BIG-5 Pull A Move

If you been in racing long enough to pick up a bit of breeding knowledge in addition to your day to day punting, then you will love the yearling sales.  If ever there is a microcosm which imitates the wild world outside then the sales has it all.

Breeders have a product to sell that takes two and a half years to manufacture.  The seed costs could be anything.  The risks are enormous and what you see in the catalogue are the survivors in the ultimate game of attrition.  Above it all they had to guess what the fashion would be this season: Daylami off a 80 grand service fee or Dynasty at 12k?  Buyers compete with other buyers to sniff out the hidden gems, and have to guess just how high they will have to go to succeed.  Everyone is watching everyone, it's a sizzling hotbed of intrigue.  Brilliant!

Of course, whenever racing people get together, rumours percolate too.  This time it's the breakaway of the Big-5, and I don't mean there are lions and rhinos wondering around.  The mill says that 5 strong breeders have decided that the trip from Cape Town to Jo'burg no longer holds that keen sense of anticipation anymore and that a sale where the horses are bred is the way to go.  

Next year, some time around the Met, buyers can expect a sale of the first order to be held at the Cape International Convention Centre (http://www.cticc.co.za/public/Main/Home.aspx).  Three hundred and fifty horses of the best and brightest will be on offer in the free zone, in peak Cape Town summer season and carefully selected by an international judge.  I would book my ticket now!

The old "Goodwood" sale is gone, and resurrected in it's place is The New National Sale.  One wonders about the old National Sale.

It's a dramatic turn of events, especially when read in context to the state of the game now.  In the early 90's the breeding industry had the capacity to supply the almost 10,000 horses in training and now it's about 5,500.  The shrinkage of every aspect of the sport is obvious and some reaction was inevitable.

I can only speculate that the TBA who are the representative body of all the breeders resisted the urgings of some of their major members who felt the time had come to relocate the top end of the market to a more cosmopolitan city which is also a 1000 miles closer to the breeding sheds.  What could have been a serious diversion of paths seems to have settled into a more peaceful cooperation which nonetheless leaves the National Sales normally held at the TBA's HQ at Gosforth Park gutted and one of the regional Cape sales now extinct.

At some point it will hit the media and we'll get an official rendition and spin.

Yearlings & Stallions

I had my yearlings for sale at my normal venue and 2010 will have to go down as a tough year for me.  I guess a number of others too.  My sense is that the market is spoilt to the extent that producers will often (have to) sell at a loss.  Either too much supply or not enough interest.  Most sellers look to attract the attention of the very few strong buyers and hope that a couple of big prices will bail out the rest of their string.

Certainly there are many yearlings for sale who will not have siblings to follow as the great cull began some time ago.  I have been wondering which area has shrunk fastest: supply or demand.  It's really possible that horses can get expensive again because the breeders have cut back so much.

I anticipate that while breeders wait for times to get better, that they will have to have a hard look at the money they are prepared to spend on stallion service fees.  Stallion owners have already cut prices but young stallions are going to face increasing pressure to get the number of mares that will give them a chance to make the grade.  The market is extremely judgemental and the fate of a new sire can be decided before it has properly begun.

There is some smoke that indicates some big changes are coming very soon.  That it has taken so long for a radical change is what really surprises me.  I began to suspected that the breeders pockets' were bottomless and maybe they could go on indefinitely.  Even though there was a very real surge in income a few years back, a great share of that found it's way into the accounts of very successful stallions who literally held the whole show to ransom.  At any rate over a long drought it was just a shower.

Eliminate discretion

One of the great things about racing is that something will always come up to surprise you.  Here’s a situation that is so obvious that I’m shocked it never occurred to me before.  Although it apparently hasn’t occurred to the handicapper either so I’m in good company.

On ABC some whiner complained that his horse (with diabolical form) was eliminated from a handicap race while horses with lower ratings ran in his place.  I looked up the race http://www.gallop.co.za/cgi-bin/fgresult?20100309:18:6:1 and the horse (Red Mist) has a rating of (93) and was carded as the 2^nd reserve runner and 3 horses in a field of twelve had ratings of 91, 88 and 87.

The rules for eliminations in a handicap race are “7.2.4.1 From the lowest net merit rating upwards.” but if the handicap is a feature race then “At the Handicapper's discretion” would come into effect.  As it happens the race was a non black type feature and the handicappers invoked the discretion rule to overrule their own Merit Rating with a “form” consideration.  It’s a side issue that I can’t find the definition of a “Feature”.

Now I have to apologize to the ‘whiner’ because he has every right to complain.  Merit Ratings are by definition separate from form.  If the handicapper uses ‘form’ to override ratings, he admits that his rating is incorrect.  A current rating is a measure of expectation, and if he puts an (87) horse in before a (93) using ‘discretionary’ powers, he says loud and clear that he expects that this (93) horse is not competitive with even the lowest rated horse in the race. 

It stands to reason then that the handicapper should immediately bring the rating of the (93) horse (he eliminated) to the rating of the lowest horse he put in front of it, in this case (87).  Red Mist would have had to carry 56.5kg to Ryan’s A Lion’s 53.5kg and if the handicapper eliminates Red Mist in favour of Ryan’s A Lion, all reason and common sense tells us the rating of the eliminated horse should be set to equal to or lower than the lowest horse that was accepted.

Many trainers have argued ‘form’ when discussing the ratings of their horses with the Handicapper only to be swatted down with a counter argument of how the horse ‘rated’ against its peers and how form is therefore meaningless.  The handicapper has argued that ratings (as we use them) is NOT an expression of maximum ability as may be applied elsewhere, but a working handicap figure.  This they argue is why our ratings are so fluid from race to race.  To see the same handicapper now apply form above their handicap figure is stunning to say the least.

How can Red Mist have an official figure, that does not get him into a race which that figure qualifies him to?

If I were the owner, I would immediately initiate an objection to Red Mist’s rating of (93).  Eliminating the horse is an acknowledgement that the horse is not competitive off its rating, and this is an official opinion, in print!  It’s a double jeopardy to have the horse rated too high AND not allowed to run off the rating.  I would love to see them insist on the 93 when they themselves have just made the case against.

How My July Log Is Constructed

This year the MET log just failed to arrive. I emailed the "Contact Us' address at Gold Circle to enquire and by the time they got back to me the final field was being announced. The NHRA had been sending their log to Gold Circle it turned out when I asked them, but they too were puzzled as to it's non-publication. No surprises here.

Therefore I have decided to take it upon myself to create a "JULY" log AND give the betting a go.

Click here to see log and prices: (http://racingandbreedingsa.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-will-win-july-betting-to-180.html)

My simple rules are as follows:

1. Use the official Merit Ratings, 3yo > 93 and 4yo+ >97
2. 4yo should have won over further than 1600m (Fabiani excepted)
3. 3yo should have won 1400m or further

The betting is just an opinion of what I think it would be, rather than should be.

As ratings change and other runners qualify I will add or remove as the ratings indicate on the NHRA's weekly update. Closer to the event some horses jump the queue by winning key races and I should add a 'numbered' column for that later.

3yo's Feature prominantly in the July Hcp in recent years so I tried to be more inclusive and stepped down the MR requirement for them.

The pricing up without official nominations proved more difficult than I thought.

The percentage for the book is 182.21%. I am completely happy with that because the top 30 (MR order) comes to 130% and in Odds order to 144%.

The top 20 comes to 125%

Hidden Merit In Vogue

There is turbulence in the murky waters of our handicapping, most of which you would be unaware of unless you happen to be caught in the cross-currents.

An innocuous press release was issued by the NHRA which in 5 pitiful sentences it concluded that an appeal by FORT VOGUE against his new Merit Rating of (112) had been unanimously upheld in that the handicapping panel had chosen the completely wrong line horse.

It’s amazing how such big news and drama in our world can simply slip by, because this is a bit like the 20% gains of the best shares on the JSE suddenly being wiped off a week later.

Now I’m not going to debate the merits of the case, because we simply don’t have access to what they are. What we do know is that the handicapping panel had chosen FABIANI (who on the 5th Feb was MR (111)) as their line horse. This means that all the top finishers would have their ratings adjusted to the rating of FABIANI in relation to the weight they carried and their proximity to him at the finish line. So FABIANI’s run was chosen as the most honest reproduction of his previous form out of all of them.

This would all make sense if FABIANI was indeed rated (111), but the race card definitively has FABIANI a (108) out of the Queen’s Plate. Mike Bass must have taken one look at FORT VOGUE’s new rating and wondered just how beating the line horse (108) by 1 length at level weights gets him to (112).

Poor SMART BANKER (7th) and BIG CITY LIFE (9th) would also be running lifetime best ratings and each have to go up a point. Lets say no more here.

I can only assume that when FABIANI dead-heated BIG CITY LIFE (111) in the Queen’s Plate, and with his proximity to POCKET POWER and KAPIL at level weights, that the handicapping panel suspected that FABIANI might really be a (111). When FABIANI ran a (111) in The Met they were happy he had confirmed his rating and they cracked on in a righteous fever.

So here’s the rub then: if we can’t rely on the ratings we see when we enter into races, how are we supposed to know if our horses have been rated correctly. If FORT VOUGUE had not appealed his rating, of the 10 best horses in South Africa some would be penalized between 2kg and 6kg.

Plate rules force the handicappers to keep a double set of books. Hidden ratings leave trainers vulnerable as any horse who runs against a horse like FABIANI with a pencil rating waiting in the wings would be liable to trapped. How are trainers expected to know whether they should appeal a rating, when any horse around them could be carrying a loaded but unexposed ratings?

I would argue that no rating should be allowed to effect new ratings unless it was available at the time of acceptances, even if the that race is not a handicap as with The Met.

Un-box the tote!

My first bets were taken on the tote. Bookmakers were way too intimidating for me in the beginning. Now, a million years later, the tote is for muggs unless you are playing exotics.

Then co-mingling reared it's head as we tried to squeeze out a few extra drops for the pot. Payouts have became wildly erratic and unreliable. What you saw 5 minutes before the off on the tote board, at the off and after the race varied greatly. Everybody who has a win bet above a few rand knows to give the tote a miss, and if they didn't before co-mingling...they definitively do now.

So it's time to think out of the box.

Normally the tote pools for wins and places is small on ordinary race days. I noticed that win pools were often R70,000 or less. Individual bookmakers can sometimes hold similar on one race what the tote is holding some bets taken at hundreds of tote terminals operating around the country.

Bookmakers have promised to get their betting to around 120% near the start of each race, meaning that if they laid bets on all the runners in a race they should be able to make 20% on turnover.

The tote on the other hand is able to lay a huge number of bets as the start of the race approaches and it's power lies in the ability to take in massive numbers at no risk.

Clearly the race operators should consider applying to the Gambling Board for permission to pay out 90% of the pool, or in other words lay a 110% equivillent book. Immediately the great majority of horses will be paying more than the bookmakers are offering.

As we know from "carry overs", bigger pools generate even bigger pools and they become self fulfilling. As it is the tote generates most of its money from exotics so they have nothing to lose by cutting their profit margin on win (and place?) pools and hope to make it back by generating bigger turnovers.

Come on tote, pay 90% for one month and see if you capture the imagination and wallets of your customers.

Certainly I would immediately switch to playing 50% fixed and 50% tote for win bets. And immediately the snowball begins....

Handicapping: Rules or Incompetence?

Handicapping in this country is a shambles.

If it was announced that every student would get an “A” for matric, we would laugh at such ignorance because common sense tells you it’s unworkable. We have no problem wanting the handicappers to keep every horses’ rating down…this makes sense to us.

Beyond the normal and accepted handicapping practices, the handicappers in South Africa are issued with a sub-set of rules which they are forced to follow blindly. Over time these rules have changed the landscape of results and the career paths of many horses.

Common sense tells you that if all the rules the handicapper MUST use are tailored to trim ratings down race after race, that over time the gaps between horses will get compressed.

In a letter to the Sporting Post I pointed out some horses where the rules had forced the handicapper to ignore their improved ratings. Even though I expected them to go on and do well, I was stunned as all 3 won their next starts; 2 being feature races and another went to win again immediately.

One of the ‘flaws’ in the rules seems to concentrate around Graduation Plates (a race with set weights for 0,1 and 2 time winners). The rule that applies to this type of race is that the handicapper may only increase the rating of the winner (up to 6 points) and all other runners may stay the same or go down.

On Friday, TALES OF BRAVERY won a handicap race at Kenilworth after being heavily backed. This horse had placed and won in his first 3 races earning a rating of 85. Post maiden he ran 6th and then ran 32 lengths last and was dropped 3 points (although please will someone explain how a 3 point adjustment has anything to do with being 18 L behind the horse in front of you that is also being beaten by 14 L).

At this point TALES ran a decent 5th off the 82 and but got lowered again to 78. His trainer apparently calls the Handicapper and tells them they are wrong because he wants to run the horse in the Derby. I would love to have heard the conversation, but clearly the Handicapper was having non of it and TALES remained 78. One would think that warning bells would be ringing...loudly.

Next he runs great 2nd in his 6th race (a Graduation Plate of course) running easily back to his original 85. The trainer was correct and the Handicapper is trapped in his mistake and unable to correct the rating so TALES OF BRAVERY suddenly became the proverbial penalty kick in the Handicap (!) on Friday, running off a very wrong 78 and say 3.5kg better off. The horse was claimed and backed heavily after the claim and won by a casual 4 ¼ lengths. So much for “every horse has a fair chance to win” in a handicap.

This is just one example of what is repeatedly happening. I may be making heavy weather of this but spare a thought for the runner up (CANUTE) who had to give 2.5kg to the winner. Ironically, CANUTE also ran 2nd to PERGAMON ALTER about 10 weeks ago when he too got the exact same Graduation Plate advantage (and was also claimed in his next Handicap race). To add insult to injury CANUTE again met PERGAMON ALTER, again gave him the ½ kg, and got beaten again.

The point is not that the handicapper should be ‘stopping’ TALES OF BRAVERY or PERGAMON ALTER but rather that capping of ratings is patently unfair, especially if you neglect to drop other horses around them.

The Handicapper is dropping some horses arbitrarily and not dropping others. It seems as if the rules are also a convenient raincoat to avoid the splash.

Possibly horses should just be rated properly in the first place?

Catalogue Fibs

I was paging through the catalogue for the Cape Yearling Sale (Feb 7, 2010) and I was somewhat shocked to see that our TBA has allowed the blatant "doubling up" of black type. Apparently this started more than a year ago and escaped me.

The norm was to allow mentioning under the 1st Dam a black type full, 3/4 or 1/2 brother or sister (which would be repeated under the 2nd dam). What we see now is the listing of the black type sons or daughters of the half sister as well. That's apparently not enough because in some cases they list the black typed offspring of the half-sister's daughters.

The effect is often an amazing presence of black type winners on a page that otherwise would have been quite ordinary and very bare.

It's hard to fault breeders for trying to make their yearlings look as desirable as possible in print, however there must be a point where a catalogue page changes into an advert. No outright lies are being told but the display of feature winners as BOLD TYPE and feature placed horses as Small Bold Type has allowed buyers to be able to gauge the strength of a female line by the proportion of 'black type' on the page.

It's a gimmick to print the same names more than once on a page because it is not easy by eye to eliminate duplications. After many years of using catalogues with the 'normal' display of black type the user can very easily fall into believing the page is much stronger than it is. Obviously this is the direct and conscious intent, especially as I imagine the these alterations must be made manually for each duplication.

As a battling breeder myself I can see the temptation, but I am of the opinion that a temptation is what it should have stayed.