Thomass

That's right..9 Horses mentioned adds up to 2 Tris, a quin and a winner in moi's Maths brain..IN ONE 170,000/1 all up wasn't it? Oh I should have mentioned NOT FOR FREE... ...would you like to become a client? Yesterday was just average...until the last... Max units at 18's was very tidy for a drop back horse and TOTAL Course Specialist... ...those AF Heart neddys next up run surprisingly well...why don't you do a search on your stats to see just how well? Im told relly relly well...maybe it's the Quinine they give them that lights a light in the old ticker? Run a check it'd be relly interesting thanks

Yea like 'tipping' at least 8 other horses in the Cup then saying... "I made a shit load off the winner" HAHA...that's what you call FRAUD...and the sycophants didn't even question your bare faced audacity to claim such b/s

His question that "Blinkers don't always work" No shit? Wtf knew that? Ive always been clear on this...Of course BO are the best legal go faster gear.....every horseman knows that... And FRUAD is encouraging other Punters to "do the opposite, back Whanganui rails on H11" PROFOUNDLY deceitful advice... Why did you and Bazz encourage such blatant nonsense...increase your chances on others?

Yep and my last 4 tips on here of 2 Tris a quin and a winner...IN ONE...were BEFORE the races as well..so don't give me that shit... This is very obvious I would have thought.. So you do Speed figures...one horse has raced on a D5 and another has run an equal speed figure on the same incorrectly rated track...it was an actual S8 to Standard times according to Neil Davis.. ...he adjusts his...You give both horses the same 'speed' rating for the race? My opinion is your 'speed' rating is f'd and it's giving algorithms a bad name...

Even if the outward movement from the inside horse, as excused by Stipes, hadn't happened... ...would they have accepted the 'COMPETETIVE' riding excuse though Weas? It appears it's general consensus in Australasia that it's ok to cannon your way out of a hole?

You raised this with me back in Aug '18... To repeat Ive spent 40 years in the Industry...managed Stud farms, in racing stables etc In short Im a horseman and thoroughly conversant with all facets of the Industry including horse behaviour... My 'Blinkers' use in punting is very limited...e.g I'll add @ 20% to an investment if that horse meets the required standard of my form analysis The only niche I have for JUST Blinkers is mainly in Maiden racing... Alors...if a neddy has reached a standard performance mark for maiden gallopers and we know BLINKERS can have a marked difference on SOME horses...let's say 50% for arguments sake... ...then at some point a 'value' bet component will come into the equation... ...and realising NZ is the perfect place to find value with wide ranging track conditions on many tracks with different surfaces... What other theories do you find "very very questionable" and I'll answer them And I certainly don't beat my drum...that's the other bloke who claims 20 years of pro stuff...even though he finds value on a Whanganui H11 Rail position and thinks 'wide without cover' don't mean much

Very good points Happy and it seems Racing NSW agree and have made an official complaint... ...the reporter is not helping herself by making a concerted effort to bring the Racing Industry, down after it aired, with a Sicial Media campaign BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE LETTER IS BELOW Introduction Racing NSW Chairman Mr Russell Balding AO has made a complaint to the ABC regarding ‘The Final Race’ program broadcast on “7:30” on ABC Television on 17 October 2019 and what is viewed as serious and numerous breaches of the ABC’s statutory duties, Editorial Policies and Code of Practice. Racing NSW believes that the ABC has fallen far short of its statutory duty to ensure “news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards” and its Editorial Policy requirements to “uphold the fundamental journalistic principles of accuracy and impartiality”. The link to the 21-page letter detailing each of the breaches is HERE Summary The NSW racing industry has been depicted as being responsible for animal cruelty alleged to be occurring in some abattoirs and knackeries. In particular, the NSW racing industry is falsely and unfairly associated with such practices at Queensland’s Meramist Abattoir, in ways that state that the industry is complicit, knowledgeable, uncaring and/or indifferent. These statements include: “LEIGH SALES: Tonight the dark side of the horse racing industry. “ELIO CELOTTO, COALITION FOR THE PROTECTION OF RACEHORSES: I think they’re purposely hiding this from the general public… “PAUL MCGREEVY: We’re talking about destroying horses on an industrial scale. (emphasis added) “LEIGH SALES: … The ABC can reveal what really goes on when racehorses’ lives end in knackeries and abattoirs… (emphasis added) “CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: The doggers and their transporters are ever-present here and the holding pens are constantly replenished with the racing industry's wastage... “ELIO CELOTTO: … that tells you everything about the connection between the greyhound industry and the racing industry. They rely on each other. “PAUL MCGREEVY: the industry has let a lot of people down and a lot of horses down by the looks of things. Racing New South Wales will really struggle to justify what's going on here. “CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: While it's not illegal for New South Wales knackeries to be slaughtering racehorses, one fact is incontrovertible - it is the racing industry that's fuelling their business. (emphasis added) “ELIO CELOTTO: The knackeries are essentially cleaning up the racing industry's mess and getting rid of it. The problem now is that they're being exposed for what really is happening out there. (emphasis added) “CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: The racing industry's wastage is endless.” (emphasis added) In addition, comments about the industry are intercut with images and audio of cruelty to animals at Queensland’s Meramist Abattoir. For example, following the final excerpt quoted above the program shows images of horses being cruelly treated with the following soundtrack: “ABBATTOIR (sic) WORKER: Go on, you dumb f***ing dumb c***. … ABBATTOIR (sic) WORKER: F***ing stupid c***.” Yet there is no effort by the program to explain that Racing NSW has no association with, or control over, Queensland’s Meramist Abattoir or was aware of the atrocities occurring at that facility. Further, no substantive evidence of these serious and unfounded allegations are presented on the program. The unfairness is most clearly demonstrated in the interview of Racing NSW CEO, Mr Peter V’landys AM, who was not shown or made aware of the shocking footage of the sickening and abhorrent treatment of horses at Queensland’s Meramist Abattoir. Mr V’landys AM was denied the opportunity to present Racing NSW’s position in respect of that footage, which is broad and unconditional condemnation of such sickening and abhorrent treatment of horses. The audience would have been unaware that Mr V’landys AM had not been shown that footage or alerted to the treatment of horses at Queensland’s Meramist Abattoir nor given any opportunity to respond to, or comment on, that treatment. In stark contrast, two of the parties interviewed in the program, Mr Elio Celotto (from activist group, Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses) and Professor Paul McGreevy (a long-term critic of the racing industry), appear to have either been involved in obtaining, or provided with, privileged access to the footage shown on the “7.30” program and were allowed to comment specifically on the footage, with their perspective dominating the program. Racing NSW takes strong measures to prevent the inappropriate disposal of racehorses within its jurisdiction. However, throughout the program, images, narration and commentary are presented of appalling practices in abattoirs and knackeries. Racing NSW has publicly condemned the cruelty identified. If Racing NSW had been aware of any instance of animal cruelty, whether relating to horses within its jurisdiction or not, or in relation to any animals, it would have immediately taken action itself where it had authority and, where it did not have jurisdiction, reported such matters to relevant authorities for action and rectification. This is especially important in relation to animal welfare. It is disappointing that neither the ABC nor other parties involved in the two-year period of putting the program together apparently saw fit to report to authorities, when they became aware of the cruelty. While not within the ambit of this complaint, it is a matter for the ABC, as a public agency with integrity responsibilities, to consider. If the ABC has any evidence of abuse of thoroughbreds within the jurisdiction of Racing NSW, we would expect that such evidence be brought to Racing NSW’s attention as soon as possible. By gathering and presenting this information in this manner and failing to present the diversity of perspectives relevant to the issues, the program has failed to meet the standards of the ABC’s Editorial Policy and Code of Practice. The failure is particularly serious given the contentious nature of the content. There is unfairness at the core of the program’s approach and coverage of the issue. Despite an apparent two-year investigation, the interview with Racing NSW CEO, Mr Peter V’landys AM occurred only one day prior to broadcast. The request came just six days prior to broadcast and contained no information about the nature and extent of the cruelty allegations at Queensland’s Meramist Abattoir being made in the program which should have been provided to Racing NSW both prior to the interview being conducted and the program being broadcast. There were 29 horses identified in the program that were implied to be NSW horses that were being illegally and improperly disposed of. However, Racing NSW inquiries subsequent to the broadcast have shown that of the 29 horses named, only one horse was sold to an abattoir by a person within Racing NSW’s jurisdiction. Further, one horse, Reliable Kingdom, alleged by the program to have been “condemned to death” is in fact alive. Racing NSW and the racing industry in NSW were disproportionately represented in the program with far more detail than any other state and the viewer is given the incorrect impression that racing in NSW is the problem. In reality, Racing NSW was the only state to have had a Rule that attempts to address the issues raised in the program. In the context of Mr V’landys AM being asked a series of questions, the program shows footage of Queensland Racing. Racing NSW has no jurisdiction over Queensland racing and this unfortunately is symptomatic of the program’s approach. The complaint includes Racing NSW’s challenge of factual inaccuracies, misrepresentations, lack of independent verification of data, vision and statements, which include the following (in addition to those presented above): The program asserts that branding is burnt into horses, whereas the practice of fire-branding has been banned in thoroughbred racing for over 30 years. There are broad and unsupported statements about both the number and percentage of racehorses that are being killed at knackeries and abattoirs, with no independent verification being provided in support of those claims. References to thousands of racehorses being sent to abattoirs seems to be supported by unverified extrapolation of figures based on 22 days of alleged footage taken over a two-year period (3% of 2 years) and, in one case, a study conducted over 10 years ago, prior to the introduction of important welfare initiatives by the racing industry and Racing NSW’s Rules prohibiting horses predominantly domiciled in NSW for their life being sent to knackeries and abattoirs. In the context of images of horses cruelly treated at Queensland’s Meramist Abattoir, the program includes the allegation that horses “are coming straight off the racetrack” whereas the majority of the horses identified in the program had been retired from racing for many years. There is a need for the ABC to provide verification of the heavily edited footage and the analysis of the data cited in the program. This is because this data is used to allege that racing industry data is not only inaccurate but deliberately so. The ABC has a responsibility to “not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience” (ABC editorial policy 2.1). The inaccuracies noted in the 21-page complaint influenced the perspective presented throughout the program with statements regarding the alleged scale and nature of the issue. There was no proper or serious attempt to present the perspective of the racing industry, which should have included the actions and work of Racing NSW (and other racing organisations) to address the welfare of thoroughbred racehorses, both during and after their racing careers. To the extent that they are referenced, they are done so in a manner to be contextualized and critiqued by the industry opponents featured in the program. The information that was specifically excluded from the program by the ABC included the statements of Mr V’landys AM provided during the interview in respect of Racing NSW’s many programs to rehome horses and provide equine therapy from these retired horses to disadvantaged persons within the community. The program also did not present the important racing industry initiative introduced in 2016, tracking thoroughbred horses from birth to retirement from the racing industry. Since 2016, foals must be registered shortly after birth and are permanently excluded from racing if they are not. This initiative was a major step in developing the national traceability register supported by Racing NSW. The program also failed to clearly identify the jurisdictional issues involved with different States and Territories or the extent of jurisdiction in relation to registered owners, trainers and horses while in the industry. For example, once horses move from the ownership of registered participants, Racing NSW has no legal right to either track or take action. Further, Racing NSW only has jurisdiction and power to act in the State of NSW. Despite this limited legal jurisdiction, Racing NSW seeks to act to protect the welfare of retired horses where it can, which has included purchasing horses from a Victorian sale located at Echuca which were at risk of being purchased by a knackery and also making bids on many other horses to make it unviable for the knackery to purchase them. Racing NSW also has no control or authority in relation to practices at knackeries or abattoirs which are subject to the State and Commonwealth legislative and regulatory oversight of those facilities. The ABC was made aware of the complexity of issues contained in the program through email information sent by Racing NSW in the short period subsequent to the interview with Mr V’landys, and prior to broadcast, but chose not to include this information in the program. Racing NSW considers the failure to adequately consider, or even engage with Racing NSW prior to the program, on information critical to the program, to further illustrate a failure of editorial standards. The program chose to proceed with damaging allegations regarding Racing NSW and the racing industry without specifically putting those allegations depriving Racing NSW and the racing industry from a fair and proper opportunity to respond to those allegations. This is illustrated by the program sending an email to Racing NSW at 1:06 pm on the day of the broadcast in respect of alleged NSW horses that had been sent to Camden sales and two NSW knackeries in breach of Racing NSW’s Rules. Notwithstanding the short timeframe, Racing NSW provided a detailed response at 2:19pm but apart from a brief statement by the 7.30 host after the report ended, there was no mention of Racing NSW’s response. This is patently inadequate and inappropriate given the apparent two-year investigation, the provision of a response to an email on the day of broadcast and the clear focus of the program’s report on the racing industry. The reporter, Ms Caro Meldrum-Hanna, has herself been observed on social media to continue to tweet, retweet and comment on other anti-racing causes even until the time of the lodgment of Racing NSW’s complaint showing a sustained attack on the racing industry, has supported other “anti-racing” causes such as anti-gambling and also commented and shared on declining TV ratings and wagering on the Melbourne Cup Carnival, directed multiple tweets at NSW Premier, Ms Gladys Berejiklian and other politicians in relation to the program. A copy of the tweets are available HERE

Here's some news for you Chef...and I want you to read this very closely.... THEYRE NOT F IN ROBOTS...ok? If we were betting on slots the algorithms could be accurately assessed for ground made good via the Cape without cover with Blinkers concentrating the metal mind... Get a grip then... Speed Maps are used by many modern day punters now...from the O'Sullivan research it appears to be an important thang... My advice is don't use it if you can't understand even basic knowledge about the use of Blinkers and their possible effects....on animals Nothing is set in stone with animals...wtf knew?

Oh yea "dic theories" Like yours that gave you amazing prices...Harengawe 55/1...wins at 7's...Polly Grey 45/1...wins at 11's...and the Shark 33/1...among other gems How did you arrive at such dic prices?? Of course you're a slave to the Beyer Speed figures...something that's impossible to reference here with any accuracy...hence your amazing prices... So iron stain.... ...to calibrate a 'Speed' rating when a track is so obviously wrong..requires manual input...which isn't about to happen...when you're working to an accurate algorithmic scale

Oh cheers for that...I was simply returning ramming!

Yea, like observing Blinkers "can make a horse show greater early speed" O'Sullivan is an expert in his field.... ...and you the ultimate Sultan of Sophistry...is trying to tell Dan how it's done... ...you don't even use Speed Maps in your Stats based analysis ffs... ...chuck a bunch of stats into the old PC then arbitrage the shit out of it... pffft

As I thought....no thought just a mindless retort... Dan is the Doyen of Australian form analysis and is a Professional Punter...like moi I can give you his twitter handle or personal Email if you'd like to poo poo his ideas??

No! Guess what...the Stipe 'boys' pulled the 'got shunted from the inside' b/s... ...when clearly it was slight at the most.... ..and simply ignored Harris had his right handle bar hard down at the time... ...pause the video and you'll note the head is already on its way to hard right!

I really hate constantly beating you up...but Methinks you make things up as you go along..and you also think that your private school prose will influence the easily led? Read this...weep...then learn...and you'll be happier having a knowledge base from which to argue more intelligently... Daniel O'Sullivan - Settling position changes Daniel O'Sullivan@TRBHorseRacing 28 October, 2019 , ( Over the past few weeks I’ve written about various angles you can look for in your form study to help create better race assessments and gain an edge over the market in your betting decisions. I want to continue with that theme this week by taking a look at where horses settle in the run and why you should pay attention to those that are likely to settle notably closer or further back this start compared to last start. On average, the closer a horse settles to the lead in a race, the greater its chance of winning. That applies even to favourites, who by nature have the strongest credentials for a race, but aren’t immune to the influence of settling position. For example, favourites that settle with 2 lengths of the lead (at the 800m mark) win 36.8 per cent of the time, while those that settle more than 4 lengths off the lead only win 28.5 per cent of the time. The gap is even greater for longer priced horses. This is one of the reasons why speed maps, or at least having some idea of where horses are likely to settle in the run should be an important part of your race analysis. A key focus when studying my speed map is trying to identify runners that I think can settle much closer than they did last start and those that could settle much further back. The following data shows why this is so important. The Data The table below compares genuine chances in the market (up to $10 SP) that had a 3 length or more change in their settling position (at the 800m mark) in this run compared to last start, with thanks to PuntingForm sectional data that I use to help keep my database up to date. You can see what a big difference to winning strike rate and in particular betting returns it makes to settle much closer or further back in the run compared to last start. There’s an element of these results that are logical. A horse that is 3 lengths or more further back from the lead this start, is very likely to be in an actual position no better than midfield and usually further back, which naturally produces a lower win strike rate than those closer to the lead. However, even among horses that are positioned well back off the lead, those settling much closer than their last start still provide a higher win strike rate and clearly superior betting returns than others. All horses up to $10 that were more than 3 lengths from the lead at the 800m mark have a 16.1% winning strike rate and 16.3 per cent betting loss on turnover. Within that group, those that were 2 lengths or more closer to the lead than last start had just a -1.3 per cent betting loss. For example, this could be a horse that was five to six lengths off the lead last start, but settled three to four lengths off the lead this start. On the other hand, those 2 lengths or more further back from the lead than last start had a -24.2 percent betting loss. For example, this could be a horse that was three to four lengths off the lead last start, but ended up six lengths or more back off the lead this start. In my opinion, these are the important horses to look for, especially when searching for genuine chances that you want to bet against in a race. The following table shows the results of genuine chances that settled within one length of the lead last start, but were two to four lengths back off the lead this start. The price of a horse in the market is heavily influenced by what it did last start. Therefore, being able to identify horses that may be in a more or less favourable position this time can help you to gain an edge. How can you forecast notable position changes? If you understand how important notable changes in setting position from one start to the next are, then being able to forecast them is the next piece of the puzzle. Of course, we can’t predict with 100% accuracy where each horse will settle, but with a little bit of effort, you can be right more than often enough to help swing the betting percentages in your favour. The key is to look for specific scenarios that may have positively or negatively impacted a horse’s position last start, which are likely to be different in this race. Following are some examples that I look for: Field size: Horses that typically settle off the pace and are coming from a small field last start to a much larger field this start are a good chance to settle further back in the run. The reverse also applies. Barrier draw changes: Sometimes simply drawing further in or out can be enough to impact a horse’s settling position from one start to the next. Don’t make the mistake though of assuming this is automatically the case. It’s important to understand how the early speed in a race maps and whether the barrier draw change will really have a major influence. Changes in the number of speed horses drawn inside: This is where a little bit of video work can pay dividends. You can often identify horses that actually jumped well last start, but ended up settling further back than they otherwise could have been, simply because of a number of similar or faster speed horses drawn inside. If the scenario looks to be different in this race, then you can confidently forecast that the horse will settle closer. The reverse also applies where a horse may have more speed horses drawn inside it in this race compared to last start. Horses that benefited from a lack of early competition in a race: In smaller fields or even more average size fields that lack early pace, the horses often jump from the barriers and there’s very little early competition. Jockeys don’t need to display any great urgency to find their position and the field gradually falls into shape, without any runner doing unnecessary early work. Some horses can benefit from this in regards to their settling position, especially if they jumped from an inside barrier. Coming to a race that looks much more competitive early will usually see them settle further back. Blinkers on or off: The addition of blinkers can often help a horse become more focused, show greater early speed and settle closer in the run. Blinkers off can have the opposite effect. This gear change is also often a sign that the trainer wants the horse to relax more in the run, which can lead to a more conservative ride. Pace Changes: A horse that comes off a fast run race where they looked out of their comfort zone and drifted well back off the lead can often settle closer at their next start if the pace is less hectic and especially if it is slower than average. Of course, the reverse also applies where a horse may have benefited from a slower than average pace, but is in a race this time that is likely to be run faster early. Today’s betting landscape with a combination of increased market percentages due to higher taxes and the general tough level of competition from other players means that we must all be trying to constantly improve and become smarter in our analysis. Having an awareness of and applying these types of principles that go beyond the traditional type of form analysis can help you to do that. Even if you already use a speed map, don’t just gloss over where a horse is likely to settle for this race. It’s well worth taking some time to check how that compares to last start and factor that into your assessments.

And good on you too... ..but you were suggesting I should give up the argument that superior form in inferior races isn't a 'thang'? HK has exactly the same Ratings Based system as we have... ...and as each Band level strengthens...so to do the times Thats almost my whole basis of Form Analysis... Grasi however...works on the basis that he can Benchmark NZ Tracks so well that it's like running every race on the same course... ...and of course fastest times/sectionals win The massive problems with that are too numerous... ..a few weeks back the Hawera track ran on a D5...same as last year...yet the times were out by at least 7L and as far as 12L...big red light right there and indicative of how problematic his 'speed' ratings are... ...oh and then he won't add time for things like unlucky, without cover et rl But by now you know that...and you'll also know that a few unlucky runs where ability is improving as a horse matures... ...won't be recognised in his 'analysis'...but it's in mine...

Yea, let's face it...Troy Harris's ride was totally RECKLESS rather than 'Competitive' Boxed on the turn, Harris can be seen quite clearly with right handle bar DOWN... Gives Shorn Ritchie's horse a complete, often Injury Inducing, side swipe.... ....it's near fore now taking an extreme load at an extreme angle...as it struggles to balance again... This type of RECKLESS riding...masquerading as 'Competitive' here and in Australia...is a disgrace... And the Likes of Mick Guerin simply LOVE RECKLESS riding...it's an accepted narrative now... ...you're in a pocket and it's absolutely ok to ride RECKLESSLY...I.e. 'ride to injure' yea na

Soz Freda...what part of the Grassi philosophy do you support again? 'Invest' on 'Value' on H11 Whanganui rails runners...ignore Course Specialists...ignore unlucky, wide without cover et el... ...or REDZEL's trainer was wrong that it needs a Hood to perform? Or all of the above?

Its totes pointless playing your silly kindy games mate... The last time I posted 200 turned into 10k...on a lazy Friday...You spluttered "every dog has a day" Not only that proof but the last 4 races I've tipped on here before the race... ...have resulted in 2 tris a Q and a winner.. IN ONE Thats a World record...a 170,000/1 multi Im applying to Guinness for that... And You're still trying to find 'value' in Whanganui H11 rails runners Next

As moi said moaner amie.... " if the pace is lazy...it don't matter so much"... That race was run 9L slower than the very next race...also a MDN 3yo Sometimes you have to look behind the 'veil' and not be persuaded by the pretty face value... Besides it's a Vella Fella's neddy and they're often superior Case closed

Win's showing up the Old Boys Network koppa... The Self Rightous Right, born to rule pricks... ...but the grand Coalition greatest asset in its return... will be Slippery Slimon being retained as Leader... ...he'll slobber his way through the debates... spitting over the audience in the front seats...yuck ..while Cindy retains a calm radiant personable image... enjoy

He became an even better Jock when he got Stu Laing on board as well... The first of NZ's Jockey managers he set the standard... And what an horrific injury he recovered from in Melbourne...

Exactly...without explaining your raisin de tear...moi does and doesn't expect 1000 pats and sycophantic hesi bow wows... My tipping record stands on its own...last 4 selections...2 tris a q and a winner...IN ONE Now believe me...if a neddy has been racing in superior class with distinction.....this directly relates to its superior chance in an inferior race...wtf knew? Nothing is more certain... ...the VALUE component then kicks in...especially in NZ conditions...When said superior performing neddy has been racing in UNSUITABLE circumstances... i.e. ISKANDER...recent racing on unsuitable wet tracks...previously an excellent 3L effort in an MAAT on a Premier day after being used up early from a wide draw...hitting the lead 300 out and weakening slightly...totally understandable Wayyyy over the odds mid weak at 30's Thats what you call investing on VALUE neddys with SUPERIOR form

Oh my..not you as well?? They have a term "facing da breeze" Believe me NOW...it's a NEGATIVE...mostly... The term is 'COVER' btw Obviously you haven't heard the mathematical term 'Pi' either Im adding up to 0.5 secs for 'Wide without Cover' and @ 0.25 secs for 3 wide Thats as standard...I also make allowances for overracing, unlucky, and slow outs et el Its what you call 'form analysis 101'...try it one day

Give us a brake! Pull grassi up for a change would ya....he's always calling moi every name under the sun...and you love it... Sometimes...na USUALLY always you seem to write whatever cooked into your noggin....without thinking Whats "FICTION" the closer slot...or the overarching fact bizzo??....can't wait