mardigras

Why aren't you calling for all people that have associations with owners, jockeys, trainers, vets, farriers, stable hands, track work riders, media to be banned? That could be hairdressers, doctors, dentists, librarians, plumbers, sparkies etc etc etc. Anyone. I've never gone to the races and not received inside info that isn't public knowledge yet. You'll have to ban them all given the advantage they all have.

I haven't stated it isn't inside information. I've stated there is no gain in having the information except to those that are gullible like you. Every owner, jockey hairdresser, trainer's mate has potential inside info. But the value of it is undefinable if there even is any value in it. It's all hearsay - which we know you thrive on.

For someone that spends so much time telling everyone how good his methods are, he does go on a lot about others possibly winning, BGP, jockey agents etc and wanting things like tactic changes and penetrometer readings. Me thinks things are not what he makes them out to be.

Where's the quote.

Now you're claiming they're fixing races. Don't think you have to ban agents betting. Charge them with race fixing. The rest of your crap is baseless.

There is NO notion of insider trading with this. Because there is no identifiable GAIN. No impact to others. Nothing. You go off on a load of bollocks because you know so little about these things. Who really gives a toss about what they back or what horse their jockey rides. FFS - get a grip. It has zero to do with integrity. Does the manager have to back the horse ridden by a jockey he operates for. That's like me not being able to buy shares in a company I don't work for. You're a loose cannon. And you're stupid. I'll stop responding when you stop dribbling. The only troll on here is you as per FTF. Respond to everything, go off on stupid tangents. A troll and an idiot. A bad combination.

Having access to - and using are not the same thing. Why can't you understand such simple things. Next you'll be claiming that people that work for a company shouldn't be allowed to buy shares in that company. You're a total fool. I haven't said it isn't. But there is no ability for an owner or a jockey agent to 'trade' with non public information on horse racing unless you're suggesting the inside information is going to become public prior to the race being run in order for the holder of the information to gain on it via trading. It's going to be a fat lot of good having the inside information disclosed to the public after the race has run and the horse has lost. And even if you just take the race outcome as some form of 'trade', how are you going to assess what the person with the inside information gained from having the inside information? Even IF the horse won, how are you going to show the inside information was the reason the horse won, given the connections of all the losers equally had inside information, and their horse didn't win. You'll have no evidence to prove the value of the inside information since it wasn't disclosed to the public prior to the race to allow you to identify the value in that information. ie the difference between what the 'stock' was worth to the insider versus what it became worth once the information was known. A horse traded at $10 isn't a gain of $10 - since the gain can only be defined as the difference in the price, if the information was in the public domain. Maybe that was $9, maybe it was $12. Who knows. It'd be a guess and therefore will carry no weight.. The big issue with all this is that it is just another area of life where you know sfa.

And as a by the by. It is NOT.

Societies approach to putting the mentally disabled in among the community is why we have to put up with imbeciles like Thomass. The idea is good, but the reality is they need supervision. 1400 odd posts and nearly all of them utter crap. You are once again proving you have no idea. This time about insider trading. Keep it up. What is the next thing you can show us that you are clueless about?

There you go again. 1 length. Peanuts.

There is no similarity between stock market trading and betting on horses as far as insider trading is concerned. What a total looney.

When they have a place market at over 400%, it shows they don't even want to compete.

Surely that's a joke!

I don't majorly factor those things in. Distance is a major factor in confidence. But still insignificant overall since ability is the major assessment. It has nothing to do with my ego, but everything to do with your obsession with trying to make what I do, the subject of analysis, all because I've made you look like a total tool. Nothing you say about what I do will make you any less of a tool. You're methods are flawed. Period.

Everything has to be explained to him in baby terms. Many races are won by a small margin, 'many' having nothing to do with % of the total. X is a large component of something. X is a minor component of something else. His brain can't compute the difference. He's at the level of a kindergarten kid at best, although that's being unkind to kindergarten kids.

Might as well ban trainers, stable hands, owners. All can have inside information. Just ban punters - heaps have inside info.

What you quoted applies. Distance is a confidence thing. Ability is separate. Distance is a big factor of confidence and a zero factor in horse assessment - for me. Which is what you quoted. Only you don't understand it. So I'll repeat. Distance is not a factor in my assessment of the horse. Clear yet?

You got that right at last. Something that would take a 5yo no time at all. Took you days. In what way is distance huge. Distance is minor and therefore I potentially make a minor adjustment. I don't expect a horse to be in the race if the distance is an issue, and if it is, my adjustment will easily deal with that. And it does.

Look, a change in price/ chance. Look, no change in my assessment of the horse. The horse hasn't changed so why would my assessment of the horse have changed? You certainly get the award for most stupid person. Well done.

Thanks for confirming you don't understand English. My comment is that I don't change the assessment of the horse. Do you know what a horse is? Nothing semantic at all. A horse is a horse and I assess it. Then I decide if there are any minor variances in the conditions of this race that will potentially affect it from running up to my assessment of the "horse". You're a fwit. Get a damn education.

Looks like you're having to resort to pretending to quote others, since what you quoted hadn't been written by me. It's your usual style because you're too thick to understand English. Next time, try quoting me, idiot.

Yep, it is a very small part for me relating to confidence only. Same as track condition. I want to assess ability. And make minor adjustments to chance based on factors in a race that aren't part of that assessment. As I've said.

You don't quantify it. You need to wait til after they win as it's different for every horse - based on whether they win or not. It's the same with the entire BP. They only meet the criteria after they've won. Before that, nope.

It doesn't take long for a decent discussion to degenerate into a pile of dung. Post race bullshit coupled with the usual.

Many on here could forget 90% of what they know about punting and still know twice as much as our resident looney. It's good to see that the masses have worked him out as the fraud that he is.