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 1057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
O.P. « 2018-Aug-02, 09:07 PM »


Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold

The new racing season will be an opportunity to assess the impact of RacingNSW paying at least $3,500 for horses running down to 10th in most races on Saturdays.

That the intention to inflate the size of race-fields will be achieved is beyond question – the issues are about the consequences.

Horses not ready to do their best will be having preparatory runs in races rather than in trials.  This matters if, as often, can’t-wins clutter and disrupt the fair running of a race, impeding the free-running of favoured horses.

It is beyond question that the losers in this deal will be most punters and the owners of the better horses – most punters will find that the form guide is less relevant and owners there to win will run into interference from those not.

The beneficiaries, of a contrived policy to inflate fields, comprise a de-facto cartel – it ranges through administrators taking more money from increased TAB and bookmaker betting turnover; corporate bookmakers (now racing sponsors) taking fixed-odds bets from punters more likely to lose; trainers and jockeys having expanded employment opportunities;  owners of low-grade horses getting a better chance of recovering costs; syndicate betting operations given rebates to plunder TAB pools and, not least,  state governments feeding racing-tax revenues, that first belong in the public purse, directly to racing -- including to subsidize racing in rural areas that has no chance of covering costs.

The mantra of ‘too much racing being never enough’ is flawed.

The consequences of this consensus assault on the pockets of most punters will unfold as the $3,500 inducement to ‘just give a horse a run’ kicks in.

Wait for it: more race outcomes will become ‘rough’ and dividends declared for many race outcomes will look more like a lotto-strike than a race running true to form – especially for trifecta, first-four and quadrella bets.

The way these predictably unfair outcomes unfold in NSW will be told every Saturday – as they have been for Melbourne metropolitan racing for some time now.

My prescient ‘cautions for Melbourne’ now embrace ‘cautions for Sydney’.



Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5173
« 2018-Aug-03, 06:29 AM Reply #1 »
Peter,

Kindly provide a mathematical proof for your claims.

Fours

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-03, 07:13 AM Reply #2 »
Yet again Mair displays his lack of knowledge regarding racing

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 30965
« 2018-Aug-03, 01:23 PM Reply #3 »
I think he is pretty much on the mark.

On our tight turning tracks big fields are more about luck than talent.

Encouraging big fields with prize money down to 10th is just going to mark racing more of a lottery than it already is.

INstead of prizemoney down to 10th why not just wave the entry fees for all races below black type ?


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-03, 04:41 PM Reply #4 »


There are no entry fees for races below black type -- at most there is a fee of $200 for a scratching.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-03, 05:13 PM Reply #5 »
I think he is pretty much on the mark.

On our tight turning tracks big fields are more about luck than talent.

Well, we know in some instances that does happen. Especially the valley as both you and I have agreed on
Everyone’s smart enough to know when to pick their marks., except Mair who has his own agenda which is driven by self interest

On the other hand,it has been proven over the past months that mairs ramblings have been completely wrong.
The results prove that time and time again. Especially in those 1400m races he bangs on about. That’s why he doesn’t respond to the numerous questions put to him by other forum members

The Massive majority of those races are run trouble free and favoured runners are winning more often than not.
« Last Edit: 2018-Aug-03, 05:15 PM by wily ole dog »

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2097
« 2018-Aug-03, 05:55 PM Reply #6 »
Peter

I have been involved in bookmarking for a long while and your premise is wrong on 2 counts

1. Every year our worst performing tracks in terms of revenue are small tracks. Punters are better able to map and are harder to betat. Margin is always best at Randwick, Flemington and Eagle Farm.

2. Punters want BIG fields.

They have voted with their wallets. We always hold mor money and write more bets in fields ofv12 plus. Under 8 horse fields and people don’t bet.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-03, 06:01 PM Reply #7 »
Mairs other premis is wrong as well
He thinks horses are machines and should perform as such :tin:

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 30965
« 2018-Aug-03, 06:29 PM Reply #8 »
Peter

I have been involved in bookmarking for a long while and your premise is wrong on 2 counts

1. Every year our worst performing tracks in terms of revenue are small tracks. Punters are better able to map and are harder to betat. Margin is always best at Randwick, Flemington and Eagle Farm.

2. Punters want BIG fields.

They have voted with their wallets. We always hold mor money and write more bets in fields ofv12 plus. Under 8 horse fields and people don’t bet.

That is probably because it is shoved down their throats there is more value in big fields when we all know that is not necessarily the case.


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-03, 06:35 PM Reply #9 »
Value is in favoured horses winning for the average punter.
The races Mair has been bemoaning have been dominated by favoured horses winning and mostly trouble free

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-03, 08:44 PM Reply #10 »

Wily is my saviour

The rumour that I am paying the wily-one to promote common sense is not true.

                                 ..... inexplicably he has dedicated his influence to endorsing what I say.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-03, 09:06 PM Reply #11 »
You’re a liar Mair
Nothing you say is endorsed or believed by anyone  :thumbsup:

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5173
« 2018-Aug-03, 10:38 PM Reply #12 »
Why are big fields better,

The answer is the take out.

In big fields the chances of parts of the market being incorrectly priced goes up and it is this error area that gives punters a chance of profit.

The smaller the field the the less chance for errors.

There is a strong possibility that the more jammed packed the days racing program is the more chance of errors in the market as well.

As long as a punter concentrates on their niche, jammed packed racing days of big fields helps them make a profit.

Fours

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-04, 08:46 PM Reply #13 »
Well, the quaddy only paid;$300 or so bucks so once again Mairs predictions failed to eventuates.
Now if only rhythm to spare saluted I would have got a fatter divvy :sad:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-04, 09:14 PM Reply #14 »

This is true

In big fields the chances of parts of the market being incorrectly priced goes up and it is this error area that gives punters a chance of profit.

The problem is that the 'punters' taking advantage of any miss-pricing are the big-betting, rebate-getting syndicates that do while the 'most punters' are disadvantaged.

That's why it is important that TABs show the distribution of TAB pools by the  class of punter -- big and small --that get which share of the dividends, in total and proportionate to the value of bets staked.

...... big fields are the nemesis of  time-precious punters relying on the form guide -- and a Santa Claus for the professionals.

[ .......... as for the wily-one ...... today was a remarkably good day for those betting at what is usually a vale-of-tears.........one day among few.]

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5173
« 2018-Aug-04, 09:42 PM Reply #15 »
errrrr Peter,

Punting is a competition and in competitions those that :-

1) prepare thoroughly and do the work required

2) 'the work required' rather than what they might psychologically like

3) stay where they have an advantage as a result and simply dont bet where they don't

4) have the requisite IQ and time to both know 'the work required' and actually do it.

are the ones that are going to do win the spoils.

An inept lazy punter deserves what they don't get but are welcome to pay for their race day enjoyment all the same.

Fours

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-08, 09:36 PM Reply #16 »


An inept and lazy one observes

Compared to the results for the comparable meetings in SY and MN there is no reason to be especially wary -- but 'straight' and 1400m races at Flemington are always risky.

Offline Dave

  • Group3
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 981
« 2018-Aug-08, 11:03 PM Reply #17 »
Pete if you just bet with the TAB that is mistake number one!.....Punters have to give them too big of a start....and Punters like you could not beat them if they gave you a start.....so on that fact I agree with you..........lazy idiots can't win!!

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-09, 08:30 AM Reply #18 »

My experience is that TAB is 'best' when tempted to bet in the pre-post fixed odds market.

It seems that the corporates are scared to be exposed until late in the day when the market is being fine tuned.

Even then it is rare to get more than a marginal advantage with a corporate just shading the TAB offers -- for that reason Iam inclined to say that the corporates should be 'taxed' at TAB rates lest they just make profit at the expense of all others.

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2488
« 2018-Aug-10, 10:28 AM Reply #19 »
Even then it is rare to get more than a marginal advantage with a corporate just shading the TAB offers --

It is not rare . . in fact it is common

The other day I got 91.0 about a horse that was returned @ about 8.5 . . failed to salute of course, but that has nothing to do with the argument

And another, where I secured 20.0 . . 15.0 after 2 scratchings . . SP'd about 4.5 . . which did salute

A bit more than "marginal" . .

This is why many / most corps ban successful 'early shoppers'

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-10, 02:17 PM Reply #20 »

TAB v other corporates

Thank you Arthur.

My concern with the 'others' is the poor odds before Saturday until the market firms.

At that point, the 'others' can see their book and blow out the prices on longshots -- but TAB, needing to pretend they all have a chance, encourages punters to put some of those longshots in their exotic bets.

There are problems in mixing 'tote' and 'fixed odds' betting  -- the big problem being the shift to inflated fields and rough results benefiting bookmakers and syndicates.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-10, 08:05 PM Reply #21 »

Tomorrow

Already field sizes are increasing for Sydney metropolitan racing -- even so, Sydney still looks the best bet tomorrow.

In Melbourne there are short priced favourites in Races 5 and 9 which are modest benchmark events with big fields.

The 'worry races' are the three 'straight races -- 2, 5 & 7 -- and the three 1400 m races -- 3,4 & 8 -- with inflated fields when barriers are important.

Forum members that like 'big dividends' will be pleased -- but the probabilities are for most punters to be ripped.

.................... RVL must know that these likely race outcomes will disadvantage 'most punters' (and favour fixed-odds operators and rebate-getting TAB syndicates) .

..... I hope this probability is not true ..... but the die is cast.

 

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-11, 06:35 PM Reply #22 »

The 'worry races' are the three 'straight races -- 2, 5 & 7 -- and the three 1400 m races -- 3,4 & 8 -- with inflated fields when barriers are important.

Well, will Mair attempt to put his case forward in an honest manner.

One doubts his ability to.

R3 saw the barriers of no relevance and a trouble free race with the best horse on the day winning

R4= a trouble free race with punters cheering home the 4-1 2nd favourite

R8= Another trouble free race making a joke of Mairs claims.

Ditto the straight races that proved to be a punters delight as they clean up again

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4143
« 2018-Aug-11, 07:49 PM Reply #23 »

The early quadrella paid some $25 k

The F4 dividends on races 3,4,5&6 were $5.5k, 7k 7k &40k.

....... most punters did not win on those races.

The quadrella was Ok -- only I knew that Voodoo Lad was the lay of the day.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25007
« 2018-Aug-11, 08:06 PM Reply #24 »
so you agree that the 1400m races had no interference that affected the result despite your claims pre race meeting


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap