the galah

The thing is,if the tab are reducing odds on those that receive support,the odds of those that aren't getting supported aren't being lengthened at the corresponding time. They just wait until close to start time before doing the appropriate changes to set a fair market. And as i have said before,the horses who's odds are being reduced on the final field markets,always seem to get support on the tote as well,because that is a big factor as to what horse to back,for many tote who bet on the tote.

It will come with a catch in my opinion. .I would guess that catch would be the price you receive will be reduced before the bet is accepted.. For example, at the moment someone like brodie may want to every race meeting place 4 $400 bets on horses paying $5,working on the basis that he has a record of averaging 1 winner,thus would net himself a profit of $400.( 4 x $400 spent =$1600,collects 1 $400 bet at odds of $5 for $2000. ... $1600 spent ,$2000 returned ,profit $400) .....so what the TAB have currently done is limit what he can get on to $100 bets,thus their loss from taking brodies bets is only $100). All the while the TAB after accepting the bet drops the price to limit future exposure,and using brodies knowledge to help set the odds. So i'm guessing now some bright spark at the tab has said,lets get around this flak we cop for not taking bets with sizeable payouts,by changing the odds in our favour. How would they do that,by simply saying yes we will take brodies 4 x $400 bets,but if we are to do that we will set up an algorithm which will change the odds before the bet can be placed,in this case the $5 dividend will drop to $4,and that is the price brodie can get his bet on at. Thus the tab will now allow brodie to spend the $1600 he wants,but his return will drop to $1600 because of the reduced odds the tab will accept those bets at.... So brodie will now be spending $1600,and getting a return of $1600,so in fact there will be no profit from his investments, remembering of course that the tab had been allowing him to bet at the odds originally displayed but only up to $100,and when he was doing that he was making $100,whereas now by accepting his larger wagers he is getting no profit,thus the tab will actually better off,and brodie worse off.Thats how the TAB works. That is what i believe they will do. Smoke and mirrors. Like i have said they already have algorithms set up to immediately reduce the odds of horses after accepting bets by consistent punters who win, who bet as little as $15 which can involve a loss of as little as $15 for the tab. So if anyone thinks the tab is all of a sudden going to take bigger risks,then they are most likely very mistaken.

I thought the content was good.I hope they keep up the good work. The only negative is the when the race is being run the picture is clearer on trackside channel,so you tend to be switching channels a bit,and that effects the flow.

You watch them fine drivers like ian cameron doing his best without punishing his horse,and then you watch races like the non win first race just run at addington. In that race they ran a sprint race in a slow lead time,then got slower with a half in a tick under 66 seconds. The likes of ricky may(on the 2nd favorite),mathew williamson and devon van all seemingly had no idea of how slow they were going and gave their horses no chance whatsoever to place,by just sitting at the back under strong holds.. What looks worse to the public?

I've no idea what michael house says on facebook.Hes an intelligent man and says things for a reason but without the context of what has been suggested by newmarket,who really knows whether he's serious. Besides transferring to the gallopers would be like transferring from a ship taking on water to get on one that has started to sink in my opinion.Apart from the one day a year crowd that goes on the main racedays,the gallops doesn't have the following harness does in the south island. Maybe he dreams of relocating as well. But if you were to name the Trainer in New zealand who is making the greatest contribution to harness racing in New Zealand then Michael House stands out as the top choice. House trained racehorses operate at the grass roots level of NZ harness racing,and he supplies large numbers which enable races to be run that wouldn't without him. More stakes are paid to owners,more betting turnover is generated for the industry and more income goes to fellow trainers and drivers who can compete in the races that get off the ground because of his support. Hrnz,and for that matter anyone with any thinking capacity,have recognised that because of dwindling numbers being bred,greater use has to be made of the horse population that is here,and House does just that.

I think Walts questions were fair and understandable. And in this case Nina hope answered them from her perspective.I personally think suggesting ricky may had any thought of what would help loyalists chances when he drove bertolinni is way off base,but everyone is entitled to their opinions. Having a discussion about races run is part of what makes harness racing tick. I replied because personally i think the betting plunge theory is a red herring.I have pointed out odds will be slashed even when very little money is invested.Its just as much about who is putting the money on as it is about how much money.Thats a fact. People may struggle to get that into their heads,but it true. I don't agree with those who suggest drivers or trainers in the south island aren't always trying or that the bigger stake races are more competitive. I would say those who say that simply don't follow the form close enough of the lesser grade horses..I agree with brodie in that i would much rather bet on a midweek harness south island meeting than a premier meeting. We say that for a reason. I don't think there is the depth of top quality drivers like there used to be,but i have no doubts everyone is giving it their best shot.Occasionally you will see some poor drives by even the best,but thats not to say they didn't try.Take another from the hope stable in westar lad at addington yesterday driven by John dunn.Now he is a great driver,and i'm sure he was trying,but he drove e very poor tactical race.Maybe the stable may defend his drive and say it is a horse with a sit sprint but that would be ignoring the race video. But its always best just to tell it as it is.All that proves is even the best aren't perfect. As to michael house's team.He is a shining light that everyone should admire in my opinion. And as to boring harness racing. Menagle is just that to me.

While i prefer to just read this forum,i think i have some relevant comments on this topic. I don't think it an unreasonable thought to consider the possibility the big win mover,loyalist was the subject of a betting plunge. And i don't think it unresonable to consider the possibility that the stable would have been confident of a big showing from loyalist and the horse may have received some support from that stables clients. But when considering such thought,sall factors need be taken into account. In this case drivers for the Hope stable are always driving to obtain the best possible result for the horse they drive,and that stable has never had any history of team driving or dishonesty. I think Brodie has put things in perspective,but like it seems for many who get discussed on social media,those involved can get a bit sensitive as indicated by mrs hopes reply.. I personally think a major reason for the drop in price was caused by some relatively small bets by clients of the TAB, who when they bet on any horse,the TAB immediately will slash the odds. Loyalist to me was the horse on the day who was most clearly ranked ahead of his race rivals. The start prior was the same,but a second line draw and being positioned at the back in a sprint home meant the last start form could be ignored. So as a result i know someone who put 2 $25 win bets on the day before which immediately dropped the horse from $8.50 to $7. A bonus $300 bet won in a tab competition was placed on it a place dropping the place odds.Then they again backed it on race day and a couple of $20 bets on 2 different accounts saw its odds immediately drop again to $6.People notice the win movers,and follow the money,which in reality wasn't that much money,merely money coming from people who the TAB recognise make money off them consistently,and therefore have created an algorithm that will immediately slash the odds by 15-20% even for as little as a $10 bet. Its become a bit of a joke for those concerned,but no bullshit,thats how it works. I can bet on 3 different accounts,say putting $15 to win on a horse paying $10,and if i place the bets 5 minutes apart the odds will drop 3 times. The tab think they are limiting their losses by reducing the odds on horses bet on by a selected few,but in reality one of the results of them slashing the odds is it attracts more betting on the horses concerned.And of course the tote odds drop as many punters go by the final field odds when placing their bets.Like i said,i think the tab is a joke,but i guess that will just drive certain punters to tabs where they aren't recognised. Also,people should have a look at the effect a Matt cross 1st selection has on the tote odds of a horse. For example yesterday every top selection he made saw dramatic drops in the tote price. I haven't taken much notice of it before but yesterday he dropped horses by as much as 50%. the tab have a part where you can see the % move in price,and it was surprising how much he could influence a price. All the above is just another of those things where we say things aren't what they used to be.

It was a quote from confucius i remember. No more of those,ever.

I have to admit i don't get where your coming from with that comment. But i gave it some thought for two minutes and my conclusion was i had just wasted two minutes of my time.. So no more words from me for you to twist.

You must be meaning the last race. It was perhaps the most obvious case of a horse not being driven on its merits since the matt anderson drive at nelson that started up operation inca. And believe it or not,the stipes didn't even think it worth a mention.

Her current spell on the sidelines is just part of her harness racing journey, not her final destination.

give me a gemma thornley drive anyday over the craig thornley drive on the $1.45 favorite in the last. At least g thornley was trying,whereas C thornley simply decided he was going to give his horse a quiet run after losing ground at the start. Shame when you see a horse superior to the rest just out for a quiet run.Didn't effect my pocket,but those who did back it must be wondering why they bother.

I agree with a lot of what you say,but don't believe wigg was treated harshly myself. Whats the point of a hard working, good honest trainer playing by the rules if authorities let behavior like wiggs have little or no consequences. The good honest hard working trainers who play by the rules,and thats nearly everyone,may as well give the game away if they don't enforce the rules. And that rule would have the support of nearly every trainer who is trying to play it fair.

II don't think she was deliberately setting it up for anyone,just drove a dumb race. She would have known baileys diamond only has a very short sprint and she was driving it upside down,so thats why the drive was a surprise.It does seem one of those horses that seems plagued by bad draws which never helps tactically when your driving a sit sprinter.

So what are you advocating? Sounds like you don't have a problem with any trainer tubing,drenching or injecting their horse on raceday.Theres no other way to take what you are saying. No harm done you say,as long as they don't give them anything that is picked up. And you use the wigg case as proof what you say is whtat the rule should be.Because shes a trainer who has been giving her horses pre race treatments,knowing her pre race treatment was of no benefit to her horses performance. You see thats what switched on trainers do....give them drenches that don't help.

I can't work out why you would say that. It seems an extremely ignorant thing to say. So you've got several people on here supporting wigg,saying she should be able to syringe her horses substances on the day of the race. Some who are supporting wigg have double standards,as they have previously suggested there should be a focus on the all star type stables. Wheres the consistency in that type of thinking.It should always be the same rule for everyone.You can't say its ok for someone,and then moan about the more high profile stables. This thread just shows for some its about personalities. And lets just be honest about what everyone with the aforementioned approach is condoning. The JCA report states the paste in the syringes had raised PH levels,so as to be an alkalising agent.The vet said it couldn't be explained by the tumeric.,and didn't know what else had caused the increased PH level in the paste. Wigg came up with the explanation that her bore water may have caused that. Now i'm no expert,but wasn't that paste designed to help the horses stamina.Don't PH levels have something to do with countering things like lactic acid which happen when horses race. Hasn't anyone read the jca report and picke.d that up. Anyway,personally i think its all rather unfortunate that wigg has put herself in the position she did. Shes has an outstanding record as an amateur driver,and the public will miss seeing her drive. One thing i think we can all agree on is we will all look forward to her return to race driving.

Last report i read was a couple of months ago saying it was closed indefinitely. Just another in a long list of examples of Jacinda's mandates snuffing out its ability to operate.

Don't you think defending the administration of any substance on raceday is a dumb stance,,when everyone knows its against the rules. So what we appear to have here is someone knowingly breaking the rules and running the risk of being disqualified for several years,for no apparent gain. You realise how stupid that sounds. Of course the other possibility is she felt she would gain an advantage by doing that,and thought the risk of breaking the rules was worth taking. Either way,its not the end of the world,but if people do get caught they just have to deal with the consequences of their own actions.

At least the stipes picked it up i suppose. Take a look at the start of race 2 at cambridge last night. It never gets a mention,but the horse mackali was supposed to start off 15m,yet started in front of all the horses off the unruly off the front,and about 5 lengths in front of the other 15m horse. Thats how it ended up in the trail after 50m. Then there was the start of race 8 at oamaru on sunday. Watch the starters assistant let the 10m tape go over his shoulder while running. The tape on that occasion hindered the inside runner. That didn't get a mention either. Strange but true.

looked like dean taylor put the wrong numbers on each horse,the drivers nor the stipes nor the starting crew picked it up.So they just lined up in the positions the numbers were. The drivers were driving the right horses,just had the wrong numbers on.Quite funny in some ways.Shouldn't have happened but one big mix up by all concerned.

It will be interesting to see what the data says in 12 months time.Maybe the trend you talk about will get more coverage. Maybe they will be talking about getting 4th and 5th shots to keep the the protection of the vaccines going.Maybe people will wake up and realise they bought into a concept that wasn't everything it was said to be.

When you read the data they put out each week.Its still saying the same thing. Vaccines do help with the severity of the infection,hospitalisations,etc......BUT the effectiveness rapidly wanes over just months. So for example,if you had your 3rd bosster in nz when they rolled them out in november,and then you get exposed to the the virus say in early january,they are going to be a big help. But if you don't get the virus until say june,even having had all 3 shots,your protection is bugger all in the big scheme of things.Then of course you have to factor in omicron being far less serious.

Yes i read that,but when they supposedly clarified the figure,they were still claiming that means only 985 of the 482890 haven't been jabbed. If they aren't accurate,which i agree they won't be,then why claim they are? But i suppose its just par for the course. i only have a small circle of contacts,but just yesterday spoke to only one of them and she was telling me shes refused to take the 3rd jab even though its required for her employment to continue,because she was sick and had a bad reaction from the first 2 jabs. Her husband had just had the 3rd jab but did take the following day off work because he was feeling sick. She also told me one of the 6 ladies she works with had got myocarditis from the vaccine jabs.I have to admit,even though i haven't had the vaccine,even i have been surprised at how it has effected some .

3 days ago the ministry of health was claiming that in canterbury,of the 482,890 people aged 12 and over,only 985 had not received a vaccine shot. So the question is if thats the case,how come several of those who contribute to Bit of a yarn haven't had any shots? Doesn't sound anywhere near the 99.8 % from what you read on here. Maybe chief should be seeking some paying advertisements from the ministry of health,as apparently several on here haven't got the message yet. Or maybe its just yet another claim that doesn't truly reflect reality.

But he had no one outside of him trying to direct him down to the pylons. I think the thing about the crawford case was the rules say ferguson is entitled to ease crawford onto the pylons,but in reality because the advantage ferguson had over crawford was so small ,crawford probably thought he was entitled to stay where he was. The rule in my view needs updating so as to make it clear the outside driver needs a greater advantage than what is currently being deemed as acceptable. The other point i think people are making once they have viewed the video, is when you push a horse in,especially a trotter,in a way that ferguson did,then its often going to cause the inside horse to break,irrespective of whether the driver concedes his position.