mardigras Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 24 minutes ago, Thomass said: You need to convince an awful lot of industry heavyweights...you know those with a bit Of gravitas...like Waller ...ask him if he thinks importing Kiwi apps...with all that experience...then receiving back their allowances with fewer 'city' winners in Nz... ...makes a difference... Waller v Mardi grass mmmm...gee...hard call I don't have to convince anyone. It makes no difference who agrees, the difference comes about in my bank account, as it the single biggest point of difference affecting odds that allows me to continually profit. Whereas you go on believing things like that and continually seek more information because what you have isn't working for you. And why wouldn't you put up an apprentice that rides as well as other jockeys. Half a length can be the difference between winning and not. I'd certainly support Waller there as it certainly makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 19, 2018 Author Share Posted July 19, 2018 14 minutes ago, barryb said: Zero facts again from you Thomass to support any bullshit statement you create. You better get back to the princess, shes busy on tinder. I think this covers your opinion on claims bazz "Race 5 # 11 Devine Duke Last into parade ring, small but looks fit, alert and 4kg huge help." So huge isn't less than 0.1L x 4...even in your world is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 19, 2018 Author Share Posted July 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, mardigras said: I don't have to convince anyone. It makes no difference who agrees, the difference comes about in my bank account, as it the single biggest point of difference affecting odds that allows me to continually profit. Whereas you go on believing things like that and continually seek more information because what you have isn't working for you. And why wouldn't you put up an apprentice that rides as well as other jockeys. Half a length can be the difference between winning and not. I'd certainly support Waller there as it certainly makes sense. FYI 0.1L is an official NOSE So now you're telling us 0.1L is half a neck...but 1Kg is less than that now as well? Youre very confused... So you take allowances into account in your algorithmic stats system now stats man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, Thomass said: I think this covers your opinion on claims bazz "Race 5 # 11 Devine Duke Last into parade ring, small but looks fit, alert and 4kg huge help." So huge isn't less than 0.1L x 4...even in your world is it? Did you read 'small'? Clearly not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Just now, Thomass said: FYI 0.1L is an official NOSE So now you're telling us 0.1L is half a neck...but 1Kg is less than that now as well? Youre very confused... So you take allowances into account in your algorithmic stats system now stats man? No. 0.1L is 0.1L. idiot. Where have I said it is a neck or a nose or a head. It is a distance. Where do you think the confusion is. Hopefully not when I referred to half a length earlier - relating to 4 kg. It was said as an approximate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryb Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 47 minutes ago, mardigras said: Did you read 'small'? Clearly not. Wish I had of mentioned it was in blinkers, would have added more credibility to Thomass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 50 minutes ago, mardigras said: No. 0.1L is 0.1L. idiot. Where have I said it is a neck or a nose or a head. It is a distance. Where do you think the confusion is. Hopefully not when I referred to half a length earlier - relating to 4 kg. It was said as an approximate. There you go again mentioning "half a length" All margins are directly related to each other... 0.1L = nose 0.2L = head 0.3L = neck etc. 0.4L = lg nek so now you're saying it's less than 0.1L...so 4kgs =lg neck/ nk Besides they don't have 4kgs in Wallers city territory so your comeback of "relating to 4kgs" is unrelatable for Sydney Maybe Metres will help you...with a half length = 1.25M So you tell us a neddy goes @ 1/16th faster in even time...that's a lg nk/neck quicker with 4kgs less... ...and you don't differentiate on H 11 tracks yea na Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 36 minutes ago, barryb said: Wish I had of mentioned it was in blinkers, would have added more credibility to Thomass. So is 4 kegs a "huge help" or not? Maybe when you're pessed?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Those values are indications, not useful to me in any way. I use distance. 4kg=1metre 'generally'. 1kg =0.25 metres (or around 0.1L if a standard horse or thereabouts). So 4kg equates to around 0.4L of a standard horse 'generally'. But each horse is different and for some horses 1kg will be many lengths, and for others, nothing worth measuring. If you can't understand that, then I'm not going to be surprised. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryb Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, Thomass said: So is 4 kegs a "huge help" or not? Maybe when you're pessed?? Hey dope, try thinking a smidge you fool. Mardigras gave you the answer you silly boy. Small, slight horse, of course any weight off will assist (and 4kg is going to help more than 1kg) but to what level I cannot quantify, it maybe your .01 or 4 lengths, I don't know. This is the bit you fall to grasp Looney, its not able to be quantified so its not worth focusing on much. Same with Binkers, unable to quantify what improvement or reversal will occur so it becomes nothing more than your punting is like, a stab in the dark guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 1 hour ago, mardigras said: Those values are indications, not useful to me in any way. I use distance. 4kg=1metre 'generally'. 1kg =0.25 metres (or around 0.1L if a standard horse or thereabouts). So 4kg equates to around 0.4L of a standard horse 'generally'. But each horse is different and for some horses 1kg will be many lengths, and for others, nothing worth measuring. If you can't understand that, then I'm not going to be surprised. Hahaha, you've written some pretty crazy sheet in your time but that takes the carrot... "Some...1kg will be many lengths" What makes you think Rosewood wasn't in that group then iron stain?? How did your stats quantify her lack of "many lengths" ...don't bother...give up...Its as bad as "there's nothing wrong with the Eagle Farm track" no idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 You are out of your depth. If you haven't kept up by now, I ignore weight in Australasian handicap races. It's trivial. So my assessment doesn't have to factor anything in about it. So as I said at the beginning, Rosewood may well have lost the race because of excess weight. But a) it isn't because of 1kg =1L, since in general terms such as what you originally said, that is garbage. And b) you don't know whether it lost because of the weight since you can't define the impact the weight had on the horse in that race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 2 hours ago, barryb said: Hey dope, try thinking a smidge you fool. Mardigras gave you the answer you silly boy. Small, slight horse, of course any weight off will assist (and 4kg is going to help more than 1kg) but to what level I cannot quantify, it maybe your .01 or 4 lengths, I don't know. This is the bit you fall to grasp Looney, its not able to be quantified so its not worth focusing on much. Same with Binkers, unable to quantify what improvement or reversal will occur so it becomes nothing more than your punting is like, a stab in the dark guess. You and Rid should go back to kindy...tick the English as a second lingo option... If you'd said " small so 4kgs a huge plus" I'd maybe listen but..." small but looks fit, alert and 4kgs a huge plus"... na....it doesn't fit you and your bf's claimed link What quantifies improvement though...is when Gibbs said KE cant go without Blinkers...and you would have been on anyway...maybe you can't read the gear changes?? ...you simply can't quantify what Ms. Squat squats when she squats...because you don't know squat even if it hit you in the moosh.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 1 hour ago, mardigras said: You are out of your depth. If you haven't kept up by now, I ignore weight in Australasian handicap races. It's trivial. So my assessment doesn't have to factor anything in about it. So as I said at the beginning, Rosewood may well have lost the race because of excess weight. But a) it isn't because of 1kg =1L, since in general terms such as what you originally said, that is garbage. And b) you don't know whether it lost because of the weight since you can't define the impact the weight had on the horse in that race. And you're out of your mind... "R may have lost because of the excess weight....but it isn't because 1Kg = 1L..." wtf...0.6L then? ...the dead weight you think?? Garbage?? Take that English as a second lingo option's your best bet of the month... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) You shouldn't be telling others about understanding English. I have not said whether the horse lost because of the extra weight or not. In fact I said it might have. My comments in the main have been referring to your claim of the generally accepted impact of 1kg. Which is a load of garbage. Try and understand the two topics. I couldn't care whether the horse lost because of the additional weight, no one will ever know. But to suggest something like you did shows you can't differenciate between fact and fiction. Edited July 20, 2018 by mardigras 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 On 19/07/2018 at 11:24 AM, Thomass said: Yep...and the deadweight issue deadsheet?? 1kg dead weight = 1kg jockey weight = 1 kg horse weight ......doesn't it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 What are you saying...weight transfer has no basis relating to the speed of a horse? ...a bit like "Blinkers don't make them faster" Roger Lang was the classic heavyweight Jockey who had the perfect over the shoulder weight transfer... ...can dead weight help when a Jock is pushing out in a finish? Not likely...it just stays behind the shoulder...not over it......acting dead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 16 hours ago, mardigras said: You shouldn't be telling others about understanding English. I have not said whether the horse lost because of the extra weight or not. In fact I said it might have. My comments in the main have been referring to your claim of the generally accepted impact of 1kg. Which is a load of garbage. Try and understand the two topics. I couldn't care whether the horse lost because of the additional weight, no one will ever know. But to suggest something like you did shows you can't differenciate between fact and fiction. It's bizarre the way you structure your arguments.. "it may well have lost due to the xtra weight..but it's not due to 1Kg = 1L...but for some 1Kg = many lengths" wtf...talk about confused thought processes... go back to kindy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Thomass said: It's bizarre the way you structure your arguments.. "it may well have lost due to the xtra weight..but it's not due to 1Kg = 1L...but for some 1Kg = many lengths" wtf...talk about confused thought processes... go back to kindy Not only can you not differentiate fact from fiction, but you can't differentiate one topic from another. The topic of whether the horse was affected by the extra weight is a moot one. It may have been, it may not have been. The topic of whether horses are generally affected by weight in the manner you claimed is another topic. Two different topics. Any specific horse could be affected by the extra weight - but who knows to what degree. You'd probably have to look at the horse's performances to see what impact weight has on the horse. You certainly couldn't apply some stat, especially a totally wrong one. But then that is what you continually do. Stupid is as stupid does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 21, 2018 Author Share Posted July 21, 2018 I suspect you have adhd...you get pantsed then come back for more... ....maybe you're a masochist who likes a spank?? A swinger?? One Minute it's 1Kg=0.1L, nek minute less than that..nek nek minute 1Kg = many lengths Swing away spinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 28 minutes ago, Thomass said: I suspect you have adhd...you get pantsed then come back for more... ....maybe you're a masochist who likes a spank?? A swinger?? One Minute it's 1Kg=0.1L, nek minute less than that..nek nek minute 1Kg = many lengths Swing away spinner Pantsed? If you say so. But then you don't deal in facts so from you, that is a compliment. Cheers. When you can understand the difference between a generalisation and an individual trait, feel free to re-enter the discussion. Since your last post shows you don't know the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted July 21, 2018 Author Share Posted July 21, 2018 Where's the researched 'stats' statsman...that supports your contention... ...even I...moi who supports the 1Kg=3/4L theory...think your claim is absolute fairy dusted b/s... ...so I await your stats to prove I'm wrong for once...stats away McStatsman "But each horse is different and for some horses 1kg will be many lengths" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Thomass said: Where's the researched 'stats' statsman...that supports your contention... ...even I...moi who supports the 1Kg=3/4L theory...think your claim is absolute fairy dusted b/s... ...so I await your stats to prove I'm wrong for once...stats away McStatsman "But each horse is different and for some horses 1kg will be many lengths" You would need more intelligence than you possess. And I am pleased you think my claim is absolute fairy dusted b/s. I wouldn't want it any other way. But to put it simply, ratings based handicap racing in a jurisdiction over a large sample will follow a consistent pattern of outcomes related to weight (if there is no contrived minimum weight). In a decent jurisdiction, that line will be level as all weights will produce the same relative number of winners across the weight scale. In a not so good jurisdiction, the line will still be linear but not level. Since many jurisdictions run handicap races with minimum weights, that results in horses carrying greater weight than the handicap process would have them carry if there was no minimum. That minimum weight causes the line to be skewed at that point as it drops away relative to the line achieved at all the other higher weights. Those horses weighted to carry above their true relative weight, can then be assessed as to what impact the extra weight had on their performance ('generally' across the sample) until such time as the linear line above the minimum weight remains linear across all the weight groups that should have been allocated. Funnily enough, you can do this for jurisdictions such as all of Australia and NZ and get the same result. What a surprise. Maybe my sample of over 5 million horse starts isn't big enough. Still, I'm pretty sure it is big enough to know that 1kg = 3/4L is garbage 'generally'. That is it, at a basic level of which you still won't understand. The same way you don't understand why all your ideas are flawed. You simply can't comprehend these things. You'll attempt some stupid response because of your ignorance. I'd be surprised if you didn't. Simply, you are not the brightest. Edited July 22, 2018 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 The funny part is, it makes no difference what the general impact is - the information is worthless - to be useful, you would need to know what the impact is to the individual horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barryb Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, mardigras said: The funny part is, it makes no difference what the general impact is - the information is worthless - to be useful, you would need to know what the impact is to the individual horse. Not after the race like Thomass's bets are, its very helpful then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.