Graded Earnings: Is there an alternative?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

does a rube goldberg points system or weighting stakes races solve this? or does it just create a more complicated less understandable system?

i think it's great that people put thought into solving a difficult problem with innovative solutions and usually hate the a-holes that shoot down every suggestion with "that won't work". but you have to have an actual problem first.

there is no problem. everyone understands how this works. some years people responsible for choosing where a horse runs make a puzzling choice and the horse doesn't get in the gate. that will still be the case in any of the proposed "solutions". only everyone who doesn't pay close attention to boards like this will have no idea what is going on.

"he has more stakes $ but some of it is reduced because we only apply 60% for a grade 2" or "he got less points for winning his $1 million stakes at 2 than a horse that finished 3rd in a 750,000 stakes at 3".

simple is good. tiago deserves a spot because his connections were smart enough to run him where they did. anyone who misses the gate should have thought about running at santa anita the first week of april.

no one has to learn calculus to understand that.

Actually I think a points system is far more simple to understand than using graded stakes earnings. It is a lot easier to show the point standings and how many points each finish in the race is worth to see how they will impact the standings. It would be a lot easier to add 8 points to 6 to see if Joe Got Even would get ahead of Teuflesberg's 15 points with a second place finish in the Lexington than it is to quickly add 20% of $325,000 to $56,445 to see if that is above $122,442 (it isn't). And that is assuming that there is no money added to the Lexington. If there were than it becomes even more difficult. It is a silly system and will get even more silly as more 2yo turf races get graded as preps for the BC Juvy Turf and count towards the Derby.

[whodey17]

I see the graded earnings picture to become more convulted in the near future. Should a two year race count more than a three year old prep race. For example, the BC Juve has more of a purse than the Bluegrass. Should a Grade III count as much as a Grade I. The Delta Jackpot has a better purse than the Bluegrass. I agree that just assigning points is not the right thing to do, but a weighted system seems logical to me. I think races at age 3 should count more than races at age 2. And a Grade I should count more than a Grade III.

Not sure what the difference is between a pts system and an earnings system. Effectively they are the same thing yes? Even if earnings are weighted so are pts. I dont see any effective difference.

I agree that two year old races should not count the same as 3 yr.

The only major weird earnings is the Boyds Jackpot thing.

Dont understand the orginal poster claiming that it should be points with an emphasis on the age and/or distance. How would that prevent a Tiago result? He's complaining about Tiago w/ one good result, how would his system prevent that?

I also dont see how you claim Tiago was "lucky." What evidence is there that he was lucky?

[ceejay]

For me the GS earnings system works. I'd tweak it by discounting 2yo earnings (50%?) and excluding mile races within 6 weeks of the derby and all US turf earnings.

Funny, Im watching "Lets Go to the Races" tv weekl wrap up show on late, from Philly Park. It's Dick Gerardi and another guy. So Gerardi says "ANd this graded earnings stuff has got to go...They've got Chelokee who might not get in. They need to go to a committee or something.."

Yeah. Like the Committee wouldnt make a billion more mistakes. WHose to say the Committee picks Chelokee?

"...or something." Got any more bright ideas?