Down In grade - $$$

[Thomass]

It's an indictment on our education system...when I produce FACTS...you lot just ignore them and choose the FERAL option..

Like NUC running a faster time and faster last 600 sectional than 3 of the last 4 runnings of the Karaka Mill...when finishing 7L behind the winner in a G 1...

...and within 0.3 secs of 2 Group Performers...a G3 winner in Melt and G2 Placed neddy

ALL 2yo's...on a G3 track...ALL at HQ...Apples with Apples

...then the intellectually challenged Woddy claims a mid week maiden 3rd was SUPERIOR...

IDIOT

Those are the only facts the public need to know to consign you lot to the DUNCE PUNTERS CLUB

[curious]

Obviously you had a day off yesterday while the primary teachers were on strike.

Why don't you just download a free random number generator app and run it twice for each race. First time limit it by field size to come up with your selection. Second time make it 0 or 1 to determine whether you should add 20% or not. You'd probably be better off and also save a lot of time.

Edited August 15, 2018 by curious

[mardigras]

38 minutes ago, Thomass said:

 

Like NUC running a faster time and faster last 600 sectional than 3 of the last 4 runnings of the Karaka Mill...when finishing 7L behind the winner in a G 1...

...and within 0.3 secs of 2 Group Performers...a G3 winner in Melt and G2 Placed neddy

ALL 2yo's...on a G3 track...ALL at HQ...Apples with Apples

...then the intellectually challenged Woddy claims a mid week maiden 3rd was SUPERIOR..

Like the FACT the same horse ran faster on a slower track over the same distance carrying more weight (which you love) as a 2yo the start before. Those facts?

[MarkyMark]

5 hours ago, curious said:

What's got me flummoxed is that he says that all punters know about "universal times for each class" but how could he calculate those (for ANZ racing) when he doesn't know how to generate a variant that allows comparison of a straight six at Trentham with the same distance at Ellerslie, and goes further by saying you can't do that.

Maybe, by "universal times for each class", he's referring to the average amount of time it takes him to complete his remedial maths and reading classes?

i think times and comparing times are meaningless (what i mean is comparing times, to another track, or the same track on a different day), the only way they are beneficial, is comparing times for that day alone at that meeting, and seeing how the sectionals compare, or how overall time may compare.  but again too many variables. such as track deterioration throughout the day, wind factors, change in wind during day, race tempo.  

 

 

[MarkyMark]

3 hours ago, Thomass said:

It's an indictment on our education system...when I produce FACTS...you lot just ignore them and choose the FERAL option..

Like NUC running a faster time and faster last 600 sectional than 3 of the last 4 runnings of the Karaka Mill...when finishing 7L behind the winner in a G 1...

...and within 0.3 secs of 2 Group Performers...a G3 winner in Melt and G2 Placed neddy

ALL 2yo's...on a G3 track...ALL at HQ...Apples with Apples

...then the intellectually challenged Woddy claims a mid week maiden 3rd was SUPERIOR...

IDIOT

Those are the only facts the public need to know to consign you lot to the DUNCE PUNTERS CLUB

but its not apples and apples.  in may have been a good 3 track, but race tempo, wind, and track deterioration will all play a part, and you could not directly compare the times to suggest who is faster,  If the slowest version of the karaka million was facing a head wind, down the straight, compared to another version were they are facing a tail wind, all on a good 3 track, naturally the times will be different, more so closing sectionals

[curious]

15 minutes ago, MarkyMark said:

i think times and comparing times are meaningless (what i mean is comparing times, to another track, or the same track on a different day), the only way they are beneficial, is comparing times for that day alone at that meeting, and seeing how the sectionals compare, or how overall time may compare.  but again too many variables. such as track deterioration throughout the day, wind factors, change in wind during day, race tempo.  

 

 

Each to their own and whatever works for you MM. I don't have much time for sectional times though I know successful punters who do. All the races I've seen were won by the horse that went the fastest from the starting gate to the finish line. As to the other factors you mention, I consider them wind noise. A multitude of variables can affect race times of course but I would argue they can all be accounted for by the difference between expected time and actual time, although variables such as tempo mean that a single race is not necessarily a good arbiter of that.

[Thomass]

1 hour ago, MarkyMark said:

but its not apples and apples.  in may have been a good 3 track, but race tempo, wind, and track deterioration will all play a part, and you could not directly compare the times to suggest who is faster,  If the slowest version of the karaka million was facing a head wind, down the straight, compared to another version were they are facing a tail wind, all on a good 3 track, naturally the times will be different, more so closing sectionals

Essentially it is because 3 runnings of the race showed this Maiden to be comparable to the best.....and then rubber stamped by finishing within 0.3 secs of 2 Group performers in the G1 while still a maiden...and at Set Weights...Back to mid week maiden

..but thats why I don't use times...I was helping out the ignoramous to explain

I use the class of race...that will negate any other variances because almost always...these superior Black Type races are run at a good clip in bigger fields...where more can go wrong..

e.g. I added 0.4 secs for the race being a G1...0.2 secs for the less favourable G3 track back to the home track D4 and mid week ....then 0.2 secs for the G 1 being set weight...

That took me to @ a length or so of the winner...

A very simple way to cut through the quagmire of times and sectionals by relying on the class of race to analyse form

[Thomass]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Each to their own and whatever works for you MM. I don't have much time for sectional times though I know successful punters who do. All the races I've seen were won by the horse that went the fastest from the starting gate to the finish line. As to the other factors you mention, I consider them wind noise. A multitude of variables can affect race times of course but I would argue they can all be accounted for by the difference between expected time and actual time, although variables such as tempo mean that a single race is not necessarily a good arbiter of that.

So it's all about overall time for your simulations...

And you can work the variables out between the Straight 6 and the undulating HQ...

...and do you invest on Nz racing...much?

[curious]

14 minutes ago, Thomass said:

So it's all about overall time for your simulations...

And you can work the variables out between the Straight 6 and the undulating HQ...

...and do you invest on Nz racing...much?

Yep. I invest next to nothing on NZ racing except for the odd day out. No issues with the variables between the straight 6 and HQ. What I can't figure out is the ability of horses to handle tracks that are a Fast 2 down the back, like my cow paddock and a dead 4 round the turn and a decent Good 3 in the straight on the outside fence and a Slow 7 on the rail. I know some can do it but at this stage it's beyond me. I'd rather race and bet where there are consistent surfaces.

Edited August 16, 2018 by curious

[curious]

Btw, overall time is a significant factor in assessing performance for me, the most significant, but it's not the only one.

[mardigras]

2 hours ago, Thomass said:

I use the class of race...that will negate any other variances because almost always...these superior Black Type races are run at a good clip in bigger fields...where more can go wrong..

But that's because someone told you this a long time ago - and you believed them. When it is far from the case.

[mardigras]

5 hours ago, Thomass said:

..but thats why I don't use times...I was helping out the ignoramous to explain

I use the class of race...that will negate any other variances because almost always...these superior Black Type races are run at a good clip in bigger fields...where more can go wrong..

According to this, we have someone who doesn't use times. Just uses class of race. And that Black Type almost always are run at a good clip. Surely with around 5% of races in NZ being Black Type and they are solid runs - almost always the horses will run faster than other classes of race. So what would that mean for Black Type. Almost always, the times for these races would be in the top 15th percentile, the top 30th percentile? Surely at least that high - since 30% of the starts will be that fast - and these races are superior.

So I had a look. And here are the results of horses starting in Black Type in NZ since 1st Jan, 2017 that raced in a low grade race subsequent. From rating 65 and below. These Black Type horses should be massively superior - according to our resident fraudster.

I was keen to see whether the margin in the black type event made much difference to their follow on performance. Or whether time seems to correlate better.

And here are the results.

	Within 15th Perecentile					Greater 15th Perecentile
Margin BT	Starters	Winners	Win Divs	Strike Rate	ROI	Starters	Winners	Win Divs	Strike Rate	ROI
<=4L	123	27	$128.50	21.95%	1.045	302	45	$226.00	14.90%	0.748
<=5L	156	35	$167.10	22.44%	1.071	407	54	$289.00	13.27%	0.710
<=6L	199	42	$213.10	21.11%	1.071	468	60	$350.80	12.82%	0.750
<=7L	217	46	$275.10	21.20%	1.268	615	73	$430.50	11.87%	0.700
<=8L	229	47	$279.20	20.52%	1.219	712	87	$500.00	12.22%	0.702
	Within 30th Perecentile					Greater 30th Perecentile
Margin BT	Starters	Winners	Win Divs	Strike Rate	ROI	Starters	Winners	Win Divs	Strike Rate	ROI
<=4L	234	48	$210.90	20.51%	0.901	191	24	$143.60	12.57%	0.752
<=5L	297	59	$264.40	19.87%	0.890	266	30	$191.70	11.28%	0.721
<=6L	377	73	$371.80	19.36%	0.986	290	29	$192.10	10.00%	0.662
<=7L	452	81	$448.50	17.92%	0.992	380	38	$257.10	10.00%	0.677
<=8L	484	85	$460.80	17.56%	0.952	457	49	$318.40	10.72%	0.697

Thomass won't understand this. But it is pretty clear that

a) there are a heck of a lot of horses racing in Black Type that perform time wise outside the top 30th percentile on a track/condition/distance basis.

b) The strike rate of those running slowly in Black Type was largely unaffected by the margin they were beaten by in Black Type - strongly suggesting that time is the key ingredient when assessing performance. 

c) those horses that actually perform to more like a Black Type universal level(such as in the top 15th percentile), also perform better in their follow on races and their strike rate is also largely unaffected by the margin beaten - again strongly suggesting that time is the key ingredient when assessing performance.

d) the further away from running to a Black Type level that a horse runs, the less likely their follow on races will be winning ones.

Of course Thomass just blindly bets based on class. It is people like him that make my job easier. This is the reason why he rates horses like Firebird Flyer and Adis as being superior. 

The obvious news is - that the better the performance with the bigger margin, the greater likelihood that punters will ignore it - because they don't understand how to assess a horse from one track to another and base a lot of 'form' on placings and margins.

Horses don't know they are in Black Type. They don't race better in a slow Black Type race than they do in a slow R65 race. Why would they?

I expect the usual from Thomass since he hasn't graduated past remedial maths. But those are the facts. 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by mardigras

[Thomass]

An I'm keen to know whether they've given you the night Meds yet...in the lock up?

The comments from your bff is enough to put you to bed though

He can't work out the variation in track conditions in NZ to apply both of your 'time' form analysis Mr Statsman...

That's why both of you hardly bet here

And you still think that 2yo mid weak maiden effort was better than the G1 performance...because you can't understand how Puke can be so much faster than HQ...where Puke had to have a number of re measurements...

...and you ignored the fact NUC was 0.3 secs behind two Group performers...at just his 2nd start..at level weights

You haven't a clue how I ultimately apply my guidelines either...

and you still ignore 'excuses" then fail to acknowledge some run out of form at times...I do

And to prove your complete desperation...you bring up old FF again...from years ago...ffs

...where each line commentary following that very good G3 for a maiden...back to mid weak..

said "unlucky"...haha how apt...you don't do unlucky...

Luckily in those races the winners had Spec Maiden form...and which I'd also invested on...

If you can have 3 investments in a race as back up...so can I

ni ni...your meds should help you sleep...

The princess has absolutely worn moi out..

[mardigras]

5 hours ago, Thomass said:

That's why both of you hardly bet here

And you still think that 2yo mid weak maiden effort was better than the G1 performance...

You haven't a clue how I ultimately apply my guidelines either...

I hardly bet here because there is no money here. I don't bet using a keyboard or sitting on a computer or going to a TAB so the only time I bet here is when i go to the races for a day out here. So, given there is no money in NZ racing, there is no point betting here. 

The 2yo maiden effort was better. That's my opinion of course. But it is backed up by the fact it ran a lot faster on a slower track and with more weight. And last time I looked, races seemed to be won by the horse that ran from the start to the finish line the fastest. Your opinion hasn't been backed up by anything except class of race and comparing it to other horses. Do you want me to compare the counties time to other horses?

As for measuring distance. That can be said about any track. Just spend five minutes and understand the information I presented. if the performance in Black Type can't even achieve a time within the top 30% for that track/condition/distance - the follow on results are no better than a dart thrown at a racebook. And even worse than that is that you have zero ability to work out the difference between a performance at Ellerslie and one at Trentham. You have to rely on class of race. Which is clearly flawed. You are a novice when it comes to this stuff.

Finally you get to the point. We don't have a clue about how you apply your stupid guidelines. And since no-one knows, it makes your 'blue print' worthless. Yet you continue going on about it. Don't, and I won't have to destroy it with facts. Anyone following your blue print should be put in the padded room beside yours.

 

[barryb]

I think we have a clue how you apply your guidelines T.

Guesswork, luck, fluke, stab in the dark, blindfold, pin, hunch, gossip, covers it.

[curious]

10 hours ago, mardigras said:

  Thomass won't understand this. But it is pretty clear that ...

- strongly suggesting that time is the key ingredient when assessing performance. 

- again strongly suggesting that time is the key ingredient when assessing performance.

Just read this bit of what mardigras wrote Thommo since you don't seem to understand the rest.

[Thomass]

Keep up the comedy show boyz...

As I've said...if time means almost EVERYTHING

The Breeders would have cottoned onto this new reality in your sorry locked up lives...years ago

They would have a 'mile rate' for each horse and fastest wins every time...

Not Black Type..in actual races that mean a whole lot for every stakeholder

Go right ahead though...Alert the World Woddy wank and his fellow symbiotic detainees have the times sorted between each course/condition and that's the way to do it

yea na

[mardigras]

11 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Keep up the comedy show boyz...

As I've said...if time means almost EVERYTHING

The Breeders would have cottoned onto this new reality in your sorry locked up lives...years ago

Why would they. Black Type is a simple classification. Simple as that. 

Time is far too complex for you to understand yet you think breeders would be able to come up with a classification that people could understand.

Funny thing is, when I'm betting on a race, I don't look at the breeding catalogue.

And the next funny thing is, you lose at punting yet claim class to be the best factor. I've already presented evidence that it is clearly not. Refute my evidence. Show us where what I put up is wrong.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mardigras

[mardigras]

21 minutes ago, Thomass said:

As I've said...if time means almost EVERYTHING

 

It doesn't mean almost everything. It is the measure of how long it took a horse to run a race. And races are won by the horse that does that in a race, the fastest. 

Other things can relate to performance apart from just overall time . Some will use sectional times, some maximum speed and how long, or fitness level at the time. Some might even use things like being held up. These things are what the horse did/incurred in the race. Class isn't involved. The horse didn't know what class of race it was in.

Sane people will assess a real factor relating to the performance. Not a factor that has no bearing on what the horse actually does. Like class of race.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mardigras

[Thomass]

Black Type is the very best up against the other best available...

'Time' is a figment of your wild imagination that makes you think a Pukekohe maiden was faster than a G 1 performance beating the time of 3 of the last 4  Karaka Mill winners...

...on exactly the same track, track rating and age group 

...where you keep mentioning the 1Kg weight variance...as if it's some big factor

...remind us again 1 kg=0.1L or a"massive distance"

idiot is you

 

[mardigras]

4 minutes ago, Thomass said:

 

...where you keep mentioning the 1Kg weight variance...as if it's some big factor

...remind us again 1 kg=0.1L or a"massive distance"

 

I mention it for YOU.

YOU would have to adjust the time to be even faster. Makes your G1 run look like a track gallop.

And the facts I put up about black type follow on performance that you call a 'figment' are evidence otherwise.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mardigras

[Thomass]

Let it go...

I proved you had no idea about NZ racing when you submitted the slowest maiden winner of the day at Tauranga .

...over my by far superior G3 performer at HQ...

Maybe when each runner gets GPS as you were salivating over...on a new synthetic consistent surface...time may mean something to you...and you may start investing here...

But Black Type will still beat you 

And the Breeders will still laugh at you for wanting to change their Catologue to 'Mile rate'...

Maybe you should look into Harness investment..."but they race wide without cover in Harness...round and round"

Theyre crooks like you

[mardigras]

You've proven nothing.

You have nothing. And your post above confirms that Mr Fraud.

ps - which runner of the two at Tauranga has the highest rating in NZ?

[Thomass]

I don't give a flying f which 2 slow mo maidens now has the best...

It was YOU pinning your hopes against a G3 performer with the slowest maiden of the day at a piddling mid weaker...

It was laughable...especially after MAHOLO ditched it easily by 3L...

Equally as laughable you suggesting the maiden performance of NUC was best after it got within 0.3 secs of 2 Group performers at SET WEIGHTS

Go back to reform school...as soon as you get out of the nut bar lock up

Edited August 17, 2018 by Thomass

[mardigras]

Still nothing I see. Oh sorry,  you've got one example to supposedly support your notion. That's all you ever have. Stupid one off examples post race.

That's just further evidence that you are out of your depth. The information I put up wipes your entire idea and throws it down the toilet with the rest of your crap.