mardigras

Tedium has resumed. You're obsessed with making yourself look stupid. If you don't understand the difference, that just confirms you lack an education. Just look the definitions up you fool.

You just described a behavioural issue. Well done, you're learning.

Well like most things with you, your memory is also wrong.

'can be'. Try using simple English. 'is' works perfectly. I don't understand what you mean by totes different. Behaviour is behaviour. And blinkers are designed to affect behaviour. Try learning English.

Says you, the person that doesn't know the difference between fitness and performance.

Remedial classes clearly not working. I would have thought it obvious. A fitness attribute is a measure of a horse's fitness. A performance attribute is a measure of the horse's performance. Complex I know for someone piddling in a paddling pool at kindy like you.

As barryb said. You write endless crap. As for blinkers, I'm pretty confident that every time they are used, they are to address a behavioural issue. Unless you think they are there as a fashion statement. Maybe add 20% for fashion. Confident that Hayes would agree with me.

Well when I'm looking to measure against a fitness attribute, I'm certainly not looking for a performance attribute. And when I'm looking for a performance attribute, then I'll concern myself with a measure of performance. More often than not, if I was looking for a performance attribute when wanting to measure fitness, I would have missed the peak performance and the horse has already won. And of little use to me at that point.

The jurisdictions that have sold their TABs in Australia have been the ones to reap the rewards.

Yes, I hope it holds up. I'll be there and at this stage I'm certainly sticking with the ones I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Is that all you have? A single race where your beloved G3 performer beats a maiden by 2.5 Lengths? Just one race? A POOR maiden win is only 2.5 lengths inferior to a G3 performer with a 'far harder run'. Interesting. Imagine what a decent maiden winner would do. Surely you have something more than that. The G3 performer must have been so superior to the maiden and yet, the maiden is ranked higher in the NZ ratings system than the G3 performer right NOW. Funny that. I don't care about individual performance, I care about ability. Which I then assess chance on. Dickhead. No, what sets us apart is one of us has a brain and the other one is you. This post doesn't actually make sense. None of what appears to be being written has ever been stated by me. I certainly don't think horses run in lanes, I don't think you should back a horse that isn't in the right state to win and I don't think a horse is always in the right state to win. But fairytalesarethomass so I guess we just have to get used to it.

No real surprises to me after the first acceptances for the cup. Couple of concern horses with both Emotionless and Sir Charles Road suffering setbacks - but still in the list. One horse that was heavily backed, Orderofthegarter not in the list which was pretty obvious given he nom'd for the Turnbull and didn't accept with no other noms either. And Grunt who was probably never a major player out from the big events. Be interesting to see how thing splay out. Usually at this time, there aren't questionable runners. This year, the likes of Withhold is still down as low as 37. With 85 first acceptances, around 30 higher than last year at same time, the top end of the field hasn't fallen away anywhere near like it has in past years. I wonder whether some that planned to go to straight to the cup might be looking at the Lexus now. If the field holds up, I would say it will be the best rated cup field by a mile (compared to other potential fields at this same stage). Far more quality horses, group performers and high quality handicappers than in previous editions in my view.

As an aside, if you really want to discuss approaches to things like fitness, start a new thread so that readers don't have to read your dribble in this one. You haven't got the intellect to discuss such a topic so it will be a short thread.

Wouldn't bother me. When I'm looking for a fitness attribute, I couldn't care about 1/2 a second either way. If a horse runs 6L back due to bad luck, then I'd suggest it is prone to bad luck and is just as likely to strike it again as not. I'm certainly not going to estimate anything given I'd have to do that for around 5000 horses each and every week. I'm too lazy to do that. And I'm sure you don't do that either for the 500 odd horse runs that usually happen each week in NZ. I'm not even sure why you are asking all this. Whether someone considers luck or not makes no difference. Wide runs or not. Who cares. That's their choice. It makes no difference what others do or what you do. So long as you don't suggest your 'posted' methods work. Since they clearly don't as I've posted the results.

Absolutely.

It is. I'm a patient man but this is ridiculous. And he had the cheek to go about others posting like 'experts' in another thread. The king of crap himself.

You are one seriously confused individual. It doesn't matter what I do or what you do. What matters is that you tell others that your ideas are worth following. When they are flawed. I don't tell other people to ignore being wide or unlucky. They can make up their own minds. I don't use the info because it's impact is subjective. Wherever possible, I eliminate subjective. That's just me. The funniest part of all this is that you still don't know why your blue print is flawed. That's hilarious.

I don't have a blue print. And I don't tell everyone else how to be successful doing what I do. I simply state the facts that generic stats like your blue print are flawed. Fact. As for comment about what I've supposedly admitted, show me where. Put up a quote.

You still here going on and on about your stupid selections. When I'm talking about your stupid blue print. Wake up. Try and learn something in your life. The blue print is 100% flawed. I've told you why yet you keep coming back not understanding. It'd be like me suggesting the blue print is that the 3rd favourite is gold. Then you show me all the losers. To which my response is, not all of them you fool, only the ones that win. Just like your blueprint. Because the blue print is flawed. Yet you didn't realise.

Someone with half a brain would have at least gone to the trouble of working out why this is the case. Before continuing to spout on and looking repeatedly stupid. Clearly Thomass doesn't even have half a brain.

What do you mean fighting on. I'm not fighting on about anything. I'm simply telling you facts. Verifiable facts. Your blue print has zero correlation with providing punters with more success, yet for some weird reason, you keep going on that it does. I've given you the evidence. You just don't have the mental capacity to understand it. You're the one that keeps coming back and showing everyone just how thick you are in regards these things. And no doubt you will be back again to repeat the dose. I'm quite happy putting the stats up that refute your claims about your blue print. And will do so, while you keep showing us your inability to actually understand simple stuff. You don't even understand that there are likely no population based generic 'blue prints' that can make a punter more successful - yet every one of your blue print elements is that. You should have got yourself an education instead of spending your time behind the bike sheds pumping up your doll.

I couldn't give a toss what you do. But your blue print is generic. End of story.

Stats as a betting tool are useless. But as a means to highlight why your methods are flawed, they are perfect. And given the methods you have put up as your blue print are exactly based on generic 'stats', it's interesting you claim they are no good, but your blue print 100% revolves around them. So thanks for confirming that your blue print is for nutters. Everything you do is based on generalisations. Which is why you keep losing and keep wanting more information to try and work out why you lose

I'm quite happy being a nobody. Better than being someone so stupid they suggest they actually gave a tipping masterclass. A set of tips that actually lost money. Ho ho ho. As for you not tipping $10 tips. That wasn't anything to do with putting up tips. it was to do with the title of the thread - your English is so poor, you can't even read the titles. But on price, I like the fact you're having to resort to spruiking $1.20 shots now - after the race of course. Keep them coming. Your arguments will not succeed because you don't work with facts. Stats are useless and things like blinkers on, down in grade are stats based. Useless.

For lovers of Thomass Down In Grade selections. R5, Our Beeskees. 3L off the winner in a Listed event - in a race run to a level of that. Today in a maiden. For me, too short. Would need to be in excess of $10s. Of course those stats aren't that useful from a straight punting perspective. Stats aren't. They don't consider the other horses being raced against and their merits for the race in question. And the last time I looked, you have to beat your competition to win the race.