Author Topic: Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold (Read 16836 times)

bascoe · « 2018-Dec-18, 10:17 PM **Reply #150** »

Quote from: Peter Mair on 2018-Dec-15, 08:10 PM

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

If we could ‘work back’ from the dividends wouldn’t we also have a clue about the results? Just shows how out of touch you are...

Try draughts or tic tac toe - punting seems beyond you

Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-05, 08:15 PM **Reply #151** »

RVL has much to answer for -- not least Caulfield today.

The early quadrella paid $70k.

There were two grossly inflated F4s -- one paying $83k and another $25k.

The two races over the notoriously unfair 1400m, saw F4 dividends of $4.7k and $4.6k.

............ these outcomes are consistent with determination to take the bucks over delivering a fair product ....... they are especially pleasing to corporate bookmakers.

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-17, 06:09 PM **Reply #152** »

Nothing funny about this farm fiasco

On Wednesday, the average starting price of the winning quadrella runners was 33/1 +.

The quadrella dividend 'should pay' was in the range $600,000 to $1,000,000+ -- some two-thirds of the Quadrella pool was 'jackpotted'.

Perusal of the newspaper tipping polls suggested these 4 winners were 'a complete surprise' to everyone.

No one would have any confidence that RNSW will spend any time reviewing 'what happened' and 'why' -- or if they did that any policy changes would be made.

Imagine the joy at Tabcorp and other fixed-odds 'booktakers'.

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-19, 08:48 PM **Reply #153** »

A tale of two cities -- a disgraceful tale of one city

.......... as mature observers of what passes for racing gambling in Melbourne ...............you will be able to compare the outcome of Melbourne racing today with that in Sydney.

The comparison could hardly be more starkly damming of the quality of the racing presented in Melbourne.,

Use your own benchmarks: mine are the 'tips' published in the SMH as 'Monty's Top 5' -- an analyst without peer in the media.

Today , in Sydney, Monty's only 'miss' was the overcrowded 16 starter low-grade 'HWY' for rural runners -- races that have no place on a Saturday metropolitan program.

Otherwise Monty included every winner in his 5 -- in 7 races he had 3 of the first 4 and in 2 races he had the first4.

In Melbourne there was the usual shambles.

.......... 6k and 12k quadrellas - F4 dividends of 50k, 30k, 13k, 7k, 5k and 4k -- an absolute indictment of the 'rubbish' quality of the racing presented by RVL.

Monty included the winner in his 'top-5' in 5 of the 9 races but otherwise fell well short of a comparable performance with his Sydney selections.

This characteristic outcome is disgraceful --the fixed-odds corporates revel in the absence of any semblance of product quality control in the racing presented by RVL.

...... talk about a field-day .............. the corporates would be overjoyed ..... will probably sponsor more rubbish racing.

The TAB pools on the MN quadrella ran to some 'went-west' $2 million+ and the corporates would have lapped up more.

The Victorian government should put a full stop to this rorting of TAB punters.

ratsack · « 2019-Jan-19, 09:07 PM **Reply #154** »

Doesn't matter which horse wins the take is the same

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-20, 07:37 PM **Reply #155** »

au contraire = rats!

doesn't matter ............ the take is the same

The take is not the same at all -- and is that not just the problem.

The TAB take from the parimutuel pools is 'the same' -- but these days the action at TAB -- and at the corporates -- is much more about fixed-odds betting.

With fixed-odds betting the 'take' is unlimited -- it Melbourne on many races the 'take', with inflated fields usually meaning an outsider winning, is closer to 100% than 15%.

This spills over into 'exotics' bets placed with corporates 'matching' TAB payouts but not kicking the funding tin with a 25% takeouts from F4 and B6 pools.

Even TAB 'takes' are eroded by 'rebates' to syndicates plundering exotic pools.

......allowing and faciltating this rorting of TAB punters is a disgraceful reflection on administrators taking their cut and TAB's not standing up for their customers.

ratsack · « 2019-Jan-20, 08:09 PM **Reply #156** »

Quote from: Peter Mair on 2019-Jan-19, 08:48 PM

A tale of two cities -- a disgraceful tale of one city

.......... as mature observers of what passes for racing gambling in Melbourne ...............you will be able to compare the outcome of Melbourne racing today with that in Sydney.

The comparison could hardly be more starkly damming of the quality of the racing presented in Melbourne.,

Use your own benchmarks: mine are the 'tips' published in the SMH as 'Monty's Top 5' -- an analyst without peer in the media.

Today , in Sydney, Monty's only 'miss' was the overcrowded 16 starter low-grade 'HWY' for rural runners -- races that have no place on a Saturday metropolitan program.

Otherwise Monty included every winner in his 5 -- in 7 races he had 3 of the first 4 and in 2 races he had the first4.

In Melbourne there was the usual shambles.

.......... 6k and 12k quadrellas - F4 dividends of 50k, 30k, 13k, 7k, 5k and 4k -- an absolute indictment of the 'rubbish' quality of the racing presented by RVL.

Monty included the winner in his 'top-5' in 5 of the 9 races but otherwise fell well short of a comparable performance with his Sydney selections.

This characteristic outcome is disgraceful --the fixed-odds corporates revel in the absence of any semblance of product quality control in the racing presented by RVL.

...... talk about a field-day .............. the corporates would be overjoyed ..... will probably sponsor more rubbish racing.

The TAB pools on the MN quadrella ran to some 'went-west' $2 million+ and the corporates would have lapped up more.

The Victorian government should put a full stop to this rorting of TAB punters.

if that's the case , what was the pools on fixed odds
just because a quaddie in the tote pays x doesn't mean the corporates won .
what was their hold , you don't know
stop posting your waffle and lies

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-20, 09:28 PM **Reply #157** »

..........rats again!

If the corporates pay the same dividends on exotic bets -- but do not pay the same 'take' as TABs -- then rough results mean they 'cop the lot'.

More importantly, with 'fixed odds' betting neither TABs nor corporates pay much in the way of take-out -- and rough results mean they may well be 'copping' close to 100% of the bets placed on losing favoured horses.

Think about it -- everyone else, besides most punters, has a keen commercial interest in 'rough results'.

........in Victoria that seems to be reflected in administrative policies that benefit the 'fixed odds' operators.

This is not a good look -- and the regularity of the bad look begs the questions of why the administrators do not put quality controls in place -- and why TAB do not demand it on behalf of most customers.

fours · « 2019-Jan-20, 10:19 PM **Reply #158** »

Peter,

The idea of a handicap race is to ........

1) leave the best horse winning by 30 lengths or

2) make for a close finish or at the very least a more evenly matched field to enhance betting activity AND retain interest in the challenge of picking the winner?

Peter.... you more than most should be careful of what you wish for. If you actually got what you wanted racing would be finished.

Fours

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-21, 09:24 AM **Reply #159** »

True enough

............ you could have gone on to say that it is unfair to those horses 'there to win' to be cluttered and impeded by runners happy to run 10th with no expectation of winning but sometimes being a 'bradbury'.

The inflated dividends declared on Saturday, and too often on other Saturdays, suggests the RVL policy is deliberately intended to deliver results at odds with the SP market.

fours · « 2019-Jan-21, 10:47 AM **Reply #160** »

Peter,

Had a friend text me saying he liked a real roughy Wenner to be in the finish. I said I like the favourite and Amadeus.

Those are 3 of the 4 placings in the 31grand first four - somewhat better than your alleged champion tipster and the very reason why people like such results.

Such results are what is possible once you do your own form and abandon public tipsters.

Note that the favourite won.

Fours

wily ole dog · « 2019-Jan-21, 11:13 AM **Reply #161** »

I dont know anyone who even read the tipsters selections aside from our donkey minded Mair

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-22, 11:57 AM **Reply #162** »

I can well understand that -- it fits the profile you present.

wily ole dog · « 2019-Jan-22, 08:28 PM **Reply #163** »

Have you looked at the sales figures for newspapers?

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-23, 09:13 PM **Reply #164** »

Magnificent Monty ----- cleaned them up again today in Sydney

The only media tips not freely available are those of Monty in the SMH -- and punters would be well advised to get them.

fours · « 2019-Jan-23, 09:27 PM **Reply #165** »

Peter,

Please work on your maths skills before you make embarrassing comments!

Assuming the 4 picks got all 8 winners a loss is shown ie less than 32 units returned for win bets for the 8 winners.

That's not cleaning up - refer to my mention of a 31g first four if you ant an idea of what is.

Fours

wily ole dog · « 2019-Jan-24, 06:38 AM **Reply #166** »

Quote from: Peter Mair on 2019-Jan-23, 09:13 PM

Magnificent Monty ----- cleaned them up again today in Sydney

The only media tips not freely available are those of Monty in the SMH -- and punters would be well advised to get them.

Did he have 5 picks in each race again?

fours · « 2019-Jan-24, 10:27 AM **Reply #167** »

Oh dear,

If it was 5 picks than that is a shocking loss.

Fours

wily ole dog · « 2019-Jan-25, 06:33 AM **Reply #168** »

Quote from: fours on 2019-Jan-24, 10:27 AM

Oh dear,

If it was 5 picks than that is a shocking loss.

Fours

Oh yes. He has 5 picks in every race and old disingenuous Mair doesn’t tell us which one of Montys 5 he backs.
He just gets a bit excited when one of the 5 darts manages to hit the board

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-31, 06:10 PM **Reply #169** »

It is not just me -- that is questioning what is going on at RVL

Scroll through this ' be very wary' preview for Saturday:

https://www.punters.com.au/news/caulfield-preview_176725/

Let your mind run riot on the prospects for race 9 being run fairly -- 15 starters over 1400 does not bode well.

Peter Mair · « 2019-Jan-31, 06:27 PM **Reply #170** »

SPY v. SPY -- almost a mad parody written by Alfred E Neuman

RNSW has embraced the inflated-field nonsense -- paying even more than RVL for barrier-trialers 'running 10th'.

........ even so, there are better prospects in Sydney for race outcomes being consistent with the form-guide

https://www.punters.com.au/news/rosehill-preview_176730/

One can only wonder what is going wrong with racing in Melbourne and where it will end.

Peter Mair · « 2019-Feb-11, 08:44 PM **Reply #171** »

All-Star stuffup

The following comment posted (by not me) on Racenet is illustrative of the problems of inflating fields with runners that do not belong -- and competing for recovering participation costs or -- in the All Star case -- getting $90,000 for running 14th.

RVL has an inability to learn.

The All Star Mile is a joke and a mockery on serious horse racing. Why have Z rated horses racing against group 1 horses? All they will do is get in the way and no doubt, drop off at the 600 metre mark when the pressure is applied. And dare I say it, they could cause serious interference to the good horses who have a winning chance in a $5 million dollar race. The Melbourne Racing heads have struck a real dumb idea here which is destined to be a huge embarrassment to horse racing. They have great carnivals already following traditional methods. At least in the Everest you have the best horses racing, but this voting idea is simply ridiculous, especially when you have horses like Urban Ruler and Mr Money Bags likely to get a spot.