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

Punting 1.01


mardigras

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, curious said:

Tell us what a "course specialist" is then. Is it another one of your gross generalisations and population statistics?

That's bordering on 'mischievous questioning' wee c....

But this is basic stuff...and I'm ear to yelp...

Take NEXT UP from yesterday...

If the Premier superior form was on the same Course as this mid weaker...

land a neddy with similar Premier form on another course...with no record of having raced on this course 

Then it's simply counterintuitive to not increase the stake by the 20% I did in this instance...

certain courses such as Rotorua and HQ are renowned 'specialist' type tracks

Have you worked out if Blinkers make neddys go faster yet ffs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomass said:

That's bordering on 'mischievous questioning' wee c....

But this is basic stuff...and I'm ear to yelp...

Take NEXT UP from yesterday...

If the Premier superior form was on the same Course as this mid weaker...

land a neddy with similar Premier form on another course...with no record of having raced on this course 

Then it's simply counterintuitive to not increase the stake by the 20% I did in this instance...

certain courses such as Rotorua and HQ are renowned 'specialist' type tracks

Have you worked out if Blinkers make neddys go faster yet ffs?

Thanks for giving us some more rules. These are as funny as the rest.

According to you, the chance of the horse that has performed on the course has increased. Increased from what? When you assessed it's chance (which we all know you don't do), you would have already known its performance on the track.

And I like it that the chances of the other horses have decreased - including those that have never raced on the track. Keep up with the generalisations, you're the king of them and that makes you the king of losers. Well done.

Suddenly, when you bet, you add extra because of something like this. It's hilarious. Of course the readers know you don't actually do what you claim, since it's all just one big fairytale - isn't it loser?

No wonder when given the chance to put up either selections pre race or even back that up with an assessed price - you can't do it and you run for the hills You're a fraud. And you've exposed yourself on here for all to see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thomass said:

That's bordering on 'mischievous questioning' wee c....

But this is basic stuff...and I'm ear to yelp...

Take NEXT UP from yesterday...

If the Premier superior form was on the same Course as this mid weaker...

land a neddy with similar Premier form on another course...with no record of having raced on this course 

Then it's simply counterintuitive to not increase the stake by the 20% I did in this instance...

certain courses such as Rotorua and HQ are renowned 'specialist' type tracks

Have you worked out if Blinkers make neddys go faster yet ffs?

Nope. Haven't worked that out.

On the course specialist thing though, I see Winx has won 4 from 4 at Moonee Valley. Does that make her a course specialist eligible  for the extra 20% next time she runs there?

Mind you, I see she goes ok at Randwick as well, so is she also a course specialist there?

Edited by curious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thomass said:

Then it's simply counterintuitive to not increase the stake by the 20% I did in this instance...

Trying to update the BP Thommo. You say the above but with respect to the "course specialist" variable you earlier said:

" I apply a max 50% upgrade in value units at times.... " So, what are the criteria that determine whether it is 20% or 50%?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, curious said:

Trying to update the BP Thommo. You say the above but with respect to the "course specialist" variable you earlier said:

" I apply a max 50% upgrade in value units at times.... " So, what are the criteria that determine whether it is 20% or 50%?

Thanks.

And then with blinkers on, course specialist and trained on the track, what's that 60%, or cumulatively around 73%. How much extra for the 3kg claimer in the wet? 

The only thing I've seen that is counter intuitive is the blue print. Calling a horse with one supposedly decent performance on a track, a course specialist - is nothing short of moronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mardigras said:

Thanks for giving us some more rules. These are as funny as the rest.

According to you, the chance of the horse that has performed on the course has increased. Increased from what? When you assessed it's chance (which we all know you don't do), you would have already known its performance on the track.

And I like it that the chances of the other horses have decreased - including those that have never raced on the track. Keep up with the generalisations, you're the king of them and that makes you the king of losers. Well done.

Suddenly, when you bet, you add extra because of something like this. It's hilarious. Of course the readers know you don't actually do what you claim, since it's all just one big fairytale - isn't it loser?

No wonder when given the chance to put up either selections pre race or even back that up with an assessed price - you can't do it and you run for the hills You're a fraud. And you've exposed yourself on here for all to see it. 

It's plain disturbing the extreme sophistry shown in you and your mates musings....

Its all about you and your PC stimulations....

...and if I've shown you how to actually win on NZ racing...you blindly dismiss it

Even though you hardly bet here....

...due to your ignorance of NZ nuances 

You can't even get your head around the 21 day racing pattern here...

'course specialist' is a complete mystery even...

..and then there's the other long list of ignorance

'Wide without cover, slow out, unlucky'...all dismissed in your 'time assessments'

And then you choked when I told you to allow 0.3 secs for North Island form

Just give up on  trying to solve the NZ puzzle

You haven't got the mental intellect to let go of your PC bot stats statsman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, curious said:

Trying to update the BP Thommo. You say the above but with respect to the "course specialist" variable you earlier said:

" I apply a max 50% upgrade in value units at times.... " So, what are the criteria that determine whether it is 20% or 50%?

Thanks.

Of course we're dealing with degrees of course specialist 

Princess Kereru is a dead set dinky dye HQ CS

A neddy like Next Up, who had 2/2 placings at Rots....including the Premier form...back to mid weak...

...obviously not as strongly favoured as a CS in comparison...that's strongly change now to 50%

Cant see anything wrong with the 20/50% split personally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really are a twit. The comments on what you do are unrelated to what I do.

They are comments on what is a flawed approach. What don't you understand about that?

If I didn't bet, that wouldn't change that what you do is flawed. 

You cannot apply a population based rule to punting and have that rule be valid. Since the rule does not have a correlation with the chance of an individual horse winning the race it is in. Therefore it is flawed. It's why you lose, loser.

I've ably demonstrated that by putting up the horse's that meet your blue print. 

It's not about what I do compared to you. It's about what you do, being for losers. Which you are. Simple.

I've explained why. Clearly you couldn't understand it. Nothing unusual there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mardigras said:

You really are a twit. The comments on what you do are unrelated to what I do.

They are comments on what is a flawed approach. What don't you understand about that?

If I didn't bet, that wouldn't change that what you do is flawed. 

You cannot apply a population based rule to punting and have that rule be valid. Since the rule does not have a correlation with the chance of an individual horse winning the race it is in. Therefore it is flawed. It's why you lose, loser.

I've ably demonstrated that by putting up the horse's that meet your blue print. 

It's not about what I do compared to you. It's about what you do, being for losers. Which you are. Simple.

I've explained why. Clearly you couldn't understand it. Nothing unusual there.

You've ably demonstrated you're disabled when it come to NZ form analysis 

My premise....and indeed the accepted formula for the entire f in Racing/Breeding Industry...

Is that Black Type is f in KING

As each and every class has incremental increases in speed...

...as the class becomes richer

This is basic shit

Your so called 'demo' disregards everything that I hold f in dear 

'wide, wide without cover, slow, unlucky, Nortern form, Overseas form et el

All documented to within thousandths of a second...

But a complete f in mystery to your spanked 'demo'

Thats how stupid you are in believing the stats you produce statsman

Give it up

Edited by Thomass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, curious said:

What the hell is the "21 day racing pattern". Is that another population stat I need to add to the BP to get it to stop losing money?

Have you given up on the CS meme...a little too edgy for you?

Its common knowledge, as Bazz says, re the required 21 days to stay fit here....

Of course some race well with larger gaps...hence the race well fresh thang

Just ask Byron Baker after Saturday

But yes 21 days to stay fit here I'm afraid...what's your theory on staying fit

12pack of nuggets?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, curious said:

OK. So it is another population stat not an individual horse assessment of fitness? I'll add it to the BP.

No it's simply how our horses are trained here...

3 weeks without a race and it's often an injury problem and in need of a run

UNLESS the historical form line tells you a certain horse appreciates gaps in racing

Its basic 101 form analysis which the TRIUMVIRATE OF SOPHISTRY 

which includes you...

Cant get your heads around...among a screed of others

But you think you know it all....

Now how's your CS analysis going in NZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't give a toss what some moron 'holds dear'.

It's just plain stupidity. You should have tried to get a decent education. The one you got is substandard.

As for my NZ form, my pre race selections on this site are massively in profit. I guess that's what you call ably demonstrating that I'm disabled when it comes to NZ form. You prefer demonstrating how one should go about losing, loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's simply accepted here...

21days is the standard go to...anything over that and I'm suspicious...

...unless the historical form lines of said neddy tells a diff story

Im sorry you have no idea about this

"Factors I don't consider are weight, barrier, course stats (at this stage)"

this is what you said...

So you're contemplating koping the f on by including...

COURSE SPECIALISTS as part of your 'analytical Armageddon'?

Edited by Thomass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Thomass said:

 

"Factors I don't consider are weight, barrier, course stats (at this stage)"

this is what you said...

So you're contemplating koping the f on by including

COURSE SPECIALISTS as part of your 'analytical Armageddon'?

I don't know who you quoted, but I haven't seen what a course specialist is as yet. And I have no plan to include course stats any time soon. 

If they perform better on a course, those performances help shape their ability. I don't need to include any track stats and not only do I not need to, I wouldn't want to. To change chance based on them would mean I have to reduce the chance of others. Even if they have never raced there and may be a course specialist in your terms in the near future. Nope, not for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quoted you..

and then this

"But I will add a couple of separate things. I appreciate that what I say here isn't able to be done by punters in the main. But I've described a bot of it here nonetheless. A large part of what I do revolves around the many millions of individual runner start information I have which I use to allow me comparison of performance from one track to the next for varying levels of horse."

So you can't even remember how your "bot" works

And then you supposedly "compare performance" from one track to the next...

again seemlessly, supposedly...

But ignore the likes of Princess Kereru...a CS...over something...who hates HQ

Your extreme sophistry knows no limits...

Average Joe knows a CS when they see it...you're too 'up yourself' to kop the f on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Thomass said:

I quoted you..

and then this

"But I will add a couple of separate things. I appreciate that what I say here isn't able to be done by punters in the main. But I've described a bot of it here nonetheless. A large part of what I do revolves around the many millions of individual runner start information I have which I use to allow me comparison of performance from one track to the next for varying levels of horse."

So you can't even remember how your "bot" works

You're confused since my quote and your quote have zero relationship. Nothing in my quote states I don't know how my program works, since I wrote it. I know exactly how my program works since it does what I've instructed it to.

Give up loser.

The reference to 'track' is not related to horse track starts. Only an idiot would think it did. So I hope you weren't using that quote for that purpose. Makes me wonder why you put the quote up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Thomass said:

 

And then you supposedly "compare performance" from one track to the next...

again seemlessly, supposedly...

As I suspected, the comprehension of a 5yo.

I don't compare performance from one track to the next. I compare the performances of a horse relative to all other horses to identify the ability of the horse. To do that, I compare EVERY performance on EVERY track  raced to work out the ability level of the horse I am assessing. Idiot. 

Try Kip McGrath. You need an education.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

You're confused since my quote and your quote have zero relationship. Nothing in my quote states I don't know how my program works, since I wrote it. I know exactly how my program works since it does what I've instructed it to.

Give up loser.

The reference to 'track' is not related to horse track starts. Only an idiot would think it did. So I hope you weren't using that quote for that purpose. Makes me wonder why you put the quote up.

You said it

"I don't include COURSE STATS ( at this stage)"

Read You want to..but you haven't got the intellect in how to assess each performance accurately...

...unlucky, slow, without cover...it's a complete mystery to you in NZ

Get this, Princess Kereru operates faster around HQ than most other courses...

Others, who can't handle its undulations, can't go faster than other more suitable courses...suited to their gait

You walk the plank well though

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

As I suspected, the comprehension of a 5yo.

I don't compare performance from one track to the next. I compare the performances of a horse relative to all other horses to identify the ability of the horse. To do that, I compare EVERY performance on EVERY track  raced to work out the ability level of the horse I am assessing. Idiot. 

Try Kip McGrath. You need an education.

This is hilarious...

Yet you don't recognise the fact some horses present faster stats on certain courses

COURSE SPECIALISTS

Tatoo that across your noggin dobbin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thomass said:

You said it

"I don't include COURSE STATS ( at this stage)"

Read You want to..but you haven't got the intellect in how to assess each performance accurately...

 

At this stage, because I'm yet to find a horse that their course stats/performance correlates to a change in chance. 

This whole idea around chance of a horse is beyond you.

Edited by mardigras
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...