curious

They are here: https://racing.australianturfclub.com.au/meeting/4342

Where?

I haven't buckled. You have after saying pile it on @$4. If you knew anything about profitable punting you'd realise that I do not back or lay horses at my price assessment but at a price that allows for both margin of error and profit. As I said you are full of bs.

noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally Why say it then? You are full of shit.

OK. Reverse yourself. "@$4.00...pile it like ..brylcreem". No wonder you lose. I'm not going to lay a horse I rate a $6 chance at 5.50. If I can get $9 I'll back it. But I need a margin over my assessment. I've asked you for yours but you don't seem to have one.

Struggling to quantify "a monster". I'd lay her at 4.50 just for you. How much do you want.

Well as a punter and owner, I have to try to quantify them as best I can. So, I don't agree. I am asking you to quantify your assessment. You have said you have done that by claiming that Imperatriz is poor value at $1.70 for the Champion. I make her $1.60 chance. Then you say that In Secret is great value at $4.00. I have it at $6.00. I am asking you to quantify your claim with your pricing for the race and your assessment of each of their last 2 runs. with your pricing for the race, at least for those two runners.

I don't always, but in this case I agree with Dan that Imeratriz's Manikato performance was 2-3 lengths better than that of the Everest winner. If you don't agree as it seems, what is your assessment of the two relative performances? Imperatriz may or not be the best sprinter in Australia. Not in Black Caviar league, but still very good and for the most part achieved largely untested.

What does the pattern status of the race have to do with any performance assessment? You've lost me.

New Zealand Trainers' Association (NZTA). Same if not worse. 2023 Funding from NZTR 85,760 Sponsorship 14,500 Total Revenue 100,260

I don't usually bother betting in that price range but on my assessment, I agree she is value at that price. If she does what I think she will, I imagine she'll scare even more off for the Chamions' Sprint though running for second or third behind her with even an outside chance of knocking her off may not be a bad option for some.

I think Romantic Warrior is way over bet on ability and likely to be further so with the world tote pool. That makes some of the others very good value.

Gold Trip the value for me.

I don't see anything in the conditions for the race that would prevent horses otherwise eligible for the SI race from racing in any Group race (or non-group race) anywhere at any time. Nothing I can see to stop an eligible horse going to Trentham for say the Cuddle Stakes in March and remaining eligible. I'm not sure where you are reading that or making that interpretation.

No. As I posted above, allowance to run contenders at the Wellington Cup meeting was there in the initial NZTR release. The refined conditions have actually removed that statement but I don't think they are precluded from racing wherever they want to.

Freda's best horses do daily carrot exercises

Was the Stan Fox Stakes but not sure if that was its original name or not.

Thanks Tesio. That certainly tidies up a few of the matters I raised.

And will that eliminate the likes of Parson's who don't operate from club owned facilities?

Oh. That's a refinement on the rules I posted. Where did you see that?

Handicap racing, if done properly, is blatant socialism too though they can't even do that right here.

Only 3 rated over 85!

NZTR will be the sole judge to determine eligibility Of course, sole judge has legal definitions. It is not the same as absolute judge. There is serious money at stake (175k to the winner cf 60k for second). If a horse that clearly complies gets beaten by one whose eligibility is questionable, I could see this going to court if they don't clarify the eligibility conditions. At the same time, it might be a good idea to make them more conducive and restricted to SI based horses. Great that they have this opportunity all the same but I can't see it being much more attractive a mission than a comparable NI race, maybe a black type one if it's a filly or mare.

That particular example seems rather ill thought out and poorly defined. Why the Wellington Cup carnival is specifically mentioned doesn't make sense. SI based horses during the period which tackle other NI races will be excluded? The description of the primary requirement "located at a SI training facility from midnight 31 December" ... what does that mean? Presumably the horse can't go for a spell or therapy during that time? Or are SI spelling/therapy facilities, training facilities? Is the beach a training facility? If you go by the definition of that in the rules a lot of SI trained horses will be ruled out. The likes of the Parsons' stable, a big part of the Pitman stable etc. spring to mind. Training Facility means any place at which horses are actively trained or worked and: (a) which is owned, leased or occupied by a Club; (b) in respect of which a Club has any right or ability to access; or (c) which is reasonably believed by NZTR or a Tribunal to be in some way used by a Club Why December 31? You'd think for this to possibly advantage SI based horses it should be for the season or thereabouts. Otherwise, a horse can have a spring campaign from a NI base perhaps culminating cup week here, then a spell and back in work for the target race from December 31. Then, as you say, NZTR being the sole judge raises the question of whether the big players will be able to make an acceptable case for eligibility whereas the small players may not.