mardigras

This is spot on. The topic has been done to death for sure. All those posts on a topic that one poster claims is the best thing since sliced bread. And yet, not one post on this site with a selection matching it pre race. Just a whole bunch after they have won. The poster is a fraud.

Please do. There are heaps of them, but this one you even started.

What a load of bollocks as usual. You do post race analysis which is why you can NEVER say which ones are going to benefit from blinkers on, before the race. You tried it on race chat. All losers. You even tried it pre race before last year's Karaka 2yo. And looked stupid. Put some up pre race loser. Don't bother with more post race bullshit. I'm not interested in it. As it proves you're a fraud.

Along with all the trainers of those last start winners getting blinkers on first time. And running like a goat.

Because it's counter intuitive to do so, since his results from doing that are poor and you haven't told us how to identify which ones will do better from those that won't - before the race. How come you can't do that?

Wrong again. As per your example, why does your rule only seem to apply after the race where you can cite winners? Show us some before the race if you want credibility.

You've got the nail on the head. There has never been a suggestion that people shouldn't bet the way they are happy to. But the threads have not been about that. They have been in response to one person claiming that punters can actually use his methods and win for a lifetime. That is where the whole discussion stems from. If he had shared his views and simply stated, that's what he does. No issue. But to assert that the method had merit for other punters to win from, is very poor form. He can use it, just don't tell all and sundry they could do so also. Especially when 1 + 1 does not equal 6. It is the same as me saying, back horses starting with the letter F. You will win for a lifetime. And then spending months defending the theory by putting up winners starting with F. I haven't seen other posts saying do this or do that in respect of picking horses, and you will win. I've never said do what I do and you will win. The only aspect to punting related to winning I've put up is about value. That's not even rocket science and is certainly the widely accepted belief. And is common sense anyway. I've never told anyone else how they should find value. That's simply an accepted investment strategy. So that's the history as to all this. One person claiming that the methods will make punters successful. Which I took exception to. Because the claims are false. Anyway, that's my last post in this thread.

I'm very relaxed cheers Newmarket. I'm simply responding to those that feel the need to have a go at me. Haven't been nasty either.

Have you thought about writing without caps lock. Anyway. This thread is about the Thomass poll. If you want to start a thread on the wonders of punting, you go right ahead. You'll certainly get a few more laughs there as well.

Yep, all this from the guy that doesn't win from punting. Sorry, you could, but you don't have the patience. Have I got that right? I really enjoyed your barrier draw comments. They are funny. Give Thomass a call.

First you criticise me for saying you should join Thomass' weird punting ideas. Then you say you agree with a number of them. Odd. Seems a valid comment since your ideas are largely of a like mind As for your suggestion, feel free to select against me when I put up selections pre race. Thomass won't join on that, as he prefers to wait til after the race. On Thomass' ideas, there is little point discussing them on this thread. There are other threads for that. But suffice to say, it has nothing to do with my opinion that they are wrong. Maths/science is what states they are wrong. If I said 1+1 doesn't equal 45. You'd claim I was poo hooing?? something. And you blame me.

I probably couldn't disagree more. NZ is one of the leading nations that operates their racing by way of betting based funding, in returns to the racing industry relative to that income, from government funds. We rival HK in that regard if not exceed it And we are so far ahead of Australia, they are hardly worth mentioning. And now the industry wants tax reductions to get more of the government pool of money. Stuff the rest of NZ. The NZ racing industry has minimal export. Around 20-30 million per year (according to NZRB). As far as it's level of employment, someone is taking the piss, surely!

Government handouts? Again. And from what I hear of the new platform, apart from being a dog, it wouldn't surprise me to find that a number of punters are also bashing them in sports betting - such is the brilliance of their automated fixed odds pricing.

Open your eyes then. Since I've posted selections before the races on this site. Many of them. Go and read them, add up the winning dividends and the total number of selections, then tell me you have only seen comments after the horse has bolted. Try the $10+ value thread - and also the NZ Cup one for starters. As for this Saturday, I'd be happy to except I am at a wedding this weekend and I won't be betting. Might put some up the following week. Some on here are not afraid to do so. This thread has been about the basics of punting to win. If you have something worth contributing, put it up. Haven't seen anything from you on that so far.

For sure MM. Information and what should be available is always an interesting topic. One of my main aversions to requiring more and more information is that in a place like NZ, everything costs and we are a small player which is struggling. To justify adding costs no matter how trivial to the process, needs to ensure the costs deliver some tangible benefits. Nothing comes for free and enforcing such a rule here WILL have costs. But I just don't see any tangible benefits.

On the subject of integrity MM, would you consider this to be an integrity issue - and how does it compare to change in tactics? A comment from a trainer after winning a big race, such as 'we knew he would perform better with blinkers on, so we wanted to wait for this race to apply them'. It's all very well and good saying that the punters knew about the gear change for 'this' race. But is it open and transparent of trainers who didn't tell you this before the earlier races. Did punters know that the trainer was deliberately presenting a horse to the races in a manner 'knowing' it could perform better just by applying a gear change?

Here's one for our stats loving friends. Can someone explain why horses that win at their last start (so surely regarded as in form), then get blinkers on first time at their next start, have won a lot less relatively than horses that won their last start and just raced their next start without adding blinkers. I can't understand it - that a trainer would do that since they would have trialled them and known that their horse that was in form would improve with blinkers added. Maybe when they won, they weren't actually in form at all.

And will they start running the industry to the size it is rather then wanting to pretend it is something it isn't.

Maybe MM, but tactics are hardly an integrity issue. And tactics can't be enforced. Therein lies the problem. They are a future thing, not information of something in the past. And I'm not sure HK is a punters paradise. It is probably a paradise for a few leveraging off the very eager punting population. I don't disagree with the issues around the RIU. But how can this be an integrity issue? The horse should be allowed to race wherever the rider/the trainer/the horse decides. So long as the horse is given the opportunity to run on its merits, there is no lack of integrity, there is simply a lack of punter understanding something that is variable. If the performance lacks integrity, the performance should be investigated. Where it raced has nothing to do with that - it is simply a notion of punters believing something they really had no right to believe. It's become a world of spoon feeding punters. The idea that more information increases betting revenues hasn't been proven. NZ racing has had more and more information over time and betting revenue has done nothing but drop for years. Maybe you could offer at which point in the information providing highway, NZ racing is going to increase betting revenues? Some information might well be invaluable from a punter retention point of view. I'd question this issue does anything to retain punters that would otherwise go. The number of followers of the various Australian jurisdictions on twitter where these things are put out is tiny. For something supposedly such an outrage, the massive majority of punters aren't even interested in getting the info. It's mountain/molehill stuff.

I'm sure Reefton will love racing at Kumara. All very well and good closing venues, but where is the money coming from to fix Ellerslie, Riccarton, Awapuni etc in order to provide better and more consistent surfaces? As well as all the other tracks.

Nothing wrong with experimenting. As long as the horse runs on its merits in the experiment. And they aren't using the experiment to train the horse or to get the horse fit. Gear changes are experiments. They happen every day - with punters money. When the All Blacks experiment, no one says they're experimenting with punters money. The same in racing, trying something different to win races.

Certainly may be Freda. My issue would be when will it end? A punter can certainly look at a race and doesn't have to be blinkered into how a horse will run. If a known good performer is in the race, there is nothing stopping the punter considering that they may change the way it's been racing - and they can assess that themselves and consider whether that may make a difference. How will punters feel if a known good horse has a change of tactics notified, the punters in the main think the change is not going to help the horse, the price lengthens out, the horse doesn't follow the change of tactics and the horse wins. They don't have to do the change anyway, so the knowledge was a negative to those punters that were interested in the change. Who are the feds going to charge when every single horse that doesn't normally lead notifies of a change of tactics to lead? A bit like Fred's example, except in this case, they've all notified a change that is to have them lead. They can't all lead. Punting should be about assessing the horse (and even the tactics of the trainer/jockey) against the opposition - the same way it is in sports betting. Assessing the team and the tactics that might be employed by the trainers - against the opposition. Many punters want to be spoon fed everything. But not having everything is what creates a more diverse set of opinions - something actually useful to punters since it creates price variance.

I disagree. Trainers are there to win races. They should be able to change whatever they like to try and win the race. Punters don't get to know what things the trainer has done differently at training or in their feed regime or how much shit they dropped the last 24 hours. In oz, when there is a change of tactics and it goes un-notified, they just tell them any old thing to satisfy the feds. The intention notified by trainers often don't even come about. An intention doesn't mean a doing. Integrity is applied by the horse needing to race on its merits. That's integrity. Try telling the All Blacks they need to tell everyone their change in tactics because punters might want to bet with them. It's absurd.

For sure created interest, but a plan that increases bets like that is therefore reliant on the success also coming in the later races.

It's pathetic. A sweepstake should be just that.