The ratings are too low again.

Rich,

Did you say you would introduce a handicapper if needed.

...well, it is needed.

Nice little job for some enthusiastic soul - but not me

Steve

Too low? What does that mean?

The key to handicapping ratings is the spread and from the handicap results so far I'm pleased the game's mechanic handles it well enough with no need to introduce human error into the equation.

Not trying to offend but here are the facts:

Speedito Rated Just 92 (Equivalent to a decent handicapper)

1st of 13 12 4 2000 Guineas Newmarket Gr 1 Open 1m Flat Turf Good

1st of 9 12 3 Greenham Stakes Newbury Gr 3 Open 7f Flat Turf Good to Soft

1st of 7 12 2 Easter Stakes Kempton Listed Open 1m Flat Dirt Standard

1st of 19 12 1 Emirates Racing Maiden Lingfield Maiden Open 1m Flat Dirt Standard

This horse should be rated 115+

Off the current rating Speedito would be eligible for 0-100 handicaps and wouldn't even be racing off top weight!

One of Kevins called Tudor Minstrel Rated 84

12th of 16 12 4 Suffolk Stakes Handicap Newmarket Hcp 0-90 Open 1m1f Flat Turf Good

5th of 17 12 3 Newbury Classic Newbury Listed Open 1m1f Flat Turf Good to Soft

4th of 19 12 2 Laurcon Stables Maiden Kempton Maiden Open 1m1f Flat Dirt Standard

8th of 15 12 1 Gold Stables Maiden Wolverhampton Maiden Open 1m1f Flat Dirt Standard

Rated 2 lengths inferior to Speedito!

Human error is probable, but game mechanics errors are definite.

Just my opinion Rich - you are the man with the call.

How did you calculate 2L inferior! I'm sure at 8f 2 pounds equals a length

Okay 4 lengths! Same result.

The fact is G1 winners are not rated 92

I'm not sure why you have used Tudor Minstrel here. Afterall, he is not a miler and is probably best at 9.5f (if only there were races over that distance ).

A better comparison would have been to use Babylon who has now been beaten twice by Speedito by 2.5l on debut and then by 3.3l in the 2000 Guineas. Speedito ran in the Guineas off a rating of 87 whereas Babylon was rated 88 (and still is).

They aren't in real life Steve, but they can be in the game. I have one myself. I totally agree with you that if the 3 run rule was added to make the league more real then the ratings should reflect that. But a distinction needs to be drawn between real life and the game.

If the game ratings are being used then why bother using the 3-run rule to make the league more realistic?? You may as well scrap it. I thought the point of the 3-run rule was so that someone could consider 3 attempts made by a horse and then judge the level that horse should run at, which will be reflected in a high or low rating?? I'm quite shocked there isn't a dedicated handicapper already?? Frankly it makes no sense.

In all fairness, he is rated 92 and in real life he'd miss cut in the Lincoln as it's 0-110.

Though, the Lincoln in the game is 0-90, so it's fair enough to say even though it's rated low in comparison to life, it's balanced enough with the races we have at the moment. The problem would be if he didn't run it again and in 2 or 3 weeks time we had a big 0-110 handicap so most likely we'd have a guineas winner running off a lowly weight.

Based on other threads I have read recently, players are striving for more realism in the league.

Having a 92 rated G1 winner makes no sense at all.

There are a good number of 0-100 handicaps in the league, which Speedito would be eligible for.

If you want to keep the ratings low just reduce the actiual race rating boundaries example 0-90 instead of 0-100, 0-80 instead of 0-90 etc.

Would prefer to see a realistic handicap system though.

"I'm quite shocked there isn't a dedicated handicapper already?? Frankly it makes no sense".

Absolutely right Supercat.

There are other issues:

For example a horse finishing in top half has the same adjustment as one finishing near last.

It doesn't make sense.

Kevcon,

The point I am making is that G1 winners should not be rated 92, I would also rate your horse slightly higher than 84. Maybe 88 down from 90 after its handicap failure.

I used your horse just to show one horse rated 92 and one who hasn't shown anywhere near that level of form rated 84.

Speedito is miles out and so is Babylon by the way.

I didn't use Babylon because it was the same argument, and I wanted to show a different perspective than Speedito.

Steve

strangely enough i was sittin in bed last night with a cuppa tea looking at the handicap ratings on TOM and i did think some similar things.

I think the 3 run rule may need a handicapper and if the game handicap system is used just let any horses enter a handicap if eligible, but look out for weird distance management.

It would be ridicuolous if Speedito was ran in a handicap - maybe even stop group winners from racing in them if necessary.

i think the season is going well thought so far and i get the feeling everyone is enjoying it - i would like to see more maidens to accomodate the new uploads, especially for nhc.

but i do agree some of the horse ratings dont add up. I have a horse rated 91 who is so inferior a horse to speedito that it is actually scary. speedito, if he wins the irish guineas, should be rated 120 at least

I don't think there would be a great demand for lots of maidens to be fair, no one wants to see 3/4 runner races.

Maybe, since they're handicapped at 100 when they're uploaded that they could be ran in handicaps? So, if you have an above average horse they'd be running off a higher weight than the ones that have ran and not done too well, so it may weigh out the balance in weight terms? Say, they win in a common canter off 100 then they're hiked up about 20lbs to stop it happening again?

Just save lots of maidens, with not many runners in either. I'm just trying to see each others points of view, can't be easy for Rich to help one side and another side on the same point, but also keep the game running smoothly.

Maybe this would be good for this season, group winners not in handicaps.

I havnt looked at the ratings in great detail, is TOMS ratings just scaled wrong then?

Not letting a mark of 100 plus be generated?

Or is it just scaled down with the view that any other narrowly missing group win horse will still go in on top weight but at the scaled down rating off 88 say, if the rest who finished behind the narrow loser of a group race are then rated below this you would still be getting roughly the right end finish regarding the weights side of things in handicaps. Maybe DodgyDave could look at this while implementing the new TOM structure?
Better rating system? regarding higher and lower marks given so there is a bigger spread of ratings over the horses uploaded.

A handicapper has to have a lot of time to be studying all the form and races to give horses new marks each week. VERY BIG JOB!

One big problem with it is for the USRA graded handicaps:

somone look at the form of my horse Pidgy Toss and tell me how she isnt eligible for a g1 hcap!!