mardigras

So what number is the maximum allowed. Is it 51, is it 50, 40 - what is it? And how do you come up with the answer to that? Too bad for the likes of Goldysox that had its first win at its 55th start. Or in Oz, Havazac that had its first win at its 56th start paying $6.50 to win - having already won $43k in stakes.

I didn't respond to that part of your statement. It was your heightened excitement in Alligator Blood's Guineas run being run slower than Catalyst's - that was comical. After your example in the earlier post, I can see why.

Lordy lordy is right. Since it appears to me you've just tried to do what I suspect Fred was saying was stupidity. It doesn't get better than this. Because you actually think that as an assessment of performance, that is worse than Catalyst's Guineas. You stick to watching videos. You are clueless on basic stuff like this.

I assess ability relative to the horse population. A bit like what NZ handicappers are supposed to do, but do poorly. I don't apply an adjustment relative to the participants in the field. I assess a horse's ability. I assess its suitability. At that point I don't even know who is in the field. I then assess the time I believe the horse will run in the race. I then determine a distribution model of the times the horse will run if it ran the race 20,000 times. And then I do that for all the competitors, modelling their performances in combination over 20,000 races - that gives me the percentage chance of each horse that I use every day. A horse I give a 50% chance will have won 10,000 races in my model. Many will state what I do could easily be improved on. Watching videos etc. They may well be right. But the time to do that will be a lot longer than the time it takes me to model races in this fashion.

Modest aren't we? No ducking and weaving at all. His run was definitely not that bad. It's my opinion. It hasn't changed, or altered yet your comprehension is so weak, you call it 'duck and weave'. You can't seem to grasp that I can have a different opinion to you. You get so excited about reading a different opinion elsewhere, you feel the need to write about it here. I'm generally pleased that you have a different opinion to me. As for my situation, if someone states comparing times is stupidity, then it lacks any credibility to respond that times are not stupidity, if I said I used them as a major part of my analysis and was also a punter that lost money overall. As for calling people Einstein. Don't be so hard on yourself. I expect most people come across a bit like Einstein to you.

No I ranked him 3rd. I don't assess form quite like that. I assess ability, and then I assess suitability. Catalyst is assessed at a little lower than Alligator Blood for me. I assessed his suitability as a fair margin below Alligator Blood's in that race.

I can't help it if you are still having problems with comprehension. Since my statement is unchanged. He didn't run that bad. Actually ran to what I expected. But what I expected, you thought was terrible. Probably why you do best with winners, after the event.

His 'best' was not his performance over 1600m imo. That was one of his worst in my assessment. I had little confidence that he could run to his best at 1600m, and little confidence that he would also do that on a hard track at Flemington.

Still trying to write about what you think other people know or don't know. And getting it all totally wrong. You need to try harder. I can sense how my punting ability infuriates you since you think I have so much to learn - and yet, you still struggle with punting even with all that knowledge you supposedly have. Diddums. But to put the record straight, I don't need to know whether the track states are different between NZ and Australia, NZ and HK, NZ and UK. Or even between Western Australia and Victoria. That isn't anything I even need to consider. I also don't need to know what timing methods they each use. I also wouldn't need to know that if every time they run a 1400m race at Ellerslie, the distance is actually 1420m (should that be the case). Because I don't do stupid things like what you suggested I do. You actually think I compare the time of a race at Riccarton with the time of a race at Flemington (outside of giving an illustration such as in the case of Catalyst). I have no need to do that. I don't even compare the time Catalyst ran at Riccarton with the time it ran at Hastings or Ellerslie. Doing that wouldn't tell me anything. You're so old school, people have moved on well beyond your level of comprehension. Based on your posts on this site, you couldn't even begin to understand what I do.

I'd at least agree that it was a fair bit below his best. Horses don't always run to their best and for that race, I certainly hadn't expected him to run to his - hence my assessment of his chance.

You are the one that is thinking Catalyst's run on Saturday was terrible. I don't think it was that bad. Below expectations by a little perhaps. I've stated why. And your only reasoning is that the horse didn't run like a robot and beat the same horses it beat last time. I hardly think your example is comparing apples with apples. Between the two runs, the condition of the track and the distance were both different.

Where am I a self proclaimed expert? I am a professional. By being a professional builder, does that make the builder a self proclaimed expert on building? Odd thinking. I am always happy to learn. But in this case, it is you, for all your years, have forgotten the most basic. Perhaps next time learn not to assume stuff. Try that in the future. See how you go. The things you've assumed I do, I don't do. I'll have a go at assuming something. I'm assuming you fit the category of your very last statement. Don't worry, you have a lot to learn and can always improve.

If you say so. I'm pretty confident however, that the horse that runs the fastest from the starting point to the finish line - is usually called the winner. And I must be stupid since I've been winning at punting for 20+ years - and comparing times has been the biggest factor in that for all those years. Must have been lucky I guess. And Catalyst had never run faster in a race over 1600m than he did last Saturday. Somehow, the first time he met Alligator Blood, I priced Catalyst at 2.66 and Alligator Blood at 2.58 - pretty close. How did the race pan out? The second time he met Alligator Blood, I priced Catalyst at 9.60 and Alligator Blood at 1.90 - quite a variance. How did the race pan out?

So now you are actually thinking horses are robots. Horse A beats Horse B - therefore that's what would be expected again, otherwise the run is terrible. I didn't say the run wasn't bad. I said the run wasn't that bad. If you could read, you would have noted it was a comparative statement to some earlier posts. Yep, a terrible run no doubt. From a horse that had had, one prior start over 1600m. In a Group 1. Won it on a Good 3. On a track that delivers similar times to Flemington for higher rated horses running on a Good 3. Then the horse comes out and runs faster at Flemington over 1600m than when he won, over 1600m, and his run is terrible. No wonder you have to tell us the winners after they've won.

Odd comment. Whoever the Einstein is, seems to be spot on. Hardly Einstein level though. The comment is obvious. Or would you like to say that he was up to it on the day? Go for it. Because the result wouldn't agree. And would you say his run was terrible on Saturday? Go for it. Beaten 4.3 lengths by a star in a G1 - if that's terrible, I'd like to have one like that. You should be more worried about the idiots views than the Einstein's views. So please expand, are you agreeing with the 'Einstein' or would you like to suggest you disagree? If you disagree, please tell us which part you disagree with? Not that I need a good laugh, but what the heck, go for it.

Yep, been to the picnics at Buchan. Absolutely brilliant. Sit under a tree right beside the basic parade ring. Walk up to the makeshift bar where they will sell you a beer straight out of a bathtub filled with ice. And cheap ($2 when I was there). And thousands on course having a blast. Buchan is probably one of the bigger ones - and it would get more people than practically every single gallops meeting in NZ.

My modelling does the entire field, but I supply my prices by way of a pricing sheet to a number of mates. They can do with it what they like - toilet paper, should they choose that option.

I've been doing this so long, I don't tend to think about it. I've taken the emotion out of it to the point where 95% of the betting I do is done via a program placing the bets - therefore I don't get to think about those that I expect to win that are at odds I wouldn't take.

My strategy is only to back a horse I price in the top 3 (for consistency of return). If the 14s were all outside the top 3, I wouldn't be backing anything. I don't bet like most around increasing price based on increased chance (and I don't do Kelly betting). I bet far closer to level stakes with only minor adjustments based on confidence since I'm betting on horses I have assessed as reasonably similar chance (always being in the top 3). I wouldn't bet on the 3.20 because I also assess the price relative to my chance of all runners and bet on the runner with the greatest price advantage. So the 28s are double and the 3.20 is less than double. if the 3.2 was 4.50, I'd back the 4.50. Which is essentially saying I'll back the runner where I get the best price advantage - but for consistency of winning, I only do that if I've priced that horse in the top 3 in the race. In the scenario above, If two of the 14s were rated 2nd and 3rd, I'd be likely to back both of those two and omit the other one. That is unlikely given those set of odds. And I only back a horse in a race with first starters if my price advantage is very high, (allowing for the remaining market share after considering the market share of the first starters). i.e. if the market share of the first starters is 60%, and the remaining is 40%, I'd require a base market advantage of 250% (100.0/40.0) plus my normal market advantage I require in order to bet.

I've never stated what you do has no merit. It was you who for some reason felt you were in a position to start grading other people's approach around things that you factor differently. You can do what you like. I'm confident I can price every runner in a race in a lot less time than you can watch one trial. I can price an entire meeting in that time. You must come up with a heck of a lot of horses that you consider will win and find there isn't a price available for what you will take. I do wonder how someone can come up with what price they will take on a runner without understanding the chances of the other runners. But as I say, each to their own. I was confident Exaltation was ready - hence my price. I don't have any issue with any punter doing what they do. I have an issue with anyone putting up on sites like this, what others can do to make money from punting - when the idea is flawed. I could decide I'm going to bet on all the number 5s that race. That's my choice. Telling people on this site that backing number 5 is the blue print to making money long term on punting, is where I would take issue, even though that blue print is as valuable as the 'other' one often talked about.

Thomass loves these. Here are my prices before the track condition changed and the last race scratching. How long did you spend watching videos and checking out their condition pre-race?

I don't have evidence either way. But your claim is a bit of an indictment on the intelligence of racing people - and you seem to be wanting to lump them together as being collectively gullible and stupid. Bloody decent of you.

ATA, that's all fine. But I note I priced Exaltation at 1.74 and I didn't see the condition of the horse in the parade ring, and didn't watch any trial. Each to their own, so long as you don't suggest you can apply some population based stat to form analysis to support your views.

You're dreaming, surely. The racing industry has little or no sway - yet you think they were the difference. I don't think the votes of racing people (of who would vote for him?) would have made that difference. Have you got evidence to back up this claim?

How privileged I am to receive a report card from you. We can't give you one since we have nothing to grade you on. I use hundreds of factors myself, none of them are population statistics based however. Since they are flawed. To respond to your other points. Blinkers. Mentioned them almost mockingly. And in somewhat of a conflicting statement. Since they talked about the issue of a horse massively drifting and if it ticks all the boxes, you'd be worried. Even though had talked about a horse that had drifted massively (and that had blinkers on first up) that you could get massive overs on your price. I guess he meant therefore that the 'old school' method of blinkers on wasn't something that ticked all the boxes. Certainly is 'old school', no doubt about that. I didn't hear much mentioned in relation to draws outside of if they perceived there to be track related fast lane(s). I did hear them say that unless the rail was absolutely the place to be, they'd rather be three wide with cover than on the fence. Haven't they heard of pi? And yep, I ignore those things. I've never stated what I do is perfect. But these guys have been doing this for 3 - 6 years. I've only been doing this professionally for 20 years. One can always improve. I've always said there are many ways to go about punting and many ways that can win. I've not said what are the ways that work, I've stated what are the ways that cannot work. Population based statistics applied to horse racing cannot work. If you understand statistics, you'll be able to grasp why. The blue print is all 100% population statistics based. I don't have the ability to assess fitness by looking at a horse. Quite correct. However, I still do an assessment of the horse's fitness using other information I do have. If I had to look at every horse before it raced to assess fitness, I'd be betting on very few races (and probably none overseas). Dan's video analysis. Yep, I've never stated video analysis has no place. It just has no place for me. For me to benefit, I'd expect that I would have to analyse (and record), what I discovered for every single horse, every single race. Quite time consuming I imagine. And what for? I don't really need to do it to improve things by some very small % costing me many hours. It's a cost/benefit thing to me. I don't know who Pittsburg Phil is so don't feel able to comment. But I am happy taking the limitation of not using video analysis and not knowing how a horse looks. Others should be happy since punting is about betting against your fellow punters and by me not doing that, that should give them an edge. Interesting to me that the likes of Mark, run a subscription service. You could of course buy his selections for a year for the small price of A$2699. Get on board. I don't want to put you off or anything, but maybe it'd be worth knowing that for the last year, his selections through the service have resulted in bets on 419 races, 91 winners for a loss of 58.74 units (based on his results spreadsheet). Plenty of winners, but not a lot of what I'd call success. At least he has his subscribers to assist him. Picking winners is easy, profiting not so easy. In the races I assessed price on last year, I rated over 6000 winners on top. If I'd backed all my top rated runners irrespective of price (at level stake), I'd have just fallen short of breaking even.