mardigras

I'd agree with I'm Bronson, well over the odds in my view. Maybe GeorgeTheFifth for a longshot Q, if he can jump on raceday.

I'll be looking at Hastings R4 #16 Cuzzie Charlie (my price $6.00) Hastings R7 #12 Chocolate Fish (my price $7.80) Ruakaka R8 #1 Corporate Raider (my price $5.50) My major concern is that they all start with the letter 'C' And Chocolate Fish has Bandages on which I need help with as to whether they are good or bad.

Maybe the ones starting with 'P' are on 'P' and that is a factor previously not considered. And the 'C' are the 'Cobalt' group?? Disclaimer: I am not inferring this to be the case, obviously.

Maybe right Diceman. However, most people won't understand why ideas like that are flawed. In fact, many will use similar ones. I'm just trying to present why you shouldn't. If you do like ideas like Thomass presents, may I suggest you start backing horses with names starting with 'P' - it would be as beneficial.

As it turns out, horses starting with 'x' could be the go. They bring that X-factor. And if only I had known the impact to a horses ability when they get named starting with the letter 'P'. Bugger. Punters are over-rating horses starting with the letter C - I'm going to have to starting keeping clear of those. Stats can say anything. But Thomass doesn't understand when they can and when they can't be applied. Top Selections Winners Bet Fair Win Divs Avg Winning Chance Actual Winning % ROI (gross) Avg Bet Fair Win Div Names starting with 'P' 3553 883 $4,134.37 22.70 24.85% 1.1636 $4.68 Names starting with 'X' 32 6 $42.60 21.62 18.75% 1.3313 $7.10 Names starting with 'C' 5379 1227 $5,256.75 22.93 22.81% 0.9773 $4.28 Take for example. If historically, it was shown that 90% of all the Thomass' in NZ had an IQ above 110. You can't then take an individual known Thomass now in NZ and say that they have a 90% chance of having an IQ above 110. There is no relationship between a name and an IQ. If there was, people would then simply name their future child on such a flawed basis. The same flawed basis of applying 'blinkers on' because I rate it on top. All horses that race will be rated on top by someone in the world. And therefore, applying the 'theory' means that every horse with 'blinkers on' would meet the rule for someone in the world - yet Thomass says the rule can't be applied by those other people in that way. Simply because you can't invent a relationship that doesn't exist. The idea would have to be assessed against the horse itself, not the horse population. That is what punting is about.

Yep. I could run a sample out of the larger sample that might show much greater returns. Something like horses names starting with the letter 'x'. As useful as blinkers stats. The larger sample works across all bands of chance. I can split that up into groups like >40% chance, 30 - 40, 25 - 30 etc, and they all produce consistent returns. When you do that with blinkers on, the returns fluctuate massively because the 'blinkers on' doesn't relate to the specific horses chance, probably relates to the individual needing behavioral correction. And that would be the only way I can see anyone using gear changes effectively - understanding at least the idea of what impact they are expected to have for the horse being assessed,and tracking that against what actually happens to work out whether your ability in that sense stacks up.

Haha. But those prices are gross. So on things like Betfair, you have to pay commission. So I am looking for 1.15+ in order to allow for commission and premium charges. So bet on less races for more gain % wise is my goal. Funnily enough, a model where they charge winners more than those 'contributing' their own funds to the experience. If I decided a horse with 'blinkers on first time' has a 30% greater chance than I thought (as per the Thomass theory), and assessed it against being priced above that new expectation, the ROI reduces and the number of qualifying bets increases (as you would expect) since more exceed the vastly reduced price required to exceed the 'new' chance.

Yes, and the stats on such a small sample would be questionable. What I would suggest is that punters think like thomass and the end result is they are backed more. Resulting in less likelihood of achieving value. Those result are for all runners - not for runners achieving a price above expectation. I didn't put those'stats' up as yet. But they essentially read that if you achieve a price higher than my 'assessed chance', your ROI goes up (as one would expect). But it goes down for horses with blinkers on first time to around 1.02, from the 1.06 above. Suggesting that price is seriously impacted by that metric. Yet determining when it results in any improvement is tantamount to guesswork.

Just want to add. I mention weight above. But weight is probably the single biggest advantage I get from assessments. My assessment is that whilst weight affects horses, it doesn't affect them to the level the general punter believes. So high weights will impact price massively more than how I assess the impact on the horses chance. That for me is a huge area of 'value' difference. Barrier often being another one treated the same.

Responding to this. And if he wants to discuss it, then at least it can be removed from wally's thread. I ran my selections across data I hold relating to races where I hold gear change data. I run a dual approach. One which gives me the most likely winner based on standard form analysis and one which defines chance for every runner (if they have had at least one race day start). Below is details relating to just chance based assessments. These are Oz only as I don't have gear change information for NZ races. Don't need it for Oz races either. So if thomass wants to attempt intelligent discussion, feel free. The main issue with these stats are that assessing them from blinkers on or off is flawed. As historical stats relating to something that is horse specific has no bearing on future impact. There is no 'general' impact. It isn't something like suggesting weight will slow a horse down since weight will slow a horse down (even if it is marginal to what degree). If you apply an impact to a horse based on a percentage of horses experiencing that impact, then a) the positive impact had better occur at such a rate that it outweighs the times when it doesn't AND b) the general change to price would have to be less than the positive impact. So, from my data (which is just my own and not the sole source of truth), wouldn't support any notion of benefit based on what was asked in the quote above. I welcome intelligent debate/discussion. Top Selections Winners Bet Fair Win Divs Avg Winning Chance Actual Winning % ROI (gross) Avg Bet Fair Win Div All 73224 17134 $78,180.38 23.44 23.40% 1.0677 4.562879654 Blinkers On First Time 1183 316 $1,259.90 23.77 26.71% 1.0650 3.987025316 Blinkers Off First Time 984 238 $1,046.74 23.58 24.19% 1.0638 4.398067227

Sadly you are right Newmarket. But in defense of that, there is only one that doesn't ever do as per what the thread was about - and even poo-pooed the thread topic earlier. This is what he does. He will always insist others don't have a clue - and then never put up any selections - except post race. He will do this on so many threads (except the ones where he is talking to himself) and suggests things like people that have put up their selections have not realised how they were always the go because they met with his stupid ideas (such as barryb winner previously on this thread). He destroys threads, for what reason I don't know. I'm as much to blame as I simply can't tolerate someone as stupid as him, writing as if he actually knows something on the topic. Plenty on here do - he doesn't.

This is hilarious. Thomass has a whole bunch of 'ideas' to help punters, but no one else can use them cos they only apply when Thomass says so (and he only tells you after the race). Keep your stupid ideas to yourself since they aren't useful to anyone else.

Would you like the stats on horses with blinkers 'on' first up? Since according to you, that's not a last throw of the dice.

Some great names there. I have memories (albeit vague) of Black Rod. From that vague memory, I think he was a bit under-rated compared to ability.

In case portfolio is about to come on and give me another blast, I will give you a break and leave your stupidity to yourself. It knows no bounds. You can't debate a topic, because you simply don't understand the topic. The TAB needs more like you.

Contra. The view that the 'info' does NOT affect performance/outcome in the way the vast majority of punters believe. Which therefore means the punters affect the price due to their view, and the value is obtained either because they lower the price, others become higher - or because they think the impact is against the horse, which results in an increase to its price. Info like believing blinkers increases the chance of a horse because you rate it on top. Stuff like that. Things like GPS. You would look at horse that travelled further, watch the video and think it was 3 wide without cover, and then bring the price of the horse down based on that. I would take the contra view that the extra distance and being wide means nothing. And back something else that now has a higher price because of you putting more on the other one. Simple.

I don't recall saying what you claim. However, information that falls within the typical use, will generally not be of any value. Since most punters do form that way and therefore it will not provide 99% an edge. Information provided that is considered contra to the way most think of it is where you can obtain value. So I'm all for information being given out but it has to be on the basis that someone has to pay for that. And you as the major person who seems to want it, would still be none the wiser based on how you apply the information. You have shown us that. You will never have enough information because you don't know what you are doing with it.

Just because it is used in different ways, doesn't mean it can be used. Like the way you have said you use the info you repeatedly go on about. And why you have never managed to put up a winning selection before the races like you do after. Fraud springs to mind which is not surprising given your theories. They simply cannot work. What is strange about using actual known information to assess a horse when punting. Just because you like to introduce a while bunch of unknowns, you think punters that work with facts are 'strange'.

I think that might be a big part of your form analysis although it would be drawing a long bow to call what you do 'analysis'. I'm not sure anyone should follow this advice either. I don't. It more likely fits in with 'form analysis to give me the same results as all the rest' - and then wonder why their betting account is requiring another deposit like yours.

I'd say that is a pretty good way of finding them. But there are certainly other ways that don't require race attendance. One of the key ways I'd suggest is not to use standard form analysis. It simply won't give you a lot of variance to what every one arrives at. And therefore no likely value on many runners. Many punters use the same types of things when looking at a runner. Where it placed, class of race it raced in, weight carried, blinkers on/gear changes, barrier. And then there are things like raced wide, unlucky etc etc. I know many that ignore just about every one of those things. And yet they win long term.

It helps a lot more than things like blinkers on, 3yo after Christmas down in grade, 3kg claimers in the winter or any of the myriad pieces of advice you've given. Since they lead to the poor house. As for long term, no one's individual selections on here can lead to long term success. But if a punter is able to work out chance well (which is the basis for my selections) then that can certainly lead to long term success. And that would be the best advice I can give - after the advice of ignoring every idea you go on about to do with punting, of course.

I trust they don't bring an unfit, unwell horse to the races. If the stable had had a virus, I'd still trust that to be the case. When they win, you'll miss out cos you think the horse isn't ready - like the recent winner.

They come with an explanation. They are based on having a greater % chance than a price of $10+ suggests. Seems to have worked out that way as well. And that explanation happens pre race as well. Like the selections do.

Funny, I thought you trusted the trainer and they wouldn't start a horse that was still affected by the virus. I certainly couldn't care whether a horse had had a virus. If it's starting, that suggests it is ready to race and is no longer unwell nor its form affected by the virus. Seems you don't trust the trainer after all.

Gee - just looked - backed three of them actually. All lost. Still, on this thread, would be easily in profit - does that count me out of tipping on trackside?