This provokes another question about ratings.
There was a very useful discussion about ratings early on in this thread but if ratings could be relied on 100% then couldn't the punters bankrupt all the bookmakers in a matter of days?
Has anyone ever worked out the profit/loss of betting according to the various ratings?
Which one(s) do you use? The highest ever achieved/highest this season/most recent completed race/RP estimate for the current race or other?
It was argued that First Flow couldn't win the Clarence House because he hadn't beaten much previously. First Flow didn't agree.
The point was that the ratings reflect what horses have done, not what they will do.
Any horse can improve. Not seen anyone dispute that.
"if ratings could be relied on 100% then couldn't the punters bankrupt all the bookmakers in a matter of days?"
:distant: Right thread I suppose :highly_amused:
What people have disputed is that Metier has shown more so far. You don't have to believe that's fact, and you could be wrong now and Metier still end up a better horse.
Loaded questions IMO.
Appreciate It, on the main ratings people use (OR, RPR, TF) has achieved more than Metier so far. That doesn't mean Metier can't do better. It doesn't mean they're fact. No-one is saying that.
You would need your own ratings and try and justify why Metier has shown more than Appreciate It so far.... and nobody could disprove them either.
Using First Flow as an example is fine, but how many times has the horse with superior form beforehand won too.... nobody uses ratings literally and exclusively do they? ... it's just a tool? Maybe some people do... probably has it's own angles.