the galah

Gill seems to be one of those owner/trainer types who trains their own horses and therefore doesn't pay out training fees to another trainer. Obviously there is still a significant cost involved in even training your own,but i would guess it would only be about 1/3 if you were doing them yourself instead of paying someone.It just comes down to whether someone can commit the time and energy to do them themselves,as its obviously unpaid. Doesn't his daughter do that anyway and earns driving fees when she drives. Gotta ticket has earned $36,000 from only the 1 win and a dozen or so placings.This season he has earned $2800 from 1 3rd and 11 unplaced runs.Obviously a significant portion of all those earnings is from appearance money. If a horse races on sunday they seem to get about $157 and on friday $227. The drivers fee comes out of that.I am not sure the exact amount that is,but i think it used to be around $85.Maybe gill has an arrangement with smith around training fees. Look at steve lock. He lines up a handful each week and in reality after paying all his costs,he should be making a small profit even when he regularly runs outside the dividend bearing places. The point is if you are training your own horses and lining them up regularly and driving them yourself the appearance money should more than cover costs. If your not driving them ,but have 3 or 4 in,and are using the same vehicle to transport them,then the appearance money should cover costs.

Well if hes one of the richest men in marlborough then it sounds like hes made many wise financial choices along the way. Unlike many,it sounds like he is in the position of choosing the level of horse or breeding of what said horse may be. For him its obviously where hes happy. Better to be happy and well off,than just well off and seeing everything in life through the lens of the $. Also,ask yourself, would you get more satisfaction out of winning a race with a horse whose family you had bred and raised,or would you get more satisfaction out of winning double the amount of races with one you had bought from the sales. The answer for many would be the former,and actually used to be part of the reason why harness racing used to be so strong. Just depends how people see things and where each in person feels they get the most satisfaction and joy.And obviously peoples views of such things can change along the way based on their own experiences of what they find rewarding and worthwhile.

As you and brodie already realise,owners only have a hope,not an expectation that the horse they race will return a profit. There would be no racing if only the horses that may return a profit were persevered with. Suggesting people should give up based on profit fails to recognise the possible non financial rewards that go with racing a horse.There are many. Obviously they may not always come to fruition. Its a bit like hope,its better to have it in life than not,and its better to spend your time trying to achieve at something you value,than to not attempt at all. I'm sure brodie and davis would acknowledge there was a sense of achievement associated with those involved in the ownership and training of lizzie richter. Thats how i think we should view lizzie richters win.I'm sure its how her connections would have viewed it,and after all it is them who paid the bills ro persevere when most wouldn't have.So its their feelings around the win which matter most anyway.

Who can forget the herlihy drive where his horse hung in and ran inside the markers,then was steered back out into the middle of the field causing several horses to be interfered with. No penalty. Or what about mangos causing carnage in that 2yo race,no penalty.All supposedly inconclusive evidence due to drivers saying the opposite of what the video showed.Just protecting their mate,instead of just telling how it happened.. All those races in auckland have the same drivers in them.There is no depth whatsoever to the driving ranks in the north island and many are related. Auckland racing is often boring racing and extremely poor from a betting perspective,with little or no consequences for some driving,depending on who you are. Its a shame,but it is what it is as they say.

I know your a fan ,however the post is about the double standards when it comes to enforcing the rules.I agree he is a great driver. If it was a lesser known driver who started from the inside when drawn unruly,or zigzagged his way up the final straight then would you expect them to get off with a warning? Tell a lesser known driver who gets treated differently for the same thing how that is fair. Herlihy,butchers ,mangos,etc all get the lenient treatment simply because the north island stipes give them preferential treatment. The stipe report for that race appears to have been written by someone who was out the back having a coffee instead of watching the race. It states kings landing stood on the mark,yet the video clearly confirms the horse was going backwards before the start. There was only 6 in the race,yet the starter let them go without seemingly realising one horse was in the wrong starting position and another had backed away prior to the start. Maybe time to send peter lamb up their to give the starter some advice.

Again we saw the North island stipes give herlihy a free pass when any other driver in the south island would have been fined twice. I have said it before,there is different standards of enforcement depending on what area you come from and who you are in those areas. In this case Herlihy started from the inside of the track when on the u/r.He ran 4th. He started much closer than james stormont did when he won on kelvinz luck at cambridge, yet herlihy got no fine compared to stormont who was fined $400. Then in the final straight he drifts wide,then changes direction and steers it significantly back inwards,totally confusing the driver following who had started to angle wider,then changed direction to go inside,then had to again change direction as herlihy cut her off.

I've watched it a few times and can't tell exactly whether Butcher strikes the back leg of Chins horse or whether chins horse breaks as a result of trying to maintain his position when the rules say he should have conceded it. Either way,Butcher drove within the rules and chin should have conceded given the rule . But my point is ,is the rule helping avoid interference or actually resulting in driving which causes interference. There have been many examples of interference being caused by horses breaking as a result of their drivers thinking they shouldn't have to concede their position to the outside horse. Gammalite,can they push down in australia at any stage,or do they not have that rule because they deem it safer?

Isn't this rule one of the most obvious causes of interference in harness racing.Why have it? Time after time we see horses hard on the back of the horse in front of it,then a horse wider on the track comes across,pushing it down ,the driver of the horse being pushed down tries to maintain his position,and as a result the driver on the outside continues his inward movement knowing when he contacts the horse inside him that he won't be fined and he won't be the one who suffers the inevitable interference to trailing horses as the horse inside him breaks. Last night we saw Zac butcher,push luk chin in. Now butcher was doing everything within the rules when he directed his sulky into the legs of the luk chin horse.But you have to ask,is it safe to have a rule where its accepted the driver in the right is the one who has changed direction to make contact. They don't seem to allow this in australia or drivers don't seem to do it.

Leap to fame paid a nice place dividend. A very good run.Good tipping. Beyond delight bit unlucky. The horse you talked about last year,jeradas delight went ok as well in an earlier race.

Last night at addington. I had the one bet the day before ,bondi lustre,the odds immediately shortened from $8.50 to $6. Only $40 did that. I would have backed one other,tasman tempest,but by the time i got around to it the day before,its odds had dropped from $9 to $5. I contacted an associate who they do the same when he puts a bet on,and sure enough he had put a couple of $35 bets on ,it being the only one he backed the day before. Tomorrow the one horse he has backed with just over $50 has had its odds slashed 25%. Last night he had a $200 bonus bet. I said to him the best bet was heaven on high for a place. He put that on and it immediately dropped from $1.85 to $1.50. Now i could keep giving examples,,but its not for me to tell people who i think may be worth backing.But anyone who thinks what i say isn't true,simply has no idea how it works.

so the latest is russia is shelling ukraine with 10X the amount ukraine are firing at them. ukraine is running out of resources to do so.Ukraine soldiers are currently being killed at an estimated 6000 per month,which is the amount of US soldiers killed on average per year in vietnam.This month the casualty numbers for ukraine have increased significantly.Putin is still very popular in russia.Economic sanctions seem to have failed with russia this year having a trade surplus double the previous year and the ruble stronger than before the war.In russia inflation has peaked at 15% and is expected to drop from now on.Because of europe reduced russian energy supplies the coming winter is expected to be very difficult,and many european countries suddenly spending more on defence means more economic pressure.Even some nato officials are saying aloud ukraine needs to negotiate a peace agreement before things get worse. But rest assured, because none of the above deserves much attention from local and most international media ,it can't be too bad,and besides,the media keep reporting ukraine will launch fresh attacks and retake areas they have lost.

You and the chief are saying win movers are based on how much money is bet on each horse.And your saying you don't believe when i place a bet it is a factor in whether the odds changed ,and as a result the tote price then changes.. You say "how you think you manipulate the tote price is quite funny". Thats your interpretation of what i have been discussing. Mine is i have been discussing how the TAB has algorithms in place to change the odds based on Who is placing the bets,and how those changes influence the eventual prices. So i think i have been discussing who,not how much,which i view as 2 different things. To prove my point, i posted that people who read my posts should watch the influence my placing a $20 on emmas boy in the last race yesterday would have on the eventual price.I made that post 30 minutes before the start of that race,straight after i backed it. I backed it at $16 ff,it immediately dropped to $12 on the fixed odds as i expected because of my $20 bet,and i stated i expected it to start a lot shorter because people follow the win movers. So what happened,it won,it paid $6 on fixed odds and $6 on the tote. It was not selected by matt cross,while the whale selected it 3rd ,saying he thought it had every chance the week before but thought it was worth including.He made a very strong push for his 1st selection. So I made that prediction because i believe i knew what would happen and it did. I knew what would happen because i know how it works. Now you don't appear to believe what i say. We can't agree all the time.

Like the chief, you seem to have a preconceived idea of how it works. What you have said has no connection with what i have said. In this post you say the tab bookies/odds setters know who it is putting the bets on (because people have things they call TAB accounts),yet somehow you still deny that has any relevance when it comes to the prices they set. Besides it not them reducing the odds straight away,its done by a computer programme. Have you heard of those? Have you ever had a look at one of the promotional videos on betfair. Its about a fella who has set up a computer programme which places bets for him based on the algorithms around win movers. He has been very successful.So believe it or not,some punters do follow the win movers. Ask yourself this. Why do the TAB restrict the amounts certain punters can win. Using your logic you must think they just treat those punters money the same as yours.And using your logic they don't have any computer programmes in place to to limit the amounts because thats not what they do.Its all a myth. Like i said ,sometimes whatever someone will say won't change someones opinion,and thats fair enough,,each to their own.

When i put $20 on a horse it will immediately drop the price. That is a fact.It happens within seconds,not minutes. Not every now and again, it happens every time. Thats what i call a pattern. The tab don't deny it. They do so because they now deem that horse as a risk to them and want to reduce money being invested on it. However the reality is,which the tab seemingly fail to recognise,is because of the price dropping the horse becomes a win mover. Win movers attract further punter support because those punters who follow the fixed odds win movers think they are following the money trail. Many tote punters follow the win movers,which results in the tote price dropping. Thats how it works. The difference between you spending $20 on a fixed odds bet and my doing so,is i can safely say i would pick more winners than you. i've explained this enough now,so will leave it up to people to believe it or not.

Race 9 at addington last night is well worth a watch if you haven't seen the video,or only watched the race once. From the position smokin annie was in at the 1000m,it looked an impossibility to win. But it did. It was again proof of what an exceptional driver mr orange is. Horses just run for him,they seem to switch on say lets go,they take gaps in an instance when for other drivers they may hesitate. We've become so used to seeing orange drive that in many ways we take his ability for granted,but last nights race was one that makes you realise we are privileged to see him drive.

Well i am saying it does, Why else was i able to predict that my $20 bet 30 minutes prior to the race start time, would be the start of emmas boys price dropping from $16 that i got, to start at $6. I posted on here it was going to happen and it did. Do you think i am a clairvoyant instead? On another thread yesterday i gave the example of a horse i put $20 on at invercargill,allaboutthemoment,with 1 minute to go at $15,and that $20 bet saw its odds drop to $8ff.It still paid $13 on the tote because people wouldn't have had the chance to react to that price drop as it was so late.That is why i backed it late. I only did the emmas boy bet 30 minutes before to prove to those who read bit of a yarn that what i say is true. I'm just pointing out a significant cause of these price fluctuations.Its what i call the snowball effect.

No,the totes just follow the final odd odds. So many punters don't seem to think for themselves anymore. Wall to wall racing has dumbed down the casual followers. Thats why the whale influences the dividends so much. Well i advised that one 30 minutes before the race just to prove the point. As i said,i put my $20 on Emmas boy at $16 30 minutes before the race. That $20,started the final fields dropping,which just snowballed as it always does,with emmas boy eventually closing at $6. As a result of the final field dropping,the tote price dropped. In the end its winning dividend on the tote was only $6.

Don't the totes just follow the fixed odds changes. In that last race we had Kahress drop from $6 to the crazy price of $1.80. Now i know it nearly won,but who in their right mind would have backed it to bring it into those odds.On the tote it dropped to $2.40.just as crazy,but yet again the tote just follows the final field moves. earlier in the night i know someone who put $20 on classy dancer at $16. Well i then watched it drop to $5 before tote close. On the tote it dropped from $12 with about 20 minutes to go to $5. It actually dropped from $9 to $5 in the last minute. Now i have no idea who these people are that follow these type of bets,but they are backing horses paying under 1/3 of what they were 20 minutes before tote close.Thats not very bright. Now i have just backed emmas boy in the last race. I put $20 on it at $16ff. Now 5 minutes latter it is paying $11 on the ff. I assume the final field followers will see its price drop and i guess it might end even less.I know it shows on the tab website its highest price was $13,but it was really$16 5 minutes ago. All it takes is a $20 bet,and thats enough for these people on televison to say there been a flood of money.I

It was nice tipping by the whale. fixed Odds dropped from $31 he said to $21. Well if i put $20 on it will do that. I just put $20 on one at invercargill and that dropped its odds from $15 to $10. I guess someone else put $20 on as well as it then dropped to $8. Now that was with under 1 minute to go. Had i say backed it with 3 minutes to start time it would have seen the tote price drop to $8 as well,instead of the $13 it paid.It was one not selected pre race by the commentator. Every other horse i have backed today has seen the win price immediately drop of between 10-30%. Now the most i have put on is $30. The point is its a bit of a joke. They are trying to discourage some people from betting by doing this. As i have said before,if i bet more than 1 minute on fixed odds before race start time,then the tote price will drop significantly as punters follow the fixed odds win movers. I don't think my $20 or $30 should have such an influence.

One of todays Headlines is the "the proud boys named nz terrorist group". So the article again is all about virtual signaling and how the labour government will protect New zealanders against white supremacists.. The justification for the use of resources to come up with this being the january 6th riots in the USA.Agencies like the Police must have spent quite a bit of time investigating this. The article states government agencies who spent the time to investigate and recommend this action found the proud boys had NO presence whatsoever in nz. So we can all rest easy knowing the government will protect us against non existent groups in nz they deem bad. Shame they don't spend time on actual real crime. Of course the media love it,which iis who this government pander to.

R M Cameron a great trainer/driver.

No.By some chance have you been watching the wazzup scene, or the stoner scene from Scary Movie? Maybe he was in the background . certainly worth a look

Sounds like your still guessing. Who's R.M? .

Just watched the drive of d ferguson on hot favorite classey operator in race 5 at cambridge last week. You have to ask,whats the difference between d fergusons drive and m mckendry drive on simply sam. Ferguson failed to improve to the outside when he had ample opportunity when 1 length off the leaders at the 600m,then elected to take a position where it was obvious he had no chance of getting a run. How can the stipes charge a driver in one instance,then just accept a feeble explanation from another driver for the same thing. The only difference is ferguson has a recent history of doing the same thing.Now i have no idea whether he trys all the time,maybe he does,but he has been fined for not giving his horse every oppotunity to win and also charged with team driving,all within the last 18 months. So why does he get a pass when others don't for the same thing?

Depends which channel you watch as to what propaganda you see.No matter whatever you think of the russians,they are there and they aren't going away. Obviously the russians felt the zelensky led government was trying to remove the russian influence and history. For example they cited what was being taught in schools.So much more to it all than just security. If zelensky was such a great leader ,why has his country ended up as it has.All seems so pointless,yet the US seem happy to bankroll it all and keep it going.While that happens who's going to compromise.