Richie had a winner yesterday and broke his losing streak which went to 22.

So going on that he had a loser since his winner so his losing streak is now only 1. Let’s see if he can keep his streak below 5 as he tips shorties too.

Richie was 0/6 today. It is now a streak of 7 losers. By my reckoning he had 1 winner from his last 30 tips.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/top-bets-from-richard-callander-for-saturday-20200507

.........................none of them could tip sand from a shoe with the instructions on the heel

We all know that what happened today was disgraceful, nationally  -- with one Montymental exception.

It is not just Richie-Rich -- none of the  published-tipsters in the News-corpse stable apparently have any ability  -- or, if they have, it is an 'ability' that needs much more attention given the dominance of news-corpse in the racing media landscape.

........for 'outstanding demerit' it is hard to go past the exemplary performance of the 'lay bets' nominated on Racenet by 'the Big bookies' ----- 8 of the 10 for today won! .......last week they were down on 'Rocka Clock' like a ton of bricks.

The exception to all this huffing and puffing, while your house burns down, is the SMH's Shane Montgomery -- MontysTop5' as it is known

......today he 'got' the Sydney quadrella in a canter -- with another Dollar his 4th selection -- while in Melbourne, which is beyond rational analysis, he had Hi Stranger as his 2nd selection in the last , paying 20/1 + for the win.

Chris Roots -- from the same SMH stable -- is also insightful, but not as good as Monty.

These other helpful folk should either 'write' or 'tip' ---- and if they choose to write, could we have the blinkers and tongue ties removed before pen hits paper, please?

Anti, from what I’m seeing Lizzy Jelfs seems to have an impact on tote prices from the mounting yard

Without knowing the stats, I'd think Lizzie would be well ahead over the past year.

Best in the yard

It only reinforces my point when a mounting yard assessor, a slip of a girl no less, is developing a reputation for 'moving the market' and more generally being uncannily 'correct'.

The idea that some well-presented smokey wins without anyone else having any idea is unlikely to be correct.

......... the magic in all this is how an apparently bewildered RVL counterpart is 'nominating' half the field and still not gaining  'must listen' status.

Ms Jelfs is well-presented and welcome addition to the racing media ......... but we still do not know how to sort her advice.

I find the best use of her advice is when she points out a horse isn't at its best - for example if she says a first up horse is "half a run short". You can then add that information to your own form analysis.

Sage advice Maximus   

Please have regard to the correct record and not nonsense contrived in a dogs kennel.


............ not 'sacked' at all  .... intended to be removed by an act of parliament in 2004,  3 years after the originating minister wanting my scalp was deemed 'corrupt', after the 'no more me' law was passed with the connivance of the 'next' ministers and the R&G department ....... I was still the recommended reappointment......... the decision to not reappoint me was one thing and the follow up, to change the law to remove reference to a 'consumer representative, was further indicative of my success.

..............as you now hope, I then  just laid down my arms and gave up on the importance of protecting the interests of most punters ..

.... or not ......... as you now know......my profile was enhanced by these crass political manoeuvres to silence the only voice speaking up.

..... 20 years on 'speaking up' has only been more relevant and more resisted -- the punters may be slow learners but they will learn ..........from continual disappointment ... not from a forum which few read and when 'no' psuedo-journalists have the balls to be independent and say what should be said.

not from a forum which few read


Yet you come here  

Richie’s tips for today.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/top-bets-from-richard-callander-for-warwick-farm-wednesday-20200512

Richie was 0/6 today. It is now a streak of 7 losers. By my reckoning he had 1 winner from his last 30 tips.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/top-bets-from-richard-callander-for-saturday-20200507

He was 0/3 today. Losing streak extended to 10. He is also 1/33.

......  good to see you back O'Murphy

Pleased you have recovered your composure and are, again, keeping up with important issues on the forum.

I know I have hit a homer when you are moved to join the puppy club in endorsing my concerns.

............ indeed

Richie was one of the tipsters at Winning Post that routinely published the outcome of his selections.

The relevant question may be less about why Richie 'gets it wrong' and more about Richie being like most of us, dismayed that so many race outcomes defy rational assessment pre-post.

I would like to see Richie address this question.

..... perhaps inflated fields, with 'hopers-for-10th', are corrupting the sense of reading the form guide -- his tips for tomorrow are very credible at around 3/1.

For a statistical and technical analysis of the value of Public Tipsters and their recommendations - Look at the godfather of handicapping's paper, Bill Benter, where he analyses this exact question:

https://www.gwern.net/docs/statistics/decision/1994-benter.pdf

For those mathematically inclined, he shows that although at an absolute value, it appears the Public Tipsters have some value.  But when combined with the public odds, all their information has already been factored in.

In his words:

"... the tipster model adds very little to the public's estimate. The
insignificant contribution of the tipster estimate to the overall explanatory power of the combined
model effectively means that when there is a difference between the public estimate and the tipster
estimate, then the public's estimate is superior. ... For a player considering betting with the
'tipster' model, carrying out this 'second stage' would have saved that player from losing money; the
output of the second stage model would always be virtually identical to the public estimate, thus never
indicating an advantage bet. "