All The Aces

You must be wetting yourself laughing at the self appointed experts over on that other site re their ratings /pricing of the Taumarunui Cup. Perhaps they forgot about the apprentice allowance in the race this year. ?

Despite the real factual evidence as shown above with them to be more likely run on good tracks. You seem to have a imagined ingrained mentality re all these bog tracks in the North at this time of the year. FYI. There were 20 North Island meetings run in November last year the worst track was a Slow 7 at Rotorua. The remaining 19 meetings were run on tracks from a Good 2 to a Dead 6. In October there were also 20 North Island meetings, the worst track were two Slow 8 tracks at Waipa and Matamata. Again the remaining 18 meetings were run on tracks from Good 2s to a Dead 6. Not one track in the North Island ran a meeting with a heavy bog track as you ASSUME is the case. Your argument based on your opinion on this issue just doesn't stand up. Just to rub a little more salt into your wounds there were 7 meetings run in the South Island last November. Four were run on Slow 7 or worse. Wingatui Slow 7, Ascot Park Slow 9 Riccarton (2000 Guineas day) Slow 9 & Gore Heavy 11. In October from 7 SI meetings Gore ran on a Heavy11 and Winton on a Slow 9. So from 40 North Island meetings only three were run on tracks worse than dead. One Slow 7 and two Slow 8s. Yet from fourteen South Islands meetings six were run on Slow 7 or worse. One Slow 7, three slow 9s and two Heavy 11s. Your North Island bog track spiel is nothing more than house of cards opinion.

As Agent 54 pointed out Freda the Te Aukau winners Embellish and Xtravagant didn't prepare down there. Embellish's preceding start was a win at Trentham in late October on a dead 4 track 2017 and Xtravagant had followed the same path by winning at Trentham in October on a Dead 6 track 2015 . Last year's winner Madison County came in off the back of a win at Te Rapa in October on a Good 3 track. As did the year when Ugo Foscolo won off the back of a win at Te Rapa in October 2016 off the back of another Good 3 track. And Turn Me Loose 2014 won off the back of a win at Te Rapa in October 2014 off a Good 3 track at Te Rapa. 2012 Sacred Falls off the back of a win in October at Te Rapa on a dead 6 track. 2010 Jimmy Choux wins the 2000 Guineas on a heavy track following a win at Hastings in October on a Good 3 track. 2009 Katie Lee won coming in off the back of a win at Te Rapa in October on a Good 2 track. I trust that Reefton will note that by far the majority of them came off the back of racing......wait for it.....wait...wait...on GOOD tracks in the North island in OCTOBER!!! So those are the last ten winners of the 2000 Guineas. 8 coming off the back of their prior start on the North Island with the worst track being a Dead 6 in October. The other two winners were Atlante who had one start prior in the SI and the only winner who campaigned in the South Island being Rock ' N' Pop.

Freda, Reefton in making off the cuff statements that are clearly incorrect in defence of the status quo needed to be pointed out. The South Island is clearly not supporting the 1000 & 2000 Guineas races with horses numbers. The reason I brought it up is that there have been discussions over the last couple of years by trainers in the North is that these two races are clearly being filled by North Island horses and with the huge cost and logistics of getting to and back from Christchurch that these two races should be brought North. Those discussions became louder following the transport difficulties in getting horses down to Christchurch last November. Capacity fields actually do increase turnover and those two Guineas races are in all likelihood able to create more turnover run up North. It makes economic sense all round.

Bog tracks in the North at this time of the year!!! At least do some homework before making such statements. The following stats blow what you have stated out of the water. . Ellerslie's meetings in early November for the last ten years have been. Good 3 tracks for nine and a Dead 6 for the other. Last years 2000 Guineas at Riccarton was run on a slow 9.

Convince me as to why the two Guineas should remain down South.

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.