mardigras

Well maybe if I had selected it beyond the first time. It only got a subsequent mention because you called the horse a total no-hoper. And now it's run 2nd twice in a row. Let me know any other total no-hopers. They seem at least capable. Before the races would help.

Like the FACT the same horse ran faster on a slower track over the same distance carrying more weight (which you love) as a 2yo the start before. Those facts?

Yep, a fraud. He goes on and on about Black Type is superior. Always. A performance in a maiden can't be superior to Black Type. Then refers to Black type performance levels and 'universal times' for each class. Universal if you don't mind. Yet when he claims how good Black Type is, he doesn't even check to see whether the performance was in line with a Black Type performance that is supposedly universal. He just assumes because it's Black Type, it's superior. When even a simple check on percentiles around track/condition/distance would tell you one way or the other. And because he doesn't know how to assess actual performance (and uses class instead), he doesn't know when a maiden performs at the level of the universally known black type level. He'll now argue he does check things like times. But it is clearly untrue after he raved about Firebird Flyer in one of the worst performing G3 races around. Clearly no where near a G3 universally known performance. And clearly the horse didn't quite reach those lofty heights before being retired. They could have kept her on for Warrnambool. And he has no doubt been backing Adis every start it has thinking it is so superior - when it was a piss poor G2 race. As you say, we need people like him.

It's a crack up. His entire approach is built around generalisations and averages.

You're not too good at this stuff. Whether I agree with curious or not is irrelevant. The problem with your claim is that you took 'a winning % advantage' and decided that meant blinkers made them run faster. Which can't be determined from that data. Horses starting with P also had a winning percentage advantage but that doesn't make the statement that starting with the letter P made them run faster. As I say, go back to school and this time pay attention.

You've missed a heck of a lot in your lifetime. If you consider that proof, then you missed an education. If that is proof, then that is the same as saying you now have proof that horses with names starting with 'P' makes them go faster. Go back and find all those things you clearly missed. Your self humiliation is boring.

You not worth responding to. As Murray Fish said repeating the same stuff to you makes no difference. You can repeat the same stuff to me and it will make no difference either. Because you don't base your argument on logic. You are a fraud.

Where have I said I've found it impossible to interpret that form? The good news is, in your last diatribe, you started referring to performance elements. Well done. Shame you chose a poor example where the 2yo mdn form was a better performance than the G1 form. Slower track, more weight, faster. Simple. Yet you still won't comprehend. That performance may well have been why they entered into a G1. You didn't even realise the run was faster. It's not all about time. It's about performance, time is one component, the most relevant over the career of a horse. Not one that can be put in a catalog though since people like you can't compare times from different tracks. Even a simpleton should understand that - yet you can't.

Please do.

Still no debate as usual. You don't do debate. You do aggressive/abusive.

I'd love you to show me where I stated that. Try using some facts in future.

No, generally only.

Apples with apples. You're not even using the same day. You know the day when 18 R65 horses ran faster AT Ellerslie. And a bunch of R85 did too. Just about every horse that day over 1200m ran faster. It's pointless since you can't present why black type is superior. I can at least present why it isn't.

Yep - handicapping by rote is not good. I prefer assessment based handicapping. All maiden winners basically going to the same level is a farce.

You make this too easy. Let's look at your stupid G1 performance. You claimed the performance was good because of running down the track in a G1. I would claim its performance was good when it ran 3rd at Counties. At Ellerslie on a track rated '3' where times were fast all day. Counties on a track rated '5'. He ran faster at Counties. Maybe you didn't realise that. Counties isn't even as fast a track as Ellerslie - yet he still went quicker. You use black type, when it's performance that counts. A horse doesn't know it is racing in a G1. And I love this " realising that Black Type form beats slowest Maiden winners all day every day". It's just more baseless crap. Don't forget good ole Firebird Flyer will you. No doubt that is why you'll try and suggest running slow in a G1 is good form. Heck, only 18 R65 runners the same day ran faster than Not Usual Current over the same distance. And still, I priced Not Usual Current on Sunday at $2.76 given I ignored its back type run. Why can't you just debate a topic. Instead of trying to discredit others in some fashion as if you think that bolsters your view on the topic (which it doesn't), try and actually debate what is the topic in various threads. If you want to debate my methods, start a thread on them. You don't know what my methods are so it will be a short thread. This thread is a debate on the assertion that horses having raced in higher grade, now racing down in grade is an indicator of better chance in a future race. I say it is rubbish since there is no relationship. Why? Because the horse doesn't know the class of race it was or is in. It doesn't know things like what stake they are racing for. They are just racing. The misconception is based around being too lazy to work out performance since generally better class of races will attract better horses and those horses will generally deliver better performances. But every time the performance is poor, you still get on, because you aren't able to assess performance. So you make typical claims that don't relate to the reality.

What drugs are you on. Given I've not commented on anything curious said in this thread in the last day or so, nor he on anything I've said. You just make shit up. You really are a sad case. You don't deal in facts and that's why no one can actually debate anything. You just destroy threads with persistent crap.

Interesting comment. I guess this site isn't about debating racing related topics. It's just about competitions etc. I'm certainly not interested in what I'd call boring things like entering competitions - but I don't feel the need to go on those threads and tell them so.

Love your work Newmarket.

Sure you did. Did you use a dartboard? As for winning one day in the space of what is now around 3 years, a dartboard would do better. One day does not a punter make - yet you continually think it does. This is the problem. The blue print which is what is being discussed is not worth the web page it is written on. The blue print relates to things like Good performance in higher grade, black type form is superior. Blinkers on 3kg claimers are gold. They are all worthless - since every selection I put up that matches the 'blueprint', you claim isn't meeting something else - but no one knows what that something else is. Every horse I put up will be the top selection of someone out there in punter land. And then when they apply your blueprint thinking it is now even better - what happens? Nothing - because the blue print is nothing. So if Wally listened to your tripe, you are right in one respect. He wouldn't keep asking. He'd have no money left for punting.

I've never said you can't price your horses. You've just NEVER shown you can BEFORE the race. And one of the issues with your ideas, is the punter doesn't know what you mean by 'haven't got the class' or 'simply not fit enough to win'. Which means you just put up any nag after they've won. No one else can use your theories because no one else will use the all important post race result to validate them. Of course the main issue with your theories is that they are flawed. You didn't realise why previously so that won't change now. You call that arrogance when it is simply common sense.

You didn't need to write a book to show us your rules are for clowns. I didn't care about last in a G1, I cared about the performance which was average at best. A beaten horse in a slow time. The last just emphasised it was so beaten and slow, it couldn't even beat any other runner in a dawdle.

The NZ TAB has pre nom Cup odds available. If you can call them that. Normally 24 runners will accept for this race. In the NZ TAB market, you only have to go down the top 25 and you've already reached 100% market perc. As a betting organisation, they are woefully out of touch. Even though they offer refunds if not nominated. Why have horses there that won't be. Call To Mind has been retired. If they want to actually encourage punters to have a bet, why not actually put up odds that suggest that.

Results for today (using the new formula). 30 starters, 6 winners Tatts win divs totalling $28.70. Didn't quite bring the bacon home. Even including Nulli Secundus, Not Usual Current, Indigenous Union and Verry Elegant. Just have to incorporate Pi and we are away! Weekend 100+ starters, 14 winners, $77 - not bad - slightly less than a dartboard.

Thanks. I'll update the formula. I do love how a special maiden performance suddenly trumps a G2 second - with BLINKERS ON, even though Black Type is superior in every way. I also love a last placing in a G1 is assessed as a good effort. Very PC that. Good for coming last - well done. Here's the comment from NZTR "Trld mod pace, wknd 200m". Sounds good for sure. And HK placings over a distance 700m different to today. That is really going to make the new formula brilliant. Thanks. So I'll add runs like Nulli Secundus. Races with mostly maidens running around. I didn't realise you would include those as superior form. There were truckloads of those today. With the new rules - only about 120 horses raced this weekend in NZ down in grade. Especially if one is to count running down the track - just for showing up because it was a G1. No surprises here Wally - when you have that many to choose from post race, it's pretty easy to come on after the event as there will always be some that win. All Thomass does is pick them post race and put them up as if they are such a guide. he's an embarrassment to punters. Thankfully, I have all the data and will keep putting these up everytime he persists in claiming how good they are POST race. And I will tabulate the results. Everyone will see.

Seems there is a bit of "I don't listen to hearsay" unless "the trainers spread the word"