curious

Good idea to move them closer to the contending horse population. Trying to think of a NI track suitable to host them. Castlepoint?

That's certainly a lot more sensible than anything Messara or NZTR have come up with barryb.

Saw that. Who would do it though?

They manage at trials 10-12 minutes apart and a lot more of them. Of course they have to weigh in and out that would take a bit more organisation but they'd have much shorter days for their efforts.

Think you'll find those are the same boring old 35/40 minutes apart. An hour for the million. Not what barryb is proposing at all.

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.