curious

My old mate Kalai got one home now and Hesi could have paid a taxi to deliver the flowers!

I think Hesi should delete you. You are the one posting most of the negative crap here when most of us are trying to have a bit of fun.

p.s. I now note and accept Pete's apology for that comment as above.

I don't see how describing lotto as a lottery could be demeaning to those who enjoy it. If you have a better descriptor for these kind of comps then feel free to use it. Sounded like a bit of holiday fun to me and I wouldn't have even known if it hadn't been posted here on this forum. Was happy to join in. But if that means "Your attitude smacks of a supersized superiority complex. Lighten up FFS" then I'm equally happy to join out and leave the comps to the comps fans. 

Well if that was aimed at me I'll also withdraw what I thought was a good spirited contribution and attempt to participate. PJ's a top bloke but I know little about his comps. From what I saw a few years ago they looked like lotteries to me. I'll henceforth leave the comps to those of you who are interested. Hopefully, Chief Stipe will keep them off this Galloping Chat Forum in future.

I agree but nothing wrong with a lottery now and then. Just not really my thing usually.

Realise the first is a bit of a Thommo and I still don't have much faith in my NZ pricing. The meeting might be done for now any way by the look of things. 13:20 gor R01 5 Five Kings $2.60 ($4.00) ... 2.50 13:55 gor R02 5 Katango $5.50 ($5.70) ... 6.30 15:40 gor R05 6 Jim's Gift $7.00 ($6.80) ... 8.00 16:50 gor R07 5 The Quiet Man $7.00 ($7.40) ... 6.40 17:25 gor R08 9 The Kraken $11.00 ($28.00) ... 15.00

Maybe a fee for access which would keep Thommo out when he's struggling to find the dosh for repairs to the princess most weekends though he seems to usually come right from his bets the day after the races.

And home it rolled. I liked your price better than Mardi's on that one barryb! Hope you got on Hesi

Help me out here Turny. Who or what is VI?

Got me beat too?

Yes. And I can buy a car in Auckland from Christchurch but petrol, I have to buy in Christchurch.

If it's more expensive to buy petrol in Christchurch than Auckland, wtf should we have to pay the same price for a car there?

Perhaps you would lead the way on that?

wtf is determanitive analysis as applied to betting? And I think you'll find it's the BP that's subjective. This is quantified methodology. And I don't do simulations. Mardi does. You can call it what you like. I call it a winner and the BP a loser.

Probably because I didn't rate Winx a 100% chance and I don't tip anyway. If I did, I would probably have tipped her as my rated best chance. However, if I didn't think she was value and something else was overpriced based on my rating of its chance, then I would have recommended backing that. If it was a 1% chance paying $150, that would be value and at that price I need to land 1 in a hundred to be well ahead. Some on here have got the idea about winning but you obviously haven't, so stick to the BP and top the account up on Monday.

I would generally back a rated 50% chance @ $2.50. Again, everyone's different and I do equally well on them as I do with say 4% chances but I avoid the latter because of the long runs of misses. You have to adapt to what you are comfortable with.

So are you going to take barryb up and contribute to the prize Thommo? And Newmarket, I don't think anywhere I tried to change the rules. In the spirit of the season I added to the prize so the winner can potentially make a significant donation to their favourite charity and Mardi added to that and the take home prize for the winner. If you win, you need not accept my share of the prize. That's fine with me. I'll donate it directly to my choice of charity instead.

From the rules for this on the comps thread: 2. 2 best bets on each day, which means you have $2 ew on those selections I've set up the dart board for those!

Hmmm..fair point barryb. However, I think that's covered isn't it? If I rate something as a dead set cert, it's a 100% chance and all other runners are necessarily 0% chances. I might or might not find sufficient value in the 100% chance to have a bet, but I also will never find value in any of the 0% ones?

NO, not a mistake! That's exactly what you should do. Not back the horses you think are most likely to win (if no value), but the ones that represent value relative to the chance of winning you rate them to have. Stick with that.

What did you price it at that made you say it was a lot of value?

Massive value!! Good work both of you

No explanation in the report either???

There'll be bragging rights whomever wins.