Leave the bloke alone, fellas.

Obsessive about things at times and gives plenty of cause for differences of opinion.

But doesn't  give reason for what you are asking.

 

Pete has made his point - lets say noted - and it is his opinion and that is that. That great American runner had a great quote on opinions..seems appropriate here but you can reference that yourselves...

Lets move on from that and my only view is that if if is kept to one thread then fine, no one apart from Pete will keep feeding it.

Admin should only need to intervene if Pete infects other threads?

Bascoe

Stay away from this week's 'standalones' -- unfamiliar  form is not comparable

Most fields are inflated and the clutter makes life hard.

Last year the trifecta and F4 dividends on the Ballarat cup were 3.000 and 66,000 -- not a god look.

The 'gonged' poses a new question but the usual warning signs are there.

One profile race does not make a program -- it does provide a hoax-context for over-hyped  promotion from a compliant, captive media.

.............. do not get hyped ............ have a couple of bets ...... go to the movies .... watch the replays later.
 

Pete, what is a good number of runners to you.

There were a couple of posters including me commenting on the small fields on Wednesday at Rosehill. It was about 50
In total.

I would be interested in the number of runners for you and your reasons for that particular number.

Well, thank god no one listens to you.

8 horse fields will see racing die

Pete you keep talking about huge exotic payouts like that is a bad thing....do you have any grasp of human nature at all??
Why do you think punters take exotic bets??........if they wanted to make it easier to win for a start they could just bet the fav to run a place....do you think they just want to make a 10% ROI?
These are people hoping and praying for a rough result.....that is the whole idea of trying to pick 4 winners in a row instead of one.....or the F4 in the correct order......BIG dividends!!
I never bet exotics and I never buy Lotto/Lottery tickets either.....but hey that is just the way I like to bet........
Why can't you just accept that you are greedy, a terrible judge, don't put in the effort and are a bad loser!!......and you can't have it both ways.....you can't take small risks and get large returns.....well most Punters can't.....
Me thinks all your warnings is really subliminal for your own edification.........trying to tell yourself to take your own advice.....and apparently it isn't working!
To quote William Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Beyond G1 handicaps the view is very clouded -- many black-type races run in Melbourne simply do not warrant that status -- inflated-field cluttering with 10th-place hopefuls wrecks those races.

This is starting to get some attention.

Last weekend at Sandown there were these races:

Group 3 Sandown Cup $160,000
Group 3 Kevin Heffernan Stakes $160,000
Group 2 Sandown Guineas $250,000
Group 3 Summoned Stakes $160,000
Group 3 Eclipse Stakes $160,000

In the upcoming Brisbane Summer Carnival we will have

Listed Nudgee Stakes $200,000
Listed Gold Edition Plate $200,000
Group 3 Grand Prix Stakes $250,000
Group 3 BJ McLachlan Stakes $250,000
Group 3 Vo Rogue Plate $300,000

The Pattern Committee seems to be biased against Queensland and pro Victorian in some of it's decisions.

1423533754

INFLATED FIELDS -- WINNERS AND LOSERS

We know that most -- almost all -- punters are 'losers' even after allowing for them to collectively pay a 15% 'entertainment tax': the effective deduction for most punters is now 100%. Others to lose from this regime are the connections and jockeys denied a fair race. The racing industry as a whole loses its reputation. Top trainers are walking away.

.......... now for the winners

The big winners are the corporates -- including TABs -- betting fixed odds -- rough results skin their customers already 'selected' as unlikely to win. The betting syndicate operators, subsidized with rebates, knock off most of the TABs' exotic pools, especially popular quadrellas almost guaranteed one 'rough leg'. The pre-post fixed-odds offered include an excessive % for the book.

......  the administrators are guilty

RVL and RNSW are responsible for the fair conduct of racing and the idea that they take their riding instructions from 'corporate bookmakers' is abhorrent  -- as is their apparent dedication to pandering to politicians demanding feather-bedding of rural racing not otherwise viable.

..........and ....  consumer protection and competition regulators are as derelict with racing as they are with banking

............ as for the future ....... have a look at the rest of the world where racing is now a relic of once-was.
 

Monopolies are always bad for the customers

Government protected monopolies, especially, are an open invitation to the misuse of administrative 'discretion'.

De-facto an interstate – and international -- cartel among administrators and governments ensures the racing monopoly is, collectively, an ‘un-competitive’ rort.

There is no accountability -- racing that is not commercially viable should be not conducted. Allowing non-viable racing bears on which electorates get 'racing tax money'.

Racing-tax-money is politically special because it is ‘free’ -- outside the state budget process --  and 'washed' through state racing administrations, to which it flows as an 'entitlement' to a share of betting turnover. This is money laundering writ large -- corruption follows as a matter of course.

A 'too-much is not-enough' approach to running races is a waste of money.

The inevitable  next step is administrators and politicians scheming to get more ‘free’ racing-tax-money.

Alas the innovation – corporates betting fixed-odds – once benefiting punters has been turned against them.

When TABs started betting fixed-odds it was a short leap to institutionalize the corruption of the business – turn a 16% limit on the take-out into cop-the-lot, take 100% from most punters. This was done by the payment of substantial prize-money for running 10th and letting any bakers-horse get a run to clutter up any field – almost ensuring rough results.

Nationally, on any Saturday, the pool for the Melbourne quadrella alone runs to some $5 million. Administrators engineering just one rough leg delivers a bonanza for corporates and syndicates (getting rebates) and a wipe-out for loyal punters betting modestly and putting the money in the plunder-pool.

Eventually of course such contrived arrangements self destruct -- RVL in particular now seems determined to have Victoria follow Queensland and South Australia into oblivion so far as its racing industry goes.

RNSW is smarter – stealing the game but risking grave temptation.

The process is insidious as it unfolds to destroy any glimmer of product quality control.

......... others can play with suggestions that some of the corporate ‘bonanza’ is ‘returned’ to the industry in sponsorships and related schemes likely to be welcomed by administrators.

It is too late for me to change my attachment to the punt – others addicted to crosswords enjoy that mental challenge – now I simply bet small, enjoying the chase while knowing the only players still in the business with integrity are the horses and 99.9% of direct-participants.

Races 1 thru 6 on that day were won by 2x favourites, 2x second favourites, 2x third favourites - at an average price of $4.80.

The last three winners paid 10.50, 7.80 and 8.80 - hardly friendless in betting and impossible to find.


Stop lying.


FRO.

................... speaking for themselves

............ the average  F4 dividend for the 8 quadrella races was approaching $10,000 and the quadrella paid $3k.

As I was saying, be wary of the Pakenham 'standalone' on Saturday  --- there are 13 acceptors in most races, some 'accepted' to run should not have been.

Runners with long-odds SPs -- some 200/1 -- should be scratched and not left in to clutter the fields.

A major problem with standlones is administrators going for broke -- full fields with too many Bradburys.

This is shortsighted -- they should ensure a fair go for the punters to build a reputation for 'a good day'.

......... be wary.