curious

It's totally nuts.

"A reply"? Is that a euphemism for more spin? C'mon, it's now evidently an $80 million dollar disaster, pretty much in line with every other NZRB strategy in recent years though, so probably should not be unexpected.

They may be right but are NZTR now the experts on claiming races? Where do they say that?

There are variations such as optional claimers where there are weight penalties based on whether you opt out of allowing the horse to be claimed or not, but I'm not aware of regular claimers where horses carry different weights and run for different claiming prices in the same race. Do you have an example? Usually if you enter for a 10k claiming race, any licensed owner can place a claim for the horse pre-race depositing the funds. The current owner gets any stakes earned. All horses carry the same weight. The claiming owner owns the horse after the race. If you have a horse not quite able to win in 10k company you would drop it down to 7.5k company where it may be able to win.

Certainly are 100k claimers. Don't know about 500k ones.

No handicapping required. They run at set weights for the claiming price of the race.

I'd prefer to have claimed John Henry for 25k, or maybe Seabiscuit for 2.5k. Obviously just wasn't on the ball at the time!

Don't remember them being tried in TR either. Sounds like a vote of no confidence in the existing handicapping system?

Unfortunately, the combined intellectual capacity of the three of them is insufficient to grasp it.

Like you do in your punting theories, you apply an ideology or theory to a population instead of individuals. Certainly some individual females are equally or more competent than individual males. Many are not, but you want to penalise one population against the other to create equity of outcome as measured by the population average instead of working to create equity of opportunity? That's what the stupid female handicapping allowance tries to do here when it has completely stuffed up the whole handicapping system costing the industry megabucks in punter interest.

Obviously something you never had or you wouldn't post this kind of patronising, extremist, feminist crap as though it were a great idea. Take Dark Beau's advice and go watch a few Jordan Petersen talks or interviews on the topic.

Probably both. I'm thick and I come to the same conclusion. But I wouldn't go into business with them and I'm not even an accountant.

And against the same horses with the same handicapping conditions. Brainless but they do that well.

And I might add, get off your butts and do the necessary homework. You've been piloting one race per meeting programmed on this basis for years.

Maybe consider programming 2-6 weeks in advance like they do in the US when likely horse availability could be better assessed?

It's like your insane comment about a $50 all up. If it loses, the TAB and other punters earn $50. If it wins, neither get zippo.

I'm not sure what you are not understanding here. If I lose the 10k, the TAB and other punters get that. Neither get any of it if I win. This does not seem like rocket science to me. What are you missing?

And just fyi Newmarket, I know little about betfair and don't bet with them, nor do I bet with the NZTAB more than a handful of times a year, though I may do shortly but it won't be on racing.

Newmarket, if I bet $10k and collect 12k, that means that some other punter/s bet 10k and collect $6k. That punter/s losses of 4k are then roughly split between my profit and the TAB's gross revenue. Not a red cent of my turnover has gone to the TAB or NZ Racing. I'm not sure that I can make that any clearer. Did you and John Allen have the same math's teacher. He also thinks that punters will suddenly be willing to lose more if they have more betting options. How stupid is that? And how is it going?

That looks like an "if" to me "but" you haven't answered the question.

You can't be serious Newmarket. If I receive (on average) $12,000 for every $10,000 of turnover I do. What slice do the TAB get from that?

Exactly. Explain that to John Allen and co in some way they can understand. Does it really matter if they lose that budget with 100 winners or 500? I suspect the result will be the same and it won't affect what they choose to lose.

I'd love to know DB. I'd like to watch it. Couldn't agree more. The whole world of high performance is based on these principles, especially measurement, being error-centric and deliberate practice to remedy the errors.

The first race meeting I went to was an Amberley RC equalisator meeting. I went home (we lived next door) with half a crown, was hooked, and gave a lot of my life to the TR breeding and racing game. Learned a lot of skills from builder volunteers there building stands etc. I no longer have that interest thanks to the powers that be. That said, I'd quite likely still rock up at Reefton or Wairoa the night before the races for a beer and some whitebait or crays. Probably with a horse going round the next day for a 1k sweep. Time to leave the 10 or 12 favoured clubs and tracks to stand on their own 4 legs and put some heart back in the game. I doubt I'll ever race even a share of one at those places. Just re-read a personal hand written letter received from the president of the Wairoa club following the last time I raced one there. Different world.

Both words are accurate descriptors but need an adjective probably starting with "F" and ending with "G" in front of them. We have seen the beginning of the end and now are about to witness the ending of it. For me, I think that if dates are taken from clubs like Reefton and Wairoa to race on their own courses, they should refuse to race elsewhere, sit tight and deploy their community resources in their communities in the mean time, perhaps consider running a picnic non-TAB meeting (since they don't get any of the TAB funds they generate anyway), and watch the above mentioned end.