mardigras

Why. 0.05L generally is worth changing if they think it makes the right adjustment to a generic rule. They likely make changes based on outcomes over a number of years. The generic difference between a 3yo and an older horse must have narrowed in their view. Good on them. That's what the WFA scale is about.

I must have missed them. Links please.

Nope, never said that. Making stuff up again?

Still going on about how you think I'm wrong. That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. Other jockeys the same day didn't get off the rail - and won. Does Innes know more than them? As for Redzel, yep that is my opinion. It's not a fact as it's unable to be ascertained at this point. Equally, it can't be proven wrong. It is to do with punting, since the points relate to what happens with a horse on the track. Where a trainer thinks blinkers will help. But they don't know they will help. And all of those points are opinion. An opinion shared by punters that I know to be winning punters, not losers like you. You can't front up on any discussion with anything useful. So you have to continually write about my opinion being different to someone else's as if that helps your argument. Your argument can't be helped, because it is wrong.

Send your message to Weir. I'm sure he'll love your input and that he has it all wrong.

Now you think you know more than the trainer. Suggesting he has it wrong with the jockey. What a cheek!

It's not written with crayons and pretty colours. I doubt Thomass understands anything.

I am yet to read a study that supports your claim. But yes, any trainers that think the way you do on this topic are wrong. As are you. Try referring to actual evidence.

Studies that based on what you put up have zero relevance to the discussion. And you haven't produced the study for reading to see what they are actually about. You keep repeating things about trainers as if the situation with them will change. Since I do know more than whoever those trainers are - about punting. A truck load more. That's why they train, and I punt. I don't know it all. The credibility of my views on punting have nothing to do with my opinion of myself. Hence why I get sought out by professors such as this https://www.ntu.ac.uk/staff-profiles/business/leighton-vaughan-williams, to write for them. But one thing is clear, I do know a hell of a lot more than you are capable of learning about punting. You've proven that on this site with your repeated ramblings about things such as this topic, and stuff like down in grade, 3kg claimers in the wet etc etc.

This is the perpetual problem with him. He just writes a whole bunch of crap. Can never produce anything of any substance. And the same thing will happen in any other threads of like topics. No evidence. Just what someone told him and he believes.

I haven't said that. I have stated that a variance in weight of 1kg from the first race to the second race (for the same two horses), had an average change in margin of 0.15L. If the weight variance went up, that variance is aligned with the margin variance accordingly. Not the "greater weighted horse being even more superior". The margin reduces if the weight variance increases, the margin increases if the weight variance reduces. Simple stuff. I didn't mention anything about where Horse A or Horse B finished in either race. The sample is very suitable for assessment since it is constrained on the actual horses being compared. With a sample of that size with a random nature of which races may or may not be more suitable to either horse, the other variables don't need to be constrained. By virtue of the fact the same two horses are racing against each other in consecutive starts - over a large sample, will allow the sample to work reasonably well. And it is far better than a treadmill since a treadmill does not mirror race horse behaviour. And the sample is also constrained by eliminating horses that finish a distance from the winner in either race). To eliminate a series of races skewing the results of a margin variance. It's quite simple. Yet I'm pleased you can't understand or work it out. At the very least it shows just how little impact weight actually has on race results.

I think starting with the letter P was a major factor from memory. Certainly about as useful as all of the other Thomass theories which are for punters interested in having no money in their account(s).

I wasn't offering any study. I was offering the actual results of the actual races that demonstrate that for 230,000 odd horses, weight made little to no difference to consecutive results of races with matching horses. Anyone can work out the variance in weight and the resulting variance to margin - I say anyone, but I probably mean anyone except you.

A treadmill certainly does dismiss variables. All of them. There is nothing left to gain an understanding of, including the impact of weight. What's hilarious is one of us is successful at punting and the other one is you.

Perhaps, better than just being totally clueless like you.

I don't need to ring someone that is so far out of touch. He wouldn't have any more chance of putting me to the sword than you do. I.e. none. I've done very robust modelling of it. So I know the general impact of weight. It's how I profit. And my modelling is a bit more extensive than a few thousand horses. I model hundreds of thousands of horses. Why can't you explain why when horse A meets horse B in two consecutive starts for both of them, why the variance in weight compared to the variance in margin is less than 0.15L per kilo across 230,000 horses. Is the horse getting the extra weight relief always the one being disadvantaged under the race conditions when the 2nd race comes along. By about 0.6L per kilo, it would seem. How funny. My other two forms of modelling are far superior to that - you wouldn't even understand them. But that one gives a very strong guide to weight anyway given it is real horses, real races, real weight changes and real margins. No treadmills involved. Race day advantages impacting results would be likely to be evenly spread between Horse A and Horse B. Do you want me to send you the 230,000 horses across 470,000 race results?

I have no idea of what you're trying to say, but I have no issue with the WFA scale. I expect there is generally around 0.1L per kilo difference corresponding to the scale to address the 'general' performance difference the scale is trying to nullify.

20181111Hastings_S5.pdf

Sure is, for gullible punters that believe crap.

I wonder how much the 4kg affected the price of the fav. Ignore that and you have a pretty easy tri or first 4. When you stop sulking again, try and come back with some relevant data.

Not judging by the increased level of interest in it for decent horses from Europe.

As a race, I think it is a great event. The number of starters and the track make it that way to me. The Cox plate is a race of quality, the Melbourne Cup is a race that still has huge interest no matter what the critics claim. I've been to both the Cox Plate and the Cup many times. The atmosphere for the Cox Plate doesn't get near that of the cup for an individual race - even with the very limited space at MV.

It's been over half the field for a while. If you look at races like the Metropolitan, over half the field was NH bred. I prefer the race with the NH horses compared to without.

I agree. I expect an influx of NH 3yo noms. They will get in with a simple G3 win or so. Without having to run in Oz. And can be set for the race the way they do in Europe. These horses are NH derby types - compared to SH derby/oaks types - where there will be a likely disparity in ability. it will be increasingly difficult for a SH horse to even make the field let alone be competitive. Even without the NH 3yos, that would still be the case.

Some of that is inevitable. As for the part of getting a lightly raced horse in with no weight. For an Australasian - nearly no chance. The 3yos can't do it without placing in the derby (and a win is likely the only option). 4yos are still going to have to have won an all aged race of quality or a prior oaks/derby. Which puts them up in the weight scale straight away. older horses are likely going to have has more races on the track, given the way they are prepared here. I don't think weight is an issue. It is the simple way that a Euro 3yo has to get in the field that is going to cause issues. They have a very serious advantage - they are better, and they are of a breeding age that puts them in a better position than an Oz 4yo. That means they can easily qualify and get in the race. I don't think weight is the issue. The problem is that most of the higher weighted Euro horses are more likely very good handicappers. The Euro 3yos are likely very decent at WFA level. There aren't many horses that race at over 55kgs generally in the cup. But if you get a quality 3yo against a quality older handicapper, the 3yo is likely at an advantage in my opinion. In 2011, Dunaden won as #3 at 54.5kg. We have short memories. Makybe Diva (NH bred), won with ever increasing weight. Won each time by the same margin. I think it is quality of horse as opposed to weight that determines outcome. And that has been the case in recent years generally.