Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Coming ×
Bit Of A Yarn

Racing Victoria Handicapper vs Thomass


Boxie

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Brave Smash would have won in my opinion. Funny thing about all these points, no one can ever be proven right or wrong. They can ONLY be opinion.

Just give up...

Its incredible how anybody who audaciously thinks they've got skin in the game...could be so arrogantly wrong on so many things Racing 

When actual horsemen give an opinion...like Bowman...you listen...

ffs...being a know it all statsman must be terribly hard when you get constantly PANTSED 

"He always runs well here at Moonee Valley and I think the blinkers added have certainly helped."

Weir said he contemplated putting the blinkers on for The Everest in which Brave Smash finished eighth behind Redzel.

"The plan was to put the blinkers on in the Everest but Hughie said he probably didn't need them, but he needed them tonight to get in the right spot," Weir said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no getting pantsed here. You're just sharing opinions. You're allowed to believe those ones more than mine. I don't get hung up on opinion.

You must think everyone has to have the same opinion as you (or trainers/jockeys) or they are wrong. No wonder you can't punt.

I'm still waiting for the links to these studies about the impact of weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mardigras said:

No, if they say that, they're wrong because they are wrong.

Being a punter doesn't make it right or wrong. The massive evidence makes it right. 

So a pixel won't make a shred of difference to the 3yo dominance...except in a pixel finish...

..and you'll be able to show the results in the next few years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomass said:

So a pixel won't make a shred of difference to the 3yo dominance...except in a pixel finish...

..and you'll be able to show the results in the next few years?

That impact of 0.05L will change many races. They may only be looking for a minor adjustment. Good on them if they believe the difference between the pool of horses has changed in such a fashion.

Environmental factors may have done that, or it may be a knee jerk reaction like the way you pick horses after they've won.

Still waiting for the links to these highly acclaimed studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mardigras said:

That impact of 0.05L will change many races. They may only be looking for a minor adjustment. Good on them if they believe the difference between the pool of horses has changed in such a fashion.

Environmental factors may have done that, or it may be a knee jerk reaction like the way you pick horses after they've won.

Still waiting for the links to these highly acclaimed studies.

It's 0.5kg over 2400M you pillock...not 0.05L over whatever distance you think...

How anyone could be so thick is beyond belief...

Carpenter will change the NH 3yo allowance for sure...

...he should have done it when they changed the NH WFA scale...Its called proactive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only answered to your post. You said they reduced the allowance by 0.5kg. you didn't mention for what distances.

0.5kg = 0.05L impact 'generally'. I don't care what distances they've changed it for.

They change it for different distances based on the maturity of the animal coping with the distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I only answered to your post. You said they reduced the allowance by 0.5kg. you didn't mention for what distances.

0.5kg = 0.05L impact 'generally'. I don't care what distances they've changed it for.

They change it for different distances based on the maturity of the animal coping with the distance.

Wtf?

Theres no impact if they work to your ridiculous pixel Impact...

How can you claim it'll change "many races" ffs

A nose over 2400M...are "many races" decided by a pixel then?

f me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thomass said:

Wtf?

Theres no impact if they work to your ridiculous pixel Impact...

How can you claim it'll change "many races" ffs

A nose over 2400M...are "many races" decided by a pixel then?

f me

I'm not following whatever illusion you are on.

The WFA scale is to account for differences in maturity over various distances. Whether that difference is generally nothing, 0.05L, 0.20L or whatever. It's not a difficult thing to understand. For most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mardigras said:

I'm not following whatever illusion you are on.

The WFA scale is to account for differences in maturity over various distances. Whether that difference is generally nothing, 0.05L, 0.20L or whatever. It's not a difficult thing to understand. For most people.

The problem is your 0.05L would make no difference at all

The experts work to 0.5kg=1L...which is about right...

...and they also increased it over 2500M and more...to 1 1/2Kgs...

...what's that in your World iron stain?

0.1L?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course 0.05L makes a difference. 3% of races are able to change result by such an impact.

1.5kg. Generally would have an impact of 0.15L.

Given your idea, I wonder why all the owners don't put a claimer on. What % of races 'generally' are won by a margin of 0.5L or less? Go on, have a crack. All 2nd place would need to do is put a claimer on in any of those races allowing claims and voilà, a winner instead of second.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's not different you fool

The longer the distance the less weight required

Theyre looking to reduce the difference by a length over all distances

How ignorant are you?

Again though...provide the 'Experts' with all of your 'stats' statsman

Tell them you've got this...and prove they don't know wtf they're doing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one of the most accepted 'givens' in racing ffs

And proven by the treadmill experiment...

Btw You said 0.05L...you can't even get your phantasy stats right statsman

Then you said "many races"...

Accepted you're in remedial understanding classes

"Many" of 3 Trillion could be construed as such...At just 3%...

But the real 'Many' in context refers to 75% and over 

How thick are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Then you said "many races"...

"Many" of 3 Trillion could be construed as such...At just 3%...

But the real 'Many' in context refers to 75% and over 

How thick are you?

You've got me. I don't have a clue what that pile of crap is about 

Many races relates to races. 

Percentage relates to percentage.

How can many relate to a percentage? You need an education.

I'm pretty sure 100% of one is one, and I wouldn't call that many. You are demonstrably thick.

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Try remedial maths as well.

0.5kg , 0.05L

1.5kg , 0.15L

Only you would find that difficult.

Of course 0.05L makes a difference. 3% of races are able to change result by such an impact.

Thats what you said

So how much for 0.5L and less then statsman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thomass said:

 

So how much for 0.5L and less then statsman?

40% each year. 

So according to you, 40% of the races are lost by a horse that would have won with just 0.5kg less weight. And you actually believe that. 

Just half a kilo between winning and losing 40% of all the races run.

Why the trainer of second didn't just throw on a claimer is beyond me. Simple.

Or just one rating point less. That extra point must be so damn annoying.

 

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

You've got me. I don't have a clue what that pile of crap is about 

Many races relates to races. 

Percentage relates to percentage.

How can many relate to a percentage? You need an education.

I'm pretty sure 100% of one is one, and I wouldn't call that many. You are demonstrably thick.

Yes clueless you is

You said 3% is "many"

"many" relates to 75% plus...in any anyone's language...

idjoit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Yes clueless you is

You said 3% is "many"

"many" relates to 75% plus...in any anyone's language...

idjoit

I love it when you confirm your stupidity. Try some more English remedial classes, the ones you've been taking are not working.

There is no 'given' relationship between many and a percentage. You humiliate yourself better than anyone else can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mardigras said:

40% each year. 

So according to you, 40% of the races are lost by a horse that would have won with just 0.5kg less weight. And you actually believe that. 

Just half a kilo between winning and losing 40% of all the races run.

Why the trainer of second didn't just throw on a claimer is beyond me. Simple.

Or just one rating point less. That extra point must be so damn annoying.

 

Well done...

So it's not 0.05L as you stated

The NH handicappers know 1/2kg=1L over 2000m-2400M

how many WFA races run in the NH will reducing the 3yo allowance by 1L result in statsman?

This is about the WFA NH weights you pillick...

But on our Heavy 11 tracks an app allowance by a good 3kg claimer is massive

Especially all of the mud over a neddy's legs and in big hooves...as per the research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...