mardigras

I think my facts are fine. Maybe you should look up Gift Of Power. Are you sure you are not Thomass's brother? The good news is that you said 99.9% of people would have worked that out - which is what I work to. I'm betting that most people I bet against are doing what every one else does. The race website has a number of times that are simply out of date. At least 3 and possibly more are incorrect.

I don't want to sound dismissive. But I think you may have some facts wrong. Free To Shine was 1.01 seconds outside the record for 1300m. Nothing else was even within 0.3 seconds of that variance. Maybe you should just tell us your answer, and then I can tell you why 'not'. The reason I mention that horse is that it was on the basis of what I posted earlier in this thread as to how I do analysis re times (which you said you only partially consider) and how an example like this can help someone for the future. And a horse that before Saturday was a maiden.

Just did another check and yep, it certainly looks to me like Free To Shine was the closest to the fastest time at Awapuni for distance of race yesterday. Maybe you can help me understand how you decided this horse was unlucky last start or down in grade? Good bet though, but I didn't need to see any video to find it.

Oh ok. My bad. I had been thinking you must have been referring to Free To Shine. Though up in grade, up in distance, had had some wide runs previously (so must have been further enhanced from those according to some), and great value at SP 50s on betfair. I priced it at 6.80. It didn't seem to fit your comments about down in grade or unlucky particularly etc. But does fit in with being about the closest to the track record. Maybe you can correct me. But that was a beauty I agree. I hope you chose betfair rather than the TABs/corporates.

I might have watched the videos and found 30 horses just as unlucky. I don't even know which horse you are referring to since I don't know what 'just outside the track record' means.

Ignoramis is what they are. And they were questioned, can't they read the posts about it? And you defended them. Because you are ignorami also. You couldn't even work out that when they do that, the true percentage of the market is the full %. How stupid are you? No need to answer, we already know.

Gee thanks for the heads up. Can I still back it now?

I didn't ask for a stupid response. I got one though. I'll know better from now on.

He was so excited to put that up after 9 months of trying at $200 a go, he put it up and then the site didn't see him for three weeks after he went on a bender and got a sore head. Poor thing. That was only 5 or 6 years ago. Hasn't managed anything since, so that's why he is always here, no chance to celebrate.

Good luck to you ATA. Sounds like a lot of work to me and I'm not convinced it would make any difference to my end result. I certainly couldn't look at strike rates of jockeys/trainers. 30+ years ago I used to do many of the things you describe. Back then I was a losing punter. How long does it take you to analyse the 100 odd horses for a meeting for all their starts to see what you need to do about any element of wide or unlucky? Do you record the alterations you make for every race a horse has? And if a horse was 3 wide for a race, what do you actually do with that knowledge. If you hadn't known it was 3 wide for a race, and you thought it had a 20% chance based on that, what chance do you give it after you've watched the video? And then what do you do with the chances of the other horses? Or do you not work out what you think the chances of winning each horse has in a race?

I only bet place if the place odds are significantly above the odds I think the horse should be paying to win. So if I have a horse at 10% win chance, then place odds of $12+ are appealing to me. That doesn't happen often which is why I don't bet place often. The chances of winning versus the chances of placing are generally not reflected in the prices available in my view.

Nearly always just win. Very occasionally place. Can be on more than one runner, but I prefer to settle on one if I can. If I lay runners, that can be multiple, and place as well.

Case closed. Don't bother responding Mr Fraud.

Thanks for your concern over my use of times. Interesting that in your example, you've pretty much used times as the basis for determining the horse you wanted to back. As I say, I don't look at race or trial videos (except from wanting to watch a race replay), I ignore track and distance stats, ignore what grade the horse ran in, ignore barrier draw. I do consider whether the race is in line with where the specific horse has shown it's best performances from a fitness assessment. I also ignore what weights it has run with (or won with). I think it is a fair point that a horse may have a maximum weight carrying ability, but I'm happy to err if that arises. I ignore where the rail is. I don't support the view that the rail position favours forward or back. A wide rail position will only disadvantage back if the track is so narrow, the horses are having to corner outside the crown of the track or if the track is so narrow, there is an issue around having sufficiently clear pathways - in my opinion. I'd consider doing speed maps, purely from the point of view to assist in knowing the conditions of speed where the horse I am assessing has performed best to increase or decrease confidence that the horse will run to its best. I ignore stipe reports and I absolutely ignore any gear changes. I largely ignore the rider - except there is the odd rider I simply will not back. I don't adjust the horse's chance, I just don't bet. (I also ignore who the trainer is). If I am at the track, I will look at the horses and form an opinion. I'm not skilled enough to alter my assessment from that. But when I am at the track, I will bet for entertainment purposes. So could back anything based on what I see or the colours as the horse does its prelim past me. I also like those that start with the letter M, has a nice ring to it. Like Mardi Gras - a reasonable performer in Queensland in the past. Doing that is not something I would suggest to be the secret to profiting from punting. Each to their own. But that is a far different scenario to when we are discussing the blue print. Since the blueprint is a set of population based rules. Which are flawed. I wish they weren't for then this discussion wouldn't have taken place. But I don't make the rules. My points for when I am at the track is a bit like the blue print. Flawed - but OK just for entertainment purposes.

Still waiting. Must be one hell of a story, we're gonna get - Mr Fraud.

I've described the process I use previously. A pretty simple process. I use the actual times a horse has taken to run a race to decide what time I think the horse will run in the event I'm analysing. I compare all those times of the horses in the race I'm analysing to decide what chance each horse has. Once I have my assessment of chance, I use the odds to determine what to back that gives me an advantage. Perhaps you can help those inexperienced or lacking knowledge, by describing the method you use to incorporate wide or unlucky into an evaluation of a horse. Not for me of course. I don't have time to evaluate so many prior runs for 100 odd horses a meeting by watching and assessing every run for every horse for wide or unlucky. Your explanation might help resolve some of those time issues.

Just give us the blueprint theory that you said formed the basis for your Cox Plate selections. C'mon now, what's taking so long.

Wrong again. I just use facts. Times run on tracks. Don't need to use any stats about that. If you think those other things are vital, feel free to use them. However, all of the blueprint is stats. And what the issue is, none of the stats incorporate the chance of the individual in the stat, or the chance of the individual in the future (from using those stats). Because you're thick, you thought they could serve a purpose. I've given massive anecdotal evidence they serve absolutely not 1 purpose. And factually cannot. That's how stats work and that's why I don't use them. I write on here about how stupid and worthless stats are. And then you are stupid enough to think I would use them. Now that shows you have a serious mental issue. Seek help. And seek an eye test. Veladero and Te Akau Shark are proof your eyes aren't working.

And if you'd bothered to understand the thread, you would have known that I've never suggested others should ignore those things. In saying that, I've also not seen anyone evaluate them with long term success. Perhaps you could use all this experience and given us a single example of a wide or unlucky run and how you've incorporated that into your evaluation. Preferably before the horse's next run. Look forward to it. You're right. It only comes down to experience and knowledge if the assessment results in success overall. As per my response to Murray, I've seen that first hand. I think that is a real skill (Murray can confirm but I've believe I've spoken with him about such things, and anyone that can assess horses in that fashion deserves all they get). As I've stated many times, there are many ways to profit. Some can do it in the fashion you describe. Some can maybe do it by using assessments that include analysing the video and incorporating things like wide or unlucky into their evaluation. Good luck to them. You seem to be missing the point of this entire discussion. You seem to want to point out where my methods aren't as good as they could or should be. Not sure why you feel the need to do that, but I'm certainly happy for you to suggest that. But what you can't do is factually state my methods to be flawed, since none of my methods incorporate population based stats/theories. That's your opinion. And your eyes might be vital to you, but your opinion isn't something that affects me. Since I don't use my eyes to assess horses. I don't try to. I don't use stats either to assess horses. And make no mistake, I have been successful for decades. So therefore, I think when you say 'make no mistake', you've got it wrong in the case of others, as others don't need to use their eyes at all to be successful. I'm the very example that goes against your opinion. Can you help me understand what your post has to do with things like blinkers on, 3yo after Christmas, quick backup, 3kg claimer in the wet or down in grade. Or were just wanting to share your ideas as to why you think my methods shouldn't be considered? If that was your point, I agree wholeheartedly. The more not doing what I do, the higher the chance that I will be at odds with those people. I prefer that.

All this time and all these posts. And you haven't worked out that I don't use ANY stats. My god, it's pointless discussing a topic with someone that doesn't read or understand what has been written.

I have no idea what you're on about. I've never said you can't use wide or unlucky. I've said I don't because I don't believe they can be used in any useful way. Of course I'd also agree with doing the opposite to what the majority of punters do on a H11 at any track. Same for every event I bet on. That's where I will likely find the greatest edge. Works well. My eyes are open. You haven't demonstrated how anyone can use wide or unlucky in any useful way. And you can't demonstrate how the blue print can be used in any useful way since it's flawed. It is you that isn't copping on, after so many years, you're still clueless on why.

Yep, the jock would be at fault. Blame would be spot on.

Do they? I thought you listed Te Akau Shark. No blinkers on him in Oz. Those eyes of yours still having trouble. Geez you're comically stupid. If Loire didn't wear blinkers, she'd have won by lengths. She would have run straight in my view and probably faster. And still, none of the blueprint was evident in the Cox Plate selections - even though you tried to claim they were all based on it. Fraud.

We are, but the industry leaders and many involved in the industry don't want to accept that. So they try to maintain the facade that we are beyond what we now are.

They should have reduced the number of races run each year. The current model and stake levels are unsustainable. Leave low grade races the same, remove tiered racing and heavily reduce black type stake. Become a nursery for Australian/HK racing.