated horses have the opportunity to race in the lucrative
$5 million VOBIS Gold Premier Race Series, which includes $1.5 million exclusively
allocated for the progeny^ of VOBIS Sires nominated stallions. This series includes
races for all ages and a range of distances across metropolitan and country Victoria.



Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-27, 08:20 PM Reply #1454 »

The form guide for Saturday says 'no way'

Perusal of the Saturday fields and prices, for racing in Sydney and Melbourne, suggests another day when most runners 'accepted' to run should not have been.

Such Bradbury-inflated fields portend unfair racing and rough results.

Imagine the moral hazard facing the IQ men, among others, preparing to take money for offering their usual insights.

Check out this nonsense.

https://www.racenet.com.au/form-guide/horse-racing/hawkesbury-20220430/hawkesbury-xxxx-gold-rush-race-6/overview

https://www.racenet.com.au/form-guide/horse-racing/sandown-hillside-20220430/thoroughbred-club-handicap-race-9/overview


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-28, 04:53 PM Reply #1455 »


Try not to remember Adelaide racing on Saturday


The top and tail is familiar low-grade stuff but it is four 'black-type' races in the middle for 2yro and 3yro that should not be there  -- how do these races get 'black' status and one in particular.

                         Race 5 over 1200 for 2yros has 9 acceptors with 2 starts on average and it is listed as a G3.

How could this happen -- presumably much the same way that VOBIS and MM make a mockery of over hyped nonense in Melbourne and on the Gold Coast.

https://www.racenet.com.au/form-guide/horse-racing/morphettville-20220430/all-races


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-Apr-28, 09:35 PM Reply #1456 »

Why would an RVL CEO, about to leave, be making durable promises?


The idea that there will be an inside track at Caulfield, with 'lights' for night racing, beggars belief.

At one level, if inflated fields are to be run 'on the inside' from starts that replicate the present unfairnesses, it should be discarded.

The fear (and the hope at RNSW)  is that RVL, already cowering in some bunker of growing irrelevance, wants to sell both the 'vale of tears' and Sandown.

............. RVL is on a road to perdition -- many think it has already got there.

I pegged Miles from nowhere the minute he got there.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/racing-victoria-chief-executive-giles-thompson-endorses-conversation-around-development-of-second-caulfield-track-20220428

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2228
« 2022-Apr-30, 11:00 PM Reply #1457 »
Pete

That’s why there are Listed races for young horse, the winner looks to have a big future.







Try not to remember Adelaide racing on Saturday


The top and tail is familiar low-grade stuff but it is four 'black-type' races in the middle for 2yro and 3yro that should not be there  -- how do these races get 'black' status and one in particular.

                         Race 5 over 1200 for 2yros has 9 acceptors with 2 starts on average and it is listed as a G3.

How could this happen -- presumably much the same way that VOBIS and MM make a mockery of over hyped nonense in Melbourne and on the Gold Coast.

https://www.racenet.com.au/form-guide/horse-racing/morphettville-20220430/all-races

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-01, 10:12 AM Reply #1458 »


A clear win the fashionable Ukraine colours, AT

May well be a good horse but not inclined to go 'black type' before or after this race. The winner's SP was 'odds on' ..... next 4 averaged 10/1 and the next 4 almost 100/1. That tells you something more than it was expected to win easily.

My concern is a more general one about the industry no longer having a credible class system to start with and then allowing the semblance that remains to be corrupted by up-start promoters and administrators.

That concern extends to the confusion that attends the race form reported in form guides as a race name with no benchmark rating. If it is possible for the form experts to give a rating to the winner of a race, then lets have that used to give, and publish, a rating for the race.

The industry is hardly playing an open game with punters when it lauds the winner of a mid-year 2yro race in Aelaide  for, basically, unraced contenders.


Offline peter kamenzind

  • Class 4
  • User 3054
  • Posts: 40
« 2022-May-01, 08:37 PM Reply #1459 »
A reasonable idea to talk about rating races on the actual strength of the race, rather than the expected strength.  Some obstacles to overcome, including finding someone who can not only assess accurately and across the board, but who is willing to give up that information to the public domain.
The key is to be able to extract race strength, and individual horse strength from available data, and is easier said than done.  Not only is accuracy difficult, but there are "blind spots" in the two biggest areas of form analysis, so much so that their operation is severely limited.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-01, 09:36 PM Reply #1460 »

Thank you pk ..........for opening your forum account on this matter

As I understand it, various state administrative bodies produce and monitor 'benchmark'
ratings for runners at metropolitan and other race meetings.

There is an international dimension to this expertise that delivers objective rankings of the 'best' horses globally.

......... the local dimension of this technology enables RISA to publish 'ratings' of acceptors.

The question is about coordinating 'ratings' and 'performances' in races to deliver a rating for each race.

Can this be done?



Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 9960
« 2022-May-01, 10:21 PM Reply #1461 »
Peter,

There are various ways to achieve the real strength of all contenders but they entail a bit of work.

Never derived from just one figure to be any good.

A respected analyst no longer with us unfortunately had 10 separate ways to achieve a $$ rating for example in order to deal with prize money quirks and different ages and different runs into career etc etc

More work again than this figure is to rate the strength of all the horses that finish around each horse for their last few runs....

But there are easier ways.

Fours

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-02, 09:30 AM Reply #1462 »


Cat-skinning 101 -- let us just skin it

The prospect of getting lost in a maze of waze to benchmark horses and races does not appeal.

It should be possible to reach some workable consensus around the benchmark ratings already published.

Quality control is something industry administrators should promote -- they only frustrate it in line with 'greed is good'.

Offline peter kamenzind

  • Class 4
  • User 3054
  • Posts: 40
« 2022-May-02, 07:06 PM Reply #1463 »
"The question is about coordinating 'ratings' and 'performances' in races to deliver a rating for each race.
Can this be done?"

To measure performance and make that rating transferrable across races/meets, you need a good template, and ability to measure any deviations from that template.  If you want to "deliver a rating for each race", something workable across the board, you have to leave behind conventional methods of race analysis. 

Imagine if the world of Race Analysis were an Art Gallery, then all the pieces on display would be the same, or nearly the same.  And this Art Gallery of ours has, since the 1970's, seen little change. 

I am not saying that the "conventional methods of race analysis" are of no use, just that they are inadequate.



Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-02, 07:13 PM Reply #1464 »


................ at some point 'a fair enough system' is better than nothing ............. even short of perfection that can come later

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 30455
« 2022-May-02, 07:57 PM Reply #1465 »
"The question is about coordinating 'ratings' and 'performances' in races to deliver a rating for each race.
Can this be done?"

To measure performance and make that rating transferrable across races/meets, you need a good template, and ability to measure any deviations from that template.  If you want to "deliver a rating for each race", something workable across the board, you have to leave behind conventional methods of race analysis. 

Imagine if the world of Race Analysis were an Art Gallery, then all the pieces on display would be the same, or nearly the same.  And this Art Gallery of ours has, since the 1970's, seen little change. 

I am not saying that the "conventional methods of race analysis" are of no use, just that they are inadequate.

So what do you suggest?

Offline peter kamenzind

  • Class 4
  • User 3054
  • Posts: 40
« 2022-May-03, 09:28 AM Reply #1466 »
Moving away from standard class/weight, and time methods.

« Last Edit: 2022-May-03, 09:37 AM by peter kamenzind »

Offline peter kamenzind

  • Class 4
  • User 3054
  • Posts: 40
« 2022-May-03, 06:27 PM Reply #1467 »
I always think that no matter how good you think your analysis is, any time spent on improvement is time well spent.  Always a question I ask myself when a horse wins that was under the radar is, what did I miss, or why did my method fail to pick that horse up?  Sometimes "unexplained improvement" can actually be a system failing to pick up key information contained within the data.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 9960
« 2022-May-03, 06:32 PM Reply #1468 »
Peter.... the decent one,

SOP

Fours
ps especially as racing changes slowly over time....

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-03, 09:08 PM Reply #1469 »



You kid me not

Sometimes "unexplained improvement" can actually be a system failing to pick up key information contained within the data.

Let the thought cross your mind momentarily that 'rough results' are the predictable outcome of RVL inflating race fields with long-priced no-hopers likely to be disruptive of fair racing.

Key information to be included in your system must surely be the 'data' on field sizes and the % of no-hopers.

Usually "unexplained improvement" is due to the random consequences of inflated fields ..... there is no point mining the database looking for explanations that will not be there.

The deviation of race-outcomes from market-expectations is the clue to administrative misconduct.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-11, 05:52 PM Reply #1470 »

Acceptances 'not acceptable'

          The prospects for inflated-fields to wreck racing on Saturday could hardly be worse

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-14, 06:38 PM Reply #1471 »


And so it came to pass

                     The prospects for inflated-fields to wreck racing on Saturday could hardly be worse

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-19, 09:41 AM Reply #1472 »

Talking about giving things a pass


..............................check out the fields and prices for Saturday ........... then pass the implicit intellgence test.

Put the bank on Zaaki and take the day off.

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7828
« 2022-May-21, 05:58 PM Reply #1473 »


You kid me not

Sometimes "unexplained improvement" can actually be a system failing to pick up key information contained within the data.

Let the thought cross your mind momentarily that 'rough results' are the predictable outcome of RVL inflating race fields with long-priced no-hopers likely to be disruptive of fair racing.

Key information to be included in your system must surely be the 'data' on field sizes and the % of no-hopers.

Usually "unexplained improvement" is due to the random consequences of inflated fields ..... there is no point mining the database looking for explanations that will not be there.

The deviation of race-outcomes from market-expectations is the clue to administrative misconduct.

Just checked my database for Saturday racing QLD-NSW-VIC-SA main meetings.
I keep data on races 1650m and less. No Maidens. No races restricted to 2yos and/or 3yos. So that's races with mature form.

In fields of 12 or more runners there have been 1959 runners starting at $20 or more on Betfair. Of those 37 won returning $1,369.80 before commission.

That's a return of 70% before commission.

You talk an absolute load of bollocks.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 6586
« 2022-May-21, 09:08 PM Reply #1474 »


'Call the cops' -- racing administrators, 'please explain'

It was not a good day for Australian racing.

It was another predictably bad day --------- predicted once acceptances were declared.

Sydney Qs borh paying $15k each, Melbourne Q paying $65k, two F4s in Sydney paying $25k, two F4 shockers in Melbourne $200k and $30k and two in Adelaide $40k and $125k.

Call the cops!

This 'theft', of the money kicked in by the most-punter set, being all about 'inflated fields' should be investigated independently and those responsible held accountable.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap