Quote:
Originally Posted by Form W-2G
In the recent Travers Stakes I was puzzled when I saw 117 as the Average Race Rating for the #7 horse KING ZACHARY. Bris's Ultimate Race Summary Explanation states that Avg. Race Rating is "an average of most recent Bris Race Ratings at today's distance/surface category." Since King Zachary never ran a race with a RR higher than 116 (see attached) how could his Average Race Rating be 117?
I asked Brisnet.net support this question and to their credit they responded very quickly stating: "You would think it would be an average, but it is not. From what I have seen from handicapping, they match maybe 60-70% of the time. This is because the average race rating is for just this distance and surface. The numbers listed for the last 3 races are the true last 3 races, which may or may not be the the same surface/distance."
Again, since the horse has never been in any race at any surface/distance where the Race Rating was higher than 116 so why 117?
Color me puzzled.
|
All figures should be taken with a grain of salt and that's how I use them. The anomaly may be an adjustment because of the uncommon race distance.
Also there is potential for confusion with the ARR and the Avg Dist/Surf figures.
King Zachary has a 117 ARR but only an 89 Avg Dist/Surf. So those two figures although defined by Bris as similar, are different. Also note that King Zachary never ran 1 1/4 distance so there again Bris leaves you to wonder how they came up with an 89 for him at the Avg Dist/Surf when he never ran the distance.
I use the race summary section as my main form of handicapping data, but only in races with a common distance, surface and age where the data would be sufficient to minimize errors. No way can you rely on any data for 3yo's going 1 1/4 miles and the results proved that.
