mardigras

That's VIC TAB data (on NZ races) for approx 23 months - January 2014 through to November 2015. It is only pools that are single race pools (i.e no double/treble/quaddie pools etc). VIC TAB data/NZRB data essentially the same thing since commingling (outside of exchange rate fluctuations). It hasn't come from NZRB - it is from me. But its veracity is unquestionable in my view.

Ultimately centred on a point that reflects the confidence - but still not centred as in a normal distribution, but skewed as you mention. A bit like pulling the centre slightly left or right depending on confidence. I don't even know if it would alter anything, but was keen to try it if I could work out how to do it.

Yep - because I have less confidence that the centre is the true centre distribution wise (if that makes sense). Sort of pulling the centre of the distribution slightly sideways, without changing the end points. For when my confidence is lower.

If I'm reading that right, yes, the midpoint of the distribution being the same, but a higher percentage of the distribution being on one side of that centre than what would occur for a normal distribution. I probably have to read your sentence a few times as well I'll try a chart.

Here is the detail on pool per runner (This is a little old - for 2014/2015). starters races total pool (single race) avg pool avg per runner 4 33 $1,123,351.00 $34,040.94 $8,510.23 5 131 $6,487,063.00 $49,519.56 $9,903.91 6 251 $15,761,478.00 $62,794.73 $10,465.79 7 450 $35,986,090.00 $79,969.09 $11,424.16 8 587 $55,517,087.00 $94,577.66 $11,822.21 9 675 $74,329,757.00 $110,118.16 $12,235.35 10 687 $79,447,735.00 $115,644.45 $11,564.44 11 555 $68,526,912.00 $123,471.91 $11,224.72 12 582 $78,999,736.00 $135,738.38 $11,311.53 13 420 $61,955,404.00 $147,512.87 $11,347.14 14 395 $63,307,475.00 $160,272.09 $11,448.01 15 145 $29,446,177.00 $203,077.08 $13,538.47 16 144 $30,102,679.00 $209,046.38 $13,065.40 17 17 $5,287,709.00 $311,041.71 $18,296.57 18 35 $13,897,685.00 $397,076.71 $22,059.82 This does not consider the individual races and race quality. Even though 15 - 18 are the highest per runner, I'd expect they are also inclusive of some of the larger betting races such as major cup meetings etc. I don't see much evidence of 14 starters being optimum.

Brings in the old 'gear change' scenario - to test something. But without knowing what the result will actually be. I've read some punters believe so strongly in some of these gear changes, like blinkers on, they add 20% regardless of whether the individual horse might be better suited to them or not.

In NZ/OZ, I tend to look at the horses history to identify how they go about getting the level of fitness to be where they want it. It's not ideal. Not much use for a horse having its 3rd start.

Yep. They train them to get them fit. Admittedly, they have facilities that give them a lot of options. But they still do the same when they take them to Australia and manage to get them to race fitness at the quarantine centre. Race in the UK overnight. Often the first starter NH types will run in a NH flat. The winner of this race was having its first start. https://www.sportinglife.com/racing/results/2018-12-26/huntingdon/505775/fitzdares-gaviscon-vase-intermediate-open-nh-flat-race Nearly half the field were first starters. Just shy of 3200m.

You simply will not get this in UK/Ire.

There are tracks in NZ that for a combination of distance, condition, there has only been one race over the last 10-15 years. Pretty much useless. And with less racing, less confidence. I've only got a little over 20,000 starts at Ellerslie. Compared to over 100,000 at tracks like Wolverhampton and 50,000+ at most of the metro oz tracks.

I think the rule pretty much allows them to run an under fit horse on the track for the purpose of improving its fitness. That is not good from a punter confidence perspective.

The only part I've considered not using a normal distribution is when I model the times. Rather than have a mean where 50% of the performances are faster than the mean and 50% are slower then the mean (excluding those that equal the mean), when the confidence is lower, I've been thinking I'd prefer the high and low times to be the same (i.e. +/- 3 sd of the normal mean), but where the resulting mean time of the distribution is higher than the normally distributed mean. A slightly weighted distribution based on my lower confidence under the race conditions. Another factor I use for confidence is on race starts. Fewer starts reduces confidence, as there is less ability to cater for outlier type performance data.

Yes curious, it is a difficult exercise. In NZ, they race on some tracks once a year. Makes the reliability of any data less useful. My aim has always been to establish a distance/condition/horse level/track scenario. Then use this as a measure of horse performance. Less performances to work with, less confidence etc. And to barryb, I definitely didn't want to infer anything about what barryb does. I've been learning heaps from barry from these discussions. It's more that there are many ways. Not all of them wrong or negative.

As I suspected, place bets the way to go there!

I'm more that way as well. However, I haven't seen anything from the runs in Oz to suggest there is that much difference from at least G2 level. I'm not suggesting she would win a big race by any means. But I'd say she would be competitive against most G2/G3 level horses - especially in Sydney. And even some G1 races there.

I have given some responses inline. Sorry for the length. But I will add a couple of separate things. I appreciate that what I say here isn't able to be done by punters in the main. But I've described a bot of it here nonetheless. A large part of what I do revolves around the many millions of individual runner start information I have which I use to allow me comparison of performance from one track to the next for varying levels of horse. Whether someone agrees or not is their choice. But my entire approach is based around an assessment of one horse compared to another. Not what one horse did last start and what therefore it might do next start. I've added a couple of extra comments. a) There isn't just one approach. One person may do one thing and another something else. Or consider one thing whilst another does not. That doesn't validate or invalidate the different approaches. As I've said many times, there are many ways to achieve the goal - each of which can be viable. I think that for sure, consider the advice. But at the end, you have to be comfortable doing what you do and if it does't feel right to you, then park that (and maybe collect some information for yourself as to how that may have changed your assessment). In the future, then you are armed with more information and able to better deal with what impact you think that might have. a). Note: This does not mean what Thomass says has any justification. The BP is so generic, and can be proven to be of no value - such an idea is wasting your own time trying to validate it or otherwise. Population stats are going to be of little value unless it correlates to two things. Success and Price both not being inversely related to the stat. So it would likely have to be something very few know of or understand - and be 'real'. So really has to have a correlation with 'chance' and that correlation has to be well hidden. And they are highly unlikely to be so. b) This is not a criticism of barry - who clearly understandings punting. The 21 day rule is something I don't subscribe to. It is too generic for me. It does stack up more so 'generically' in NZ and Oz than elsewhere. (And by that I mean, it can be applied across the board and not give you the negative results you will get from the BP). So it isn't a positive or a negative for me. But I would tend to assess the horse and determine the points in time in its individual racing that correspond with its best performances. That could be off shorter breaks - or longer breaks potentially. So I prefer the individual assessment as to what value a break has to a horse. The statistic likely reduces the frequency of losses, but whether it changes profit, I'm not so sure. b).Note: This situation in my opinion comes about due to the number of horses that race in Australasia using the racecourse as a training exercise. Something against the rules of racing in the likes of UK/Ire. So horses starting over 3200m+ in UK/Ire will often do so off a 3 month/6 month/1 year+ break and be competitive based upon their previously displayed ability. NZ and Oz, have a scenario where horses will use races for fitness. Possibly why the 'stats' are the way they are for 21 days between races appearing favourable. The way I do it isn't really something others can do. (Which kind of makes the likes of Thomass critiquing it, pointless).

Hi pete, yes I have a brother Paul in IT - hey, but please don't hold that against me, whatever your thoughts there

Heavy 10 - heck. Interesting.

I haven't put all the variances up - just a selection at odds. My actual top selection in that race is Savette - who is at $14s NZ TAB. Perhaps let us know sometime tomorrow who your one is barry. After the race usually works on here.

Here's my top 7 that race. A couple of favoured runners, I'm against. For a 8 track so some adjustment if track gets worse.

I've got Soroc $9.20. Still well unders at $16 NZ TAB.

They were just ones at a big difference.I wouldn't even be betting on the 3yo Ellerslie race - but my price was a lot different to TAB. May just have these well out!

Some I like on boxing day (based on current info). Ellerslie R2 #12 Viktor Vegas $6.00 (NZ TAB $12.00) Ellerslie R6 #6 The Real Beel $16.00 (NZ TAB $61.00) Ellerslie R7 #17 Incantesimo $10.00 (NZ TAB $26.00) Ellerslie R10 #9 My Dakota $7.40 (NZ TAB $16.00) Awapuni R3 #9 Prosecco $5.40 (NZ TAB $19.00) Awapuni R8 #13 Dance For Money $8.80 (NZ TAB $27.00) Some I've currently priced at 50% of TAB price or less. Not counting barry's tip on other thread.

Good luck with this one barry. I know it's Christmas day, but I've just priced this meeting. I have your runner sitting at $12.00 currently. And my market is a lot tighter and certainly not having the fav at $2.10! Mind you, the NZ TAB market is set to a whopping 123%

It'll be better than. But anyhow, how come you are the one who makes the rules on what you claim to be a world record? To even claim such a thing, loses any possible credibility. I'm with pete. You and Thomass make a great pair. Start your own thread about your stuff.