curious

I assume that's because it's down in class from being beaten only 3.5 lengths in a Class1 Listed race 2 starts back, to a Class 2 race? Veered out and covered extra ground last time but Pi wouldn't have helped you allow for that. Might benefit from blinkers?

Yeahhh will still be value on Monday.

Oh and I forgot to mention the 3kg claim ... gold!

I think once we get the Pi factor worked into it, we should be right. By Monday, at least one of those winners, I'm picking Amun Ra, a blind man would have seen. I mean down from finishing less than 4l from the winner in a Group 2 less than 4 years ago, to an R72, plus racing with blinkers on, you could hardly go wrong. I probably should have quit after that one but I was getting excited.

Not a disaster. $1310 back from my $1720 investment. An ROI of -23.8%. Might have just been a bad week.

Delmar R4 #11 Rockantharos Delmar R5 #2 Noble Contessa

I'm thinking if we can get this system a bit more fine tuned we should be able to sell it. Your post gave me an idea barryb. We could call it the TBG system (Thommo's Bloody Guess). He obviously works on weekends to fund his betting account, so he won't know we've stolen it. Of course, we'll need to establish some track record data for marketing purposes but if we place all bets the day after the races, then I think we can come up with something quite impressive for that.

OK. I'll just added 20% to the ones with blinkers on then.

That's not a bad idea barryb. I could get a better estimate of value then too.

Still trying to work this out FTF. Are we supposed to measure the distance travelled by the inside of the horse, the centre or the outside? Because by my calculations the outside will have travelled several meters further than the inside in most cases unless it's a figure 8 course and they do one complete circuit.

OK. The only real way to test this is with real money so I might have a lazy $50 to win on them all and see how we go. I assume I just ignore price?

Did you do all those selections without using Pi?

Don't know what the n is here but looks like my bank would at least last considerably longer if I backed all Hayes runners EXCEPT those with blinkers on first time?

Crap, this is getting complicated. We should have a serious advantage if we can work it out though. I guess you'd have to add in whether or not the jockeys were wearing speed silks or not as well in calculating the wind resistance factor. Is that reported anywhere?

I'd just go with C = 2 x π x √((a2 + b2) ÷ 2) + (1 x barrier draw) for now.

I suppose that would depend on whether the start is on a bend or in a straight and if the latter, how close to the first turn and if the former, how close to the next straight? I think you'll need quite a few more variables in there to get a good approximation. Thommo will probably be able to help though.

Great news that someone in the family passed primary school maths. Why don't you ask her to explain the ecological fallacy to you. I've given up.

And also preferably one that raced 3 wide without cover in its last start, so we can apply the PI formula.

FTF, I'm wondering if we could get him to divide 22 by 7 and keep going till he reaches a rational number. The odds of success would be similar to the chance of him producing any rational ideas but it might keep him occupied for a few days.

No it's not. Pi is a constant.

How are you going with that remedial primary school maths Thommo?

Well done Weasel. Claim on heavy 11 obviously got it in the money.

I'm no lawyer Freda. While that would certainly qualify as misleading in my eyes, I don't think that is included in the application of this condition which seems to refer to the information in the "description" supplied. Elsewhere in the T&C doc, "description", while not specifically defined, refers to the description on the website and I think this condition applies to that only. E.g.: 5.8 You are personally responsible for a bid made by You. You may not retract a bid except for limited circumstances allowed under applicable law, for example, where the Lot does not materially comply with the description provided in relation to it on the Website. So, if that description describes the horse as a racehorse (when it couldn't be because of injury), or 'sound' (when it wasn't), this might apply. I think what was and wasn't said in the buyers due diligence process falls under the buyer's responsibility indicated in my earlier post relating to the Ts and Cs.

Maybe. Anyone else thinking this is already starting to go pear shaped?

Is that because the report will remain embargoed till after then and not much point him turning up if he can't talk about what's in it?