curious

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.

It's only one part of the problem but if NZ Racing seriously wants to increase stakes by increasing revenue by increasing punter losses on NZ Racing, then they need to fix the integrity issues which are now massive and this sort of crap is only part of that part. Yet the totally disabled NZTR board and management keep saying things like Jackson in the annual report. Jackson : “Over recent years it has been difficult to make firm plans for the immediate future” Well of course it f'n is if you don't do anything about it.

Quite a few different ways actually.

Would they have finished that fast in a genuinely run race though?

Old mate tells it like it is. Let's sort it and not just blame the tracks and the trainers. http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/podcast/tdn-writers-room-for-nov-6-2019-with-todd-pletcher/

I suppose I could tell you to not be such a lazy mustelid and look them up and read them yourself but anyway here's the link. Let me know what you conclude. https://www.racing.com/form/2019-11-05/flemington/race/7

Thanks Thommo. That's a very good piece from Mary.

Inn is probably the correct explanation for that.

What comma?

Me too especially if I can have some decent champers (i.e. not Mumm) while I'm not listening to them.

Absolutely. It's ridiculous. Who is paying who for what? Makes me sick. No chance to get a second opinion days out from the race. Wtf?

what would he know?

Is that because of the blinkers or because the trainer applies them when the horse is ready and placed in the right race to win?

Exactly. We want them losing slowly and staying interested. This type of misinformation is fraudulent as you say when offered as gospel. Should be in the RITA strategic plan to develop a way of burying it. I accidentally heard a couple of dog races yesterday. The presenter was not only listing his value bets for the day but giving out the prices he made them. Might be a genetic thing which is possibly Thommo's problem and covers the lack of intellect required to think you can price a field by pricing 4 horses. How do you do that Thommo? Set all the rest to 1000/1?

Of course I understand the concept of blinkers improving a horse. It's the same as renaming them with a name beginning with 'L'. Next time some will go faster and some will go slower but on average they will perform the same. Even if on average they went faster, it's useless information unless we know which ones and by how much they will improve. You seem to be able to predict that AFTER the race and explain the improvement with blinkers because their addition is correlated to the improved performance. There's so many things wrong with that it's ridiculous.

I think you've well proven to everyone that it's exactly like tipping everything beginning with 'L'. You and ATA may be the only ones that can't see that.

It's definitely a world record for you to tip out even a hot fave BEFORE the race. Well done. Try putting up some of your blinkers on ones before the race so we can work out which ones to back. Don't think there was much wrong with the SRs. TAS never looked like winning despite the perfect trip although in hindsight probably should have been 100/1, not 33s.

I think you forgot to add the 20% for BO and 30% for course stats?

I see since your last fail at posting them before the race you've reverted to posting your successful value bets after the race.

Are you ok Thommo? You are offering selections BEFORE the race?

This of course is completely useless information and the writer obviously failed research methods 101 and more probably like you is still tring to get through primary school maths. It's laughable that some people believe this garbage.

I think you'll have to ask Hesi.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good quiz ATA.