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 6919 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20286
« 2018-Aug-13, 12:46 AM Reply #25 »
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.

I outlaid $20 on the Melbourne Quaddie but only got $16 back. At least I am satisfied with the knowledge that the integrity of the quaddie races passed the "Mair Pub Test"   :lol:

Offline pegasyber

  • Group 2
  • User 909
  • Posts: 1478
« 2018-Aug-13, 08:28 AM Reply #26 »
  P. M. said above:
Quote
....... most punters did not win on those races.

  Actually 97% or thereabout, of punters do not WIN on ALL Races.  :what: :what: :what:

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-13, 02:06 PM Reply #27 »
It’s also noted Mair hasn’t been able to tell us what races and horses were affected by his supposed inflated fields.

He’s been exposed as being full of shite again

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-15, 07:24 PM Reply #28 »

Caulfield quadrella wreckers for Saturday

Already one can say that two races scheduled for Saturday are likely to be 'rough'.

Race 4, a BM 84 over 1400m,  has a field of 16 + four emergencies -- wait for it!

Race 6, over 1100m for 3yro fillies, has a field of 16 + 3 emergencies -- and giving it 'G3' status is hardly sensible for a race likely to be another 'wait for it' event.

Even the main event -- aG2 over 1400m with 16 accepting --  is an invitation to a dance macabre.

Why would RVL do this?


Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1007
« 2018-Aug-16, 09:53 AM Reply #29 »
Well Pete I hope you are right, I will be backing a couple of roughies in both races.....but is you are that is only because punters are not very b-r-i-t-e..........big fields are great to bet in, there is a lot of "mug" money in the pool and for that I would like to say THANKS Pete

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-16, 11:49 AM Reply #30 »
Hey Dave, here's a scoop. Even if your so incredibly ignorant as Mair is and cant find a horse to back, any sane person would just choose another race to bet on instead.
Not our brain dead advocate, Peter though  :lol:

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-16, 06:33 PM Reply #31 »

Best wishes Dave

The point to not be missed is that the outcome of inflated-field races is beyond the ken of those expecting the form guide to be useful and those expecting the form guide to be useless.

.......... only on Sunday morning does calm reflection show how what did happen was, incredibly,  predictable enough but overlooked by almost all on Friday.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-16, 08:46 PM Reply #32 »
The main thing proven on Sunday is that You’ve been proven to be constantly wrong with your crap.

Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1007
« 2018-Aug-17, 12:52 AM Reply #33 »
Pete if you and most punters were a detectives criminals would run rampant, unless they came up to you and confessed you would struggle to catch a jaywalker!!! Punting is like being a master detective trying to find a really smart murderer, there are not always a trail of bread crumbs leading you straight to a winner or a murderer....if winning was that easy every winner would be the same price as Winx, who would want that?.....you need to look for clues, sometimes they are subtle, sometimes they hit you in the face so even you could see them.....but the satisfaction you get from finding the subtle clues far outweighs the obvious ones.........people like you are either too lazy or too stupid to look under the surface for clues........but just finding clues is not the answer to winning on the punt.....you have to evaluate them, give them a value i.e. a price....once you learn how to do that, you will be well on the way to being a winning punter.....
You have had this explained to you many times, why are you still beating this drum? Are you obsessed with losing, are you a masochist by nature??, you are the definition of a Masochist...........you keep saying something won't work and you can't win doing it.....but you keep doing it??? is that crazy or what? if you are going to continue to punt, I have an idea that might interest you........learn how!

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-18, 02:09 PM Reply #34 »
Caulfield quadrella wreckers for Saturday

Already one can say that two races scheduled for Saturday are likely to be 'rough'.

Race 4, a BM 84 over 1400m,  has a field of 16 + four emergencies -- wait for it!

Well, idiot Mair wrong again.

Winner salutes at 2-1 and punters over joyed :clap2:
And the draw didn’t matter either so, Pete, you’re wrong on 2 fronts in the one race  :lol:

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-19, 07:48 AM Reply #35 »
Caulfield quadrella wreckers for Saturday

Race 6, over 1100m for 3yro fillies, has a field of 16 + 3 emergencies -- and giving it 'G3' status is hardly sensible for a race likely to be another 'wait for it' event.

Even the main event -- aG2 over 1400m with 16 accepting --  is an invitation to a dance macabre.

Why would RVL do this?


Oh well Peter. You don’t learn do you.

Monty told  you to throw 5 darts not 4.

Sadly for you all 4 were wrong, again

R4.....as discussed above, you were wrong
R6 sees the crowds favourite, Sunlight salute
R8 sees the 5-1 shot win and it was not your predicted “dance macabre”
4th dart peter, not a quaddy wrecker in sight. Quad paid a paltry $380

Mair goes home wrong but punters overjoyed  :bop:

Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1007
« 2018-Aug-19, 04:26 PM Reply #36 »
Wily I must agree with Pete on one point, Barriers are very important at certain starts at Caulfield......the actual results not withstanding.......you must give credit where it's due or you risk your own credibility

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-19, 05:06 PM Reply #37 »
Dave, Mairs problem is that if he ever raises a good point he ruins it by applying blanket coverage.
The bloke has zero balance.
Of course barriers matter at times but you just can’t  put a line through all of them without doing the form.
Mair fails on both fronts. Form & balance

Pace of the race,  distance, horses racing style, track conditions, what has drawn the “supposed better barriers” and a thing called track bias.

Mair takes none of those factors into consideration and it’s why his theories are constantly proved wrong
« Last Edit: 2018-Aug-19, 05:08 PM by wily ole dog »

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-19, 05:49 PM Reply #38 »

Some acceptable outcomes and some not

The early quadrella paid $8,000,  there were two F4 dividends of some $ 20,000 and four of the others averaged some $3,000.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-19, 07:44 PM Reply #39 »
That’s the best you’ve got  :lol:

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-19, 07:48 PM Reply #40 »

My 'enough' always beats the 'best' of others!

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Aug-19, 07:50 PM Reply #41 »
There’s only one thing your beating is yourself

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-26, 06:28 PM Reply #42 »

Bad tracks make inflated fields doubly bad

The Vale of Tears is notorious for rough results on a tight track  -- but, they still keep running capacity fields.

What may be passable for black-type events on the track is surely not with inexperienced and low-benchmark horses.

The four early quadrella races were illustrative shockers -- an early quadrella of $20,000 and F4s of $14,000 and $21,000 on races 2 and 5.

WEIR CALLS A SPADE A SHOVEL WITH MOONEE VALLEY TRACK

The Moonee Valley track has become a big concern ... he said “it’s racing terrible.”

Three quarters of the horses that raced at Moonee Valley on Saturday might as well have stayed at home with a stack of speed runners and those on the fence getting the chocolates.

It was basically impossible to win from the back or make ground when pulling wide.

Weir said what plenty of punters were thinking.


Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-26, 08:30 PM Reply #43 »

What a (not) good idea

Maybe the best way -- at Moonee Valley -- would be to leave the rail in one position and let the jockeys find the best ground for themselves

................. except that the inside would soon be worn out.

The best way would limit field sizes so those accepted get a fair go.



The leader bias at Moonee Valley on Saturday was obvious for all to see as eight of the nine winners were in the first two around the corner ...

The Moonee Valley problem is that as soon as the rail gets out to four metres, where it was on Saturday, the leaders gain even more of an advantage.

.

Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1007
« 2018-Aug-26, 10:15 PM Reply #44 »
while I must again agree with Pete, the "Vale of Tears" is a disgrace but I solved that problem.....I rarely bet there, when I see the races are at the Vale of tears....I just move on...if all punters did that they would do something about it(I would suggest close the track and build units there) with Tracks like Bendigo and others they have some of Australia's best tracks and Victoria is a relatively small state, so travel would not be a huge problem,why can't they hold races on a decent track?? why does it have to be in the city when the city track is too small even for goat races??
every 4th week races could be held at Bendigo, they could race on a circuit where they race at Flemington/Caulfield/Sandown and Bendigo in rotation and once a month hold a city class midweek meeting on each track.......even Caulfield is a little dubious for horse racing..........barriers should not be as relevant as they are at some Caulfield starts.....I don't think reducing field sizes is the way to go, I think racing on bigger tracks that can accommodate large fields would be a better solution to the Problem


Just sell the Valley(and maybe even Caulfield) and better utilise the funds elsewhere.....big spacious tracks is the answer and they have them!.....and Pete could get some rest and give us a break

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-27, 09:44 PM Reply #45 »

Punters are vulnerable

...................... most are addicted to betting on Saturday.

RVL taking advantage of addicts is to be deplored.

Addicted punters will roll up to be exploited........  ending  their exploitation depends on RVL deciding to not exploit them.

Imagine if Judge Hayne investigated RVL after he has finished with the banks.

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Aug-29, 09:49 PM Reply #46 »


A story in two halves

The Saturday MN races seem to have settled on a rough run early ahead of favoured runners taking the quadrella.

On Saturday the rail is out 6m -- handicap races 3&4, over 1400m at Caulfield, with fields of 13 and 16 look risky.

Punters will struggle to cope with capacity fields in most races.

Online Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4361
« 2018-Sep-07, 11:22 AM Reply #47 »

Culling inflated fields

The consequences of paying generous prize-money for running 10th are ever more evident.

Race 8 at Rosehill -- a BM88 over 1100m -- has 16 starters and half of those are listed with pre-post odds of 25/1 and more.

Race 2 -- a Highway Robbery over 1200m -- has 17 of the 20 acceptors still in the field and 10 of those are 25/1 or more in the pre-post market.

Surely fair play demands that, for fields of more than 10 acceptors, those unable to be given any meaningful chance should be scratched -- i.e. if their SP with 10 minutes to go is 25/1 or more they just go home.


Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1007
« 2018-Sep-07, 02:38 PM Reply #48 »
I got it, Pete I know how to solve your problem of roughies getting in the way......campaign for a rule where Bookies can't put up odds over 9/1.....problem solved! and Punters like you would never know they were being screwed.....they still couldn't win....but at least you would be a happy loser, eh Pete?

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25622
« 2018-Sep-07, 06:41 PM Reply #49 »

Surely fair play demands that, for fields of more than 10 acceptors, those unable to be given any meaningful chance should be scratched -- i.e. if their SP with 10 minutes to go is 25/1 or more they just go home.

Ducking hell! That’s the biggest brain fart you’ve ever come up with

You’re clueless   :lol:


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap