@ F.K.,

Time  has  come  , not  to  waste  time  on/for a repartee. Wasted  hours   for reading and  by posting  rebuttals. Waste  of  time  and energy(effort). Anything any  argument/ point/propoal/remark etc. is welcome; routine  timepass postings  will not  be  respnded...

I do read  some  postings  for  timepass - but  don't repond; pl note...

Dear Chanakya,

Pre-race selections given by numbers and with no explanations but post-race observations are very lenghty and descriptive.
Guess, intelligence awakens once race gets over to give observations.

F.K.,

 My  selections  posted  in  'tips' threads  are  the  result  of  my  'racing  evaluation'  of  the runners  of the  race. If  a runner   has  better  chance I place  him  at  the  first  place and  if all 3  runners  have close  values  i  put  them  in  ( ) or  write 'open race'. 

I consider  it  an  enough  indication  of  my thinking  which  an  intelligent  punter/reader should  be  able  to  comprehend...  

Dear Chanakya,

Well, why not put the racing evaluations to test by putting into practise a pre-race observation!

dear Father  Knowledge,

This  is  not  post  race  analysis but  are  obeservations which  are  evident and  clearly can  be gleaned  from  the  racebooks. I've  only  reproduced  the  logical inference  from the published material available  to  everybody.. Yes , it  is/was incorrect  to  post  it  against the  name  of  Ramanujan; it  shoulsd  have been  addressed  to  'all'.

The  observations  were  made because most  of  the  postings  were  critical  of  the  win  of  an  'outsider' ( who  was  not!).  Even  win  of  Cosmos was  criticised who  was  'in form'  runner and  was  coming  down  from  a  back-breaking  impost  of  63.5 kgs. to  a  manageable  56  kgs.- a  drop  of  7.5 kgs which  in  quantitative  value  may  add 10  12  points  to  his intrinsic  rating...

Well, racing  is  not  an  exact  science - except  mathematics. Even  Physics  is  not which  says  if  you  mass  of  an  elementary particle  his  position  is  undeterminable  and  vice-versa is  also  true...

But  I  consider  racing evaluations closest  to  results  of  pure  science  and  much  much  better  than any  other line  of  'systematic knowledge' like  history,  psychology  etc.   ....

Dear Chanakya,

Try giving an analysis pre-race. The forum is filled with post-race experts.

Ramanujan,

I appreciate  the logical reasoning behind  your postings. But  the  problem  with  an  average - rather ordinary, punter is that he  has  neither  developed  any  expertise to  beat  the  races nor  he  'desires'  to  do  that!

I don't  give  any importance  to  official  ratings of  a  runner whether  he  is  a  maiden or  a experienced  3  yo or  a older  runner(4Y +) because as  you  have also  mentioned  that  official  handicapper follows  certain  established  and  laid  down  rules to  assign  ratings.

Many  people  have  discussed Bonafide, Flamesoftheforest, Cosmos  etc. and  wondered  how  Bonafie  can beat Flame....  . My  question  is  why  can't  it  beat flame...?

We all have  access  to  COLE, BOL or  VEL racebooks. Look into  them. 

FOTF is  a  3yo while Bonafide  is  5yo  experienced, fully exposed runner.

FOTF runs  1000m  in 1.07m at PNR 4 beating  rivals  by  more  than  5  lengths, while  Bonafide  runs  same  distance at  SAME  PNR    in 58.1s. The  weights  during  wins  and  during  current  race  are  similar.

Can  we  equate  5 lengths  to  2  seconds? Normally  it  is  equal  to  1 second or  little  less  or  more  depending  upon  the  track a  runner  is  running....

Finally, Bonafide(356)  race  no  44 was  better  tnan  FOTF (346-> 350) race  no  130  both  run  at  Pune  in  2019...l.....................

Data - past  or  present  RARELY FAILS , we  fail  most  of  the  time...  

Why  blame, track, handicapper, CONNECTIONS, THIS  OR  THAT, others except  ouselves  and  our inadequate  knowledge?

Think over  it... 

For me, it's COSMOS. In the context of having won @ 1400M  very recently, the I along with the gelding would have ideally preferred a course longer than 1800M. Alert Suraj should take care of this issue and make the best use of and exploit the clear handicap advantage.

Cheers

My 3 Placings

  Salazaar     Point To Prove  Anjeze 

Best of luck.

Dear Sun,

Well Connected rated the lowest in this event is simply laughable. The multi-classic winner not finding a mention in your calcxulations, as per ratings, exposes the veracity of ratings in Graded, Terms and Classic events.

Big Sur rated much higher than his illustrious stablemate Well Connected will not be sighted. He will set the pace for Well Connected and disappear once the home-bend has been rounded.

Based on the parameters that I recommend, the race is confined to proven Well Connected and late-rusher well-bred Cosmos.

Tomorrow's Terms Race can we normalise Ratings and see which will be the 4 horses in the contest.

First consider the Official Ratings 

   Big Sur is 113 and taking into account the difference in Weights the highest Weighted horses Royal Crystal and Well Connected normalised Rating is 119 as both are set to carry 62 Kg

  If we assume that Official Ratings are sacroscant then comparing our Normalised Ratings and Official Ratings the 4 top comtenders are 

 Cosmos  Big Sur Salazaar and Secretive Force.

However before we compare Ratings we have to adjust for the type of Races. Some are Terms Races and some are Handicap Races.Based on my study of Ratings the Final Positions are

Big Sur  

Salazaar

Point to Prove and Cosmos Equally Placed

Out of 4 year Olds Anjeze is better Placed.

Make your pick.

@ Father Knowledge,

   If what you mean is that there are upteen examples of Lower Rating horses winning over higher Rating horse,i have to say that the study is incomplete.

  I can by simple calculations show how the Ratings can be normalised to justify the result.

@ Ramanujan,

   I have not gone through your entire post but based in the gist of the post I congratullate you on articulating the importance of Ratings in Analysis 

  Thanks

Dear Ramanujam,

Tall tales don't don't bring tall gains.

The veracity of ratings can be gleaned from the past results of Terms, Graded and Classic events. You will notice that majority of them defy the ratings i.e. they have no bearing on the results.

The bloodline promise, current form, recent workouts and aptitude for certain distances i.e whether the particular runner will essay the trip being undertaken well, holds better guidance value.

I learnt it rather late and had to pay a huge price for having ignored them for major part of my racing career.

Give the above mentioned factors a try to benefit.

 

To be quite frank I never expected the thread to travel beyond the second post for obvious reasons. With some really weighty contributions coming in I feel obliged to sneak in to give expression to my views.

For any investigative analysis reliance on some elementary tools such as ratings as allotted by the handicapper based on preceding performance during the maiden season for them cannot be treated as a vice but a fairly enabling basic guide to fall back upon to start with to understand the unfolding relative to the merit of the participants and build on gradually. It however needs recognition that these Handicapper’s ratings as assessed by him on the strength of results as unfolded on his table.  keeping in view the guidelines enjoined on him he is under obligation and blinkered not to take cognizance of any relevance to the intrinsic merit of all the participants failing to deliver on any particular day due to various factors affecting performances. It is for the punters to gauge and sieve through the results in right earnest summoning all the skills acquired by them either to save or make money. The ratings per se are thus at best a fair guide, to begin with, basic support to lean on before one opts to proceed. You may love the rating data  or hate it but can never afford to be indifferent citing sporadic disruptions. The ratings of 3 yr olds as reflected in the ratings as assigned at the end of their first season should serve as a rough indicator of the course of trajectory along with the delivery curve some flattening, some progressing depending on the crucially sensitive and inherent advantages or disadvantages such as bloodline, aptitude for distance, bodyweight limitations, training methods, preference for special types of equipment, age (Consciously yes,  horses born in Jan and May and beyond are classified as 3 yr olds only with different susceptibilities of coming to hand) to name a few that we may witness during their growth process in their subsequent participations. We need to change, modify and upgrade our assessment parameters constantly in tune with  such  performances from time to time with hallmark qualities of acumen and due diligence. For instance, just because Bonafide had beaten a field that supposedly included the supposedly mighty Flames of Forest could we afford to take serious cognizance and elevate Bonafide or dump Flames of Forest?  Just because some aberrations are caused due to ground realities bonafide or otherwise the ultimate responsibility rests on the shoulders of punters in the quest to make or safeguard their hard-earned money. The Handicapper is under a bind not to go back and re-revise the rating post-facto. Not that he knows not. The point being driven herein is the punter does enjoy full freedom to deploy his knowledge skillfully and recalibrate and see the ratings between the lines. I had occasion to amusingly find elsewhere criticizing the on the quantum of the penalty being exorbitant. Why should a punter have any grievance at all on this issue instead of taking advantage of the perceived mistake? Is it not the entire gamut of racing and picking winners from a punter’s point of view boils down to our ability to constantly keeping a close watch, track, identify and exploit the dynamic gaps between rating changes among horses occasioned by harsh or soft penalties?

It is not a prudent practice to surrender the scientific parameters at any point in time.  Let me hasten to add I don’t mean to discourage the ‘intent’ factor. It is a forensically-flavored tool of no mean value to be employed alongside taking a close watch on the line of entry today with reference to earlier appearances  especially in relation to the sudden drop in the  quality of opposition, switching to favorable distance, steep change of  conducive weight allotment  to support the cause of big made or small made horses as the case may be, change of jockeyship with or without a whip, match fitness evidenced by track work, etc., more often betraying an intent to strike. One can stay ahead just by confining to such intent revealing events. 

Cheers

Dear CRK,

Punters, by nature, are cold to wisom till they get iced.

@ Father Knowledge,

    Yes both examples cited by you cannot be Analysed by Ratings as the Data is insufficient.

   In Tigrio race it is its first run.Rating assigned is the Standard 30 for Maudens and other 2 horses have Won their Maiden Races and Penalties are in line with the margin of their Wins.

Bonafide Race only students of Track work can comment 

Thanks for your advice 

That is great few responses albeit not touching the core point.

Thanks for the advice. Without Intent there is no Racing but that knowledge still requres other methods of Analysis unless all other Professionals cooperate.

If a Horse can Win by the Intent of connections then at least in a Handicap Races the Handicapper has not done his job.

Regarding the examoles cited let me see if Ratings can prpvide any clue.

Thanks.

@ Father Knowledge,

A numerical rating would be inadequate and would fail to convey the correct assessment of the state of affairs of present-day racing as also the words of wisdom in your post.

I would give your post a simple rating...CLASSIC !

Regards.

Dear Sun, Racing is not exact science to be vey technical about it.

Look at what happened today in 7th race of Mumbai.  FLAMES OF FOREST was not given a BONAFIDE run. The reason is not technical to guess. It is all man-made. One can never BE SAFE when such racing happens.
All the talk, technical ones, goes for a toss and we, the punters, land in the slammers. Who will ever in their right frame of mind play the older Bonafide against much younger Flames of Forest!

Or, go to the 2nd race of the day. The so-called best trainer had 3 runners competing and the least expected one delivers. There was nothing EXOTIQUE. The ROYALTY of racing is long gone.

Instead, try to make a ratings of all the pr0fessionals and that may pay you in the long run.

The most important aspect in racing is INTENT. Get that very clear, Sun.

A fatherly advice from one long in racing. So long, that one leg hovers over the grave with the other stuck on the turf refusing to let go.
Don't reach my point in racing. Enjoy the game if time and pocket permits, if not, your RATING in LIFE will be marked LOW soon.
 

@ Ramanujan,

   I am pleased to see your post on Ratings of 3 Year olds.So some people do believe that Ratings are important.I use only Ratings for my analysis.

 I have querires though Not Related to Ratings

    Why 1000G race was run at 58 Kg instead of 56 Kg

    How the Rating of Forest Flame is fixed at 66 though I feel 61 should have been the Rating based on my study of Ratings.

   Is there ant change in Standard Penalties of Race Clubs

Thanks in advance 

@Heeraji

Got it. Tks for the instant help.

Regards

Hi,

It's already published in the website but not in a correct manner and in incorrect path. Go to first race meeting of Hyderabad , there you will find revised rating of all horses including 3 years

Regards

Heera