Handicap Anomalies

Change of topic peeps, enough on White Tiger and Equality, I'm keen to better understand below.

Murray Goodwin- PB 46.24sec (17/02/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1224 (15/04/17) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Hayden Crowe- PB 48.18sec (11/12/21), VAL fastest RPM 0.1265 (03/04/21) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Blake Jones- PB 48.10sec (19/02/22), VAL fastest RPM n/a (first VAL race over 400m) = Ballarat Handicap 11m
Angus Proudfoot- PB 47.90sec (26/01/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1267 (22/01/22) = Ballarat Handicap 16m

Is it just me or are the above Ballarat handicaps anomalous and need review?

Perhaps a forum favourite in Zonked can return and explain more.

Interesting finds Bonked, however I feel that the above is an example of great use of handicapper discretion. By the eye, these marks look to put these athletes right where they should be. I see you have used two times from 2018 as their PB’s. Last 2-3 years form is much more relevant.
Results have been pretty good this year for the 400m? Well done mr handicapper

in the water wrote:Interesting finds Bonked, however I feel that the above is an example of great use of handicapper discretion. By the eye, these marks look to put these athletes right where they should be. I see you have used two times from 2018 as their PB’s. Last 2-3 years form is much more relevant.
Results have been pretty good this year for the 400m? Well done mr handicapper

Not sure what you mean by two times 2018? I've simply listed PB's outside of VAL and VAL fastest rpms where available along with dates.

I'm not sure how the rules applied these days, perhaps its as you mention with an extra dollop of discretion which becomes dangerous IMHO.

Maybe someone out there can do some calculations to make sure that handicaps are indeed correct and in line with handicap regulations?

Bonked wrote:Change of topic peeps, enough on White Tiger and Equality, I'm keen to better understand below.

Murray Goodwin- PB 46.24sec (17/02/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1224 (15/04/17) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Hayden Crowe- PB 48.18sec (11/12/21), VAL fastest RPM 0.1265 (03/04/21) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Blake Jones- PB 48.10sec (19/02/22), VAL fastest RPM n/a (first VAL race over 400m) = Ballarat Handicap 11m
Angus Proudfoot- PB 47.90sec (26/01/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1267 (22/01/22) = Ballarat Handicap 16m

Is it just me or are the above Ballarat handicaps anomalous and need review?

Perhaps a forum favourite in Zonked can return and explain more.

Need more results to review, can't just looked at best RPM, but rather races won etc ! Proudfoot outside of 5 years sample , Goodwin 1 week.

Ben1104 wrote:

Bonked wrote:Change of topic peeps, enough on White Tiger and Equality, I'm keen to better understand below.

Murray Goodwin- PB 46.24sec (17/02/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1224 (15/04/17) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Hayden Crowe- PB 48.18sec (11/12/21), VAL fastest RPM 0.1265 (03/04/21) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Blake Jones- PB 48.10sec (19/02/22), VAL fastest RPM n/a (first VAL race over 400m) = Ballarat Handicap 11m
Angus Proudfoot- PB 47.90sec (26/01/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1267 (22/01/22) = Ballarat Handicap 16m

Is it just me or are the above Ballarat handicaps anomalous and need review?

Perhaps a forum favourite in Zonked can return and explain more.

Need more results to review, can't just looked at best RPM, but rather races won etc ! Proudfoot outside of 5 years sample , Goodwin 1 week.  

Yeah I agree more results needed, just look at Goodwin results on VAL search as example, gone from 8m to 0m and back out to 5m? These changes don't line up with PB's and races won, etc.

Also, look at Crowe with plenty of VAL history and gone from 20m to 5m? Once again something doesn't add up based on VAL performances vs PB's etc.

Jones looks right, but Proudfoot I'm not sure based on PB and how Goodwin has been accessed and his PB possibly used for the adjustment from 8m back to 0m.

It just doesn't add up?

Bonked wrote:Change of topic peeps, enough on White Tiger and Equality, I'm keen to better understand below.

Murray Goodwin- PB 46.24sec (17/02/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1224 (15/04/17) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Hayden Crowe- PB 48.18sec (11/12/21), VAL fastest RPM 0.1265 (03/04/21) = Ballarat Handicap 5m
Blake Jones- PB 48.10sec (19/02/22), VAL fastest RPM n/a (first VAL race over 400m) = Ballarat Handicap 11m
Angus Proudfoot- PB 47.90sec (26/01/18), VAL fastest RPM 0.1267 (22/01/22) = Ballarat Handicap 16m

Is it just me or are the above Ballarat handicaps anomalous and need review?

Perhaps a forum favourite in Zonked can return and explain more.

Good afternoon Mr/Ms Bonked

I agree with your above assessment. Without any understanding of the conversations surrounding how I allocate a handicap this may very well seem strange so, thanks to the person who sent this screen shot to me, I will attempt to help with everyone's understanding. Believe me, the last thing I want to do is operate outside of the guidelines and in fact have used the guidelines to move athletes to a more competitive mark frequently this season. There are, of course, a number of factors that are used to derive a starting handicap for an OGA athlete. These include but are not limited to, Pb, Age, Recent form, Previous history with the VAL, SAAL, TAL to name a few. When lifting all athletes, OGA included, I consider a number of factors too, current fitness levels v previous fitness levels, age, track conditions, visual endeavour and effort etc, NSM and Ceiling mark etc and of course the number of APs they have.

In each case listed above there is a good reason for the allocation of the mark, I am not able to share all information regarding discussions about athletes though. When I come across an athlete for the first time in the season I do my research, allocate a mark and discuss it with the Director of Handicapping. Unfortunately some people do not declare results until after the marks are done which is something to look at moving forwards. This year though some athletes have come back after new pbs mid season, some have moved out more than others especially if they had a previous mark below their NSM as a result of previous wins or returning to the sport. Of course, anyone still serving a penalty for a recent win may not get to their NSM if they won a bigger race or have raced sparingly.

Some athletes will also provide additional information that can be considered by a handicapper, I am not saying this is the case for any of the above named people though, it merely helps with handicap allocation.

Given that you made a comment about not knowing how the rules are applied "these days" I will make the assumption you are not new to the sport. But, hopefully the above helps with your understanding of how I apply the rules with my handicapping.

Happy to have more of a chat with you at Ballarat if you would like. I'll be in the middle, just be mindful that Rob and I look very similar.

in the water wrote:Interesting finds Bonked, however I feel that the above is an example of great use of handicapper discretion. By the eye, these marks look to put these athletes right where they should be. I see you have used two times from 2018 as their PB’s. Last 2-3 years form is much more relevant.
Results have been pretty good this year for the 400m? Well done mr handicapper

Thank you, I have been happy with the racing so far. My job is not to worry about who wins but to apply the system correctly, fairly and consistently.

Take that situation out of it, who wins the 400 Ballarat open?

Future Dwight knows the answer…

Come speak to me at Ballarat for the answer quickness

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

Poor Harry Kerr has copped a decent whack with the full penalty plus some?

Harry has been pulled 7.5m, is this the greatest re-adjustment we've seen in the history of the sport?

In comparison Ms Bull as been pulled 4.5m.

I trust the calculations and penalties applied to both runners are correct, especially given the checks and balances the VAL have put in place.

Where's Zonked, I bet he/she could help us out here?

Harry broke ceiling time by almost 3m more than what Carla did. So it’s hardly that surprising he was pulled more is it? Don’t even need to do the calcs to see that it’s going to be close to spot on the gap in penalties.

timrosen35 wrote:Harry broke ceiling time by almost 3m more than what Carla did. So it’s hardly that surprising he was pulled more is it? Don’t even need to do the calcs to see that it’s going to be close to spot on the gap in penalties.

Do the maths before commenting Timmy, you're better than that.

Carla’s adjusted mark is correct, but looks like Harry has been done an extra metre on calcs and penalty table just because!

I’ll leave that up to Nick. I’m sure if he isn’t happy with the mark he will question it.

I thought you were saying they should’ve got similar penalties. I was just explaining why they didn’t. All good

timrosen35 wrote:I’ll leave that up to Nick. I’m sure if he isn’t happy with the mark he will question it.

I thought you were saying they should’ve got similar penalties. I was just explaining why they didn’t. All good

Nick shouldn't have to question it.

Bonked wrote:Poor Harry Kerr has copped a decent whack with the full penalty plus some?

Harry has been pulled 7.5m, is this the greatest re-adjustment we've seen in the history of the sport?

In comparison Ms Bull as been pulled 4.5m.

I trust the calculations and penalties applied to both runners are correct, especially given the checks and balances the VAL have put in place.

Where's Zonked, I bet he/she could help us out here?

No Josh Ross was pulled more and had been running on negative marks.

7.5 m is a bit much though.