curious

Great post ATA

Hilarious. I gave you that didn't I? Where's the critical thought or analysis? I've been marking crap like that for years. That's a 'D' .... just.

So for example, if I were you, I'd cite something like this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013968/

But please provide solid evidence such as peer reviewed studies. I'm not interested in hearsay.

Run me through what you like.

You think wrong. Where's the current prospective example?

Any progress on this example?

I looked up simulate and that I am afraid is you to a 'T' Synonyms for simulated affected, artificial, assumed, bogus, contrived, factitious, fake, false, feigned,

I doubt you could insert sense into anything.

OK. Please educate me. Give us an example of how you adjust chance or price in accord with an unlucky run. A prospective example would be good.

How do you quantify it and what adjustment do you make to the chance of the horse in the current race? I tend to assume that its ability is assessable from its more "lucky" runs. I certainly know that wide can be essential for best performances. I can give you first hand examples.

How do you quantify it and what adjustment do you make to the chance of the horse in the current race? I tend to assume that its ability is assessable from its more "lucky" runs. I certainly know that wide can be essential for best performances. I can give you first hand examples.

How do you quantify it and what adjustment do you make to the chance of the horse in the current race? I tend to assume that its ability is assessable from its more "lucky" runs. I certainly know that wide can be essential for best performances. I can give you first hand examples.

True. The evidence suggests that most horses do not improve on their best 2yo performance. Thommo is probably the same. A promising or maybe unpromising 2yo and hasn't improved. Hopefully he'll be better once he graduates from his remedial reading classes.

Where did I say that? I agree some do but I'm unclear what that has to do with the discussion. And it is rare. Most horses' best performances don't exceed that demonstrated in their first few runs. Not that we were talking about that.

It's a bloody shame for this site that this thread for example which had evolved into a reasonably intelligent discussion has been wrecked as soon as they let you out on Monday morning.

OK. Thanks for the help. From a blind standpoint it appears to me that I'm not the one that is blind.

Can you try that again in English that I can understand. Thanks.

I'm reluctant to enter into what appears to be becoming a rational discussion, however, I'll risk it. I doubt that mardi has not done as you suggest re weight and barrier draws at least. The impact of wide and moreso unlucky is harder to quantify. On the latter, I tend to assess ability based on other runs, not just the unlucky or wide one, so if it is a factor, then that run based on time is likely to be not up to best ability which is what I am after. I don't think wide generally affects chance negatively on average. For some horses at least, it is preferable. As to barrier (and weight), my comparative analyses here, Oz and in the US suggest their effect is over estimated by most markets making horses with wider barriers likely to be at better value, thus a disproportionate number of my bets are horses with wide barriers and higher weights. Please note, I am not saying that weight (or barrier for that matter) don't make a difference, just that they do not have a significant assessable impact on chance, again across those three jurisdictions.

Awesome stuff here btw. Just post a screenshot of your Iskander bet to verify please that you came to that conclusion pre-race. Get it from someone else's account if need be. Anything to help you avoid the ongoing fraud label.

I didn't know Neil's ratings were speed ratings. So Neil adjusts his speed ratings by the official track condition or by his assessment of the differential based on actual times? I suspect it is the latter and the official track condition has nothing to do with it.

Yip. Sometimes my prices are way out though I don't see what was wrong with the Shark 33/1. Never looked like winning. While I am always trying to make the frequency or quantum of those errors less, it's not a big deal to me. All I care is that on average my pricing is more accurate than the market's. There will always be errors and outliers. And I note that those prices were made public BEFORE the races. Sorry. I haven't used Beyer speed figures since the early 90s so that's dead wrong. Not much use using something that is available to all the competition. Pretty easy these days to improve on them. You have to really. Or at least use them smarter. NOPE. Don't see how you come to that conclusion. Don't pay any attention to the track rating when I do speed figures. They are based on actual times, not penetrometer readings or some other type of track rating. Has no bearing on it and does not necessarily require any manual input either. Just the assessment of times cf. expected times and I do that on a race by race basis. I don't try and attribute the cause of variances to track ratings, blinkers, class of race, whether they've aerated the track, there was a head wind, or that some act of god has occurred changing the elevation of the straight. Track ratings are for the whole day usually aren't they or do you get them and adjust for them race by race? Don't pay anymore attention to them than trainers' or anyone else's opinion.

I thought you might have figured by now that you have dug a big enough hole for yourself with your own ridiculous theories. You should stick with them before you decide you know how others' work. Of course you are correct that the fastest time always wins, but not the fastest sectionals. Two very different things. And if you think that the Hawera example has anything to do with how speed ratings are done, you need to go back to speed ratings 101 once you get through your primary remedial reading and maths classes. I don't know anyone doing them who would compare times based on the official track rating. I certainly wouldn't and I don't know exactly how mardi does his but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't either. As far as I know, all speed ratings are adjusted by the actual times run, not the official track condition, so if they are 7-12l different for the same or comparable horses, then they would be adjusted by that/those amounts to calibrate them.

Anyone checked with the bar staff at the Green Parrot to see if someone handed in a stray file folder? Not that I think any recommendations from RITA or resulting legislation have a prayer of significantly changing the course of NZ Racing, even if someone can find them.