mardigras

I certainly back a lot more horses drawn wide on firmer track surfaces than I do drawn closer in. Very logical that would be the case to me. But I wouldn't want others doing that.

See, pretty easy to quote me rather than posting something as if it was an actual quote when it wasn't. Did I see the quinella in there. What did that pay?

Clearly you are unhappy with every one knowing you are a fraud. And you feel the need to try and deflect that elsewhere. Problem for you is that the other parties can prove what you can't.

Tips on any site are not proof of my claims. The lifetime record of my betting account is proof of what I claim. Not one day in 5 years like you. Give up Mr Fraud. you are the one and only here.

Where did I write that Mr Fraud or resorting to your usual ways and making crap up again.

I thought you didn't try and beat your own drum having selected 2 $2 winners and a couple of $6 saver winners (from 5 other runners). Wow, you're incredible. No wonder you're supposedly NZs most prolific tipper of thoroughbred winners - at value, Mr Fraud, even though on here you claim you don't do tips. Odd.

Proven - and can be proven again. That's the difference. I'm not beating my drum, I am adding credibility to what I write. You on the hand are a fraud and have zero credibility.

You didn't answer to the first of your questionable theories. Hardly likely you can answer to any of them. Since they are all flawed. You don't beat your own drum? Like your total wank about guiness records? You're a fraud. You've proven it. Now your 'blinkers use' is very limited. Yet you've claimed many times that blinkers on is the best legal go fast. That's a quick turnaround. You just make shit up day to day don't you Mr Fraud?

Certainly must be. I punt to profit and have done so for over 20 years and can't decipher the variables. Neither can the person who is apparently NZ's most prolific tipster of winning thoroughbreds - at value, decipher the variables. He has demonstrated that on here. And based on the above blog from Daniel O'Sullivan, he can't either. Can you?

It looks like we know the possible effects. What you and your mate can't do is tell which horses and which of those possible affects are going to apply before the races. Which is the very reason you have to wait until after the races are over to tell us. Instead, you keep ramming this idea on this site. With no supporting evidence. Post race winners are not evidence of anything.

What's that Mr Fraud. No one else has been insisting on how they have the answers to make money from punting except you. Which you repeat usually with your usual rants including post race winners.

You don't observe blinkers - you've stated you trust the trainer. And we've all seen the results of that trust from the selections I've put up pre race that match that. I don't use stats. I don't do arbitrage (very good reasons for that as well). I haven't the skill to determine the impact to chance such stats would make. So I ignore them. I've got enough information to know just how useless stats like that actually are. So I'm happy for you to keep on believing them. Just don't tell others they can win by doing so. You're the one using stats. For a start, all the posts about punting by O'Sullivan are statistical based - and you love em. It's no doubt why you lose. Stats like that are useless as you've proven since you are unable to define the "WHEN' the stat IS going come into effect before the race. And in that post from O'Sullivan, neither could he. Probably why he has to run a business selling racing information to others.

And if you have the methods of identifying the events that will then lead to you being able to identify the horses pre race that may be advantaged by X, then that could easily be built into how you adjust their chance etc - to then use that in punting. So all good there.

There is nothing wrong with the data as such Sandpiper. The straight stats are just that, stats. And as suggested near the top, somewhat logical. Horses closer to the lead are going to win more races. Here’s a stat. Horses that were in front at the line had a higher strike rate and ROI than those horses that were not in front at the line. The problem with both stats is how do you identify the horses that fit the noted ‘Event’. (And the other problem with the stats is that they are simply stats – and such stats on their own are at best likely to continue with strike rate, but not as likely to continue with ROI). Issue 1. So back to the identification part. In the first set of stats If we call identifying those horses that run 3L or more closer to the lead as EVENT A. And those horses that run 3L or more further back from the lead as EVENT B. We need a way of identifying EVENT A and EVENT B – before the race. Not after like Thomass. So he writes about possible ways to identify these events. No where in that report, does he correlate his suggested scenarios with the identification of the 4747 horses we know of as EVENT A or the 3732 horses known as EVENT B. For all I know, he could do what he suggests and end up with 2000 of those EVENT A horses pre race with a strike rate of 17% and a POT of -7.5%. And from the same set of historical races, identify a further 2000 horses he believes to be EVENT A horses with who knows what outcomes. The scenarios he has presented as being useful for identifying these things are just opinion. Using historical ‘generic’ data to support a series of hypothesis around how you identify with that data, if you can’t obtain the same EVENTS using the scenarios, then it's worthless info. If he said using these techniques, I was able to determine these EVENT A horses pre race no problem. Or in identifying horses that meet with EVENT A pre race, I obtained an equivalent set of results. There is nothing to support the theories correlate to the EVENTs. I suspect the biggest factor in the difference between EVENT A and EVENT B is field size. But I have no facts to even support that. Just that it is logical. Issue 2. Nothing is presented in the data that states what the expected number of wins was from EVENT A horses or EVENT B horses (even based on SP). In the data above, it is possible that 1/SP for all EVENT A horses added up to 1020 even though only 1011 horses won. So maybe more should have won based on price than actually did. And for EVENT B horses, the 1/SP total may have added up to only 500 even though 511 EVENT B horses won. So maybe more actually won based on price than expected from this group. The sample is so small, the ROI and strike rates could easily relate to field size. The ROI is very dependant on what wins in the sample and has no relationship with a future sample. What if the average field size of EVENT A horses was 7. And the average field size of EVENT B horses was 11. Summary Useless from a punting perspective apart from the notion that being closer to the leader likely means you have a better chance of winning. I think most would know that anyway. Stats on small samples are meaningless with respect to strike rate and especially to ROI. Correlating the method of how you define an EVENT occurring must be done in order to validate that you can identify the EVENT occurring. This type of thing is the exact type of thing Thomas is so known for. Such as in his case. An EVENT of a horse winning. The scenario. Put blinkers on first time. Correlation between scenario and event occurring. Only known after the race has run. Not before. And Thomas shows us that by putting up the winners with Blinkers On – after they’ve won.

You just have to read his twitter crap to fully understand how delusional he is and how much of a fraud he is. @downestips what a crackup.

He must be good given he is part of The Racing Bureau. Making money from others is certainly professional. Odd. Why don't you sign up to one of their services. He'll appreciate that

I'm pretty confident that if she had drawn further in, she would have been in the same position as she was. Maybe one horse further forward, maybe further back/last. We'll never know since they aren't able to rerun the race under such changes. Just my opinion of course.

It is totally pointless. Your last posts have totally confirmed you are a fraud. You aren't what you claim. You're a sad loser that makes a lot of crap up. A simple screenshot. But you couldn't. There is no point responding to someone that is a fake. Mr fraud. I'm loving putting up all your blue print horses elsewhere. Sharing the facts, not post race mumbo jumbo bullshit.

It's not difficult. Go to the results pane on the right for your account. Search. Find the bet. Copy and paste. 1 minute tops. Not 2 hours since you saw the request.

I'm sure if he backed it, it would happen. Because he didn't back it, he's no doubt trying to work out how he can get hold of a screenshot that makes him look like he did.

Simple then. Put a screen shot up of your bet.

I don't do a lot of patting myself on the back. My selections speak for themselves - pre race. As to the HOW, every selection has the same HOW. It is inherent in the selection. The HOW being that the time I expect the horse to run based on its past performances, is going to result in it having a higher chance than the dividend available suggests it should have. Pretty simple. What the HOW won't have is Blinkers on makes them run faster. Or the horse is down in grade. Things that have no relationship with chance. Something your little brain can't understand. There is no relationship between the grade of race a horse ran in and its chance in a future event. It's not my fault that you can't grasp that. As to the last part about seeking VALUE. The value becomes evident because punters like you assess the impact to chance of such things far greater than they are. Thereby opening the door to a horse becoming VALUE when it otherwise wouldn't have, purely due to punters beliefs like yours. So thanks again for that. You make a horse that might have had a 10% chance at odds of $10 change to a horse paying $20 even though it's chance (if actually affected anyway) might now be 8%. Pretty simple stuff. But beyond sheep like you.

It's not a 'thang' to me. I prefer my horses in running to be wide without cover. Means there is zero to little chance of not getting a clear run and no energy wasted by being in a constricted space.

It's called sharing opinion. I've shared mine, you've shared yours. I don't agree with your opinion. You don't have to agree with mine. I'd rather you don't. So thanks.

My view is that the barrier was perfect for Melody Belle. If anything the ride was poor and I think putting her on the fence instead of staying one off probably cost her the race. And the blinkers as well. beaten by a better horse on the day.