mardigras

Get funding towards stakes relative to what they generate. Take them out of commission on a cycle, and rebuild them. But even then, it is unlikely - as the interest in NZ racing has dwindled to the point whereby none of the tracks make money in the area of NZTR stakemoney funded versus NZTR revenue earned.

And in accordance with that, the over-riding approach is that the stakemoney distribution at least close to mirrors the relative interest/revenue. We do nothing like that at all. They don't necessarily need to close those tracks, but equally, they don't need to fund them to the level they do. Get relative to what you earn.

The BP can't do stuff all - before the races!

You think you "know". But your posts on the site are the very evidence that you "know" fa.

Pretty easy, that's how BHA does it.

Maybe a couple to Q up with barryb's. Although I don't know what odds are set for these. So may not be any value. R4 #1 Piazzetta (priced at $5). R7 #5 Alesund (priced at $4.70).

All handicapping should be merit based, not formula based. The single race model of handicapping isn't one I have any faith in. I prefer a model of rating all the horses relative to each other, not relative to the horses they just raced against.

Who said I can't provide the stats. Of course I can. Your form of intuitive is simply wrong. You relate things that have no relationship. Now you're relating investment into the performance of maidens as per the top post of yours I quoted suggesting that they are superior. You don't deal in facts. Where are these stats of yours about time variance. You don't have any - you just write fairytales. You don't even use times - you've explicitly stated that. Now you're trying to claim you know the difference between horses in different parts of the country. I just love all your generalisations - the pathway to failure. Any moron that thinks form can be done in such a generalised fashion, should just gift their money to NZ Racing as that is where it's going to go anyway. Just like yours does.

Because your BP is a load of bollocks. And you 'know' sfa. R65 races in NZ this year. R65 races and what stake the horses ran for in their prior run (of R65 or Maiden race). Of course you'll claim that not all of them are better. And it doesn't apply to all - cos as we know, it only applies after they have won. What is logical - given how many think like you, the value opportunity is much less likely when following that BP model, as people are stupid enough to think like you, so the horses will generally be paying less than they should be. this R65 last run (R65/mdn) winners losers strike rate win div av div roi 9-12k stake 9-12k stake 116 1090 10.64% $966.40 $8.33 80.13% 22-30k stake 44 433 10.16% $319.80 $7.27 67.04% all 160 1523 10.51% $1,286.20 $8.04 76.42%

If Ted understands the process of finding winners at value, then it's fine. So if they were value before and they drift, that would make them even better value. It'd be like taking barryb selections and more so if they drift. Barryb has done the hard work for you. Compared to down in grade and blinkers on which is the idea of a dunce. Since generalisations in relation to all the horses are flawed. They only work after the races when they win.

When was this TC?

Sounds a lot like race fixing or simply good selections.

One thing's for sure. Everything in it is a misprint. Emphasis on the mis(s).

For sure. They sell it to people like Thomass. There's enough people like that to do well out if it.

Definitely. They sell it because they've come to realise that there is no material value in it elsewhere.

Heck, now the agent is telling the jockeys how to ride a horse, who cares what the trainer might want. Talk about paranoia. And I expect they've been banned due to selling inside information - which should be against the racing rules, as it is elsewhere

In my view there are a number of reasons why it can't happen here - there are insufficient benchmark races at a 'metro' level to allow a pool of horses to race at 'metro' level meetings. Scheduling will require that many will have to race at 'country' level. If they change the tier to be higher benchmark only at the higher tier level, and the lower benchmark races are at the lower level (i.e class based), then the scheduling can be aligned with the needs of the horse population. The NZ geography does not create a cost barrier since a single trainer will treat each venue the same. The cross over of rating level is limited between country, provincial, metro in Oz - yet in NZ, there is no limited cross-over. i.e. in oz the majority of country races are maiden or low benchmark, then higher at provincial, then higher again at metro level. Whereas NZ runs maiden, 65, 72 etc for each tier. And in NSW, they handicap the horses differently. As per this. Racing NSW will allocate two benchmark figures for handicapping horses that race between sectors – one benchmark for metropolitan & provincial racing and now a separate benchmark for races in country NSW. The creation of a separate country benchmark will see horses more appropriately handicapped when they move between metropolitan/provincial to country racing and vice versa. Programming of races across sectors will be streamlined to reduce the number of separate benchmark levels. This will provide clearer definition between the strength of races as horses progress. For example, provincial benchmark races will be programmed at Benchmark 64 level, metropolitan midweek races then start at Benchmark 70 and Saturday metropolitan at Benchmark 78. The streamlining of the structure of programmes will be accompanied by adjustments to the maiden win benchmarks from metropolitan and provincial races, with these generally to be assessed two points or 1kg lower than is presently the case. With the introduction of a new separate country benchmark, race programmes will be adjusted to see the number of benchmark levels at country race meetings reduced in order to simplify and broaden race planning options for trainers. Starting at Country Benchmark 50, races progress to Country BM 58, 66, and 74.

I'd prohibit bookies from offering tote derivative products. Let them fly solo than prices requiring a security blanket. Better still, take takeout down to 7% and lets see how long tote +5% lasts.

Used to happen a lot in the dogs and harness as well. Especially around min dividend. But they changed that so that if a dividend had to be made up to the $, they reduced the payout to the other divs.

The issue is, it can't work like Vic or NSW. How do you actually make it that those outside Auckland don't race there unless they have a progressive horse they think is up to the grade? And what do you do with all the Premier meetings that race all around the country currently. The model is flawed here, because the training and racing program does not mirror a tier. It does mirror that in OZ. That's the problem. Here they are just another race - as the scheduling isn't supportive of all levels getting a start. So they start where they can. In my opinion, it is the single biggest flaw in the NZ stake money model. And a driver of less participation.

Certainly looks like it - and is a problem for offering multis on best 'fo and tote'. Although I expect some bookies would void things. Any races with small pools are unlikely to be offering tote derivative best ofs to any large degree. Tote manipulation is a rule violation I thought. But still, an issue that some might take advantage of.

Can be - but generally not - because of the geographical delineation. There is no such delineation in NZ. Horses trained from anywhere race anywhere - and the same track caters for $10k races and $30k races - due to the non delineation. Such as today at Ellerslie.

Also, racing at Ellerslie today where the Auckland tier exists. Why are horses there racing for $10k?

How many horses that are not even placing in a 25k Country race, race next in a metro meeting, same grade? How many horses in NZ that are not even placing in a $10k rating race, race next in a $30k+ race, same grade? Are you going to claim the ratios are even close?

The main reason. Because the delineation is provided by city geographies. The designation of the tracks is done that way. The horses trained in the city or 'city grade' trainers also charge more.