curious

Not sure at this point. It may be too late to turn around. 5 or 6 years ago there seemed to be a glimmer of a hope if things were sorted quickly but it really needed to happen a decade or two ago. The focus needs to be on the product, both the TR product and the wagering product. On the first, it's the same old things. Integrity, handicapping system, track surfaces, stakes structure etc. as well as ideas like Barryb's Racing 20. Such a thing could be piloted at virtually no cost and I think would not only appeal to track goers but also those who might gather for a couple of hours in pubs, clubs and homes to have a drink, a bite to eat, watch a few races and have a few bets. Potential there to expose the young ones too. The wagering product is pretty obvious I think. Hard to believe that NZ has gone from being a world leader with the introduction of off course betting in the 50s to the parlous state it is in today and that mainly by way of delayed reaction to, rather than anticipation of, social change. We now have more of the same with the introduction of the PoC tax further increasing costs to punters and encouraging the TAB to price even less competitively. It's a sad day to have to say this, but I'm not sure if all the necessary fixes were put in place tomorrow that the ship won't still go down. I'm also not convinced that moving the deck chairs by way of closing/building tracks are likely to provide any more than additional costs, put more pressure on already failing tracks, and ultimately worsen rather than improve the product.

Tried to get the Trainers' Association to push for that in the late 90s. Wouldn't hear of it. Too hard. Requires extra staff and organisation, not enough lead time for betting, etc. etc.

Presumably not nominated by the recommendations panel.

Nice idea but when TR is struggling to generate enough revenue to cover half its stakes costs at the moment let alone anything else, how the hell is such a venture likely to cover operating costs, let alone recover the capital costs?

Add to that, the 1951 and 1952 Melbourne Cups were also won by the topweight, making 7 topweights in the last 69 years. And Tobin Bronze won the Caulfield Cup in 1967. Making that 7 in 64 years. Not bad To make things worse, the last winning topweight of the Caulfield Cup wasn't Dunaden. It was Best Solution last year and before that it was Admire Rakti in 2014. That's makes it 9 in 64 years.

You might want to recheck your data ATA. Don't know if you saw this. "Seems at odds with what the results say. In the Caulfield Cup, Redcraze won in 1956. Pretty sure he was the topweight. As was Rising Fast in 1955. Of course, Sky Heights won the 1999 Caulfield Cup ... as the topweight, and Northerly won in 2002 .... And Sydeston won as topweight in 1990. Along with Dunaden mentioned in 2012. Comic Court didn't even win the Caulfield Cup in 1950 (he won the Melbourne Cup in 1950 as topweight). I make that at least 6 in 64 years. about 1 in 11. ................................. In the Melbourne Cup, Hyperno won in 1979 as topweight as did Rain Lover in 1969. And Comic Court in 1950. Along with the mentioned Rising Fast in 1954. So that makes 5 top weights winning in the last 69 years. Given the number of topweights during that time, 5 seems pretty high to me."

No. As I tried to explain above, those data came from an analysis assessing the effectiveness of the current handicapping/rating system. The only way to do that is to examine the success rate of horses in each weight band cf. their expected success rate if in a perfect handicapping system. So, INCLUDING horses that did not carry their carded weight might distort the findings, not EXCLUDING them. And no, I do not consider weight or weight allowances in the assessment of individual chance if that's what you mean. Nor do I use the type of population statistics that I posted to inform that assessment in any way. I don't know how you could do that.

Because I'm trying to assess the performance of horses at their handicapped weight.

Who wants to build a flash stand at Foxton? What's wrong with the recently refurbished one?

It couldn't be otherwise if I'm understanding your question Fred. Some horses carry overweight and some have apprentice allowances so don't carry their carded weight. The remainder carry there carded weight. Hope that makes sense?

And what is the average weight of all runners in those races for that period ATA? If it is close to the average weight of the winners then that's what you would expect isn't it and you've shown no variance from that in your examples. Yes, what I posted is all classes as I stated and all distances. I can tell you though that the analysis for open class middle distance races looks much the same. There is no significant difference based on class or distance of race. What you need to consider is that if you take a race like the MC with 24 runners, then in a perfect handicap you'd expect the top-weight to win 4.2% of runnings so about once every 25 years. That's why my above analysis shows the percentage of winners to what would be expected. In a race with say an average of 12 runners you'd expect the top-weight to win in 8.3% of occurrences. I don't have enough data to check just major staying races where they were run under the same or similar handicapping conditions but I have no reason to believe that the findings would be any different.

I'm not going to argue against the stupid who are distorting the markets based on weight but here's some data I have from NZ handicaps .... about 20,000 runners. That's after excluding horses that didn't carry their carded weights and those on the minimum from out of the handicap. Draw your own conclusions but I think it will be consistent with what barryb has told you 100 times. Males carrying carded weight – all handicaps Weight band Class Wins vs expected 60.5kg+ All 130.8% 59.0 - 60.0kg All 117.7% 57.5 - 58.5kg All 102.8% 56.0 - 57.0kg All 98.4% 54.5 - 55.5kg All 88.8% 54kg- All 86.1% Females carrying carded weight – all handicaps Weight band Class Wins vs expected 60.5kg+ All 46.1% 59.0 - 60.0kg All 154.3% 57.5 - 58.5kg All 115.1% 56.0 - 57.0kg All 134.0% 54.5 - 55.5kg All 114.2% 54kg- All 88.2%

Good idea Thommo but like most of the good ideas in that review, they were ignored. While you are there, also note these bits ... p.3. The increased transparency of rating assessments and adoption of ratings templates has seen a reduction in the degree of reassessment both in the raising and lowering of post-race ratings, an increased compression of the weight spread in races has become accepted practice which in turn can be argued has led to a decrease in competitiveness in races across the board in both countries. p.5-6 Personally I believe the 5.0 kg spread of weights (11 pounds) both in New Zealand and Australia is not sufficient and I would prefer a minimum of 7.0 kg (16 pounds). It should be remembered that the principle racing bodies within the neighbouring regions of Hong Kong which races off a 9.5 kg spread (21 pounds) with Singapore off a 9.0 kg range (20 pounds). Both Europe and the UAE conduct their racing off similar weight spreads. That would suggest that he thinks that handicap weight differentials as they stand in Australasia are pretty much irrelevant.

Why is Cameron involved? He drove its establishment. Hardly an independent reviewer for mine. Surely not. That would be nuts.

BAU is what he said.

Can you bet 5 minutes after the finish? Thommo will be in heaven.

Maybe the NZTAB put an ad for punters in the Informant promoting this and the potentially huge pools and liquidity?

An ancient story about a goose and golden eggs springs to mind.

That's a fair point Thommo and the excessive fees being proposed here in the new legislation are already taking their toll in some Oz jurisdictions and trying to take more from punters, who as you say, will likely shift their interest to other markets is a recipe for disaster. This is just one relatively small bookie but take a look at their figures from the Melbourne carnival which saw them pay more in fees than their profit. But this is what happens when you implement reform strategies that have not been informed by the necessary wagering expertise. https://www.racenet.com.au/news/interesting-developments-in-bookmaking-will-only-hurt-the-punter--again-20190624 A few snips. “As the bulk of the wagering revenue of corporate bookmakers is remitted to racing controlling bodies in the form of fees and taxes, the punter is already indirectly financing much of the additional and copious prizemoney being foisted on World racing's elite during the major carnivals - and what does the punter receive in return? “As a direct consequence of the continuous growth in fees and taxes, the punter is being presented with ever-rising market percentages and, as operators are squeezed out of the market, diminished competition. This can only lead to reducing returns. “If the racing wagering marketplace is to improve and thrive, it is important that racing control bodies come to realise the volume of turnover on their product is already dissipating, and that volume of decline will only increase if current regulatory and taxation trends continue. “With the above in mind, it is inevitable that punters will shift their focus and redirect their 'hard-earned' to other gambling mediums and other wagering marketplaces. This trend is already apparent as we observe the rapid growth in sports betting during the past decade and this should be alarming for racing authorities.

Lovely colt. Might need a bit more time than they are suggesting. Still well bought I thought.

From hearsay yes. I rarely have used it for many years.

David writes: My update of yesterday has attracted plenty of discussion and I want to make it very clear exactly what I meant. One of my main points was that it is unacceptable that these frequent cancellations occur without any immediate communication from the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Board or its management team. Perhaps the message got through as late yesterday by some miracle an update on the Waipa situation from NZTR appeared on its “Loveracing” website, written by its communications’ manager. There is just so much hard work by a trainer and stable team, and expense for owners, that goes in to getting a horse to the races. So simply having the Racing Integrity stewards make an announcement with no timely statement of information from NZTR is not good enough and not acceptable. NZTR simply was once again not on the front foot. I also wish to reiterate that I am not saying that we need to keep every track in the North Island. Everybody understands that we have too many tracks but what I do know, with my years of running a stable, is that at present the industry needs the Avondale course proper if we are going to have weekly trials and regular racing through August, September and October. It’s all very well having a great Spring Carnival at Hawke’s Bay but you need tracks up here to get the horses ready to compete at that Carnival and that is why we currently need Avondale. It has a key role to play – as for the facilities well that is another matter as we all know – I am talking about the crucial need for the track. Now let me move on to all-weather tracks. Everybody would much prefer to have a beautiful grass track to gallop on but the cost of having grass tracks at this time of the year is too much. We are climatically challenged that we all know. We have something like 52 inches of rain a year in the Auckland/Waikato regions and a good percentage of this comes in June-September, so it does make sense to have an all-weather track to trial and race on in these months. The government has already stated that it realises the importance of racing to the general economy and is prepared to contribute to the funding of at least one all-weather track. So now there are two issues for the industry: The Cambridge training track and its current situation, and Where should the all-weather track be located. Now firstly I want to make this point – the Cambridge training track is critically important to New Zealand racing. Simple fact. It is the largest training centre numbers-wise and it is where many of our very best trainers are based. So Cambridge needs top training facilities to operate – I think we all agree with this. A really good all-weather training track anywhere between $4 million – $7 million depending on what option is taken. If the Cambridge Jockey Club cannot afford all of this then certainly the industry needs to help. That is a very easy decision. This week we have Mark Walker staying on the farm. Mark trains 66 horses (the maximum allowed) in Singapore and currently has a 13-win lead on the Trainers’ Premiership. In Singapore they have one racing venue at Kranji that handles all of the training and racing of the horses. Bearing in mind there are seven different training tracks at the complex. It is interesting to hear Mark’s views with his raft of experience – he is adamant that it is not feasible to have 1200 horses in trackwork and then have the course ready for trials and racing, all on a single all-weather track. He is one of a number of highly experienced trainers who have expressed this view to me. So why wouldn’t NZTR, which after all is allocating taxpayers money, go to the Clubs and ask for expressions of interest for the all-weather track and then draw up a short-list with explanatory notes, and conduct a thorough feasibility study in to where the location should be. In other words, these are big dollars, let’s do the homework properly and get the job done correctly. NZTR has been pushing for a “Greenfields” venue in the Waikato and of course it is sensible to investigate this but to have an all-weather track at Cambridge for training and racing defies logic where there is also at least a 50/50 chance that the Cambridge training track could well be closed in four-eight years. Some people say that NZTR still pushing for the all-weather racetrack to go to the Cambridge training centre where there are no facilities for owners, sponsors etc. makes no sense. I am not saying that you need a big stand at all, but you do need a good, tidy, warm area for sponsors to go and bring their teams and for owners and other participants to spend the day if you are going to race say every Wednesday through the winter months. Despite the odd negative, even personal, comment thrown my way on this topic, I am undeterred – silence is not an option and industry participants should be able to stick their head above the parapets and express their genuine concerns. I think it is unacceptable that other Clubs such as Ellerslie, Counties, Waikato, Matamata, Te Aroha, Taupo etc have not been asked to register interest or submit a proposal. Just another of many foregone conclusions – all the industry wants to see is a transparent and logical decision making process communicated to it. If we “don’t understand” then perhaps we need to receive frequent, up to date and open communication. The good news is that the Racing Reform Bill is on its way and I think there is plenty of upside to this legislation. When this comes into law very soon, the industry will be run by a Board called RITA, which effectively sees the dissolution of MAC (the Ministerial Advisory Committee). The talent on MAC has ensured a comprehensive delivery of information to the Minister. MAC has been chaired by Dean McKenzie – Dean is one of the best administrators we have seen in my time in racing – I do hope we see him feature on RITA as big changes are on the way for certain. Let’s hope RITA can encourage NZTR to re-structure as at present it simply isn’t working. Last time I made comments about NZTR, I received a letter of rebuke. I want to make it very clear that NZTR has some wonderful people involved – people the calibre of Tim Aldridge and others – it’s the leadership that needs to be under the microscope. This is my message to NZTR: Put our money and your time and effort in to ensuring we have race meetings that are completed on safe tracks that can sustain racing in our climatically challenged country. Without this focus there will be no racing, let alone Love Racing.

Determining value and getting it are two different things. I have no clue how you get it if you bet on a tote with the issues you suggest. I'd avoid it and try a different market or jurisdiction.

Well SLB, for those of us who primarily bet on the tote, it is me vs. everyone else. That's the name of the game. I'd argue that the bookies approach is similar since everyone else dictates the bookie's market. I have no interest in being tipped winners or how many of those I back. I'm only interested in POT which has no relationship to number of winners backed per se. Maybe I'm just one of your mad 1% who prefers to win over backing a heap of winners and slowly or rapidly lose.

Probably because "this was the fourth race meeting from past seven programmed at the Te Awamutu track to be abandoned" and only now have they decided to do something about it.