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 7963 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Nov-18, 06:43 PM Reply #125 »
Thank you JWH -- you make my point well (as Arthur notes).

The whole point of inflating field sizes is about boosting turnover -- the bigger your sample the more the evidence will confirm this. With 'rough racing' punters have to cover much more 'luck in running'.

There are more relevant questions.

One is about about the association of inflated fields with 'rough results' -- as measured by the departure of TAB dividends from the expectations of the pre-post market.

Yesterday was illustrative as have been most days of the 'sprung carnival' -- inflating the fields, paying for 'cluttering appearances' , is a precursor to both 'higher turnover' and 'rough outcomes'. Cup day is notorious.

The beneficiaries of 'rough results' are firstly the 'can't lose' fixed-odds bookmakers, second the (mal)administrators getting more money for racing, third the rural beneficiaries of washing city money through non-viable rural racing interests, -- and the also-rans, including the politicians ensuring no kick-back in racing electorates and breeders and others claiming 'victories' that are effectively fraudulent.

...... if the banking royal commissioner even glanced at this systemic rorting of punters he would ask for a new brief.



Online JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18267
« 2018-Nov-18, 07:03 PM Reply #126 »
Peter

You don't  know, or seem willing to ignore, the fact that racehorse punters are, in the main, canny creatures.

Maybe you should turn your interests to alerting pokie players of how they are being duped.

 

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Nov-18, 07:50 PM Reply #127 »


Again 'thanks' JWH -- for suggesting that racehorse punters are, in the main, canny creatures.

The evidence here is overwhelmingly against you.

The evidence is that 'in the main' , when fields are inflated, the punters bet more but are most likely to lose.

As for yesterday -- who do you think were the main beneficiaries of the 'rough results'  -- obviously not any few 'canny punters' but more likely fixed-odds bookmakers -- more obviously it was the syndicated betting operations that cleaned up on the 'lotto like' F4 and quadrella pools.

....inflated-field racing is a blight on the industry and sensible punters would be avoiding 'inflated field' races and concentrating on fair-fields.

----- the evidence you present more likely suggests exactly the opposite ... punters are not able to bet confidently.

Keep feeding me lines!


Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2564
« 2018-Nov-18, 09:54 PM Reply #128 »
sensible punters would be avoiding 'inflated field' races and concentrating on fair-fields.

Some sensible punters do; and some sensible punters don't . . and some sensible punters do both

But the 'canny punters' always get value . . even though they don't always get winners

The lazy punters will always lose, no matter the field size . .  and you can't legislate against laziness or stupidity . . nor should you be able to




Take the last race at the Sunny Coast today . . was it an inflated field?? . . Your opinion is as good as mine

Did the Corps win on it?? Probably

But the 'early market correction' indicates that the 'canny punters' who shopped early got 51.0 about a horse which was returned @ 17.0

BTW . . I wasn't one of them, but I did get 51.0 about a horse that opened @ 17.0 and ran 4th or 5th . . and I think that I got 'value'


PS
The day that 'luck in running' ceases to play a part will see the end of racing as we know it


Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5394
« 2018-Nov-18, 10:15 PM Reply #129 »
Peter,

According to you a small field is a fair field so how do you explain how horses win at long odds in your so called fair field?

Remember you claim that rough odds mean its not fair as well so you cant have both contradicting each other surely?

Unless of course your logic is fatally flawed......

eg Karlovasi wins at 20/1 in an 8 horse field at Morphetville on Saturday.

Now Peter I can give you chapter and verse on why the 20/1 was a huge error in pricing but I will just start with something you almost certainly don't know but is available to all... if they would only do a little research.... when Jake Toeroeke jumps on a horse trained by R & C Jolly  the win strike rate AND place strike rate are BOTH higher than their overall career performances.....and both of those are just fine.

Peter did you even notice the fact there was a jockey change? Was it not for a much much much higher strike rate jockey for this trainer?

Once again Peter this is information available to ALL and once again your claims of 'inside knowledge' are a laughing stock.

Laziness..... Peter is the answer you put your head in the sand over.

And Peter this is only 1 point  - I could give you chapter and verse!
 
Fours
« Last Edit: 2018-Nov-18, 10:18 PM by fours »

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25668
« 2018-Nov-19, 07:10 AM Reply #130 »
Thank you JWH -- you make my point well (as Arthur notes).


I’m not sure if I should applaud or condemn your arrogance. You do it so well

  :lol:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Nov-20, 10:48 PM Reply #131 »

Sydney rules

The limits of 'relevant racing'

I pay no attention at all to any racing bar Saturday-class racing in Sydney and Melbourne -- and as readers know anything at all to do with Melbourne is about to join the rest of Australia in the bucket that says 'do not bet here'.

The idea that anyone would put a case based on 'racing' in Brisbane or Adelaide is beyond the pale of credibility.

Even in Sydney there are clear 'dont's' attaching to 2yro and 3yro races as well as any 'inflated fields' where horses finishing 10th are 'winners' for their connections.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5394
« 2018-Nov-21, 12:25 AM Reply #132 »
Peter,

The only credibility strained beyond hope is YOURS.

Roughies in small fields winning occurs everywhere.

Fours

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25668
« 2018-Nov-21, 06:58 AM Reply #133 »
And nobody wants to bet on small fields apart from Mairs professionals with the computer programs.....the people he constantly slags off.

It’s clear Mair doesn’t care about that the small punter, it’s about his own ego being heard :bulb:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Nov-30, 09:23 PM Reply #134 »

A word about betting tomorrow -- DONT

........ off-season racing with inflated fields across the board means losses for almost every punter.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25668
« 2018-Dec-01, 09:09 AM Reply #135 »
Cracking good racing across the country today.
Ascot and Brissy in particular
Got a few nice bets at the valley but need to see how the goat track is playing before unloading

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-06, 07:48 PM Reply #136 »

What to pack for Pakenham -- money and courage

Consider what happened last year:

.........early and main quadrellas paying some $25k and $100k; and

.............overfull F4s including a $10, $15 and $30k and $60k on the Pak Cup.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-07, 09:21 PM Reply #137 »

More tears at the Vale

When will RVL bite the bullet -- close the Valley and stop stealing from punters.

Apart from the quadrellas paying $ 6 and 8 k -- there were two F4s paying $13 and 14 k.

.... why does anyone bet on this nonsense?

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-09, 08:03 AM Reply #138 »

Pakenham......better this year but still not a fair day at the races

The quadrellas this year paid $800 and $3,000........... but  6 of the 9 F4s paid more than $3k --- including a 15k, 30k, 7k and 9k.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-14, 11:40 AM Reply #139 »


Betting at Flemington tomorrow......be afraid, be very afraid

“The track is a little bit tender and a little bit new.

“Straight off the renovation, it will race a bit fluffy and a bit new until it beds down and that probably means one (track) rating worse than what you might otherwise expect.”


This word of caution comes on top of RVL scheduling low grade races with inflated fields.

..... what do you think will happen in Race 2 with 13 starters over 1400 m in a benchmark 70 for 3yros?


Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25668
« 2018-Dec-14, 03:42 PM Reply #140 »
You tell us what you think will happen.....for once

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-14, 09:28 PM Reply #141 »


The TAB dividends will answer the question tomorrow.

Offline gunbower

  • Group3
  • User 2463
  • Posts: 798
« 2018-Dec-14, 09:45 PM Reply #142 »
Define "Inflated Fields "  How many should be allowed to run  ?  Six , Seven , Eight or even Four ?. When does it not become an inflated field ?

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-14, 09:56 PM Reply #143 »
Sad Canterbury tales and more tears at the Vale.

......................the race results tonight illustrate the relevance of the question: why would anyone bet on Friday night?

Forum members know enough to know that betting on Friday night is not only a wealth hazard but the exposure of your betting account records could be the basis for having oneself committed to 'care' at her majesty's pleasure.

Look up the 'results'  -- and be chastened by quadrella and F4 dividends of 24k, 5k,5k,  -- and onto F4s of 16k, 5.5k, 4k, 3k, 6k, 10k+, 5k, 9k.

..... wear a mask if you attend any Friday night meeting and only bet in cash.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-14, 09:59 PM Reply #144 »


How many should be allowed to run ?


Gunner -- I would be happy to trust your judgment of the numbers for a fair race.

Offline HarmersHaven

  • Open
  • User 1861
  • Posts: 196
« 2018-Dec-15, 09:13 AM Reply #145 »

Gunner -- I would be happy to trust your judgment of the numbers for a fair race.

But he asked you.

How many do you think is the number required?

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25668
« 2018-Dec-15, 09:36 AM Reply #146 »
The blokes a turd, he wont answer :thumbsup:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 2018-Dec-15, 08:10 PM Reply #147 »


I respect the ability of other members to understand when an inflated field will probably corrupt the outcome.

Working back from 'lotto like' dividends is a clue to a race that was unfair.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4379
« 5 hours ago Reply #148 »

Tomorrow at Caulfield

............ a big day for races over 1440 m -- mainly maidens and low benchmarkers.


Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25668
« 1 hour ago Reply #149 »
So what.  :o
Do you want a few 6 horse fields of G1standard thrown in for you.
Dont hlbet if you're not up to doing the form


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap