mardigras

Put them up for Benalla.

HK seem to align with my ideas. I guess they are struggling.

As they equally turned me down for a later time. It is of no concern to me as to how NZRB goes. As I say, they can take or leave my views. But at least you'll be happy with them ignoring them given where things are at with them. Enjoy. Hope you love the new site. I prefer to deal in facts.

Wrong again. I am for readings being taken. And a reading or two being given. But 30 is stupid and a waste of effort. I don't want the readings but the punters can have a few. You still haven't supplied all these readings for Benalla. Where are they?

Yep, keen.

I don't get too hung up on opinions. People can take or leave my opinions/ideas. I tend to work on the basis of facts.

Why would anyone want 30 readings across the track. I'm not interested in one reading let alone 30. If Australia do that, then they are more stupid than I thought. Can you show me the readings for Benalla yesterday.

I'd pick me everyday. I don't care who anyone else picks. If anyone has an opinion and thinks their own is incorrect, I think that says more about them than anything else. If I thought my opinion was wrong, clearly it wouldn't be my opinion anymore. Your statement is why you lose at punting. 5 trainers all think their horse will win. So your opinion is that the five of them will deadheat - surely. You couldn't possibly have an opinion that was different to a professional horseman.

So you keep saying. And as I keep saying, my opinion is that he doesn't require blinkers. I'm entitled to think that. I'm not telling others to think that. They can form their own opinion. If I believed the opinions of trainers, I'd be broke. Thankfully, I'm not.

It makes no difference what class of race it was. The horse still earned more from that start than its three prior. It still ran massively faster than any start EVER before. Faster than horses like Hay List. Seems that level of performance was an indication of its ability. Useless? Don't think so. And the point is, you're still talking opinion. I simply don't listen to opinion. You don't have to either, but you do.

And when you're asking him that, ask him why, as such a horseman, he hadn't worked out that the horse was useless without blinkers prior to him starting him without blinkers. Such a horseman would have known that - surely?

Still on comparing opinion. I didn't state he's wrong. I've stated I disagree. It's quite a simple notion. Perhaps ask him why he ever bothered running Redzel without blinkers. Was he misleading the punters?

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious.

Again you're off demonstrating that you can't discuss a topic. You're too thick and too blinkered into thinking these people know stuff. But their results show otherwise. Carry on talking to yourself. I've given you another chance, but clearly that was pointless.

Money changed hands. I think the RIU staff get paid.

Sharing more opinions? Why don't you ask them why their records with horses with blinkers on is so poor? Given they know all this stuff. Couldn't they work out blinkers would make the horses run worse before deciding to put blinkers on? This is the very reason why you can't put a runner up before the races - you don't know what is going to happen. And when they win, which is rare, you write about it on here.

Your inability to write with any intelligence and discuss a topic is why you are the primary person writing on this site. It's why I rarely post here now. You drive people away with stupidity.

What stands out is that for someone who claims they don't listen to opinion, you write a heck of a lot about the merits of other people's opinion. You even think the opinion of racing.com should be shared with punters as if it is useful. I think you tell porkies when it comes to listening to opinion. You're guided by it. And I think it works well - after the horses have won.

They should ONLY provide facts. A map of the track will give them distances to bends. The other guff is stupid because everything 'can' be important. Just because you do stupid doesn't mean they should be encouraging others to be as well.

Sounds like the opinion of two people. What's your point?

It has relevance since you claimed what Vic provided was good and something for NZTR to consider. That fluff is not good. It should not be there.

It's not. They will start believing old wives tales like you spout, wonder why they lose like you - all because they were fed a load of bollocks.

He'd probably say the same applies at the 2100m as well.

In the last 8 years, no barrier has won more than one race greater than the expected number it should have based on 1/starters per race. Across groups of 4 consecutive barriers, they also don't reflect an advantage. And even barriers 11 - 14 have won a higher number of races in the last 8 years than 1/starters would say they should. They don't start more than 14 in a race so that is the widest set of 4 consecutive barriers. And how stupid is it to assert some advantage on something that doesn't consider the individual runners that started from the various barriers, especially in light of how few races there are over 2000m to there. It's amazing to think that because 3 horses started from barrier 14 in the last 8 years at that distance, that none have won, it must be a shocker starting out there. As I say, punting by numbers. Thomass should stick to painting by numbers and leave punting to others.

Would you like the stats on HQ 2000 metre races?