mardigras

Why would you listen to what a top trainer says. No wonder you lose. If I heard a top trainer say that, I'd be highly likely to lay the horse. The price will be massively affected and still no more likely to win that without the gear. I don't know of any course specialists. I wouldn't even have called Chief De Beers a course specialist.

All horses will be considered to be 'in form' to some punters. Therefore, trainers will be expecting the improvement across all horses with the gear change - every horse will fit your analysis for punters out in the real world. I even put up the stats for blinkers on for horses to have finished within 1 length of the winner last start. The stats were poor to which you said, that doesn't mean they are in form. Yet it does when you say they are. Hmmm - fraud.

I haven't seen horses demonstrate this improvement you're going on about. If it wins and is at value - I already have it. I don't know why you even persist with trying to pretend you are something you aren't. Crazy stuff.

It certainly doesn't work every time. It wouldn't work any more than doing the same for horses starting with the letter 'L'. the process is identical as you've been informed but can't grasp. It certainly is basic shit. Shit being the operative word.

Who says they're well over 80% sure it will work. Another guess you've pulled out of your arse. Like Gerald Ryan did with the near fav who reportedly hated the blinkers and ran tailed off in a million dollar race. After trialling the horse with them? As for trusting the trainer. I don't trust the trainer has improved the horse. If he has improved the horse, why didn't he do that last time. Was he stupid then - and smart now? Aside from all this, you still haven't been able to name a single horse that will be improved with blinkers on - before the race. yet you say it is so common and you've managed to put up all sorts of selections post race. The reality of all this is that the trainer does it because they are taking a guess and hoping for the best. Just like you do with the way you adjust for unlucky. All guess work, some of it may even be an educated guess - but a guess all the same. It's why you lose.

And I don't think anyone wants to read about your post race 'winners'. But they get to. Because you're a fraud. You have the intellect of a 5yo - you can't even understand that the two ideas presented are 100% the same in style. Go back to school. Quite happy to have different thoughts to you. You're a loser.

I think finishing third definitely meets the criteria of having two shows. So spot on theshu!

Just because your understanding is poor, don't blame me. The two scenarios are identical. Doing serious form analysis and finding a horse starting with the letter 'L' and adding 20% is identical to doing serious form analysis and adding 20% because the trainer has put blinkers on. And yesterday the form continued with 3 more winners across Benalla and Cessnock. Just too damn easy. 20% extra on all of them if you followed the blue print. Give it a try. You don't back them all. You back the ones that meet the form requirement and add 20% if they start with the letter 'L'. All three of those winners did that.

Pretty valid expectation. And pretty easy to do. Compare the performance relative to benchmarks for the blinkered performance versus the others. You assert they make the horses go faster, yet you are unable to provide any proof. No wonder no one believes you - let alone the need to know which ones are going to run faster before the event. Do you think Gerald Ryan thought Bottega would run faster in the million dollar race on Saturday. Didn't he know? When one wins, you go on about how the trainer knows. Get your mate Hayes to have a word with Gerald.

He sure has. They are identical scenarios. Because both scenarios produce some winners. But neither scenario tells you which ones will deliver before the races are run. That has been what the discussion is about. Show us mere mortals how to find the winner with blinkers on - before the races. Not after. Yet they can't seem to grasp something that has been the topic from day one.

some real notables the last few days... two of the biggest races over the last few days, the Manikato and the Cox Plate. Easy pickings for the 'L' with Loving Gaby and Lys Gracieux. Over in Ascot we had the obvious one in Lorentino - and at 15s if you don't mind. Closer to home, it was a field day at Ricaarton with Leaderboard rounding out the day after La Romanee had cleaned up paying 13s! Just so easy.

I guess you'll be throwing Gerald Ryan out as someone who didn't know. After Bottega ran in the Bondi Stakes yesterday. You lot are hilarious. Post race crap. Same crap, different day. Give it a rest, you've proven you know sfa on the topic.

Are you wanting the full ledger from me? I'm pretty sure I have provided 100% conclusive proof I win overall. Happy to prove that again. Of course then I'd get the usual abuse about supposedly being an arrogant wanker. I put this up because it is a classic example of the type of horse Thomass will claim after the races in his usual post race crap. Yet they aren't likely winning due to blinkers and more importantly, he can only find the ones that won with blinkers after the event. Which is the entire problem. We've all witnessed first hand that he is incapable of identifying these blinkered winners before the races.

Here's one for you Chief. I don't tend to bet on NZ races or on NZ TAB, but here's one I had a small interest in yesterday. This one had blinkers on again. But I can guarantee I didn't back it because it was wearing blinkers. Thomass probably thinks this one won due to blinkers as well. Let's see one from Thomass. Don't hold your breath.

No, we're talking about the ability to identify a performance change due to gear - before the races. Something unseen on this thread yet. But again some more examples after the event that you were too shit scared to put up before the races. Because you're a fraud.

And you prove my point. With again, nothing. Thanks. Something so easy and so much a factor. And yet, still not one horse even. I may be full of it. When you go to the doctor and he gives you a diagnosis. You probably tell the doctor they are full of it as well. Next time do your own diagnosis since you think you know so much.

A) I never listen to trainers. B) I don't understand why you think I got it so badly wrong. I didn't say it would win. I suggested it had a better chance than 6%. I don't think it is able to be proven whether it had a better or worse chance than that. If you think that means I got it so badly wrong then that's your view. Like your view on blinkers, your view hasn't got a lot of credibility. Just a bunch of opinions backed up by nothing to date. I'm very happy for people to have a different view to me. But at least back it up with 'something'.

I have never disputed that. What I've disputed is who can tell when they will be an advantage. Not one poster has so far been able to provide the 'when'. Without the when, the information is useless to a punter. Maybe you can tell us when they will be an advantage. Since it is 100% true, that of all the horses that get them, they perform overall far worse than those that don't. But all we get is the ones that have won - after the race. Very useful.

Useful stuff Sandpiper. At least as useful as the other suggestions on here.

When you take a little bit either side as one does, the rewards are there for the taking barryb.

The only trainer in recent times to have put blinkers on and return a positive ROI is none other than Darren Weir. Just a superior trainer I guess.

Exactly. I was putting them up previously. He didn't like that since there were so many, the results even with the odd winner, were poor. Because the idea is totally flawed.

Oh ffs...I thought we'd done with the stupid answers? The L to anyone reading this is exactly the same as 'Blinkers on' to anyone reading this. Not one iota of difference. Since you are incapable of explaining WHEN blinkers on works before the race. Only ever afterwards. Which I can do with the letter L the same way. Tattoo this across your noggin. "If said neddy has proven superior ability, as shown in serious form analysis excluding 'unlucky, wide without cover et el', now racing neddy's with inferior ability, as shown in serious form analysis...then get on" - An add 20% if starting with the letter L.

Same old shit, different day. Those things you say I ignore. Yep. I ignore. I don't do guesses and I don't do stats. And still not a single horse mentioned before the races that is going to benefit from applied head gear. But the letter 'L is looking good.

Of course you can. But what do the readers on here get from you telling them your view. They can't use the information in any way themselves. Your view has told them absolutely zero except apparently you believe blinkers work and maybe even you make money from their use. That's as useful as me saying I believe horses starting with the letter 'L' works. And I make money from them. And I often see top trainers winning with them also. So excuse me if I trust that method over yours. The readers can't use that information in any way themselves. Useful. Nope. Just like your post. Although we do like to hear that you think blinkers are useful and you make money from them. Good on you. Just as they probably like to hear I make money from horses starting with the 'L' - although I doubt readers really want to read that.