mardigras

Usually why I look for the horse that I believe CAN run the race the fastest. If the horse never runs fast, I can't decide whether it CAN.

Some more specials. Expecting big things today. R3 #9 Our Beeskees R7 #1 Don't Look Back and #5 Who Dat Singa. R8 #2 Atomic Blast. Multi each way all day, quinellas, the lot.

Doesn't the fastest horse from the starting point to the finish line win the race? As for Trentham, I'd agree on comparing times as a number has no point. But who would do that when Trentham on a good track would be 1.5 - 2 seconds quicker as a track than Randwick on a good track, over 1200m.

Yep, I've blocked his posts. You can only try for so long. I'm tolerant, but he is beyond help.

I loved your masterclass, since it was master crap, as as it returned (based on what you wrote) about the same as a person using a dartboard. Which is expected when you use such a flawed approach. Provably flawed, as I have demonstrated. I put my thumbnails up because I know they irk you. But I also put up selections pre race, that don't require someone to write about putting them into a trifecta (after the event). And they don't require taking a multi where you have stated it is a saver. Which was the best part of your master class. Have you got any more $2 shots to share with us. Hopefully the next lot will produce more than one winner. You were found out as you always are. You're a fraud, a loser and mentally handicapped. That's why so many keep telling you that.

Spot on. I'll be blocking him one of these days. He is retarded.

Yep, I price everything. I didn't need to mention the winners price since it's odds were so far above value, it could never be anything but. Which is why I simply stated that would be my go. Of course I bet here. But rarely, since I don't bet sitting in front of a computer. And I don't bet through organisations that don't permit use of APIs to bet via. Funny how you complain about those on here putting up winners, when you can't put up diddly before the race.

Last time I put up a whole meeting was about a week ago. It had no pictures so you couldn't read it. That's not my fault. Get an education next time.

I can't help you if you didn't understand what they wrote, even if it isn't robust. They are wanting to equalise the average winning margin of a 3yo to be that of an older horse, so that in theory, the strike rates will match. They told you the average variance in winning margin between a 3yo and a 4yo ranges from 0.2L at middle distances, up to as high as 0.4L at high distances. That is what they are trying to correct . Actually they claim 0.4L. which is what the 3lb is attempting to address. Yet at those distances, 3lb less should change the margin by nearly 3 lengths if we believed your tripe So in their wisdom, they chose to adjust the allowance by an amount they believe will bring about the reduction in average winning margin to that of a 4yo. A 0.4L adjustment at the longest distances. Ergo, they are claiming 1 to 2lbs will make the 0.2L adjustment at some of those middle distances, and 3lb is required to make an adjustment of 0.4L. Why do you persist in highlighting how uneducated you are. I know it had writing and wasn't all pretty pictures, but the non robust report still supports my claim. Not yours. Hahahaha.

Who knows, but at least he wouldn't be an illiterate one.

So is 0.5kg =1L about right since it isn't the same as 1.0kg =3/4L. In fact, not even what I would call close. And aren't the BHA handicappers experts. Since the report shows they don't believe your numbers or maybe just decided not to use them and use mine instead. Are you disputing the 3% I said would generally be the case for the percentage of WFA races won by 0.05L or less. You're not going to continue with the self humiliation relating to your substandard education. You've already done that today in the NZ cup thread. We don't need you to fill up the site with more of you demonstrating that you are illiterate.

Makes no difference since the price I quoted of $30 was for #18, a horse referred to twice in the thread prior to my post, to which I was giving my opinion. Shame you just can't read for shit.

What's also hilarious, given your inability to read, is that the winner had an SP of $38 on Betfair. Idiot. Which I think meant it blew out to beyond the price you've tried to associate with my selection. That's not bad. Two statements from you, both wrong.

English remedial classes still not working? I didn't put up any price on the winner. I simply stated that is what I would go. You're just pissed that someone you think doesn't understand some bullshit nuance of NZ racing can pick actual winners paying a decent price. When all you can do is put up winners post race. I put up a whole meeting recently. Did you not understand it? Didn't see any comment from you subsequently, even though you asked for me to do that loser.

Why didn't the jockey ride the horse at the pace most suited to the horse?

It's been said that these people are the experts and they know stuff. I wonder if they know more stuff all than our resident 'general' statistician.

Yes, I mentioned that it wasn't a great study when I first discussed having read it. You can actually achieve the varying strike rates based entirely on their starter numbers in each category whereby each age wins what it should (but still with the strike rate shown). It is a pointless metric, but then according to some, these are the experts.

If anyone else is interested in reading some of the detail behind the BHA decision to adjust the WFA scale, here is a link. https://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DATA-PACK-WFA-Scale-22-09-16.pdf I find it hilarious that our resident 1kg = 1L (and 1kg = 2L over longer distances) expert, tried to use this to support his stance. When they are attempting to correct an imbalance of mimimal levels, based on his view, they only needed to make a 200gm adjustment at the longer distances, not 7 times that amount that they did.

Yeah, but it's be nice to Thomass weekend. He's no doubt off sulking after humiliating himself excessively last week. So thought I'd boost him up.

Thomass has contributed MANY quality posts. Around 2% of all his posts.

I wouldn't be surprised if 3 of his 4 end up being something like Kamada Lincoln, Anythingcouldhappn and Sunburst. Let's see.

SP $38 on betfair (say net $36), although peanuts invested on race.

Thommo has him in the Sunday/Monday report.

I'd go #4 Bizzwinkle. At anything above 30s, the #18 would be at least value imo, but not much in it currently. Good luck punters.

So if 'they know' this and the 'experts work' to this, then why when trying to address an imbalance according to their own report of between 0.2L to 0.4L in longer races, they have changed the allowance by as much as 3lb? Surely based on what 'they know', that would cause a close to 3 length change? No? So they changed it by 1lb to 3lb to cause a change of 0.2L generally. Interesting. On something based largely on handicap races. Interesting. Next time you want to present some info, perhaps you should ensure it aligns with your views - and not mine. 3lbs - yep, around 0.15L. Seems reasonable as an approach to move towards leveling things out.