curious

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?

Thommo's BP?

You've lost me Freda. What roadshow? And what were tyrainers impressed with?

You better get that in the BP mardi. New to me .... 30% increase for good course record. Not quite clear how you quantify that.

Do you have any specific criteria (i.e. minimum length of straight) for backing horses with that racing style barryb? And do you have any hard data to suggest that those horses' chance increases on such tracks?

Variable staking to win a fixed amount (or percent of bank) per bet would also be a way to mitigate the risk. I personally don't like long losing streaks and mostly bet in short stints of 3-6 weeks (60-100 events), so generally set the minimum chance that I will bet on to between 6.7% and 10% and stay with set staking.

I see they finally finished massaging this. https://nzracingboard.co.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB1679_Annual_Report_2018_FINAL2.pdf Highlights are equity down 22.9% year on year net betting revenue +$10.1 million gaming revenue +$2.1m net profit +$1.9m and Winston's address to NZTR: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/way-ahead-1 FOB platform delayed till next year and cost overruns reported

Yep. Way too much in proportion to bank especially if betting down to 3.33% chances. You'll be joining Thommo at the poorfarm.

I also adjust for confidence but not the chance assessment. I adjust the minimum price to chance ratio that I will bet on. So for reasonable confidence I might bet at 120% value, at lower confidence I might require 130%.

I've tried to do this before, but even though I can adjust overall strike rate according to chance, say using starting price, I then find that trainer A has a higher strike rate say up to a mile and trainer B has a higher one at a mile and over and then how you apply that to an individual runner's chance in a specific event, I can't figure out.

Absolutely. As I said, I try to assess ability based on the conditions, primarily track condition and distance of today's event.

No. Because I think strike rate (raw) is useless information unless it is calculated adjusted for the ability and chance of the runners it is based on. Even then, I don't think you can apply a population statistic like that to an individual runner. That's what Thommo does.

I probably avoid that necessity (if it is one) by only betting on meetings where it is unlikely that any "useless" jockeys are not likely to get a ride, so I trust the connections' ability to ensure that. This means that I can start from the assumption that all jockeys are equal or at least that any variance has a very small impact on overall chance and I if I'm wrong, it's because I don't know how to reliably assess that variance. So, for example, I've been working on assessing Oz racing for a year or two now and expect to be betting there next year. To start with, I expect that will be limited to Sydney, Melbourne metro meetings where I can reasonably apply the above assumption, though the limitation is not solely for that reason.

My assessment of chance is primarily based on assessment of ability especially as that relates to the conditions of the current event. That assessment is mainly based on race times. I then convert that assessment to chance though in nowhere near as sophisticated a way as mardi does. What I don't do is give much or any weight to variables like trainer, jockey, barrier draw, carried weight, gear changes or class of race. I don't use sectionals or speed maps either though I do give some weight to what I call "racing style".