mardigras

Well none of the 3 had blinkers on first time. (Only one had blinkers on and had them on for every career raceday start). None were down in grade. None were ridden by a claimer. None were on the quick backup. None of them were 3yos after Christmas. Other than that, they fit the blue print perfectly.

I think it's possible to use unlucky, but the others are flawed. And because he uses the others, I'd be100% confident, he can't use unlucky in a way that is useful. As I said, there is no chance he can contribute to a rational discussion on the topic.

I don't do sook. And I certainly have no issue with his Cox plate selections. What's your point? I haven't disputed any fact there. The rest of his post is crap and lies. It's what he does very well.

And you're not capable of contributing to a rational discussion on the topic. You're not even prepared to try and understand why you blueprint elements are flawed. You just dismiss everything from curious, barry and myself and retaliate with your usual bullshit. And instead of trying to help others understand how you would go about adjusting for wide or unlucky, you just persevere with your usual rants.

You're a train wreck. Going off the rails continually as you fight to survive for air. You're drowning. And you are totally missing the point in these discussions. On one hand, you keep going on about things like wide and unlucky. I haven't seen anyone say that you trying to adjust for those things is flawed. I think the general consensus is that you simply cannot do it. And to date, you have shown nothing that would give anyone any confidence you can do it. But feel free to continue doing it. Good luck with it. On the other hand, the real issue is your blue print. These are the things like Down in grade, Blinkers on 3yo after Christmas 3kg claimers in the wet quick backup These ideas that comprise your blueprint (and no doubt there are others), are all 100% flawed. There is nothing that you can do that makes them not flawed. Anyone using them, would be more likely to make more money by simply doing their analysis and ignoring them, or if they lose anyway, would simply be far more likely to lose less by ignoring them. So you crap on all you like about things like how others ignore aspects of analysis that you don't ignore. Such as wide or unlucky. Pat yourself on the back. Good on you. Just because you use some method to assess these things, doesn't mean that your assessments are of any use. I don't know what you do, but I can't say that factually, what you do in that regard is flawed. The blueprint however is flawed. That is not my opinion. That is simply a fact. If you had even the barest understanding of statistics, you would know why. You don't, so you carry on believing the crap you write. With a bunch of post race examples to support it. You seem to grasp that putting 20% extra on a horse because it's name starts with the letter 'M' is flawed. Yet you can't grasp the same for the other things. They are the same, your brain just doesn't understand it. And then the discussion goes around and around in circles (with varying changes in radius), a; because you're too thick to see simple things, and feel the need to try and poke holes in what others do as if that makes a difference. The others aren't starting off from a position where they are using flawed methods. You are.

If you're referring to when you put up some Woodville selections and your multis lost money as prescribed, then good on you for doing that. That's the only time I've seen you put up and multis before the races. You did better than expected, though only about as good as a dart thrown at the form guide. I don't do multis so I'm not likely to put any up pre race. I have though, put up massively more selections than you have. And massively more winners as well. But not when I've put up the horses that match your blue print. That's when the winners dry up with no value to be had. The reason for that (which is not subjective at all, just fact), is because your blue print is flawed and you're a fraud.

Why do you keep giving us the winning numbers after the race then? Certainly they are just drawn from a very large set of numbers and you just pick out the winning ones. After they've been 'drawn'.

Maybe the combination of heart issues and stupidity is at work here. That would certainly be my view.

Funny because that is exactly what you've been doing. Saying what the lotto numbers are after the lotto result. And you expect people to believe your crap. I've put up pre race, hundreds of horses to have raced well in a higher grade/black type, back to low grade/mid week. The results were horrific. But they do look good when you just pick the winners out of them all and state you have the answers. We all have the answers after the race has been run Mr Fraud.

Just more crap and lies.

That's a tiny piece of the discussion. Good on you if you can quantify it. Haven't see a single time when you have done so pre race. Given you are a fraud, I don't believe you can. Whatever you come up with is likely just more of your usual dribble.

Certainly has post race. Not sure I've seen any winners pre race. Clearly that isn't important to a fraud like you.

Happy to be blind. Better than being a fraud, Mr Fraud.

Talk about a long winded way of saying - I don't listen to hearsay, I don't consider guesses. And I don't use stats. Simple.

Yes both cups slowly run. Which means times of the race can't be used to assess quality of competitors. Jockeys dictate pace. Many seem happy to allow these things to happen. NZ racing is moving more like Australian racing. An influence of speed and few wanting to be patient for a staying horse. You only need to look at the ratios of sprinting to staying races here and in Oz compared to say the UK/France. I agree with Freda, The Auckland/Wellington cups will be similar and have been similar for years now.

You are probably right - but the problem for me is I don't do anything subjectively. So I haven't the skill to work out what impact to a horse's performance being wide or unlucky had on that performance. But I do expect that a horse is not going to always be wide or unlucky and therefore at some point I will be able to make an assessment of the horse overall. How do you decide what impact wide or unlucky has on a performance? Why do you think wide is worse than not wide? Covering more distance? Wind? What about those things versus free running and no impact to momentum? A wide horse coming around the turn level with an inside horse, is already running faster than the inside horse so has greater momentum and then at the point of wanting to accelerate, is already at a faster speed. So many variables and some on here go on about pi as if it is important. I can't work out if being wide is a disadvantage. When watching a race, I like it. Loire was wide before settling two wide, came wider well before the turn and then came around the turn nearly the widest. Had the best momentum and won the race. What do you add on for that performance for when she starts next? No, I don't consider horses for courses. In the case of Battle Time, I don't think he is a Tauranga course specialist. His wins there have been against lesser competition than some of his runs elsewhere where he hasn't won. I haven't seen his performances there being consistently superior to his performances elsewhere. I priced him at the top of my pricing yesterday at $3.20 and that had no extra consideration of his course specific results. If you think a horse is a course specialist, how do you adjust the other horses racing against that horse. They must all be less likely due to racing a course specialist?

My opinion is that it would be less than the often stated 5%. Obviously the punter is already working from a disadvantage as the bookies/odds setters have a built in margin - so the punter is already 10-15% behind when trying to profit. And that applies in tote betting also. Even in betfair, you are betting/laying into a market with a 6 - 10% disadvantage across the market. People have criticised me for suggesting it, but my opinion is that you have to be doing something or looking at something the majority of punters are not doing the same way. Such as looking at where punters views cause price changes due to situation x that over-state the importance of situation x. For me, those things tend to include things like weight and barrier. I have a mate that has an eye for identifying and comparing physical differences between runners. Has a very good record at the track, but rarely bets when not at the track - probably due to the issues you mention.

I don't comment on plenty of his posts. But his posts that are supposedly about punting - are all about the use of generic statistics to succeed at punting. It wouldn't matter who wrote it, if you put up a post stating you can use statistics in the manner defined to win, I will respond with why you can't. O'Sullivan is in the business of selling data and horse racing systems based on that data. He writes about ways to apply that data to win. Why wouldn't he, he wants to sell more services from the likes of TRB and GTX. I don't do speed maps, I ignore draws and weight. I agree. See, I don't always disagree. I also don't do wide or unlucky. I don't suggest others should ignore these things. At most, I'd suggest if they wanted to they could try and assess races ignoring weight for example. Track the results versus their analysis including weight and then draw their own conclusion. It doesn't take me time to look at a race and assess it. I use a computer to do that. But it certainly does not use any generic statistical data, only individual horse facts such as times run to compare the horses that are competing in a race. I got a few wrong yesterday. First three races at Riccarton I backed Lady Byron, Picture Me Rollin and Cinto Bay all only to win. You'd probably claim that was bullshit as well. I've put a heap of selections up on this and other sites that don't win, clearly more that lose than win. I have also managed to put plenty up that have won pre race. I've found you can't usually get a bet on after they've won. My methods aren't the only way. There are many many ways to win at punting. But generic stats such as the blue print, is not one of the ways since it is flawed. The writer of it doesn't understand statistics, so doesn't understand why it is flawed.

Do I really have to explain just how stupid your post is? You even stated it yourself. I was asked for my top 3. So since I didn't give a top 3, it should have been clear to a sane person, I didn't think the race was suited to such an approach. Couldn't you work that out? Clearly not. And you and your mate thought I was telling bullshit. But I wasn't (as proven). I don't do bullshit. Your mate does plenty for everyone. If I lose, I'm more than happy to state that. I do like the way you claimed that at least barry admitted he had no idea, as if you were suggesting I had no idea. Yet all 10 of those horses mentioned finished in the top 16 of the race. Maybe you should ask yourself if you could have picked 10 horses and had none of them in the last 8. I'm sure you would have. Post race. Because as you say, you don't tip or put anything out pre race but I'm sure you would have picked 10 out of the first 10. No doubt. I like those that front up with very little pre race happy to have a go at those that do front up pre race. Says a lot more about them. Keep up your support for Me Fraud. Just go and have a beer with him and discuss your next strategy. Your recent strategies haven't worked out well. He's stated what I wrote was bullshit. And you've pretty well stated I have no idea but unlike barry, I didn't admit it. Both shite. I hope you made some. But being so close to Mr Fraud, I doubt it.

You know what will arrive later. So not for you barry, just for him, pretty easy guineas - and obviously I backed the winner - is that how it goes? I guess I'm allowed to claim the first 4 now.

No, scum is a little light. Fraudulent scum is more appropriate. Your English is still wrong. Nothing new there. No money for me in arbitrage I'm afraid. I back horses and I lay horses. And it would be extremely rare for me to ever lay and back the same horse in a race. By rare that would be, close to never. Just take for example those horses I put up recently on the other site you read. From around my last 15 or 16 NZ runners on that site. Walkin' By, Iskander and Gus Maverick. Pretty easy to back and lay those on betfair I guess given the massive liquidity there. But why, when I select horses to win - before the race. As opposed to Mr Fraud's selections post race. My system is certainly automatic. It means I don't have to sit watching each race and identifying when odds are in my favour. Only problem is, can't do that on NZ racing as there isn't any money there. So sometimes I have to sit in front of a computer and put bets on the old fashioned way. Even with places like NZ TAB.

Oh diddums. It's must be so annoying being such a loser and shown to be a fraud. Never mind. And now, you're having to claim I somehow can get access to someone else's account on the web for a race. Hilarious. What a total low life piece of scum you are. Actually, I did mention Vow and Declare. As per my post. It's written pretty clearly, no abbreviations or anything. Before I mentioned him, I hadn't mentioned him. That's usually the way it is when you write something. But then, English is just another of your weaknesses. Crawl back into a hole somewhere. We don't need frauds and liars on here.

Exactly, and now you've proven you write lies and a load of bullshit. And it seems I didn't say what you claimed I did. And you also stated that what I claimed was bullshit. Which you've repeated again. You write this crap because you are a low life scum pretending to be something you are not. A site wrecker. As per my post quoted, I claimed I made ample from it. And looking at below, it looks like ample to me. I certainly wouldn't call it shit loads though. For me to have made shitloads, I would have needed something like Mirage Dancer, the horse that ran the fastest last 200m to have won. He didn't. These posts are certainly helping to clarify the difference between you and me. You're a fraud, I'm not. You lie, I don't. Very clear and important differences. You're a site wrecker. A person who just writes on sites like this looking for an argument. Nothing useful, just repetitive crap.

Interesting. My daughter went to school with his daughter and he never once suggested that to me. Also interesting is that you've never mentioned such a thing to your mate, Mr Fraud. I wonder why. Most have recognised him as a teller of tales. But you've remained true all the way through. Good on you.

Your mate Mr Fraud done a runner? He seemed to suggest he was quoting me here. And then he stated what I wrote was bullshit. Maybe he's backtracking faster than usual - he should. No one does fraud and lies like him.