mardigras

Still confused I see. I wasn't arguing about whether they should have them. I was responding to your comment on whether 18 months versus 18 months and one day being different made sense. Which it does make reasonable sense. Can you share the actual wagering numbers on handicap, SW, SW&P and WFA racing with us please. I'd be interested in seeing them.

Not sure why you directed that at me Kopia. Whilst I agreed the method of 'weighting' the field is stupid, there seems to be a place for them since horses keep getting entered for them.

There's only a mere A$4m up for grabs at the Gold Coast today running under race conditions where supposedly there is no place for them. Seem to have pretty decent noms/acceptances as well.

I don't disagree but I'm also sure there are plenty of owners that like them. Don't enter a horse in them and don't bet on them is the easy answer, or lobby to have them removed.

I very much want him to keep punting. The industry needs him. My tolerance ends when he suggests what he does can help others, the industry doesn't need that sort of negative influence.

Definitely. And then you hear things like adjusting for wide or unlucky runs. Which you would have to review/adjust for every horse in the field, every race. And perhaps then you wouldn't hear that there are heaps of horses in the race with no chance. I wonder why the TAB prices them the way they do. They could get a lot more investment if they put up odds of 10,000-1 on those runners with no chance.

No one is asking much of you here. Apparently this information is of such value to punters. Why is it that no one seems to be able to even give a theoretical example of how this will benefit punters.

In this day and age, I'd say videos are used by the majority. I don't use them because I believe most do use them - so no advantage to be had there, imo. Your mate Thomass claims this track information is vital information to punters and that they are all buggering off elsewhere without it. Are you saying he is off the mark there? Are you suggesting the jockeys wouldn't use the information as well. Is that what you're saying? Would jockeys all just ride their mounts the same way if they had the information you had but very few others had? Are they all totally stupid? And are you going to be able to put up an example of where you've used this publicly available information in order to double your bet? Before the races would be nice, but given that is not the protocol on here, I suspect that would be asking to much.

People have asked for examples of how you would use that information (given every one else would have it as well), to your advantage. The silence has been deafening. Maybe you can demonstrate. A post race example won't really cut the mustard.

Rubbish. He makes decent points about integrity such as whip rules and starter issues. But his points on punting are worthless. As proven. If all the jockeys and punters had the information you had, would you have had the same confidence? Surely all the jockeys would have wanted to make use of the information you had, that others did not - and therefore change their own plans. And all the other punters would have altered the price accordingly. The information if available to all, is worthless. Your case pretty well endorses that. You had information the competing punters and the jockeys riding didn't have. Information that all punters have, will reflect in price. It's as simple as that.

Like the Melbourne Cup qualifying rules, do you mean? One day being the possible difference between having qualified for the race - or not. It's pretty simple, just like SW&P, it's called the conditions the race is run under. If you don't like the conditions, don't enter your horse.

Next we will be providing moisture/hardness maps like a heat map of the entire track. And jockeys will be weaving their mounts all over the place looking to snare the best ground.

That's the primary issue with the BP. It educates and explains everything very well. But only if you can back them after they've won. As to be expected, when you tried to do that, alas there were no offers. That's why an actual selection pre race that wins is gold, and a selection that you hear about afterwards, is worthless.

Things are looking up. More tax breaks for the industry. (Read: less money for the government). Where will they get extra money from once the betting levy rate reaches zero? Maybe it will come from an ability to offer new products. I suspect this could lead to RITA establishing a chain of bakeries. They'll be able to sell sausage rolls and pies to NZTR cheaper than others, and then whatever profit (without having to pay income tax), will go back to the likes of NZTR for distribution (or to buy more sausage rolls and pies). Win win.

Especially when it actually got to 32s!

Yep - just following site protocol.

Not to mention Benson curious. Got that at 30s. Some mucked around with NZ TAB at some ghastly odds. No great form on the track even though raced there 5 times previously. Never ever raced on a Dead 4 - which really gave me confidence. Lucky I didn't know blinkers were on - otherwise I wouldn't have backed it. Thought that given how bad it had run on the track before, that would put the punters off. Sure did. Drifted on betfair every minute. Too easy.

Set Weights & Penalties. Jackstar a G2 winner earns a penalty. Other horses get different penalties depending on black type since date X. One of Thomass' favourite subjects. Isn't based on rating, based on those performances.

Nothing wrong with getting exposed. Like 2 people putting out Moreira on that site - pre race - yesterday. Why share information with people like you? We've given you enough help as it is. As for calling you a low life scum, that isn't actually abuse. It's based on your posts and has a strong relationship with them. You are a fraud and a liar. I think it's fair to call someone a low life scum in such circumstances. As for ATA, the absence of some quotes of abuse towards him is telling.

Like the karaka million where you said only three horses had a chance. And none of the three made the top 5 home.

More rubbish. It's never ending.

Could be. Be strange though since I've written that possibly once or twice ever. And I didn't submit anything to NZTR. It's funny when someone like you has to present grammar as the only substance to their arguments. I wonder what will "the I' come up with next.

They aren't alone. Typical behaviour from groups that think they know best. Was involved with curious who presented some insights to NZTR into their handicapping approach - pretty much fell on deaf ears. I mean, how could anyone possibly think these people could get it wrong, or that no one else is worth listening to.

Why will a horse have trouble getting off inferior ground if the jockeys all know the outside is better? There won't be any horses in its way.

This is a crackup. I haven't hurled any abuse at you. Quote me so that I can see it.