mardigras

What right does NZ gallops have to revenue generated via offshore gallops. They are not the same thing. I don't think NZ rugby has any enforceable rights to income generated from betting on the currie cup. So to answer your question, under the separate model I referred to, Australian TB racing would fall under the umbrella of offshore racing and form part of government revenue. Or if there was to be a new betting operator approved by the government, the licence fees to allow operation on those events would be payable to the NZ government. And that operator might well be expected to pay fees to the organisation responsible for putting on that event. i.e. the Australian racing jurisdiction. as is the case now. When a NZ horse travels to Australia, none of the money bet on it in Australia through Australian betting operators is paid to NZ Racing. They are a distinct industry.

I expect understood by most, but that doesn't stop them persisting with the notion that thoroughbreds are deserving in the way Thomass seems to suggest. A bit of a last ditch effort to make them seem like they are of greater substance as they watch the industry self implode, in the hope someone is naive enough to believe them.

Tell that to the people selling yearlings at Karaka. And maybe you should inform HKJC that they have no racing industry.

It was interesting watching ex kiwi trained galloper, Firebird Flyer racing yesterday. The more I watched, the more I thought they are missing the boat. Great money at the Warrnambool festival. This horse is very good as a one paced slug and might just keep on forever at that pace. Sadly, with all those wonderful gear changes applied, the horse doesn't seem to want to race true. Must be using the wrong gear and all they have to do is find the right piece that will provide the proven statistical benefit. I'd suggest jumping could put her mind on the right track. Send her south, some beach training perhaps and away we go.

The breeding industry is not anything to do with NZRB. The racing industry is. And the racing industry is not large. It is minute in NZ. So NZ gallops racing is not a far larger more important industry. It is what it is and sadly, that is now next to nothing of value. You can thank NZRB and NZTR for that happening at the rate it has though. Well done them.

You have provided no statistical proof of anything. And you keep going on about Lasix which is a drug. And used in a jursidiction I don't currently bet in. You seem to be continuing with the idea that it is sane practice to apply a statistic to each horse you assess purely based on a % of horses correlating with that statistic. It's like stats show that a horse carrying 60kg in a handicap race has a 20% greater chance of winning than a horse carrying 54kg in a handicap race. And then increasing your bet on horses you want to back because they are carrying 60kg. It's nothing short of stupidity.

What undeniable facts point to a 25% improvement. I haven't seen them. And I've already said, I aren't commenting on Lasix. There are no undeniable facts pointing to ANY improvement with blinkers. If there are, show me some.

I don't think there will be a gallops channel and a pathos channel. If gallops get their own channel, so to should greyhounds. And then they will be interviewing local connections, having human interest stories, review shows, running racing on Saturdays. The case is the same. Gallops have no greater right to their own channel than any of the codes. I am all for complete independence for all the codes. Split them up. Allow them to operate their own betting operations if necessary. That includes sporting bodies. Return the revenue from the individual code to itself, none of this cross sharing of expenses. Remove any cross revenue (such as offshore racing and sports and pokies). Let each of them stand on their own feet. If they are to have one broadcast operation, charge the codes for the airtime like a commercial operation. And any other shared services could work the same way. On a proper commercial basis where you pay for what you get from that service. Like having multiple presenters for a gallops meeting, gallops should pay for that etc. It is what should have happened years ago. Easiest way to achieve that is to sell/privatise the betting operation with an agreement between the government and that operation regarding industry funding aspects. That operation can delineate the costs and revenue by NZ code/sporting body and pay to the industry on a basis of you get a share of what you earn (net). Simple.

Don't disagree, but then like many major tracks, they undergo proper refurbishments - something that doesn't happen here.

I agree, thoroughbreds haven't been able to do that. They have instead been propped up by the likes of greyhounds, pokies and sports betting. If the option is to provide each independence, that will certainly work in the doggies favour. They run a low cost broadcast model with high relative interest. NZ gallops is a high cost broadcast model with limited relative interest. Imagine when the doggies decide to run greyhound meetings on Saturday afternoons. The pathos you refer to might just give up on the gallops and switch onto the greyhounds.

But to give credit, they still race on their various surfaces 3 - 4 times and how many tracks in NZ in winter can achieve that?

It should mostly be available although I question it should be to anywhere nears the lengths you go on about. Maybe three readings, one inner, one middle and one outer. On the basis you describe, they could give you readings at 4.5m of 5, at 6.0m of 5.2 and at 7.5m of 5.4. Then when they all run down the fast lane at 6.2m which happened to have a reading (undisclosed) of 4.8 you're going to go on about not knowing that the fast lane was there. It will never ending. I certainly wouldn't change anything based on any gear change - certainly the first time it is used anyway. I have no information to assert it will improve the horse's performance. I am not commenting on Lasix since I don't know anything about it in regards performance. As for missing out. I would certainly rather miss out than bet on a horse where in the vast majority of cases, the gear change makes no difference. You will get far more wrong than you will get right. The evidence of that has been produced before based on every one you put up previously, before the race, losing. Seemed to be a number that you backed according to your post race reports however that were winners - but none of them pre race. Very convenient and naive of you to think that anyone would believe your tripe.

Yep, I imagine about as much as knowing the penetrometer readings across the track. Is it worth more than Lasix/Blinkers Off? Maybe they should just tweet out the penetrometer readings. That way everyone will know.

On one hand you go on about 'kills betting' and then suggest I go on about revenue. Last time I looked, no betting would mean no revenue. Make up your mind.

Dogs and harness deserve the same opportunity if not more given their relative standing.

I wonder why they don't listen to you. You abuse them, make juvenile comments - and expect things to change. Just another one of your ideas that will make no difference to NZ racing revenue.

I think it is a bit easier to be involved with a Melbourne Cup winner than a triple crown winner. Especially for a New Zealander, and in 1983.

Maybe because from a more global perspective, they rate higher than NZ gallops relatively speaking. You got one thing right, the only likely interest in NZ racing from overseas is from those patho punters you refer to.

And that is what makes the difference between winning punters generally. Generic stats are worthless. But Thomass loves them.

This sentence sums up why I am successful at punting and Thomass isn't. Generic application of 'performance' metrics. It just doesn't get any funnier reading this stuff from him. A dartboard would be more useful to him.

At which point will your request for more info end? No matter how much you get, it won't be enough to help your punting. What will be next?

I don't have the answers. How much the Racing industry contributes? To GDP do you mean? Nothing worth worrying about. That's how much. Messara will know that too so he can certainly go from there.

It would be a short term adjustment. And two points from the article. It refers to GDP contribution currently of $1.6 billion. That is a made up number and I would suggest massively overstated. Secondly, operational cost reduction does nothing to change gross revenue/net revenue earned from NZ racing. If you can't change that, then eventually there will still not be sufficient money to retain the industry (even if operating costs went down to zero).

I don't understand what you mean 'bet by rote' unless that means assess the chance of a runner based on information available and then eliminating as much as possible any assumptions and then comparing that to price available. If that's what you mean, then yes, I 'bet by rote'. I've found that works better than betting by guesswork. Maybe you should try it since guesswork seems to be an issue for you.

It's like all your ideas Thomass, you rely on massive assumptions. State of track, gear changes and what they will do. Rather than relying on known things and limiting assumptions to as little as possible. No matter how much information you receive, you will always be wanting more once you work out that the latest piece still leaves you no better off punting wise.