mardigras

This was funny. 3. Growing the number of active account customers has been a major focus. We have delivered a number of customer and channels initiatives which has seen the total number of account customers betting with us during the year reach a record of 230,000, up 18 percent on last year. This is a phenomenal rate of growth for a wagering business and one that every one of our competitors would be envious of. Maybe. If it actually translated into revenue growth. That is yet to be seen. And what indications are there that those customers will remain betting.

I think you are right. This is a massive wind up. I doubt there could be a real person anywhere that actually thinks like this. But as for the supposed theory. He doesn't wait til they win before he is backing them. Previously, I had suspected he stopped backing them after they had won following this wonderful black type performance. Now I know about Sugar Rush, it brings up so many more runners into the mix. Only about 28 of them on Saturday alone. It certainly was a wonderful day for the blue print. It gave you a runner or more in close to every race on the day. Even 4 runners in R2 at Matamata. Sadly none of them won. Plenty of action. Not many winners. Never mind, there is always next week.

Classic. The illiterate one going about about others not being able to read. It's never ending comedy.

I see. Now you are the determiner of whose opinion is true. Yet the only 'evidence', (and I use the term lightly) you have produced is hearsay. The opinion of others makes my opinion false according to you. I'm not surprised though. You don't deal in facts, just old wives tales and stupid theories. What a total nutter you are. You write continual fairytales. Go and top up the account. The industry needs you.

Getting funnier. This is simple. Like you.

Exactly. In my opinion. Which is the main reason I ignore them. Others can do what they like. But considering your theory as a valid idea would simply be stupidity. Where have I stated my opinion is fact or that the trainer's opinion is wrong. Our opinions differ. Simple really.

It's easy Barry. You only actually have to remember one of the rules. If it wins, you backed it.

Classic. This from the guy that states he doesn't listen to trainers yet how many times does he seem keen to quote them as if what they say should actually be listened to. I'm gonna have to add this gem to the blue print rules. 20% for x, 30% for y. Maybe some 10%. Nothing about the horse. Just the gear changes. I can't stop laughing, self humiliation is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

Stick to playing with your blow up doll. I don't tell people to ignore blinkers or any gear change. I suggest they should ignore your theory on them since your theory is flawed. I don't need to know whether a horse needs blinkers to help it run to its potential. I certainly can't define what impact performance wise they will have. You've proven, you can't either. I don't use stats. You do. Your entire blue print is based on stats. Generalisations which are for morons. I've got enough intelligence to know that stats like that are flawed. Which is why your blue print is flawed. Yet you keep bringing up just the winning ones that match it. Which is funny.

The one race without blinkers ran 2nd. Comparable performance to starts with blinkers at same stage. I don't care what Snowden says. He may well be right. We will never know. But I deal in facts, not conjecture.

I thought gallops people were not dishonest. Some posts on this thread are a revelation and seem to contradict previous posts about gallops people.

As for Redzel, my opinion doesn't really matter. But it would be that there would be no discernable difference. It is something that can't be proven one way or the other. Sufficient information doesn't exist to allow a comparison.

Do you ever give up being so obsessed? It makes no difference. Since it isn't about whether blinkers make a horse run faster. It's about whether the 'addition' of blinkers makes a horse run faster. If a horse runs fastest with blinkers, then one would expect the trainer to present the horse in the manner that gives the horse the best chance of winning. That was what you were asked to prove. Since it was the addition of blinkers that you claimed as your blue print. And the results don't support you. Who knew?

He's not. It's you doing that to yourself.

Give up. You're incapable of being helped. But rest easy by knowing just one thing. What you thought was a sulk, was not. Not at one stage, not for one second. Never. And I have NEVER said otherwise. But you can't read. There isn't much anyone can do to help you on that. So go and have another sulk because you've now shown yourself up as stupid - again. Don't bother replying since clearly you comprehend English as poorly as you understand punting.

Nope, you still haven't got it. You never will. You're too stupid. You are just pissed because you've been caught out having repeated sulks on here and didn't want to be the only one. Diddums.

Exactly. Yet your posts on things like 'blinkers on', '3kg claimers', 'down in grade' are all robotic. Thanks. I'm sure Hayes knew I was with Tom. Given Hayes knows who I am.

Omg. You waste people's time reading this site because you are a retard. Nearly a thousand posts and nearly all obsessive crap. Do you know the difference between "I" and "It"? So I go from a sentence about me "I" to two sentences about "It". Why have you assumed the IT relates to the state of me? It doesn't. I told you that immediately after you posted about it that you were wrong. And all these posts later, you still can't grasp it. Both of my sentences about "It" are direct statements regarding what the situation description is. The first sentence is a correction (to what you described it as). The second sentence is a direct statement of the description of what the situation was and is. If I had wanted to say what you claimed, I would have said "I". as in I was no longer in a sulk as I was now making a stand. But you're too thick to understand. The person I feel for in all of this is your 3yo great niece. I hope you have nothing to do with her education and that she can overcome the major genetic issues she faces with you in her ancestral line.

Do you mean the heavy track? I guess the same way Thomass states he would know blinkers would help before the horse tried. My comment was tongue in cheek.

Are you telling me Hayes didn't know? I thought he knew everything.

You are a bore. I can't argue with that.

Omg, you're still here. It must be so infuriating to you that you constantly make yourself look stupid, that you feel the need to try and make others look stupid - which further highlights just how stupid you are. And now you're trying to bring your 3yo great niece (hopefully she doesn't learn to spell like you), into it as if you want to cast aspersions on her intellect as well. Have you no decency? To help you, I never said I was no longer sulking and I never said I was sulking in the first place. You've used some very poor English to make an assumption that I said that.

This is one of your usual failings. Your make a bunch of assumptions (usually wrong) about what is written. You link things that aren't there. For a start, I was not born in Levin and my parents were not living in Levin when I was born. You are just a stupid dickhead.

We are clearly not the same person. But two people agreeing when they take an opposing side is you, is not gong to be a rare occurrence. Why would you think it unusual given you are very unlikely to ever be right.

No. Your English isn't getting better. That is still incorrect. Comedy. You are providing enough for everyone.