mardigras

I don't think it's immoral. It's simply providing too much advantage. If it is to be allowed, it will drive participation down on that form of betting imo.

Your betting ticket on Gorbachev.

I don't to supplement guesses. Thanks anyway.

Which he is. A 'professional' loser and writer of fairytales. He can't even front up to the chief's requests.

Seems he like to do a bunch of subjective analysis on someone else's subjective analysis - and he calls that 'form analysis'.

You do that on here. Nothing seems to have changed as a result of that.

Sure.

Good to see we're leading the way if that is the case.

Yes, but you tried to assert someone could face instant dismissal under such situations of a similar nature to this thread. Which is crap. But you want to sensationalise things that are trivial at best.

Well I've looked and I haven't found any yet. Let me know when you find one - before it races preferably.

Thanks. Did you not read the word serious? Clearly not. So a post that is not rude, will not result in instant dismissal such as you claimed. If it did, the person would have a field day in employment court. We're talking opinion, only relating to the first point in the example. So I repeat, what you wrote was crap.

Crap.

People who don't write the truth or the facts or whose opinion can be shown to be untrue/falsely damaging will become known as writers of fairytales which will result in them having zero credibility. It's a good system. It's no different me saying something negative about the racing industry or a jockey doing so. Given the jockey wants to continue getting rides, it's already in their best interest to not be seen as a writer of fairytales/bullshit.

Yep, they should be able to express opinion and the only rules around that should be in regards things like language. I have criticised management in past roles. If I couldn't, I would have left. You don't have to be rude, but there is nothing wrong with being direct, and it should be encouraged.

But was he actually better at Doomben than elsewhere? He is the classic example. I'm not saying his results weren't better there. But I'm also not saying he actually was any better there in his own performances. Have you got something that verifies that he actually raced superior at Doomben? If you do, please present it. Something more than anecdotal or simple results would be a start. After all, I did introduce him to the discussion, and he is a case of very strong form at one track - not a horse with 4 placings from 5 starts like Gorbachev who apparently is worthy of extra investment as a result of those placings. On that basis, you'd be adding 8000% to every bet on Chief De Beers at Doomben - and maybe a little irate when he lost.

It is little different to courtsiding. They should be shot down. That would soon stop them.

I'm not totally disagreeing - but please tell me how course stats can help you with that? And when you've done that, tell all how to alter the chance of the runner that has raced well at say Wanganui and what you should do to the chances of the horse that has not raced at Wanganui. Cheers. And on this 'SOME horses favour SOME tracks' - which you call basic racing knowledge. How do you determine which are those 'SOME horses'. Do you guess?

I don't think the issue of whether blinkers may appear to improve performance has ever been questioned. It has always been about how does a punter identify which ones will appear to, and which ones won't appear to. So I thought I'd do a recheck and see if horses in form was a key ingredient. I reckon that it would be unrealistic to call a horse that finished within 2 lengths of the winner in its last start, out of form. So I wondered why of all the horses to race in Oz from Jan 2016 through to middle of 2017, the horses that had run to within 2 lengths of the winner at their last start (and didn't get blinkers on first time) had a next start strike rate of over 14% and an ROI for a $1 win bet on Tatts of 80%. Not a small sample either of 95,000 runners. Yet those with blinkers on first time, achieved an 11.8% strike rate and an ROI of 76% for a $1 win bet on Tatts. It's a lot easier to pick the winners - after they've won. Trainers seem to be putting blinkers on quite a lot - even on a horse that ran close to the winner last start. And they'd have trialled them to see that improvement would be there. Back to the drawing board on that.

I don't think they need to have won on the track before either. Placings are fine. Even a horse with many starts and only placings is a target for extra investment. I was wondering about all this counter intuitive stuff, so thought Trentham was the place to find out. So got to Race 1. Thought Cavallo Veloce was the bet. Never raced there before so looked at others I had rated at the same level and find good form on the track in What A Smasher. It is supposedly counter intuitive to not add extra when the horse has form on the track especially against a horse that has never raced there. Down the tubes it went. I guess Cavallo Veloce is now a course specialist at Trentham given 1 start, 1 win. Went to R3. Redcayenne looked an absolute cert. Looked up the runs on the track. None! Decided better go with the one I liked next with the track form, as it's counter intuitive to not take the one with the track performances on the board. So looked at Soleseifei. Great efforts on the track. Down the tubes it went. What would you do I wonder? Went on to R4. Found Tinkalicious. Looked up the track starts. Not flash. 3 starts and 1 single lowly placing. Not a fav then considering in the other 13 starts, has been in the money 8 times. So went with Awesome Al. A horse that clearly loves the open spaces and with a couple of wins on the track to boot, from a horse that had only ever won three races. This was a course specialist. Down the tubes again. It's always easier after the races. We've seen that.

An organisation that isn't prepared to be censured/critiqued appropriately is clearly one that knows they have issues.

I've slowly come to the realisation that some punters have been unable to differentiate between something that is a discussion about profiting compared to the ability to pick winners (such as in a tipping comp). In the same way, there would appear to be an inability of many to delineate fact from opinion, even if the opinion is from a supposed 'expert'.

The way you destroy sites, Turny has what is the best answer. Ignore whatever it is you write.

Goes down, goes up. You've often claimed you can win but then say you don't have the patience to persevere. And yet what VC is doing is a method to win. And if you follow Thomas, you will lose. So please, tell us, do you win long term - or lose? Be honest.

I don't understand how VC is squandering away 10k. As for Thomas and his stats, I'm always happy to discuss them. But they have zero substance. Call me arrogant porky if you like. But that is not opinion, that is the nature of such stats. It wouldn't matter if the discussion was punting or a totally different topic. It's the respected science of such stats.

I'm extremely confident I do. What Redzel's trainer says is anecdotal yet you just tried to call it fact. Idiot.