the galah

This fella got a bit greedy in my opinion. He made a tactical error by doing that.A payout of that amount would always get attention from the tab.They were never likely to pay out such a big amount given he placed the bets when the games were almost finished. A couple of years ago i just happened to watch some race at the port pirie trots, i think it was.The commentator said it was one of those races where the same horses went round again later in the night .There were 2 such races. i think they each had about 7 horses in them.Anyway,i watched them both while i was doing something else,and looked at the odds in the later races.What the tab had done was they had the wrong odds for all the runners for the finals. They seemed to have dropped a number.I placed my bets before they corrected them. So i put 2 bets on 2 horses in each race. $5 and $10 bets to win. I rung someone else and suggested they place a $10 bet as well. Well the horse who won the first heat easily at odds of$1.80 i backed at i think it was $16.It won again easily. Then in the second heat the 2 bets i had placed on 2 runners only ran 2nd and 3rd,shame because they were both paying over $20 although their real odds were about $4. Anyway,i came away with a profit of $240 from memory. The moral of the story is, if you ever see that,don't get too greedy. Small fish are sweet sometimes.

Same old same old. At least you put forward what you think are solutions i suppose. Strange how my view of what is basic common sense and logic is the opposite of yours on a lot of these issues. I suggest how to turn a negative into a positive,where as you seem to deny the negative ever existed. From what you say it appears we may have many similar views of where society is at ,and what paths it may be heading down.I just think applying that thinking to the harness racing industry is actually over thinking the current issues. Things should be simple. Sometimes it should be easy to recognise right from wrong. Things normally need to come to a head before the problem is dissected and dealt with.Your view just leads to putting things off,and that approach just leads to the same issues rearing their head in the future.

The main point of the debate today has been about whether having dominant favorites who pay under $2 is good for racing,and good for getting the punters to bet. You may like it,but most don't. If your theory is correct then you would have loved those penalty free races the all stars used to dominate. You know,the ones where 8 win horses would line up against 1 win horses.The ones where they used to get 25 nominations,but only ended up with fields of 6 or 7 in them. They always stifled betting. The whole point of the recent handicapping system has been to make fields more attractive betting wise by not having dominant favorites.The reason they have done that is because they know thats what needed to encourage betting and participation. One thing i believe has been obvious is if they wanted to encourage betting,they were wrong to rehandicap the 3yo winners only half the points. That change has lead to more short priced favorites at tracks like addington and auckland. I think that was a dumb move just to placate the big players.Why should a 3yo get half the points of a 4 yo and over for winning the same race ?

Adding up what punters would have made had they put $1 e.w. on each of the natalie rasmussen drives last night. She drove 8 horses for 5 wins and 3 places. If you put $1 e.w,a spend of $16,you would have made $2.30. Punters who follow her would have to see her maintain the amazing strike rate just to break even. Thats hardly worth the effort,unless your just backing for the entertainment,which is fair enough,but many punters will get turned off.

If the all stars go back to dominating like they used to that would be a definite negative for the industry as a whole. Call my statement what you like,i call it reality. 5 winners last night and the biggest dividend was $2 wasn't it. That may encourage some people to punt,but turns off far more. Most agree multiple short priced favorites in races causes reduced spending by punters overall. The new handicapping system has been based around the principle that more even betting fields are required if turnover is to be increased.

What that conversation reflected is the failure of industry leaders to get the right message out there. I've said it before ,and am saying it again. Its a good thing that the cheats are being caught,and that is the reason why harness racing is currently one of the most honest sports to be involved in.. Thats what i think your answer should have been karrots,thats what everyones,including industry leaders should be. Anyone involved in harness racing should welcome such questions,as its an opportunity to paint a more accurate picture of the industry. No one within the industry should have reason to feel uncomfortable about receiving such questions. It should be the opposite.

how about that,repaid the loyalty with a win.

Well its always better as a sit sprinter,and could have got the trail behind the 2nd favorite,so i thought it not a great drive.Connections had also previously said its better driven with cover about 3 months ago in the media.

Cullen does seem loyal to his stable drivers. Nothing wrong with that,I think Orange is better than rasmussen myself. I note cullen has put o thornley on amazing dream and a better you at auckland. He's been very loyal to her.I suppose they are not big races.He can't be expecting either to win tonight.

about 2005 i think. I don't refer to blue magic much,but you can hardly forget it can you. I am a believer in the best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior, but of course there are always exceptions to anything. As far as horses being set for races,and maybe not trying as mentioned earlier by other posters in this thread.I think when it comes to harness racing in 2021 in nz,some over analyse whether everyone is trying in every race. There is no doubt occasionally a horse may not be driven to win,but those occasions are very rare,and they stand out because of that. N.Z Harness racing drivers are very honest in my opinion. And on that very rare occasion that something dodgy driving wise occurs,it gets highlighted on sites like this one. I think sometimes you get drivers that seem to go through patches where they lose self confidence,and their form may drop off,but thats not because they aren't trying. An example of that currently is jessica young.Normally she is a good driver,but nearly all her drives in the last week have been poor,but we shouldn't confuse someone losing there confidence with someone not trying. Then you have the likes of dunn,orange,rasmussen,etc who are always in form.

he had 2 positives to the drug known as blue magic.

Those were the days. But i was reading an article just this week on how many sports were struggling with participation levels. In particular the article focused more on rugby,but noted many sports have similar problems to racing.

that just means they probably have a budget as relates to how much they can spend/lose. Their thinking is the same as what you really have been expressing.Why lose it midweek on races they have little knowledge of,when they can invest on horses they know something about at the weekend.their thinking being they are more likely to make money there because of their increased knowledge,which makes some sense. Its like betting on a provincial sports team. If your local team is playing your going to bet on them if you think they can win,not on a higher grade of the same sport you have no knowledge of. People also like to follow those they can relate to. Every sport/competition/race is an event with winners and losers. The quality doesn't have to be always at the highest level. they can all be entertaining.

Isn't that the norm on 90% of nz harness on those aussie tabs.A lot comes down to how much pre race exposure they get,no matter what the class of horse racing.

Your words. I know you weren't referring to betfair and backing a horse to lose as you have suggested i may have thought. The point is you have been saying people are more likely to make money betting on premier nights than a low grade mid week meeting.And thats what i have said is not true. The tab payout exactly the same % of every dollar invested on the tote at both meetings.there is no difference. Then if betting with the bookies.Your suggesting that punters are more knowledgeable about the horses running at premier meetings,well thats true. But so are the bookies.They still set the same % when framing markets . The reality is being a successful punter on either meeting is based on your knowledge of the form. You are more likely to get horses over the odds on the lower grade meetings,because the overall knowledge of punters on the horses running is not as great as the premier meetings. saying the fields were pitiful,as you did, really just meant you had little knowledge around those that were running.

Well we approach our betting differently. Are you successful? Deciding whether to bet/invest based on the average ability of the horses in a field, as you suggest, is not the basis for a successful betting strategy. If you are saying you bet on the higher quality because you are exposed to them more,therefore know the form better, then that would make a certain degree of sense,and maybe thats what you mean,but that isn't what you have said. i base my betting on assessing the abilities of each horse in comparison to the others in the same field. If i assess a slower horse(your words) is in a field that he is likely to win after comparing his form to others in the field,then surely you must see it makes more sense to back it,than back the good horse you would rather back, thats form is not as good as the other horses in the field its in.. There is no satisfaction in backing a good horse to lose as you suggest,there is only satisfaction in backing winners/placegetters whatever their natural ability. Also its silly for a punter to say i don't like betting on horses that don't win much. Whats relevant is how they go when you do bet on them,not their overall record.

Pitiful is a very derogatory word to describe the grass roots of harness racing. Those fields yesterday were little different from the quality you normally see in many of those races held at grass tracks in the south island,just they didn't have as many starters. if you think you can only have a worthwhile meeting if the all stars,dunn or dalgety are there, then your mistaken.Surely you must know that. Our top drivers were there anyway. I'm sure those who were successful had just as good a background stories to how achieving the win came to be,and in all likelihood the wins meant just as much ,if not more to connections than many premier night victories do. If you wonder who bets on them,well i can tell you those who know the form do. I would much rather spend more on those races than on many of the fields they have on premier night. in fact i do.I believe brodie has a similar view. Also if you know the form it makes sense to invest on the midweek meetings,as there is often a greater difference in the abilities of the horses in some of those races, than there is in those even races on premier night where you have to factor in team driving. If you believe quality is the only factor which drives punter support then you are wrong. For example,if you ran the premier meeting on a tuesday afternoon,and ran yesterdays meeting in a premier night time slot,then the prime time would receive the best punter support,irrespective of the horses ability levels that were competing..

Your always on about someone snitching and just post stuff to divert attention. I've no comment to make about the sharrock case,he seems to talk like an innocent man,but your focus on the press again is just ridiculous.

I have always wondered if thats the case.It doesn't show that runners late scratched in that race got paid the $450 starters fee. So given that,isn't there an incentive for some drivers to say their chances weren't effected. Is that not what happened here anyway? We are lead to believe that john dunn,robbie close,blair orange and jessica grant- young who were in the middle of the field were aware a false start had been called,and then we had John morrison who was well clear early easing his horse up after 100m because he knew the false start had been called and obviously there would have been communication between all drivers. Lets face it,that race start was an absolute debacle,and connections of those who were late scratched should be compensated.For the starter to change his mind after half the field started to pull up would have to be the worst start seen for many a year.The fact that so few have commented on here shows that many were playing the man and not the ball when it came to peter lamb.

How about i end this by saying i agree purdon,rasmussen or cullen or whoever the all stars may be at the time get their horses to perform to the best of their ability. I don't accept what the likes of m guerin says when he says purdon or rasmussen spending a few days with the horses leading into the big races improves their performance. Guerin makes it out to be a big thing,but i don't believe just their presence changes anything. Maybe guerin actually thinks that,or has convinved himself that,but i don't believe that driving a couple of fast works makes much difference,when you already had the likes of tim williams driving them in work.

Its not sinking in what i have said. The horses that ran last night are not the same ones that ran2,3,4,5 years ago. Rasmussen has not been driving until recently. How about you go ask her why?? One thing that i know,punters can rate the horses on ablilty,but drivers are a factor.N rasmussen is much better than m purdon and heaps better than say o thornley.Another example is b hope seems to have great success with trotters,but several pacers he gets off improve when the likes of john dunn drives them. Another example was a race just run at winton. Some of those horses had won 3-8 races,yet they only ran the mile in 1.59.8. I could have run faster until the 400m.Only s tomlinson moved up where as the likes of s ottley(who is driving very negatively in recent weeks) and t nally(who seems to lack any judgment of pace, sat at the back. Had n rasmussen driven them they run 2nd,instead of 2nd last. So drivers are a factor,but i've been comparing how the horses run now,to how they ran forever 2-5 years ago. I think we are going in circles. Same thing,different day.

Like i've said ,if you cant see the drop off in how they run in comparison from a couple of years ago then in my opinion that makes you are poor judge. Last night changed nothing in my opinion.They still will be using and paying top dollars for their vets. Don't underestimate how much that can help a horse "peak",but thats available to everyone else if they have the money. I personally didn't see them grow a leg last night on recent performances.There was improvement,but i put that down to the driving ability of rasmussen.Her ability to rate her horses at a consistent speed and make the moves at the right time is exceptional,and if anything i think the other drivers seem to almost concede their tactical positions almost as if its inevitable,which sometimes is rather meek. I've said,and still believe that Cullen has shown he is not far behind purdon/rasmussen,just doesn't use all the tools in the tool box that were being used a couple of years ago.

Starter briefly called a false start,but then changed his mind with apparently 5 drivers easing their horses up,so we are told,but who really knows. In an earlier race a start was declared but only briefly,then it was changed to a false start,this time the blame going on the mobile driver who did not initially hear the starter apparently. Where's peter lamb when you need him?

That race just run had some strange drives. Mark jones interview went on about how this was the race majestic lavros had been set for,yet it looked like he forgot to tell sam ottley.Ben hope really does drive those trotters well though,and natalie rasmussen again gave her horse every chance.

Your right. Just looked it up. Somehow he had his 7 day suspension given to him last week deferred until after tonight. Not sure why he gets that preferential treatment and has a suspension start a week later. To be honest,rasmussen is outdriving the others tonight. She always makes her move at the right time and has ended up in the right position compared to her main opposition.