mardigras

And what does "5. Amend the Section 16 distribution formula of the Racing Act 2003 to a more equitable basis for fixed 10-year terms." mean exactly. If anything, I am for a more equitable basis, but that isn't one that gallops would be keen on. In my view, it should be based on domestic share as it was intended - but it should be based on domestic NET share. Costs should have been apportioned from the start, so that costs associated with broadcasting/personnel etc etc are taking away from gross betting revenue domestically to see which code actually corresponds to the revenue of racing here. Income earned here on betting outside of NZ or on sports has nothing to do with any of the domestic codes. It is simply revenue and gallops has no greater right to off-shore gallops revenue that any other group. Yet I have a suspicion that Messara thinks it should. Even though it does not in Oz.

Melbourne Cup noms at 183 this year, a big increase of 43 from last year and the biggest number since they shifted the nom date back a month. Plenty of NH interest as well. As always, a brilliant event.

Except I don't fail here. And have even put up NZ selections pre race for results more than doubling your money. Odd thing to do from someone you say can't win.

Ok, NZ races only, $5k every week, guaranteed. Just from one horse per race with 'no chance'. Better than your 10k every 9 months trying to claw back all your other losses.

The real difference however is that one method works and yours doesn't. You tried to show everyone before the races once. 0/8 winners all at low odds. Pretty solid evidence right there. Along with the myriad of evidence that the blue print is totally for morons.

What is mindless is this comment. Since anyone that can label just one horse in each race that has 'no chance', could easily turn $100k into $50k profit every single week of the year. That's just one horse in each race. Yet Thomass chooses to bet on other runners and lose. Something still not adding up here.

Brilliant theories they all may be. Bur for me, the big problem is having to look into so many things. Looking up undie colour, gear changes, the age of the horse and when it last raced in Black Type. But they are relatively simple, however it must take ages watching every single race many times to pick out the ones that were 'unlucky', affected by being wide, looked like they were sleepy that day, jockey made a cock-up. Every horse, every race to see what adjustments need to be made from those runs to any start it has in the future - to adjust for it, or for when I'm looking to find excuses for a failed run. And then to still lose from all that would be just another kick in the guts.

Probably the same way I priced Firebird Flyer at 70s when you claimed it was value at 4s. And the 7 or 8 recently (before the races) I put up at massive rated prices that all started in single figures - and ran down the track. When you put your selections up in Turny's thread, make sure you put up your assessed prices as well. I look forward to that.

I quite like pricing the whole field for times such as when you though it crazy I priced the favourite at 6s that was being offered at 2s. You said the same thing then, and the only ones you mentioned as chances didn't even fill a place. And the one at 2s. No where to be seen. I find it odd that you claim to assess a price for the horse's you go on about, yet you never have shown that is actually the case, and you don't price the whole field. Something doesn't add up and that something is you.

If you think doubling your money is 'very average', I'll take your very average every day.

Except I bet rarely on NZ racing. There is little to no money here where I bet. So no, I don't bet on top 3 here. But if I did, I'm sure it would work out well.

From Racing NSW

Yep, got that one spot on barryb!

Well done FTF. Winner and Q for good measure!

Where's Thomass? See how easy it is after the race!

Yeah - if it were me, I would do what you said. Not change anything. Different things identified etc. Always be differences - which is good.

In what way has the 'form' changed?

Not for any reason but as information as I'm not trying to compete or negate barryb's selections. Just for a laugh if nothing else. I've added my rated prices to the selections above. All the best there barryb.

Had a look at this one barryb, I priced it today at $25. I had 10 , 8, 1 lowest. Or if I was Thomass, I had #2 best in that one.

Couple of great posts there. Barry, yes the trends around what a horse does and when is part of when I include extra horse specific things. And Ghost, any things such as bias, improper surface I can't factor in pre meeting. But can only be avoided if I see that and am able to stop punting. Which is not always the case. Ill give you my price post race for that horse barryb. Not at home to check it. Hope it runs well.

And factoring these things is brilliant. I'm too lazy and u able to quantify. And in my argument against what Thomass states, it is the 'general' application of a negative (or a positive) which is flawed.

What could that do for them? But here's a brief summary just because I know it'll get a response from you. The most important information I have and use is the vast detail of performance of horses on tracks/distances/conditions to enable comparative performance. You might call it a generalisation. But I don't use it like that since I use it as a ranking means, not in a 'general' sense. And then based on how many starts a horse has had, and the variances between those starts and the distance/condition of the race in question, I get a confidence level. So I define the time I believe the horse will run in the race and a confidence of accuracy. And I model that to get the chance of winning, coming second etc etc. I have other considerations(all relate to the specific horse, not a population generalisation) that I also consider to determine the expected time the horse will run. Quite simple. But I like it.

Generally. Nothing wrong using the word. Just using it as the basis for assessing chance of a horse is where it is flawed. I don't do 1600 simulations. I do 1500. I used to do 5000. But the resulting chance assessment didn't vary to any degree so saved time by doing less. Thanks for your recommendation anyway.

Thousands of posts and we maybe getting somewhere.

Which example was that.