• HELP US - Become a Patron - Fat Jockey is a horse racing community focused on all the big races in the UK and Ireland. We don't charge users but if you have found the site useful then any support towards the running costs is appreciated ... a small donation each month would be a huge contribution. Become a Patron!

General Chat

RPRs are shockingly subjective and only to be used when they support your own subjective view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JackieMoon33
archie said:
RPRs are shockingly subjective and only to be used when they support your own subjective view.
Click to expand...

Have to agree Archie. Never taken any notice of them. Perhaps it's an old school thing. I just use my eyes.
 
Lobos said:
Have to agree Archie. Never taken any notice of them. Perhaps it's an old school thing. I just use my eyes.
Click to expand...

They're ok to look at, think 'that seems ok' or 'absolute bollocks' but I didn't know if there was some method behind them increasing ratings above a pound per length.
 
DenmanSacre said:
I'll post it here instead of the novice chaser thread as it's more about the calculation of RPRs.

Jonbon given a 159 RPR and Monmiral a 148 RPR for a 7 length win so in effect an extra 4 pounds for 'ease' of win.

How is this decided?

Crystal Glory for example absolutely sauntered in yesterday yet got no increase for how easy he won and the same for Banbridge on Saturday. Is it just a race by race thing and do they do it very often?

Edit: they've changed Crystal Glory now to add 2 pounds to his rating so they have added some for ease of win.
Click to expand...

Like all ratings systems it's just another man's opinion

I was a little surprised it was that high

Banbridge got 158 for his win
 
archie said:
RPRs are shockingly subjective and only to be used when they support your own subjective view.
Click to expand...

I can’t stand them and pay no attention to them now and never have, does Rodway get involved with the ratings at all? If so then that’s another reason to ignore haha
 
Madmoose said:
I can’t stand them and pay no attention to them now and never have, does Rodway get involved with the ratings at all? If so then that’s another reason to ignore haha
Click to expand...

He does

He's mentioned in the past that he helps do the rprs for the stayers on the flat

No idea if he still does though
 
Madmoose said:
I can’t stand them and pay no attention to them now and never have, does Rodway get involved with the ratings at all? If so then that’s another reason to ignore haha
Click to expand...

Ok, so you really fancy a horse for the Ultima. It's rated 140 and untested over 3 miles. You post your case on here then I pop up and tell you all winners this century recorded their best RPR over at least 3 miles, and the last 14 winners had run to a minimum RPR of 143. Do you ignore me and if yes, why?

FWIW I cannot stand Rodway, stealing a living in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jack1092
archie said:
RPRs are shockingly subjective and only to be used when they support your own subjective view.
Click to expand...

I think we've been over this ground previously, we've been on here long enough now, so it's likely :highly_amused: but I disagree.

I think they are a small part of a big puzzle, and I prefer to have as many pieces of the puzzle to make the big picture as clear as possible. Usually never complete the puzzle and will always have losers, but a RPR is a part of that for me, though I try to refrain from using it as the only piece of information for a debate about a particular horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nortonscoin200, FinalFurlong91, Atlantic Viking and 1 other person
A single high RPR is completely useless, particularly if it comes in the middle of a run of otherwise consistently lower figures. All it does is corrupt the race card RPR for the next 6 races.
 
charlie said:
Ok, so you really fancy a horse for the Ultima. It's rated 140 and untested over 3 miles. You post your case on here then I pop up and tell you all winners this century recorded their best RPR over at least 3 miles, and the last 14 winners had run to a minimum RPR of 143. Do you ignore me and if yes, why?

FWIW I cannot stand Rodway, stealing a living in the game.
Click to expand...

Exactly, like everything, they have their uses and some choose to use everything possible to form an opinion and some don't. Each to their own of course, you won't see me saying "oh he had an rpr of 150, i'm backing him" but when im looking through a horses profile i'll consider them.
 
archie said:
A single high RPR is completely useless, particularly if it comes in the middle of a run of otherwise consistently lower figures. All it does is corrupt the race card RPR for the next 6 races.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't just be looking at a single high or low RPR though, nor do I look for them on the race card, I'd be looking deeper than just that, and given the information and knowledge of quite a few members on here I'd be guessing that a lot do the same as me.

Just as an example, as I was looking at him today given he's entered on Sunday, but Seabank Bistro posted a seriously low RPR of 74 last time a Punchestown, when previously hitting RPR's of 121 & 130, so I wouldn't just assume he's now only capable of a RPR of 74, I'd delve further into detail to see why this was the case, any jockey or trainer comments, the ground, the track, the gap between races, plus other bits and pieces to build the picture. As I said, RPR's are also only a small part of the puzzle.

I must admit, I use RPR's less for handicap races, I think these are harder to be used to make part of a case because ultimately a trainer wants a horse well handicapped, will they or won't they be running their races leading up to their main target (if they even have a target)? IMO they are usually less consistent (more likely to put in one big RPR that you note of) due to wanting to get weight down, I'd rather look at the OR for handicap purposes than a RPR.

With regards to Jonbon in this instance, as this conversation seemed to revolve around him. Yes, he got a RPR of 159, pretty high, almost as high as some previous winners debuts ahead of winning the Arkle, but he now needs to back that up. I'd be less inclined to compare his hurdles RPR's versus what he can potentially achieve over fences because many horses can improve for a fence, so hurdle RPR's (as to official ratings) can be misleading to an extent.

I think it depends on how you use the information available. I'd never back a horse on the back of it producing better RPR's than others, although that might be more profitable than my way :highly_amused:

Everyone will have their own ways how they go about finding the potential winner of a race, some will use their eyes, some will check form lines, some will use ratings (whether OR's or RPR's), some will use time analysis, some will use breeding, some will use knowledge of trainer race planning (like what Saxon Warrior keeps tabs on), a lot of people will use a mixture of these and some may even try and use everything available and potentially be more selective with their bets because of this. What I will say though is that all the above options are subjective to the viewer/reader/punter, not just RPR's IMO. We tend to see what we want to see, regardless of process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nortonscoin200 and Saxon Warrior
Any ideas what happens to a 'lengths bet' with regards non runners and rule 4s? I could probably try to find it in the rules but just being lazy...

That's a specific horse to win by over x lengths... Rather than just winning distance in a race by the what.
 
Benjy23 said:
Any ideas what happens to a 'lengths bet' with regards non runners and rule 4s? I could probably try to find it in the rules but just being lazy...

That's a specific horse to win by over x lengths... Rather than just winning distance in a race by the what.
Click to expand...

Lengths bets make up, NRs are irrelevant.
If you’re playing spreads there’s a max make up of 30 in NH and 12 on the flat.
If you have a match bet one v another then wherever they finish and the distance between them makes up even if they’re the only 2 finishers.
If one of the legs in a match bet is a NR the bet is void but for the purpose of your question the distance between them is final regardless of NRs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjy23
Journey with me, constitution hill, Edwardstone all non runners today, I know it can’t be helped with the unseasonal quick ground, not sure if I’m the only one who’s been completely underwhelmed by the jumps season so far, I thought the November meeting was also very poor. Get the vibe it’s slowly dying out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToniC
All these non-runners due to good ground you'd think the brocklesby is next week
 
Disappointing for everyone
However,if I had booked and was travelling to Ascot I would feel cheated
 
MTR said:
Journey with me, constitution hill, Edwardstone all non runners today, I know it can’t be helped with the unseasonal quick ground, not sure if I’m the only one who’s been completely underwhelmed by the jumps season so far, I thought the November meeting was also very poor. Get the vibe it’s slowly dying out.
Click to expand...

Struggling to get into it this year I must admit. Busier than usual with other stuff to be fair but even so it just doesn’t feel like It usually does this time of year for whatever reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom