mardigras

Industry luminaries? I thought we were talking about punting, not training horses. Do you think there is any reason why they train horses and not just punt them? I don't question their training ability, but you seem to think that means they have punting ability. How do you think they would go at punting if they didn't have horses to train?

Curious, it is so funny. The guy just can't learn anything. It's the same type of problem referring to horse track stats, track condition stats. There is no performance component to them. This thread is one of the funniest. And he keeps coming back for more. Whilst a number of horses racing in higher class races and then returning to low grade may well do ok, it is because of performance, not race class. Firebird Flyer is the perfect example that Thomass fell for, 100%

Only one digging holes is you. Are you now suggesting that the jockeys that ride there all day didn't realise the entire day what you're saying? Not to mention horses on the rail winning during the day. You clearly didn't use what your claimed guidelines are when trying to find the winners at Eagle Farm that day. Since they were obvious if you had.

And he is talking about stats about the individual horse, let alone stats about things never tried with the individual horse, such as blinkers on first time. Such stats are a poor approach in my view. But stats that relate to some component that are not directly related to the individual horse are simply flawed.

Yep, and Damien Oliver stuck to the fence in the late races. The track might have been slow, but it was the same across it. Making it a decent surface for punters to bet on. You're just annoyed because you can't win at punting because you adhere to stupid theories. I thought you said you don't listen to hearsay? You've always gone about trainer said this, trainer said that.

Yep, if Pike thought the rail was off, that's just his opinion as well. Perhaps ask all the jockeys that were still sticking to the rail why they did that - even when in front and room to move away. Strange. Pike must also know more than them, even though they were riding on it.

The Eagle Farm track that day was fine. I'm talking about the surface to race on, not the drainage or the recovery or anything else about it. As with any surface, the softness of it suited some and not others. You couldn't use your eyes and work that out. I'm not right all the time, but I'm right a lot more often than you - as would most people be.

Wally, knowing how much Thomass loves no-hoper maidens, how about R7 #13 Luvabattle.

Don't worry about that, if it wins, he'll claim it. If it doesn't, well, you know the rest.

I think you've nailed it. Add in the 3kg claimer which are gold on NZ winter tracks, and being an ex-northener all points to good things.

It is quite funny. The guy is so out of touch - he is like an itch you shouldn't scratch. But when he seems to always come back, why not.

The best dung is that which drops in close proximity to a neighbouring stall occupied by a black type performer.

$3 a bag. Like his views on racing, heavily inflated.

You are the lowest of the low. You are a fraud. That is not what you wrote. This isn't verbatim, but is closer than that. some horse named something like ... wheeler can't get a mile. Why do you bother? You're an embarrassment to the world of punters.

You don't learn. I commented on what you quoted. End of story. You were wrong with the interpretation of what you quoted them, you are still wrong now. And yet you still persist that you understand thoroughbreds. Give us a break. Take another week off. Go back to mucking out the stalls. Shoveling shit is at least something you seem to do well.

I'm pretty sure I fully understand thoroughbred racing - but more importantly, I understand what impacts performance. You don't given your myriad of useless theories. I don't know what Wheeler said. I only saw what you quoted him saying. There was no ambiguity in what you wrote, it was simple and straightforward. Next you'll be telling me if Moody had said Black Caviar doesn't get a mile, you'll be suggesting he is saying she needs further. As for FF, she simply was an average horse that ran in a crap race. And you thought it was spectacular and followed the myriad of punters in on a price that you thought was value. That's what you get when you assess performance based on class of race as opposed to just assessing the actual performance. More fool you. With all this understanding you claim to have, why can't you put up any runners before the race to highlight how your understanding works?

No, there isn't one rule for me and one rule for others. Barely close up - that is in the race I selected it. Not useful the next time it races. How competitive it was in the race I selected it for. Where I expected it "in that race" to perform better than market price. It has nothing to do with whether how close it finished is important to its next start. It isn't. I find when betting on something, I'm more interested in how it runs relative to how I thought it would run. Just another area that you probably can't distinguish the difference. Funny about Wheeler's comment. You were wrong then and seems you haven't learnt. Again, still no surprises.

No. That's crap because you've been found out as useless. The market is not the 'accurate' one otherwise I wouldn't profit. It's the fact that the market is often wrong that allows that. Other selections I have put up here have started at 60+. Multifaceted, barely beaten. Another one that day at 200. Also close up. I select based on chance being superior to price. On the basis I expect them to perform better than their price suggests. You just put up horses that win after the race. Waste of time and space. Only thing you got right is that I definitely don't back a horse because it finished close in black type and then races down in grade. Like Firebird Flyer for example. I prefer to assess the actual performance, not the grade of race it was in.

I didn't back it - never said I did. As for the price, it was at 40s fixed odds so clearly the TAB didn't realise it was any better chance. And the price only majorly shifted in the last couple of minutes. But my post wasn't about the quality or otherwise of the field. It was that you took the time to write about the horse as being a non hoper. Astonishing that anyone would select this horse. Heck, you even posted twice about this very horse. Now it runs second, you've changed your tune. As always, after the race. No surprises there.

I think you have to assess the performance based on the horses themselves. If they are unfit/unready as per The Centaur, that is perhaps a different scenario. But if it happens to be that they are just turning up with slow horses (if that is all they have), how are you expected to get more winners?

You certainly know how to assess a horse. No doubt about it after your assessment of Cassio. I think it is pretty clear the level of form analyst that you are. A horse you stated was a total no hoper and an unbelievable maiden tip, I'm sure some punters just loved the $9 fixed odds place div at its next start - and runs second just beaten. Using your methods, he should have won by a mile after being 5 wide without cover out of the straight. In what may well have been the biggest betting move of the day, you would have looked even more stupid than you already do if it had held on. Call yourself a form analyst - no one else would. I have only just stopped laughing at your horse assessment skills.

Possibly. Any horse that can walk with 1kg less but can't walk with the extra kilo. Animals tend to have a limit when it comes to things like that.

Blinkers on is the best legal go fast.

Seek help. Like most of your posts, that was just a mash of pulp fiction, emphasis on the fiction.

Yes the dribble - largely juvenile which he actually thinks is some form of intelligent humour. The people he associates with must be of like mind.