Melody Belle Trackwork at Flemington 29 October 2019

[curious]

But please provide solid evidence such as peer reviewed studies. I'm not interested in hearsay.

[curious]

So for example, if I were you, I'd cite something like this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013968/

 

[Thomass]

Gee back da bus...

Did you say 2yo's don't improve from that peak performance?

"The evidence suggests that most horses do not improve on their best 2yo performance."

Yes you f in did...what's this then??

"Peak age is estimated to be 4.45 years. At age 2 a horse is predicted to be 26 points slower than at peak age"

Petard...hoisted...you

Edited November 18, 2019 by Thomass

[mardigras]

You're a train wreck. Going off the rails continually as you fight to survive for air. You're drowning.

And you are totally missing the point in these discussions.

On one hand, you keep going on about things like wide and unlucky. I haven't seen anyone say that you trying to adjust for those things is flawed. I think the general consensus is that you simply cannot do it. And to date, you have shown nothing that would give anyone any confidence you can do it. But feel free to continue doing it. Good luck with it.

On the other hand, the real issue is your blue print. These are the things like

Down in grade,

Blinkers on

3yo after Christmas

3kg claimers in the wet

quick backup

 

These ideas that comprise your blueprint (and no doubt there are others), are all 100% flawed. There is nothing that you can do that makes them not flawed. 

Anyone using them, would be more likely to make more money by simply doing their analysis and ignoring them, or if they lose anyway, would simply be far more likely to lose less by ignoring them.

So you crap on all you like about things like how others ignore aspects of analysis that you don't ignore. Such as wide or unlucky. Pat yourself on the back. Good on you. Just because you use some method to assess these things, doesn't mean that your assessments are of any use. I don't know what you do, but I can't say that factually, what you do in that regard is flawed.

The blueprint however is flawed. That is not my opinion. That is simply a fact. If you had even the barest understanding of statistics, you would know why. You don't, so you carry on believing the crap you write. With a bunch of post race examples to support it.

You seem to grasp that putting 20% extra on a horse because it's name starts with the letter 'M' is flawed. Yet you can't grasp the same for the other things. They are the same, your brain just doesn't understand it. And then the discussion goes around and around in circles (with varying changes in radius), a; because you're too thick to see simple things, and feel the need to try and poke holes in what others do as if that makes a difference. The others aren't starting off from a position where they are using flawed methods. You are.

 

Edited November 18, 2019 by mardigras

[mardigras]

And you're not capable of contributing to a rational discussion on the topic. You're not even prepared to try and understand why you blueprint elements are flawed. You just dismiss everything from curious, barry and myself and retaliate with your usual bullshit.

And instead of trying to help others understand how you would go about adjusting for wide or unlucky, you just persevere with your usual rants.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Thomass said:

Gee back da bus...

Did you say 2yo's don't improve from that peak performance?

"The evidence suggests that most horses do not improve on their best 2yo performance."

Yes you f in did...what's this then??

"Peak age is estimated to be 4.45 years. At age 2 a horse is predicted to be 26 points slower than at peak age"

Petard...hoisted...you

You are comparing performance with points rating.  One is relative to the horse the other is an arbitrary system.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Thomass said:

Gee back da bus...

Did you say 2yo's don't improve from that peak performance?

"The evidence suggests that most horses do not improve on their best 2yo performance."

Yes you f in did...what's this then??

"Peak age is estimated to be 4.45 years. At age 2 a horse is predicted to be 26 points slower than at peak age"

Petard...hoisted...you

Hilarious. I gave you that didn't I? Where's the critical thought or analysis? I've been marking crap like that for years. That's a 'D' .... just.

[Thomass]

16 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

You are comparing performance with points rating.  One is relative to the horse the other is an arbitrary system.

Seriously?  Blow me down with a fevver 

Dont tell me you support this errant nonsense then..." most horses don't improve on their best 2yo performance"?

Pear reviewed evidence?  Wee Cee could possibly help...

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Dont tell me you support this errant nonsense then..." most horses don't improve on their best 2yo performance"?

I'm not sure about the "2yr old" factor as many horses don't start racing until they are 3yrs old.

However I do see some merit in the hypothesis that a horse has a peak performance early in its career that indicates its future potential.  Particularly in the area of top speed when viewed from a sectional perspective.

[Thomass]

16 hours ago, curious said:

Hilarious. I gave you that didn't I? Where's the critical thought or analysis? I've been marking crap like that for years. That's a 'D' .... just.

Oh you wanted me to read it all?

I just went to the summary and found what I needed...

Are the Japanese sponsoring studies that aren't peered?

Perhaps you're getting confused with your fellow Alma mater's study that concluded    racing 2 yo's helps their muscoskeletal development for future racing?

...but certainly nothing to do with your previous errant nonsensical conclusion

[All The Aces]

The one thing your computer doesn't have is a set of eyes Mardigras and yours don't seem to operate that well.

You can't quantify an unlucky run per se and place it in a box or any other such things such as a hard run wide and a host of other things. To pick those up, recognize them and evaluate them comes from years of experience and knowledge.

Nor can your computer pick out a horse by it's looks in the birdcage as Murray Fish pointed etc. Again it comes down to experience and knowledge. 

You can put all kinds of stats into your computer for it to spit out it's selections however experience and knowledge by using one's eyes is a vital player in this game, make no mistake.

 

 

[mardigras]

2 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

You can put all kinds of stats into your computer for it to spit out it's selections however experience and knowledge by using one's eyes is a vital player in this game, make no mistake.

All this time and all these posts. And you haven't worked out that I don't use ANY stats. My god, it's pointless discussing a topic with someone that doesn't read or understand what has been written.

[Chief Stipe]

12 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

The one thing your computer doesn't have is a set of eyes Mardigras and yours don't seem to operate that well.

You can't quantify an unlucky run per se and place it in a box or any other such things such as a hard run wide and a host of other things. To pick those up, recognize them and evaluate them comes from years of experience and knowledge.

Nor can your computer pick out a horse by it's looks in the birdcage as Murray Fish pointed etc. Again it comes down to experience and knowledge. 

You can put all kinds of stats into your computer for it to spit out it's selections however experience and knowledge by using one's eyes is a vital player in this game, make no mistake.

 

 

Mardigras bets on value relative to the price he determines.

[mardigras]

13 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

You can't quantify an unlucky run per se and place it in a box or any other such things such as a hard run wide and a host of other things. To pick those up, recognize them and evaluate them comes from years of experience and knowledge.

And if you'd bothered to understand the thread, you would have known that I've never suggested others should ignore those things. In saying that, I've also not seen anyone evaluate them with long term success. Perhaps you could use all this experience and given us a single example of a wide or unlucky run and how you've incorporated that into your evaluation. Preferably before the horse's next run. Look forward to it.

14 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

Nor can your computer pick out a horse by it's looks in the birdcage as Murray Fish pointed etc. Again it comes down to experience and knowledge. 

You're right. It only comes down to experience and knowledge if the assessment results in success overall. As per my response to Murray, I've seen that first hand. I think that is a real skill (Murray can confirm but I've believe I've spoken with him about such things, and anyone that can assess horses in that fashion deserves all they get). As I've stated many times, there are many ways to profit. 

Some can do it in the fashion you describe. Some can maybe do it by using assessments that include analysing the video and incorporating things like wide or unlucky into their evaluation. Good luck to them.

You seem to be missing the point of this entire discussion. You seem to want to point out where my methods aren't as good as they could or should be. Not sure why you feel the need to do that, but I'm certainly happy for you to suggest that. But what you can't do is factually state my methods to be flawed, since none of my methods incorporate population based stats/theories.

14 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

You can put all kinds of stats into your computer for it to spit out it's selections however experience and knowledge by using one's eyes is a vital player in this game, make no mistake.

That's your opinion. And your eyes might be vital to you, but your opinion isn't something that affects me. Since I don't use my eyes to assess horses. I don't try to. I don't use stats either to assess horses. And make no mistake, I have been successful for decades. So therefore, I think when you say 'make no mistake', you've got it wrong in the case of others, as others don't need to use their eyes at all to be successful. I'm the very example that goes against your opinion.

Can you help me understand what your post has to do with things like blinkers on, 3yo after Christmas, quick backup, 3kg claimer in the wet or down in grade. Or were just wanting to share your ideas as to why you think my methods shouldn't be considered? If that was your point, I agree wholeheartedly. The more not doing what I do, the higher the chance that I will be at odds with those people. I prefer that.

[Chief Stipe]

 

 

 

1 hour ago, All The Aces said:

The one thing your computer doesn't have is a set of eyes Mardigras and yours don't seem to operate that well.

You can't quantify an unlucky run per se and place it in a box or any other such things such as a hard run wide and a host of other things. To pick those up, recognize them and evaluate them comes from years of experience and knowledge.

Nor can your computer pick out a horse by it's looks in the birdcage as Murray Fish pointed etc. Again it comes down to experience and knowledge. 

You can put all kinds of stats into your computer for it to spit out it's selections however experience and knowledge by using one's eyes is a vital player in this game, make no mistake.

 

 

Mardigras bets on value relative to the price he determines.

[Chief Stipe]

I must say that the most profitable days I have had betting have been on course observing the horse in the parade ring and the birdcage.

 

[Thomass]

16 hours ago, mardigras said:

All this time and all these posts. And you haven't worked out that I don't use ANY stats. My god, it's pointless discussing a topic with someone that doesn't read or understand what has been written.

Hilarious stuff...and sooooo touchy...Mr. STATSMAN...

STATS are your raisin de tear...you prune

A whole bunch of 'speed' STATS chucked in a blender...Blancmanged STATS...

Except you ignore vital stuff like unlucky, without cover et el...so it's VANILLA BLANCMANGE...STATS with mange attached

STATSMAN you is MAGOO...

...just accept your title

Edited November 19, 2019 by Thomass

[mardigras]

39 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Hilarious stuff...and sooooo touchy...Mr. STATSMAN...

STATS are your raisin de tear...you prune

A whole bunch of 'speed' STATS chucked in a blender...Blancmanged STATS...

Except you ignore vital stuff like unlucky, without cover et el...so it's VANILLA BLANCMANGE...STATS with mange attached

STATSMAN you is MAGOO...

...just accept your title

Wrong again. I just use facts. Times run on tracks. Don't need to use any stats about that. 

If you think those other things are vital, feel free to use them.

However, all of the blueprint is stats. And what the issue is, none of the stats incorporate the chance of the individual in the stat, or the chance of the individual in the future (from using those stats). Because you're thick, you thought they could serve a purpose. I've given massive anecdotal evidence they serve absolutely not 1 purpose. And factually cannot. That's how stats work and that's why I don't use them.

I write on here about how stupid and worthless stats are. And then you are stupid enough to think I would use them. Now that shows you have a serious mental issue. Seek help.

And seek an eye test. Veladero and Te Akau Shark are proof your eyes aren't working.

[All The Aces]

19 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

 

 

 

Mardigras bets on value relative to the price he determines.

I am well aware of that.

However It is the process he follows beforehand to determine his perceived value in a field that I am discussing.   

[mardigras]

6 hours ago, All The Aces said:

I am well aware of that.

However It is the process he follows beforehand to determine his perceived value in a field that I am discussing.   

I've described the process I use previously. A pretty simple process. I use the actual times a horse has taken to run a race to decide what time I think the horse will run in the event I'm analysing. I compare all those times of the horses in the race I'm analysing to decide what chance each horse has. Once I have my assessment of chance, I use the odds to determine what to back that gives me an advantage.

Perhaps you can help those inexperienced or lacking knowledge, by describing the method you use to incorporate wide or unlucky into an evaluation of a horse. Not for me of course. I don't have time to evaluate so many prior runs for 100 odd horses a meeting by watching and assessing every run for every horse for wide or unlucky. Your explanation might help resolve some of those time issues.

[All The Aces]

51 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I've described the process I use previously. A pretty simple process. I use the actual times a horse has taken to run a race to decide what time I think the horse will run in the event I'm analysing. I compare all those times of the horses in the race I'm analysing to decide what chance each horse has. Once I have my assessment of chance, I use the odds to determine what to back that gives me an advantage.

Perhaps you can help those inexperienced or lacking knowledge, by describing the method you use to incorporate wide or unlucky into an evaluation of a horse. Not for me of course. I don't have time to evaluate so many prior runs for 100 odd horses a meeting by watching and assessing every run for every horse for wide or unlucky. Your explanation might help resolve some of those time issues.

 

I look at a horse's times to a certain degree but it is not a main focus. If we only had two tracks in NZ such as Hong Kong does then I would place a lot more emphasis on times. However NZ has 50 or so odd tracks all different.

Let's look at 1200m times for example.

Ellerslie's track record for 1200m is 1:07:73 set back in 1987 by the brilliant Diamond Lover. Te Rapa's track record is slower at 1:08:60. Riccarton 1:07:01 Trentham 1:06:51 and say one provincial eg Tauranga 1:08:69.  Both Trentham and Riccarton are run downhill from a chute and with a tailwind up their backsides horses can run super quick times. 

Take for example the Telegraph this year. 18 starters, the race won by Enzo's Lad a nose in front of Ferrando in 1:06:95. The next 12 runners all broke 1:08:00. 

Going into their next starts and comparing times they would have probably been head and shoulders quicker on paper but they don't race on paper do they. 

Of the 18 starters on 2 managed to win at their next starts Gift Of Power who ran 6th and Melody Belle who ran 16th in 1:08:63.

I look at race video's and trial video's, look at all the horse's details including track and distance stats, whether it is back in grade, up in grade, barrier draw, whether it races well fresh or needs a few runs, look at it's second up record, look at it's winning weights to see what it is capable of winning with, check where the rail is positioned, do speed maps to find out where my runner may position in the running, track conditions of course, look at stipe reports and take note of any gear changes. Also look at rider and take in birdcage looks and preliminaries so basically what I am saying is that I don't put all my eggs in one basket and rely on one dominant feature such as times but use a variety of means to come up with the horse I want to back in a race.

The more work I put in the luckier I seem to get.

I had one bet at Rotorua yesterday for example, (now before you say after the race) I will explain why. Munster in R3 who was having his first start. He was beaten a lip in his first trial by Green Bravo in what was the fastest of the 10 maiden heats and then won his second trial beating Reika in the fastest of the 11 heats. Both Green Bravo and Reika came out and won on debut. Munster drew the ace yesterday and based on his last trial from that draw I expected him to lead or trail and be right on pace. By my reckoning if they run the race 10 times I though he would win 9 times so at $2.90 on opening he was way overs and a top value bet. He jumped, led and won by a half length. And that's all she wrote.         

 

  

[mardigras]

Thanks for your concern over my use of times. Interesting that in your example, you've pretty much used times as the basis for determining the horse you wanted to back.

As I say, I don't look at race or trial videos (except from wanting to watch a race replay), I ignore track and distance stats, ignore what grade the horse ran in, ignore barrier draw.

I do consider whether the race is in line with where the specific horse has shown it's best performances from a fitness assessment. I also ignore what weights it has run with (or won with). I think it is a fair point that a horse may have a maximum weight carrying ability, but I'm happy to err if that arises.

I ignore where the rail is. I don't support the view that the rail position favours forward or back. A wide rail position will only disadvantage back if the track is so narrow, the horses are having to corner outside the crown of the track or if the track is so narrow, there is an issue around having sufficiently clear pathways - in my opinion.

I'd consider doing speed maps, purely from the point of view to assist in knowing the conditions of speed where the horse I am assessing has performed best to increase or decrease confidence that the horse will run to its best. I ignore stipe reports and I absolutely ignore any gear changes.

I largely ignore the rider - except there is the odd rider I simply will not back. I don't adjust the horse's chance, I just don't bet. (I also ignore who the trainer is).

If I am at the track, I will look at the horses and form an opinion. I'm not skilled enough to alter my assessment from that. But when I am at the track, I will bet for entertainment purposes. So could back anything based on what I see or the colours as the horse does its prelim past me. I also like those that start with the letter M, has a nice ring to it. Like Mardi Gras - a reasonable performer in Queensland in the past. Doing that is not something I would suggest to be the secret to profiting from punting.

Each to their own. But that is a far different scenario to when we are discussing the blue print. Since the blueprint is a set of population based rules. Which are flawed. I wish they weren't for then this discussion wouldn't have taken place. But I don't make the rules. My points for when I am at the track is a bit like the blue print. Flawed - but OK just for entertainment purposes.

[Murray Fish]

11 hours ago, mardigras said:

I use the odds to determine what to back that gives me an advantage.

did I take it correct when you mentioned the problems with 'high house take out$' that your actual  focus was mainly on win and place?

you back multi horses per race?

(sorry if you have already posted that!)

[mardigras]

19 minutes ago, Murray Fish said:

did I take it correct when you mentioned the problems with 'high house take out$' that your actual  focus was mainly on win and place?

you back multi horses per race?

(sorry if you have already posted that!)

Nearly always just win. Very occasionally place.

Can be on more than one runner, but I prefer to settle on one if I can.

If I lay runners, that can be multiple, and place as well. 

[Murray Fish]

21 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Nearly always just win. Very occasionally place.

Can be on more than one runner, but I prefer to settle on one if I can.

If I lay runners, that can be multiple, and place as well. 

that makes sense to me re mostly win...  though gee! the Place can be the way to 'paying the rent!'!

Place, in nz g1's!  would be the best for approach for me if I had to be 'paying the rent' via horses betting!

Which I am very much not! lol! I'm very happy to attempt I do make a small profit via racing bets! I'm sure that the hourly rate for the time spent achieving that  would be way below the minimum wage! what has been fun doing it,  is that my partner has enjoyed just watching the races!  And picking her choice via what takes her eye suggests!! a  big change from her early approach of choosing via names! Usually via a 'thing English Language, art, culture etc..). Amusing to see the larger odds of some of her actual selections that actual place or win!

Nowadays, for me!  my actual current grind to bet down tho$e house odd$!!  tempered by  having run a game that took 20%! I so know not to be betting into any larger take outs!! Every now and then there are two horses in a race that *have* to run 1st 2nd!   So a Quin can be a lock down option! As I Need to Actually See the Horse! I often don't bet because there will be key horses I don't get to see! often they will go on to beat one that did take my eye! brutal experience has suggested to me if there is a reason to not bet that horse/race! then Don't!!!

Very Happy to report that we have actually thought about closing our house tab account for  this year, we have already taken at a nice profit and have 125% more in it now to be starting out the xmas/ny racing here in nz!  In highsight 'we' didn't take full advantage of the change in tabs offer$ via bonus bets!  I have found some interest value to be found in how one can use them! I bet into four different pools with them! au/nz racing! nfl, mlb. allblack$. more and more the nfl and mlb are appealing! A bonus of both those two sports is they are 'filmed' Brilliantly! I love the aesthetic of it's presentation!