the galah

just watched race 4 and noticed the locals around at the start seemed a bit kinky. maybe thats an invercargill thing.

you seem confused, as haven't you just said 2 contradictory things. bedsides,Isn't the most relevant thing whether race meetings are generating profits or losses. Turnovers are a good indicator,but turnovers can be down but still generating profits and turnovers can be up but still generating losses.And doesn't it matter most these days just how profitable,or not,the ff betting is per meeting.. Obviously its all a big picture thing in the end,but their doesn't seem much transparency about the big picture.Thats the point i try to make,when i talk about the need for context.

i just watched a bit of the box seat and at one point greg o'connor was asked about turnovers. he said to a question about turnovers for the most recent weeks- "turnovers are looking really strong.Turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the equivalent last year,particularly derby night" so when he says turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the equivalent to last year. is it as good as he makes out. The previous year,in the 3 weeks after show day the club had 2 friday and 1 low key, 8 race wednesday meeting.(29 races in total) This year they had racing every friday night,in other words 3 friday meetings.(32 races in total) so is he giving figures comparing the turnovers from those 3 meetings,i guess thats what he meant. but if he is,which it sounded like,then hasn't he created a misleading perception,as there were 3 more races run this year, low key wednesday meetings don't generate the turnover of a friday night normally and we also know they pay higher stakes on a friday than they would have for the wednesday meeting last year. again,isn't it another statement where the context is lacking. maybe he had context but simply chose not to go into detail for some reason. there needs to be more detail befoe people can be convinced they aren't being given spin.I don't think mr o'connor is into deliberately giving spin,but he didn't appear to compare apples with apples.

i haven't heard the whinging pom words for some time over here. i think its petered out due to the changing demographics of who lives in nz these days. these days people migrating to nz from the uk are less than half the likes of china or india. Where i live theres lots of indians in particular. i have seen bits of that news coverage on the english cricket supporters reaction to how their cricket team is going.i agree that from what i saw,they do seem hard to please and unrealistic.But i always treat any news story with a degree of skepticism these days so i'm not sure whether i believe the news stories is a true relection of how the average pom feels about their team.

of course spathcock,i'm not saying theres anything wrong with you feeling irritated. Its just personally i have always thought people use the word when they should just say,you irritate me sometimes,and leave it at that.

i haven't had any problems myself. i sometimes do,but not this week.

Whinge is an interesting word. Brodie to me has repetitively expressed a consistent opinion,opposite to yours, while giving the solution to that problem. you define that as a whinge,because you get irritated a tad when you read it a lot. So really,its the irritation aspect which makes you define some of his comments as a whinge. so really,your post is a good example that the word whinge is subjective and based on the irritation factor and you've given us an example that it can be used to try and create a negative perception about the person you have used it against.But can't we see through that.. of course you don't say your irritated because you know that would reflect more on you,than brodie,and you want to reflect on brodie in a negative way. thats my thoughts on the word whinge.

i'd never heard of the ai thing doing the pricing,but i've just googled what you said and am surprised just how common it already is becomming around the world and how common it is for people to use ai programmes to do their betting.. i suppose its a bit like what the tab already does with its algorythms on certain peoples accounts.They have for a few years now been immediately reducing the odds of any runner that receives support from punters who are identified as winning punters.i can imagine it wouldn't be hard for the tab to identify all the winning punters,have all the betting information from those peoples accounts input into some sort of programme and the odds be set accordingly from there. Really thats why they have tried to push everyone into betting over the internet,so as to identify the winning punters ,so the tab can reduce the amounts that they will potentially lose. its a bit like all those punters who have computer programmes which trigger betting for them on the win movers. thats been around for some time. People that don't follow racing,but are computer smart,making their living out of having a computer programme which analyses win movers and how the computer would make the decisions of when to bet. Theres was lots of people who use betfair that seem to be doing that and i'm sure it would be happening in australasia,especially australia. i also had a theory that the best way to make money was simply identify who the winning punters are,hack into their accounts and have a computer programme replicate their betting. SImple as,your in the money. Actually when i was making money not that many years ago i actually complained to the tab that i believed that was what someone was doing. There was a consistent pattern of every horse i backed dropping in price and i had concluded it had to be that.I actually complained to the tab and asked them to investigate whether anyone else was accessing my account other than me,but they just seemed to think i was paranoid,but thats i believed.. If i was smart in how to hack and a little dishonest,thats what i would do.Simple as.. anyways,back to the ai thing. I can imagine what nowornever says about having an advantage of betting as soon as the markets come out,but of course not many can be bothered to do that,i never ould be bothered when i used to bet, even though i knew that was a way of increasing profit.I suppose those that do will make a bit of more money and those who have the same selections ,but bet after the prices have dropped will win a bit less. thats why the whales are such dumb bets,Of course people are going to say,well he turns a profit,because he would based on getting on early,but because he ruins the odds with his early bets,those that follow are never going to make much.Then again,maybe they are happy almost breaking even. so it sounds like its not going to be ai that will make it harder for punters to make money from racing,its the fact ai will use the information they gain from winning punters that will give ai the winning edge.

i agree that weavers horses have always gone ok and are consistent enough.No champs,but good enough to keep going and earn a few dollars and have a bit of fun type horses.Hes had the odd nice horse,i remember ultimate desire was a nice mare for him not that many years ago. i just had a look and hes trained 121 winners so he knows what hes doing. your right about grass tracks being a levelller,i think part of that is getting onto the inside and handy seems to help some horses more on grass. it was an improvement in form,no doubt about it,and its natural to be curious about what house had done with the horse in the couple of weeks he had it. It should be able to win again once it gets to run in similar fields.Yesterdays race wasn't an over strong form race and jumping 5 rating points means it will be in tougher races in the short term.

i agree with gamm on this one. i do accept what brodie has said, in that yesterday there was an improvement in the performance of The mandelorian, on past efforts,but i don't think it was as significant as suggested. i have my own way of doing the form and i had The mandelorian rated to run 7th of the 13 starters ,based on its form from the weaver stable. I had thought logan rock had the superior form for that race ,but it underperformed a tad and you could also tell with 600m to run that r close,logan rocks driver, had simply left his run far too late, as the race had developed into a sprint home. Horses never ever come from too far back on a sprint home on a fast grass track.They just never do. so the race evolved in a way where you had to be in the first 4 turning in to be a chance and the mandelorian had received the ideal 1/1 sit early and was still in that ideal position when the sprint went on, due to the other drivers not making moves. so what i'm saying is the way the race played out was in the mandelorains favour. i've actually followed the manderlorain a bit and i have formed the opinion he's not the toughest mentally and doesn't have the greatest self belief in his own ablity to win. And you get that from horses who race a lot and only win occassionally or never quite do. I think that was again evident yesterday,it was like he went up to win the race and was going well enough to win by half a length,but he simply took longer to get to the front because the horse was as surprised as anyone that he may have been going to win and was having a think instead of being totally focussed on winning. W house just sort of kidded to him,sort of as if to say to him,go on son,you can do it,without ever resorting to much whip use. as to the m house stable improving horses. Yes they do improve horses and it doesn't take long before they can do that.The amount they improve their horses can be around 5 lengths in my opinion. My theory on how they do that is they work them a bit harder and a bit differently ,where they vary their work to switch them on a bit more when they first get them.I also think sometimes they get the vet to treat their horses in a way that helps any slight soreness issues or something,or they do it themselves. Doesn't m house have shares in a vet clinic,so wouldn't he be able to have his horses treated much cheaper than other trainers.I'm only guessing,but thats my informed guess.. But i'm realistic enough to realise people can see they improve horses and will wonder how they do it.It thinks its not over complicated,they've just worked out what works for them.I don't think they've ever tried to gain any unfair advantage the way one or two stables used to in the past.I would be nice if there were more stables like the houses.. The house horses have never had the run forever look and they get tired when they should if they have a hard run. so i don't think the mandelorians run was any big deal myself. I think the bookies shouldn't have had the mandelorian at 41's given the overall form of the horses in that race and the fact it was having its first start from the house barn.Really it should have opened around $20. Star on the rocks was an amazing opening price of $41. it was backed into $12. Personally i wasn't betting yesterday,but was just amazed at the price the bookeis opened that horse,given its recent form. ITs shown its very fast but seems to struggle a bit getting around tracks with tighter bends.But to open at $41 was an early christmas gift to the punters who got on as its price tumbled in .

so the nsw minister for gaming and racing has just released a range of measures and requirements to address concerns raised in the drake report. poeple should read the drake report findings. Its now available for reading just some of the key recommendations from the drake report included a cap on the number of greyhounds bred in nsw to levels that allow greyhounds numbers being bred to come closer into line with numbers that can be adopted. the changing of the definition of rehoming...In other words,rehomed onto a couch,not kennelling. ending exports to the usa. lots about track safety and reporting of injuries. anyways,lots,lots more in there. Now at this point it seems unclear of the specifics of how far the nsw government has gone to implement drakes recommendations. i haven't had time to read the full rteport just yet,but from what i have read,it sets out the way the industry can continue into the future over there. if greyhound new zealand was to adapt all the recommendations in that report then they would snuff out a major oart of the anti greyhound racings ammunition. why don't they try and buy a bit more time from the nz government,on the understanding that they would be willing to do so. remember this is an election year so they need to use any lever they can pull to hang in there. personally i think part of new zealands problem is greyhound people think too much about trying to retain whats best for themselves,not whats best for the nz greyhound industry long term. Greyhound people aren't alone in putting their self interests first,it applies in all the racing codes in nz and to people in general.But theres always a cost to be paid in the end for that type of thinking. maybe its all too late and people within new zealand greyhound racing industry don't want to change anyway,as theres things in there they happens in new zealand which people could have changed already,but they chose not to. But personally i think had new zealand been using something like the drake report as a blueprint for how they operate,they wouldn't be where they are today. one thing i personally have found sad about the greyhound industry is what some submitted in the nsw hearings,were the number of greyhounds who were never going to be suitable for rehoming.It seemed to vary based on who was saying what,but it was very significant either way and that is going to be one of the saddest things about what will happen to the greyhounds who are around today in nz.

What about that race. Brother Rob runs 2nd after being about 6 lengths behind the others at start,then sat parked all way and may have won but for going rough early in the home straight. If you watched that horses last 3 trial/workout runs in the last month,it had dropped out by 200m each time,couldn't leep warm.A bit of an improvement shown today.

personally i prefer b orange,but dalgety and dunn always give you a run for your money. S thornley,s ottley are like that. Lots of good canterbury drivers. Thats why the racing in canterbury is a better product,because the races are more competitive and they to win.

actually i just posted the same gamma without seeing your post about the next n williamson drive in race 3. i get what your saying about putting $5000 on a non win trotter.That person will never get their money back as they will make it a $1.80 favorite next time and it may not win. But having watched the race today,the punter did actually get it right.It really only had to be let run and it would have won,but that happens sometimes and its just part of gambling on the trots. No ill intent,just the drivers and trainers sometimes are thinking of their horses long term earning potential and getting their confidence up.Of course if it was the anyone connected with the horse who put the $5000 on then they would be feeling a bit sick after the race.

I've always thought the canterbury drivers who drive a lot of grass tracks seem better than the average southern driving on grass tracks,simply because they like to get handy. race 3 another examlpe of that.N williamson,who is normally a very good driver,again waited 200m into the straight before pulling out when 6 lengths off the leaders. A canterbury driver would have been getting their momentum up well before that.You wouldn't expect them to go all out when they make a move,but you would think they would be trying to position there horses in a position to give them a chance.They should know its hard to make up 6 lengths in the last 200m of any race.no matter what the track.

yeah,i had a look at the replay and of the 3 gallopers,one was galloping 50m before hand,another the horse was in front but not concentrating well before the crossing and galloped a couple of strides before the crossing and then the 3rd galloper seemed to resent being restrained when having to change ground so galloped. the horse in front on the inside kept trotting but wanted to run out bad before and after the crossing so it wasn't th crossing. what about the person who put $5000 on my bonnie lass to win on the ff. It was the horse that galloped early but really settled close enough,but n williamson simply sat far too long before he asked it to go over the last 300m,just coming up short. Really it lookied like it was being given more an educational type run,so imagine having $5000on and watching that race.They would have been cursing to themselevs a tad.

i quoted their exact wording earlier,which implies more than what you say. but i agree with you they lack transparency. If things were as good as they make out,then all they would have to do is release the fugures and show that and that would silence the naysayers.

tomnights tote betting pools are rather pitiful . The last 3 races at auckland haven't even made over $3000 in the win pool. Most of the others under $4000. hrnz spokes people keep saying the turnovers are good,well it can't be betting on the tote. Addington had a couple of races ok ,which obviously got a couple of minutes more coverage around tea time in australia,but the rest of the pools very small.Manawatu type tote turnovers some of the racesit seems some drivers simply aren't trying very hard. or just waiting for next week.The last 2 races, $1.90 favorite ameretto franco simply never given a chance to win by sitting last on a sprint home even though the trainer indicated before ,in a pre race interview,he thought it would be drivin positively, then one of the 2 win movers at auckland in a 6 horse race,bettor raction at $4,definetly driven to just follow them around. oh well.

i gave them the benefit of the doubt on the basis that as a handicapping,rating and programming committee ,they had commented on turnovers, when it was not their area they were tasked with,thus they may not have had all the data. my main point was they had commented on turnovers to create a positive spin ,but they deliberately used language that could be taken 2 ways to cover their arses from future criticism should information become public which showed they were wrong in how they spun it. to be honest,i'm a bit confused as to what your saying in your post as i think it could be taken 2 ways. 1) that you believe what they are saying, as you are saying they have access to all the data to back that up so wouldn't say it unless they knew it was true.. or 2)you don't believe what they say,because of the vagueness of the language they use in their report.

huh.i explained why .No point picking out bits Again,that ain't neccassarily so,even probably so. i explained why if you read my whole post. but for you again. if you run x amount of races and those amount of races are not generating enough income from wagering to cover the stakes paid.And then you increase the amount of races from x to y,and you generate the same turnover per race on the y races as you had on the x races,then what you have done is maintained turnover but increased the deficit between turnover and stakes paid,because you have run more of them. you just miss the points i made,i can't help that.

on the hrnz website theres a story that refers to a sub committee of a ratings ,handicapping and programming commttee. This group comprised of rob lawson,mike johnson and brett gray. in section 6 of their report thay noted "turnovers appear very strong.Note tis hard to compare year on year as the number of race meetings and number of races has increased and we have also had cambridge changed from tuesday to thursday.The good news overwhelmingly is that turnovers certainly have NOT(their use of caps) dropped" very generalised , vague,in many ways,but trying to be upbeat. they say Its hard to compare year on year figures because of the major changes,but they did anyway because they believe the turnovers haven't dropped. no mention of how geoblocking has effected nz wagering,how it has impacted income from overseas bookmakers who take betting on the nz harness product,the lower starter numbers,really no mention of lots of relevant stuff,because,lets face it,they probably don't have the data or were tasked with giving an in depth analysis of turnover and its impacts. but they want to put out there the message of don't panic,everythings going fine, as far the income harness racing will receive from wagering. Anyway,the lack of context that i refer to can be drilled down to the most obvious important thing. is the income from wagering going to generate enough income to maintain stake levels. i mean,whats the point in saying,wagering has certainly NOT dropped,when if the wagering level of the previous year they were comparing it with was not generating enough incme to maintain stake levels. In other words,its entirely possible,even probable,that if wagering has actuallly gone up in the last year,it still won't be generating enoough income to maintain the level of stakes. so really this committee of 3 comments about wagering,really don't mean much at all. they're simply trying to give a positive impression. Theres a lot of that in almost every press release on the hrnz website these days. never an admission of any worrying data,never an admission of anything negative really. It was like the press release from m peden about the bonus scheme.Like you could read that and think,if they aren't going to ever admit that some things are trending negatively or that some highly promioted scheme was a failure,then why should anyone believe they ever will tell it as it is.

at least aaron whites consistent. the first race tonight he labelled as his whisper of the night the serial galloper levi. its broken its last 6 starts, so whats he say,this thing wins if it trots all the way. so it galloped for 1900m of the 2200 after looking very nervous pre start. now even the out the gate fellas are having a chuckle about that,but they did follow his advice and backed it.

i always thought there was an irony in how the out the gate crews betting evolved.. The show was on a thursday,a traditional nz harness night. and we recognise,the out the gate crew was trying encourage greater interest from the casual observer of harness racing,those who may not have normally watched,with the intent of showing them they didn't need to spend much to have a bit of fun and entertainment and to spark some future interest in harness racing.. atl east that was what i think they have been trying to do. I think have been reasonably successful in achieving that as relates to the greyhounds. But ,through no fault of theirs,the out the gater crew had to deal with a cambridge harness product that even the avid harness fans,realised was the worst example of a nz harness betting product in nz then you add to that they used aaron whites selections. Now,as i said earlier,a white can tip ok at auckland,but at cambridge he kept tipping serial gallopers and horses driven that gave the impression either they werennt trying or that they just went back and followed them around like they would wait for a 6 horse field the following week where they may get a better draw. so,as i have pointed out in an earlier post,the out the gate team,soon realised this harness product is not what they should be betting on,as after all,it may not have been their money,but they wanted to make money for the people who had invested in their pools ,so they realised they needed to focus on the dogs and the dogs you could tell were trying each time and their selector,a mccook,seems to be a knowledgable tipster. so the irony was,the out the gate team tried to support the harness racing product more,i'm sure wanted to,but the cambridge harness product simply is not a great product to promote harness racing wagering and the out the gate team exposed that,which was not their fault.

the latest bit in the news segment on the hrnz has a story headlined "2 year old bonus (the $12,000 ones)delivered on increasing opportunities" you've have to give m peden credit for that headline. yes the bonuses failed to get breeders to breed more horsesor or get any more horses starting,continually had small field sizes,but hey...guess what...they did deliver on increasing opportunities for people to race their 2 year olds for a bonus. i'm not sure i would want to buy a used car off him,but points for finding a positive to spin that anyway. then it says,having achieved its objectives(lets not let the truth get in the way with that bit),the scheme is coming to a close this year. what does that mean. does it mean the 2 years the bonuses that existed to encourage people to breed their mares,will never reward anyone who bred on the understanding they would have an opportunity to race for the $12,000 bonus. In other words it rewarded those who had bred before the bonuses were introduced, who would not have been aware of the bonus when they bred,but didn't reward those who bred thinking they may get one. It sounds a bit like all those rather naive breeders who bred to a nz based sire, thinking they would get to race for bonuses,only to see them cancelled before they had a chance as well. oh well,at least todays story indicates hrnz have made a decision that made sense,even if they took a long time to work it out .

the low grade average country sunday harness meetings up until 12-18 months ago, used to normally have higher tote pools than the average friday night races at addington and way more than an auckland friday meeting.It had been like that for many years. but,looking at the tote pools recently,sunday turnovers have dropped and seem to have been significantly impacted by the decision to run nz galloping meetings on sundays.Now sunday turnover seem to be about the same as an addington friday night meeting and the early sunday races have poor turnovers. In november 2023 there was only 2 sunday galloping meetings in nz,this year there was 8. i don't know whether HRNZ had any imput in that decision making,but from a harness perspective,that seems to have been a real negative.I assume the same applies to the ff. so really,even the sundays,which still seem to be the profit making meetings,aren't going as good as they used to. the sunday turnovers always used to prove what most of us had always said,the average punters don't bet on the quality of the horses,they bet on the quality of the betting product. And sundays had and actually still do provide a superior betting product. of course,friday nights have no nz gallops meetings to compete against.