mardigras

Give up. Not all 3yos 'get stronger and more competitive agin older horses'. And those that do, you don't know at which point any change has happened. You just apply a generic rule that says, they will be doing so after Christmas and beyond. And you still can't work out that 'generic' rules are flawed. Run off with your tail between your legs. You don't bring anything to the discussion except the same crap.

You're a fraud and it makes no difference what you claim.

If they changed to use allowances, then yep, they are clueless on that. Allowances are unnecessary in any jurisdiction when used for handicap racing. Pretty easy to understand why they are unnecessary - but you can't. For nearly all maiden winners in NZ, they move the horse to nearly identical points as all the other maiden winners. Awesome. Most handicapping here is done by direct formula. NZ does nothing in relation to handicapping that UK does - except for supporting the use of allowances. To suggest they are even close, shows how out of touch you are. Perhaps you can give us an example of a horse winning a R65 and getting zero points? Many horses will win lower class races in the UK, and get no points. And just race off the same mark again. As for Odd, no, not in any way related to the date of birth. That animals do not mature at the same rate. Just like humans don't. You'd have to be pretty thick to think they do. But you apply '3yo after Christmas' because you think that.

I didn't call you a low life scum for suggesting blinkers worked. I called you a low life scum for being a fraud and pretending to be something you aren't. A pretty reasonable description of such a person as that. So very befitting as a description of you.

I think the Brit handicappers are pretty good. Don't think they're doing a lot wrong there except for allowances - which are not required. NZ and Australia could learn massively from them. Such as one win horses being rated very highly based on performance. Or the ability to re-rate a horse when it hasn't even started since the last time they rated it. As for generic weight scales - that is exactly what they are. And have zero relationship with an individual horse. Horses don't all mature at the same rate. But you think they do. Odd.

And in doing that, they would be analysing every single horse for every single run. And they'd be pricing the whole field - which some on here say is stupid since so many don't have any chance??? And hours and hours of effort. As I've stated, some aspects of horse performance is something I fully support could be of value, even though I don't do it, such as analysis via video. Anything that relates to a specific horse, and is considered in relation to the specific horse, that is certainly not going to get a negative response from me. And in jurisdictions like NZ, the approach is not scalable. You can't simply increase your analysis effort and have the rewards increase in a linear fashion. The markets don't support it.

And by that I mean, it can't be improved simply by understanding the trainer has changed gear or other generic things relating to gear changes. If I had a reason to support the idea the horse would actually perform better because of the gear, then who knows. I don't have the ability to decide that. That would have to be 100% horse dependant. Nothing to do with horse form, horse trainer, jockey opinion.

I don't know enough of how their analysis worked. But they were certainly trying to place bets where they perceived the return amount was greater than the chance level - even in exotics. My approach is a very simple one. I am only looking to assess ability between starters in a race (given the race conditions). It could probably be improved by spending time reviewing things daily. But I don't see the value in doing so. It can't be improved by considering things like down in grade or gear changes, and it can't be improved by 3yo after Christmas either. Who knows whether it could be improved by analysing unlucky runs or trials as well. In saying that, the majority of keener punter are probably doing those things and identifying those unlucky runs or quality trials. So the prices of those runners reflects those things. I don't expect a horse is unlucky every start (or if they were, maybe they will be likely to be again). And I don't expect that a particular unlucky run is necessarily the defining performance the horse has undertaken. If it is and it wins next time, I'll know of its ability then. And I'm happy to miss those. As for the 500 - that is across UK and Oz, no cherry picking. I don't do automatic betting on NZ racing since there is no liquidity there. I bet manually there separately. That 500 is from around 22,000 races I analyse per year.

Pretty clear these discussions have come to an end. I've achieved what I wanted to do - expose the fraud for what he is. Given the responses he gets on other threads, I think his place is well known. I'll let ATA and the fraud engage with each other.

I expect covering extra ground is an advantage. Like she did in the Guineas. Which makes her time on the Good 3 even worse. I have never said Redzel's trainer is wrong. He has an opinion. I have an opinion. They differ. It's one of those indeterminable things. No one can say who's opinion is right and who's opinion is wrong. They are just opinion. Which you seem to base your entire approach on - even though you once tried to claim that you NEVER listen to trainers. What's your next lie?

I am also probably the only form analyst you could name that actually profits from betting year in, year out (apart from some of the other credible people that have offered assistance on this and other sites). If you socialised with those that win at punting, I expect they would helped you understand some very simple things that you clearly don't. Such as the elusion of 'down in grade'. Please tell us just one person you socialise with, that actually wins long term. Your brother? You? Yeah, sure. We get it.

NZ Racing disagree. The rest of your mumbo jumbo is just the opinion of a loser. Faster track, and according to them, managed to run faster over the race distance by 0.01 of a second. Imagine if she had run on as slow a track. You're a delusional loser. Somebody best suited to continuing with your old profession of cleaning up shit for Messara. Eh Mr Fraud. What a joke you are. As usual, no evidence, just sfa. Just images running around in your head. I'd seek help for those 'ghosts' You're a fraud - you're not worth wasting time on. it's especially sad that you pretend to be something you aren't. That should be the signal for you to seek help. How very very sad. if I was you.

Sadly chief, this is what you will get when you allow a seriously deluded, mentally deficient individual relatively free reign on your site. What's done is done.

Anymore of your mental posts on blinkers, you'll be getting no response from me. You're an idiot. What ever you think is obvious, is highly unlikely. I certainly have zero evidence she runs any faster with blinkers than she did without. She didn't run any faster on a track rated a Good 3 at Hastings over 1200m her first start in blinkers than she did her previous start on a track rated a Dead 4 at Hastings also over 1200m. Your methods are simply to make crap up, and definitely kindergarten stuff. I agree. It's why you're a loser.

I don't. I've stated that many times previously.

I don't need to know or care about blinkers. Clearly - since I backed her. Stop being your usual fuckwit, and don't bother posting unless it isn't your usual tripe. You've gone on about the same thing for so long. But you have zero credibility on the topic, since you can't provide anything before the races happen. Why don't you and your brother just get a room together?

Claimed heaps, no. Claimed ample, yes. And proved it. Coming from you, this is the funniest post yet. Mr fraud who only has winners after the races. The difference is, I can prove it. I didn't think Loire was out of form. Although I had rated her on top in the Soliloquy, she was only rated 2nd in the Guineas. Same top 4 mind you. And look what the result was. The top 4. How did your blinkers on and down in grade go? Your brother wasted 4 hours watching videos for that race.

The video would have made zero difference to my assessment. So no, I wouldn't have backed it and happy to have not. I am certainly not doing what I do with the aim of simply backing winners. I rate thousands of horses a year as my top rated horse that I won't back, that wins. That is just another one of them. Somehow things must be working, since Betfair claim I'm one of their most successful customers. As for blinkers, I'll leave things like the flawed blue print to you and your brother. That topic has been done to death. Enjoy spending 4-5 hours watching videos for each meeting. I'd give up punting if I had to waste my time doing that each week. Hey, each to their own. You two make a great pair, that's for sure.

I can't speak for others, but when I see proof, I certainly believe it. Such as when we saw 100% proof that the fraud was a fraud. I certainly believed it. Why wouldn't I?

He might well have been a very good bet. My point was in regards the time spent analysing a video and how vital these things are. This example doesn't seem to highlight that to me. I don't assess a horse from race to race so I'm not particularly interested if a horse was unlucky and would have otherwise finished in a better position. As I say, I don't do subjective. Aside from that, no I didn't back it. I backed Piping Hot and would do so again in the same situation. I didn't back Aalaalune either even though it got to a price beyond my assessment. I rarely back horses that short unless there is nothing else at better relative value. From your posts, it's uncanny just how similar you and your brother do assessments. And write about them post race.

That's interesting. I certainly didn't need to know about any unlucky run at Ellerslie. Seemed to be assessed pretty strongly without that for me.

I've never said you can't or shouldn't do what you like. I haven't come on here suggesting what anyone should do and what any methods of analysis are the secret to punting success. So long as you don't come on here suggesting you have the secrets to punting success that others should follow - and then refer to things like down in grade being one of those things for others to follow, then it's all good. You are very much like your brother all the same.

I didn't say it was a waste of your time doing your video analysis. It would be a waste of my time, I don't need to understand wide or unlucky in order to assess a horse's ability. Which is what I bet based on. But, you'd be right. I wouldn't pick it up anyway. I don't have the ability to work out which ones the unlucky analysis applies to, pre race. I could certainly do it post race though. Which you and your brother both do very well.

It may not have been the point, but you used it to tell us about the horse you find via the video. Which I couldn't find. And if I looked for one like that, I'd be likely to find dozens every race day. Down in grade is verifiably flawed. Just like the blue print. So keep using it. And don't tell Thomass that you consider R72 down to R65 down in grade. When I did that, he went apeshit.

Did you not read when I said a number of those times are wrong. Gift Of Power 1200m 1.07.46 (2018) Maygrove 2100m 2.07.32 (2017) Yorkie 4150m 5:14.02 (2013)