All The Aces

Haven't Ellerslie just upgraded their track in the last 12 months? Keep up.

Interesting. I have noted you bagging the Riccarton track not so long ago. Curious is right bring those races to where to horse population is. Far less cost to owners and fuller fields. makes sense.

Should the 1000 Guineas and 2000 Guineas be moved to the North Island - Just throwing it out there Only looked at the last three years but: 1000 Guineas 2018 - 10 NI horses & 3 SI horses. 2017 - 11 NI horses & 3 SI horses 2016 - 7 NI & 2 SI 2000 Guineas 2018 - 12 NI horses & 1 SI horse who ran last. 2017 - 9 NI horses and 3 SI horses. 2016 10 NI & 1 SI horse ran last. The fields have been relatively small, very little SI representation (La Diosa won the 1000 Guineas in 2016) other wise just a third placing for the SI horses. Would they be better run in the NI?

NZTR don't have the say Freda. The NZRB are in charge of the date allocations and race times and if any meeting get rescheduled etc it has to have approval from them also.

No it's not. Ellerslie already do this with twilight racing six race cards. Best example Karaka Millions evening. Six quality races. This year the first was at 4:41 and the last run at 7:48.

No, you would feel a mug if you didn't take the treble and the last three legs of your quaddie all won after you missed the first quaddie leg.

Why? Taking these bet types away does not mean that all the money invested in those pools will all go to investment in quaddies. If you miss the first leg of the quaddie then you can take a treble. As for place 6s you can get great dividends on this type of bet. Taking away bet types can mean a loss in financial terms to the industry. Just look at all the increase in sports options giving punters more and more choice as a way to increase turnover. What you suggest would mean the opposite.

So where has your representative the Trainers Association been on this??

Seriously???? ? Does he never read the stipe reports.

Correct Chief, but only after the respective claims as Thomass pointed out.

Well Chief, of that is not an admission of an allowance having an influence then I don't know what does. ?

Hell!! I would have put the bottle in my left ear if she had been standing next to me! ?

Then that does not give you a true accurate picture of all races if you take out horses that are in receipt of any claim. You are omitting the very important factor of horses winning under the allotted handicap by means of a claim which is basically the purpose of putting an apprentice on. I note that you also exclude all horses on the minimum. If it makes no difference as a few are saying then they should be included to form a far more accurate assessment instead of a distorted result. Do you know how many winning horses have been excluded from your data analysis? That would be interesting to know.

I take it from that then, that any weight allowance therefore would have to be a factor in your assessment which is why you left this out. That surely indicates to me that weight carried must be a genuine consideration when assessing those races as it appears to be influential whereby you ignore it and don't include it your stats. Surely this then will distort those stats you provided. Are you able to advise how many horses that have won with an allowance that you have excluded from those stats.

I am curious Curious, why have you excluded all horses that have claimed apprentice allowances reducing the carded weight?

Only have trials there don't they. When was the last race meeting held at Foxton?

Nor do I have a problem with those that do so either, good on them, however Barry is a different kettle of fish. He has such a superiority persona and arrogance that he states he knows more than 99% of punters and bangs on about this and about "value" ad infinitum. That arrogance led him to start a thread to "prove" this regarding "value" which proved exactly the opposite, with him abandoning the concept when losses closed in on the four figure mark. In anyone's language losing bets are not any value at all. Not to be outdone he then started a different thread to prove another system of his would work. Starting off with a $1000.00 pool beginning with $20 bets and reducing the amount of the bet following a loss. The pool was close to halfway gone and the bets becoming smaller and smaller when that too was went quiet. The way that was going was even if he found a decent winner the bet would be that insignificant not to matter. This arrogance has continued by refusing to acknowledge that he fell flat on his face in both. I make no claim to even knowing anything more than most punters just content to quietly chip away finding a winner here and there (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often) and enjoying a bet. I form my own analysis from experiences which I consider a help and try to bet accordingly and like most others have winning and losing days. Thoroughly enjoying the ride though.

Curious has confirmed that the analysis he has provided is generic ie across all grades and distances and confirmed that he didn't have the data to confirm major staying races which are the races I have referred to throughout in my comments in this thread. I have provided four major staying races which show they are incompatible with that generic list. I have provided the winning weights for the Wellington and Auckland Cups run since 2001 which do not marry up to that list and only put the average in just as an indication that it is much lower than the average would be on Curious's list. Curious also states he would expect the topweight to win the Melbourne Cup about once every 25 years. We have had only one top weight win in the last 65 years. (Caulfield Cup 1 in 69 years) Personally I don't really care if people such as Barry completely ignore weight in such races, I do factor it in and cognitive of history in the major staying races.

I have on the very first page stated: "Superior horses in lower grades weight factor is insignificant but you state you DON'T factor weight in ANY of your per race analysis." "I believe it is a factor in the "major handicaps" and what more proof do you need than looking at the Caulfield Cup and Melbourne Cup (two of the biggest handicaps around) over the past 70 odd years. History clearly shows top weights have a very tough job to win those races yet you have no consideration for this aspect." And my discussion throughout has been re "major handicaps" and more specifically Cups races which I outlined earlier. Your stats Curious I gather cover ALL handicap races over All grades and All distances? Lets take the Wellington Cup for example this century: Winning weights have been: 52kgs, 53kgs, 52.5kgs, 51.5kgs, 53.5kgs, 57.5kgs, 55kgs, 53.5kgs, 52.5kgs, 57kgs, 53kgs, 56kgs, 54kgs, 52kgs, 52.5kgs, 52.5kgs, 56.5kgs, 53kgs, 53kgs - Average 53.5kgs. Auckland Cup this century: Winning weights have been. 56kgs, 55.5kgs, 52.5kgs, 51kgs, 52kgs, 53kgs, 52kgs, 52.5kgs, 55.5kgs, 57.5kgs, 54.5kgs, 55kgs, 54.5kgs, 52.5kgs, 52kgs, 55kgs, 53.5kgs, 54kgs, 53.5kgs - Average 53.5kgs Which is pretty similar to the Melbourne Cup stat of average winning weight of the race = 54kgs.

Wonder if Peter Early will interview someone from RITA tomorrow to get some answers?

I would be most wary to any of Barry's systems SLB2.0. He doesn't factor in weight, nor any gear changes and whatever else, who knows, and his last two punting systems have been shown to be complete disasters which he continually refuses to admit. He seems a person unable to make any shift/change in his punting thinking, which is not a bad thing, as it ultimately helps us on the tote. ? Unfortunately a lost soul that cannot be helped. ?

Bazza will still be a denier SLB2.0 and refuse to accept any such a concept.

I am not trying to determine value at all, that is a different subjective topic. Barry has stated that he never takes notice of weight ever!! I have merely pointed to two of the biggest handicap races in Australasia and shown that top weights rarely can win those races. the evidence is compelling. He doesn't factor that in whereas I factor that statistic quite significantly when assessing those races.

Do you ever take note of what weight a horse carries when it has won Bazza. A lo of horses are unable to carry decent weights to win. They get to a certain winning weight level, get handicapped above their maximum winning weight and then struggle to win. When they lose enough points and their allocated weight has come back down to what they can win with they can hit winning form again.

One significant reason Bazza, seeing you don't know to factor weight as stated above, is that there is minimum weight standards applied. Therefore a lot of those on the bottom of the handicap due to that minimum weight restriction are not getting the correct weight they should be getting in a real free handicap ie they are closer to the higher weighted horses than they should be. The weight spread between top weight and bottom weight being constricted. So even though they are sitting on the bottom of the handicap they are still badly weighted which is why they find it difficult to win. A perfect example is: Grey Way got beaten by a horse at Riccarton by a neck when it carried 46kgs whilst Grey Way carried 61.5kgs. I would bet you a dollar to a doughnut if the winner had to carry the minimum of 54kgs now a days that Grey Way would have won.