Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold  (Read 109682 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline HarmersHaven

  • Listed
  • User 1861
  • Posts: 247
« 2020-Jul-04, 09:19 PM Reply #775 »

Gambling Help: 1800 858 858
gamblinghelponline.org.au

You're sick. Get help.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-05, 08:38 AM Reply #776 »
the Q paid $4,000

Legs were won by 5th fav, 4th fav, 3rd fav and favorite in the last.🥳🥳🥳🥳🍾🍾🍾🍾




The bride how a wonderful slap a meal that finished with Mairs superbly concocted humble humble pie 🥧


  :lol:    :lol: nothing in this life is surer than Mair being wrong  :biggrin:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-05, 09:06 AM Reply #777 »
Wednesday wisdom – is now accepted

When it can routinely be predicted on Wednesday that the results of some inflated-field races will be ‘rough’, one might say I was giving help to those punters needing to be reminded that they are likely to lose their money betting on those races.

The comment,

                The nags that run second in the third leg has ZERO IMPACT on the Quaddie payout.

.......misses the point............. the assessment of the fairness of a race needs a broad perspective ....... the first-four place-getters indicate what was happening at the pointy-posty end of the race.......... and lotto-like F4 payouts (to rebate-taking syndicates) offer the broader perspective of the range of random outcomes that could have turned up ............and the likely sad fate of the favoured horses.

.............putting aside the confected bravado coming from the kennel .........it is unlikely that most punters are happy with the rough results of inflated-field racing.

Industry administrators promising ‘integrity’ seem to have everyone else in mind as possible offenders ........... showing no appreciation of the degradation of the racing product that came with inflated fields.......... fancy paying no-hopers to run 10th after they clutter and impede.

.............the corporates just love ‘rough result’ racing!

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-05, 09:14 PM Reply #778 »

Honk-honk

........................inflated fields are also degrading racing in Hong Kong........ maybe 'lucky numbers' are more reliable than pre-post markets reflecting 'known form'.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-06, 12:49 PM Reply #779 »
Honk-honk

........................inflated fields are also degrading racing in Hong Kong........ maybe 'lucky numbers' are more reliable than pre-post markets reflecting 'known form'.


Another brain fart from Mair. Time to stop lying Peter  :yes:

 9 of the 11 races were won by favourites or favoured runners

Mair wrong again

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-08, 07:11 PM Reply #780 »

Wednesday is 'acceptance day'............ and 'crystal-ball' day


The fields RVL has 'accepted' for Caulfield on Saturday are now on-line.

I would like to suggest a role-reversal ............. instead of me saying which races might go-wrong ....... someone else might like to say which races will go right.

....I will concede that R5..... ten late-3yros running over 1400 ....is marginally in the fair-go sights.

............. over to you

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2170
« 2020-Jul-08, 07:30 PM Reply #781 »
You mean do the form .

Identify races where there are horses (regardless of price) over the odds that might be considered worth a bet.

Who would have thunk that may be a good strategy to make a dollar.

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6962
« 2020-Jul-08, 08:54 PM Reply #782 »
Easy peasy,

Nearly all of the Melbourne big field races are great to bet on as long as you do the form......

The size of the field helps errors in pricing to occur and this is your opportunity to profit.

Helped along by fools who follow worthless tips.

Fours 

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-08, 09:09 PM Reply #783 »

Wednesday is 'acceptance day'............ and 'crystal-ball' day


The fields RVL has 'accepted' for Caulfield on Saturday are now on-line.

I would like to suggest a role-reversal ............. instead of me saying which races might go-wrong ....... someone else might like to say which races will go right.

....I will concede that R5..... ten late-3yros running over 1400 ....is marginally in the fair-go sights.

............. over to you

Problem is peter, you do not say what will go wrong. You refuse to discuss anything apart from spewing your broad brush brain farts

When questioned you can’t provide answers :tin:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-09, 09:32 AM Reply #784 »

Two shockers loom for Saturday

-- Race 3 a BM 78 with 16 to run over 1400 is for 'lucky-number' selections  - Race 9 a BM84 over 1200 is the usual 'field' job for the last.

There is an early consensus around the other races --- Races 4&5 with ten to run over 1400 should be fair.

The early consensus suggests 5 from 3&4 in the fourth and, in the fifth, 2 from 1 from 4,6,7,9.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-09, 06:52 PM Reply #785 »


Races that should not be run

.... the inclusion of races 3 and 9 on the program for Caulfield does not meet a sensible quality standard.

These two races should not be run.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-09, 07:36 PM Reply #786 »
The only consensus is that you have no idea :bulb:

Given you were re employed and had any control,( god help us) what horses would your refuse to allow to run over This  meeting.
Do the form and give us some specifics
« Last Edit: 2020-Jul-09, 07:42 PM by wily ole dog »

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-09, 08:15 PM Reply #787 »

The appropriate rules are clear,

................connections are not automatically entitled to run any horse in any race ...... protecting the quality of the racing run requires, at least, that any runner lingering at the starting gates with an SP over 20/1 is scratched and all bets on it refunded.

So, for any race, at start time - if the 'price' of a horse is more than 20/1 it is scratched.

...on Saturday, just keep track of the SP market ....over 20/1 means the horse is either 'not there to win' or, if it were to, it would be akin to a ring-in rort.

....that's fair ... if the connections want a start .......put their money up and show some sincerity!


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-09, 08:35 PM Reply #788 »
The appropriate rules are clear,

So, for any race, at start time - if the 'price' of a horse is more than 20/1 it is scratched.

...on Saturday, just keep track of the SP market ....over 20/1 means the horse is either 'not there to win' or, if it were to, it would be akin to a ring-in rort.!


  :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:
Ok.
Let’s run with that. $19 is okay but not $20    :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   emthup   :lol:
« Last Edit: 2020-Jul-09, 08:41 PM by wily ole dog »

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-09, 09:13 PM Reply #789 »


..............  reductio ad absurdum


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-09, 09:39 PM Reply #790 »
Well, you’re contention is absurd & moronic.

An arbitrary $20 is stupid. I’ve  given you plenty of Perfect Jewels that have been over your arbitrary $20. Why should they be dismissed because you and the other idiots can’t identify them via doing the form :bulb:

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-10, 01:31 PM Reply #791 »
The appropriate rules are clear,

................

So, for any race, at start time - if the 'price' of a horse is more than 20/1 it is scratched.!

That’s the dumbest thing that anyone has ever suggested on this forum. It even out does your previous crap :bulb :tin:

Given  I just backed the $31 winner in the first @ Scone today  you can stick that brain fart back up ya arse you idiot   :lol:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-10, 09:22 PM Reply #792 »


......... three-day-ahead foresight and boastful next-day 'wisdom' are different things

Saying, on Wednesday, which races will be unfair events on Saturday is useful and has been a reliable call.

Telling me tomorrow, that you selected a long-priced winner yesterday, is not useful.   

I need to know yesterday.

The idea that a kennel-kid punter has insights, pointing to 20/1 winners, is interesting............ it becomes more than interesting when that same kk-punter seemingly does the same regularly ... and boasts about it to counter any idea that backing 20/1 shots is not likely to be a winning strategy.

............. tell us ahead of the race or shut up....... or better still post the 'clip' from your betting account record to show that the boasted bet was on.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-11, 08:54 AM Reply #793 »
You constantly get told before the race but you’re  too stupid to realise.

AND, nothing you post on a Wednesday is useful, to anyone. It’s the same reason you got sacked

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5557
« 2020-Jul-11, 07:35 PM Reply #794 »


Another correct call on Wednesday

Races that should not be run

.... the inclusion of races 3 and 9 on the program for Caulfield does not meet a sensible quality standard.

These two races should not be run.


The F4 for Race 9 was around $40,000 and , in Race 3, $3.000 ....... the 3/1 favourite won. I missed one --- the F4 in Race 6 paid $30,000.

..... stay well clear of the RVL tripe.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-11, 08:01 PM Reply #795 »
Poor old Mair gets it wrong again  :lol:

Early quaddy paid 500 bucks. 4 favourite runners saluting. Punters had no problems but old redundant  Mair failed again  :lol:
« Last Edit: 2020-Jul-11, 08:04 PM by wily ole dog »

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 1192
« 2020-Jul-11, 08:14 PM Reply #796 »
You don't need to be taking F4s  Peter......nothing wrong with R 9 other than a couple of apprentices both wanting to lead.
After deciding last week to leave the punting to others I'm remembered what I thought watching Bedford a couple of weeks ago......next time.
A very, very good horse......just needs wet ground!
Snipped my wife for $50 and did this at 10.30 this morning.....I believe this is the right etiquette.....first bet since last Sat.


I'm certain anyone who had seen Lord Bouzeron going around in Kiwiland would have had a little there as well in R6.

And while I'm here......Go Mick Bell with his champ......Jungle Edge  emthup

Offline HarmersHaven

  • Listed
  • User 1861
  • Posts: 247
« 2020-Jul-11, 08:16 PM Reply #797 »
I seriously don't know why I bother, and I know it will not even be given an ounce of thought due to the arrogance/ignorance of PM, but:

* Try devising for yourself a fairly simple metric, let's call it "Expected Wins".

* Work out each horses (%) chance to win by dividing their tote odds (or fixed) by one /1 - the sum of this calculation will contain the WSP's over-round.

* Convert these percentages into a 100% market, giving you each horse's real chance (less the juice) if the market is true.

* Sum these XWin figures across an entire card, using whatever sized buckets/classifiactions you deem fit.

For today:

Fav/2nd Fav - 18x runners - 3.74 XWins - 6 actual wins
3rd/4th/5th Fav - 27x runners - 2.96 XWins - 2 actual wins
6th Fav onwards - 48x runners - 2.30 XWins - 1 actual win

18+27+48 = 93 runners
3.74 + 2.96 + 2.30 = 9 races, also 6+2+1 = 9 races

Extrapolate this over a decent sample (I know you won't) to draw accurate, verifiable an meaningful conclusions. You can then filter by state, by region, by track, by field size - and your arguments/hypotheses may be reviewed with more than the skerrick of care that they currently deserve.

Today, the market said the favorites should win 2.18 races - they over-performed this figure and won 5.
Today, the market said the top two favorites should win 3.74 races - they over-performed this figure and won 6.
Today, the market said the top three favorites should win 4.94 races - they over-performed this figure and won 7.
Today, the market said the top four favorites should win 5.87 races - they over-performed this figure and won 8.


Please don't let your shortcomings (lies) get in the way of a good story (facts, backed by data/evidence).

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27810
« 2020-Jul-11, 08:33 PM Reply #798 »
Yes Hammers, he’s a bald faced, unemployable liar.

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 11179
« 2020-Jul-11, 08:42 PM Reply #799 »
Harmers has done a better job than me
although i will add
my tip was posted on the weekend comp at 11am
25 starts 6 wins
dist 5/2
soft 5/1
heavy 5/2 which i thought it would be
2nd up 6/2
July 2019 BM90 56KG
Today BM84 61.5KG Not hard done by from barrier 1
J Mott knows the horse
Freedman team are in form
Nice price or overs ?
dumb   
« Last Edit: 2020-Jul-11, 08:52 PM by ratsack »


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap