curious

I think the only difference between racing in a 30k race in NZ and a 10k one is that the if you are beaten 5 lengths, you might run 3rd or 4th in the 10k one and 10th in the 30k one. I don't think the same horse will be any closer or further from the winner.

Didn't appear so and she was well up with the next horse. Could be though. As you say, hard to tell without the front on. Injury maybe?

How could she have been checked? The nearest horse was 2 1/2 lengths in front of her.

Another f%&^ up?

OK. Fair question. What I was meaning was that obviously there will be a range of winning performances for say an R65. I'm proposing that the average winning performance (however you measure that), is or should be the same, regardless of the location or stake of the race within NZ. I'm also suggesting the stake for all R65s should be the same, partly so the lower stake ones are not subsidising the others. The same horses are going around in the 10k ones as the 30k ones as Mardi has pointed out.

And yes, the prize money structure should be related to the class of race, not the day of the week or geographic location of the event. It happens like that at the top end with an odd exception. A Group or listed race at Riccarton or Wingatui is worth the same as a Group or listed race at Hastings or Ellerslie. Don't see why it should be different for mdns and rating races. If it is, as Freda has pointed out, the rating system needs fixing not tiering of the stakes structure for the same class of race. One of the key things that has stuffed NZ racing.

Where did I say this? "Can I ask why your data compares an "average R65" to a "standard R65?" I said Mardi "may" have that data, not that I did. At least what I have is quite old so probably not relevant whereas Mardi has current data which he may be willing to share.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the winning performance in an average R65 at Ellerslie is better than the winning performance in an R65 at Marlborough or Ascot Park? Mardi may have some relative time data on that but I suspect there is no significant difference and I agree with Freda that tiered stakes funding in NZ should have gone a long time ago, so funding is closely related to wagering revenue generated.

dunno....maybe my legs have got shorter..

what day was that? and what horse won?

Think it might be about 30ms short?

The $100 budget punter is going to lose $100. Not $120 just because there are more betting options.

Here's the finish. Pretty impressive.

I agree. I think all the data shows that punter losses will remain the same regardless of the number of options, events etc. The only way to increase punter losses is with new customers as far as I can see and that is only likely to occur with more competitive pricing.

There would be a point if it's best of starting FO or tote wouldn't there? Not highest fluc of either. That would be too good to be true surely?

They've posted a minor 11mms overnight....dead 5? What's the actual go?

Oh dear. That doesn't look pretty barryb. However, regardless of track conditions, I'm expecting the most accurate markets will come from Thommo and I'm pretty sure we will see those on Monday.

Here's my first crack at one of these. G3 or D4 wouldn't change it.

I take it you believe in the subconscious?

I see. Any taxpayers you know keen on Mr. Jones expending that?

They are going to build a track from scratch for $4m?

Hopefully, they are allowed to go for it. It helps to distort markets from actual chance. Real punters should love it.

A few tents?

This beggars belief! There is no approved funding for an AWT at Riccartoon that I am aware of. Why is there a team presenting on what seems impossible or is this just another waste of either industry or taxpayer money? What actually impressed you and other trainers about this Freda? And who makes up this mysterious team and what is their mission?