mardigras

I very much doubt it. Over the years, the ratio of betting on racing between Australia and NZ on NZ events has been highest at the smaller venues. It was the thinking of Monday Tuesday racing that they could capitalise on that to boost the revenue of NZ racing. Whilst they still were betting more on those midweek events, they still weren't betting enough to make it viable. So ovrrall, those meetings had relatively greater Oz interest compared to NZ punters than Ellerslie had compared to NZ punters.

Still continuing with 'most', 'usually' etc etc. You love generalisations. Stop being such a loser and writer of fairytales. You're driving people away.

I don't need to. If it was its first start, all you've done is made 100% subjective decisions about what it would have done otherwise. Likely wrong. And the best part, all the others like you will punt it next time to massive unders allowing the rest to find value elsewhere, all because you think black type meant something. If it wasn't its first start, I already have performance data for the horse. I don't do subjective.

I have never claimed to have access to your accounts. But I still know you don't win 'overall'. One day of winning after 9 months, a losing day on this site and 9 selections on race chat between $3 and $5 - all losers. Everyone knows you don't win. You just write fairytales. They're your life. Sad, but true.

Simple question then, why do you not win overall. You don't, it is known. And yet I do. And can prove it. How is that possible for me to win given every single element of your blue print is ignored by me. In fact, I bet against it.

Yeah sure. They are really interested in NZ from a corruption point of view. To make peanuts. Give them a try - use the blue print, it's meant to be gold.

.

To me, two of the biggest factors in choosing course retention should be 1 What does it cost the industry to earn $1 of revenue for the industry for each track. 2 What are the costs by way of lost customers/revenue associated with not retaining the track. It's a business. And of course, we realise that for number 1, all the courses will be greater than $1. Some will be well beyond that.

Replace Reefton with Ellerslie in your post - and ask the same questions. Perhaps post back the answers.

Except 'usually' means not always. And 'usually' is a massive exaggeration. The reality is they don't work that way 'usually'. But you just blindly believe that they 'always' do - since you don't use times, don't know what the class benchmarks are, are incapable of working out the difference between a useful performance in black type and one that isn't (Remember Firebird Flyer). And the blue print blindly operates that way meaning it can't work out a superior performance in lower grade. So you just back the black type horse, and as I have shown, they are poor performers from a punting perspective because of all the people that think just like you. Idiots. And then you wonder why you lose.

Wish I knew which thread that was. Might have been one from 'you' worth reading.

This is where I sit as well. Obviously a number of issues around users and the intuitiveness of the site. I understand what barryb has stated and it is more in tune with a better offering (once the users get used to it). But they do need to make changes to make the user interaction massively better. But as said above, what has been delivered for $50m? I could develop a site that does better than this and if someone wanted to give me $50m for that, then send me a message. There is nothing here that makes them really any better than they were. It's just the same with a different user interface. No user simplicity, no APIs, no enhanced odds compared to previous, no improved functionality re cash out (from what I read). Offshore is not supposed to be allowed access (even though there are work arounds). So it's all about local spend (and losses) increasing to pay for it. How stupid is the CEO? Where did the $50m go? Surely not on this.

They are using NZ punters as beta testers. Appalling.

Apart from the myriad of issues many are having performance wise. And the things that are not so easy to do or find (like scratchings). The site is poor from a presentation perspective. Things like when you go to the results page for a day. The drop down of meetings has no user friendly order. So you have to search through to find any meeting you actually want. Even if you want to use filter keys, they only work on the Meeting number first. So to find yesterday's results for Kumara, you have to know it was M6, I can't even enter K and it take me to Kumara. It's rubbish. And the same applies to the meetings for the day. If you want to bet on Sunshine Coast, you have to find it among the Australian meetings - not in name order - but in the stupid meeting code order which has no meaning to anyone except the TAB system. These things might seem trivial, but they are extremely basic from a user interface/experience perspective.

That's what I was hoping I had misinterpreted. VC has a bank, and a staking plan. It's a decent plan. A plan like yours will ultimately lead to no money. It is inevitable as most people will not a) have sufficient capital to continue with it b) you won't get the bet on at the level/odds required c) you will pull out because you won't have the balls to keep going In any event, they are not to be followed. It's like going to the casino and putting your money on black in roulette. And every time it isn't black, doubling up. Do that starting from $1 and after 20 losses, you are expecting to put up $1m on the next spin. If you think it won't go for 20 turns not black, then you are mistaken. It will happen, you just don't know when.

I disagree. I think it is a valuable exercise and decent of VC to put this up. It started on the 12 December and on the 1st January, was in profit. Now a little down. But it is an exercise with potentially some learning along the way. I'm not sure what you mean by a staking plan where you say 'returning to bet 1, after a win'. I certainly hope I've misinterpreted that and you aren't suggesting a staking plan where you increase your bet when you lose until such time as you win. That would be the absolute worst thing anyone should do.

I did an 'ask them a question' on this yesterday morning. Didn't receive an acknowledgement that I'd even asked a question, and have heard nothing. First class customer service!

I've looked but difficult to know what exactly is going on in the areas you don't see. I'm more of a .net developer myself. But comparative performance between that site and most others is a strong indication that things are poor.

I thought the system was automating fixed odds setting. The API can simply respond with what stake they are taking and away you go. And what about tote betting, exotics etc. Surely an API can be provided to do this. An opportunity to bring themselves into the realm of competition, and they've let it slip. WTF did they get for $50m?

It's a shocker. Don't think there is a sheet as such. https://uppingyourgame.co.nz/Questions/how-do-i-view-scratchings/

WTF. Why don't they answer their own damn question. What about data other than tote odds, what about bet placement. Will API end points be made available to the general public for access? Tote racing will be available by XML and Fixed Odds by exception. If you require fixed odds you will need to contact us.

I've logged in. See nothing that seems to relate to that. Now even though turnover is not the best metric, let's ask ourselves, of the two biggest betting operators in Australia, which one does not offer APIs for data and betting? Neither of them. It's maybe a small thing to many, but if you don't have the option, you are behind, not even keeping up. Those other operators have had fully functioning APIs for many years.

Before I dive into all these exciting new options, I seem to recall that there wasn't going to be any APIs. Can anyone confirm? To be competitive, they need these, both for information and for bet placement.

I am. Then occasionally I read something from you that is time I will never get back

Good stuff VC. Have you looked at your pricing retrospectively to identify how your pricing relates with success rate (maybe also for others runners not backed), to see how your assessment of chance overall is in line. I know the sample may not be huge, but would be interesting to see.