mardigras

I don't bet that way. Your odds on is simply based on no one believes you had the most on it in its fifth start since meeting your criteria. Ergo, less than doubling your money.

Last time I looked, Fonterra was a business not run by government. You'd be keen on NZRB buying up a few supermarkets then and giving the proceeds to racing. All with government money. Because the government took ownership of the TAB and all the assets. History is of little to no importance. It is only legislation that keeps all the revenues going to racing. There is no dues to be paid. The government are simply being generous giving things like sports, offshore betting revenues and pokie money to racing. I'm surprised they haven't opened up supermarkets now that you mention additional revenue sources.

Clearly your intelligence is limited. The key difference is you came on here crowing about getting $8.50 for a runner matching the blue print. Hiding the fact that you'd already backed it 4 times before. The next difference is that every runner you put up like Adis matching your blueprint has to win to achieve doubling your money. They don't. And of course the most important difference is that you are getting excited about doubling your money on a horse you put up after it has won. The selections I put up were pre race. Of which the only results from you are 100% losses. So try doubling your money with pre race selections next time Mr Fraud.

I never stated you invested the same each time. But only a fraud would claim they invested the most the time it wins. After the race of course. You're a fraud and funnily enough you know that to be true yourself. And it hurts doesn't it Mr Fraud. That's funny, since 'doubled your money' was based on level stakes twit. I haven't got the nerve to suggest that the winners I picked were the ones with more investment on like you need to. Your methods don't stack up which is why you now have to claim you get better than 'evens' because when they win is when you have the bigger investment. Yeah sure you do. We all believe you.

Competition has always been there. But the TAB changed the focus of what they offered. And they paid the price. It's like going to the fish and chip shop and saying you want three fish. And the chippie says, we have these Australian fish - better fish - you want some? And then complaining when no-one wants to buy any NZ fish. The monopoly provided the choices, the people took the new choices, but the new choices add costs without reducing local costs. All you've done is shift interest from one place to another whilst adding costs overall. That would have still happened if there was competition here. And prior to the decisions made around that, NZ racing was largely self sufficient. That is only just over a decade ago. NZ racing should be grateful that up to now, the government has been kind enough to keep giving them revenue from that Australian 'fish'.

I have no problem with there being no monopoly. Have advocated that for well over a decade. However, the monopoly isn't what had caused the problem. The management of that monopoly and the decisions taken to effectively wipe out interest in the NZ industry has nothing to do with it being a monopoly.

The industry is largely in the position it is due to such heavy reliance on government funding. I'm more the kind of person that if I need money, I get off my butt and earn it for myself rather than relying on handouts. I think the racing industry should do the same. Clearly, you prefer the handout approach.

Seems to be a bit of a recurring theme Freda.

I'm not. I'm bereft of acceptance of stupidity. Something you repeatedly display.

Great, I'll add all those items to add to the next set of matching selections. I especially liked the one about blinkers on for the next run, when unlucky of course. I wouldn't have thought anyone could make up fairytales for so long. Yet you do it so easily. Well done you. Where you are seriously confused is that I don't use stats. I have them, which allows me to provide support to the fact that they are worthless. Yet you keep using them. Keep them coming Mr Fraud. Your continual writing of this shit just reinforces that.

The Industry gets huge government support. The government owns the TAB and nearly all the net revenue from that goes to the industry. Yet they want more ffs.

Absolutely. I doubt there would be anyone left that doesn't realise he is a total fraud. This is the guy that goes on and on about wanting penetrometer readings - so clearly thinks track conditions are important. Then backs a horse for max units on a condition never raced on before. After a Black Type performance on a G3. Runs crap on a Heavy. Now thinks it is max units on a Slow track. And suddenly blinkers on first time isn't the magic ingredient. After the race, it can be also second run with blinkers on. Still, the TAB needs people like him to keep depositing money into their accounts. Imagine the crap stats I could produce about horses in their second runs with blinkers on. He is a sad individual.

Certainly fixed odds turnover. Not much tote turnover on NZ racing so perhaps not so much there.

Not to mention backing a horse effectively at odds on. That was its fifth start since the G2, so has surely been backing it every time. What a crack up.

Weights for the cup released today - and along the lines of what I was hinting at, the handicapper has thrown Withhold a life-line. It is sad actually. To think that the Aus handicapper knows the horses better than where they have been racing - and in a jurisdiction where handicapping is so far ahead of the Australian system. Which of these seems to stand out? Horse Rating Weight Muntahaa 115 55.5 Prince Of Arran 111 53.0 Game Starter 110 52.0 Prize Money 109 52.5 Dal Harraild 108 52.5 Mustajeer 108 52.5 Yucatan 108 52.0 Withhold 107 53.0 Thomas Hobson 107 52.0

It's good to see you finally understanding the difference. Unrelated, different entities.

I have extensive data, but sadly not that. We will have to refer to the guru, Thomass on understanding such things. I'm sure he will have worked it all out and have loads of winners for us tomorrow.

Cup noms in this race are possibly going to have to win to get some ratings points. Weight allocated probably won't be enough to make cup unless wins an exempt race as hard to earn enough from rehandicapping alone. Winning this will obviously help any.

I have Etah James a bit less - at $7.40. Some value.

Nice barry, certainly a few long odds options in there. Go The Kraken (I priced at $20).

Yes, the Ebor has become a stronger race. Better fields and even the odd non-handicap type runs in it. This years winner, Muntahaa, definitely has ability and if he would be my option at the current odds (around 44-50s). If you watch the Ebor, you could see many furlongs out how he was going. And it didn't change. Maybe Thomass should ask how many lengths extra he covered than the rest of the field. They made excuses for some that copped some trouble (such as Stratum), but he wouldn't have got close to the winner in my view. Easily makes the field based on the weight he will get next week. If his mind is on the job, I quite like him. I backed Heartbreak City in the cup following his Ebor win and he didn't make it - but went very close.

Riccarton R9 #11 Battle Kat, at 10s, I priced value at 6s. Wanganui R4 #7 Ritzy Sparkle at 16s, I priced value at 8s. And maybe a long priced Q in the last, #7 Cancellara with #8 Carnaby - both starting with the letter C - and we know that is something to be aware of!

I've never denied such a thing. It IS a generalisation. I don't care about generalisations since you can't apply those to an individual horse. Back to the topic, how is tiered racing going to change anything positively for the industry? It won't help of course, but I expect to hear back from you on some other topic of which you know equally little about anyway.

A gallops man? Not possible from what I've read on here.

Just another incorrect statement from you. I've not admitted any such thing. You're a fraud, and your lies simply endorse that.