Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK
harm-plan
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 42788 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1090
« 2019-Nov-01, 01:02 AM Reply #300 »
I certainly don't want Pete restrained or restricted from having an opinion........about anything.....but who doesn't know what Pete's opinion is on this subject?
I was just hoping Pete would see the light and know it is time to move on to something a little more positive and stimulating.........surely he has more than ONE opinion on more than One subject????
Let's be friends and talk racing, not politics!

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20758
« 2019-Nov-01, 02:48 AM Reply #301 »
Leave the bloke alone, fellas.

Obsessive about things at times and gives plenty of cause for differences of opinion.

But doesn't  give reason for what you are asking.

  emthup

Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1090
« 2019-Nov-01, 10:59 PM Reply #302 »
Pete doesn't have many opinions....He is bitter about the politics of racing, especially in Mexico, end of story, he keeps making the same point, it wouldn't even be so bad if he was right or even if he made any sense.....but he is totally wrong and makes no sense!
Every time I come here I feel like Punxsutawney Phil and it's Groundhog day all over again!!
You can't have a difference of Opinion with Pete......he doesn't acknowledge a different opinion.....EVER!!!
he isn't obsessive about "things" it is always the same thing, he has a Grudge and he is trying to drag everyone into his quagmire......but as I said, I don't want any restrictions put on him, what would be nice would be for Pete to see the light and realise that his point has been stated,
No need to reiterate it over and over and over and over and over and over is there??.....did I make my point?? or should I make it over and over and over and over and over and over again, Ad infinitum?? until you give in and agree??? I would rather just go somewhere else, I don't know how wily and others can continue to fight.....not like Pete listens, is it?

Offline bascoe

  • Open
  • User 2568
  • Posts: 135
« 2019-Nov-01, 11:24 PM Reply #303 »
Pete has made his point - lets say noted - and it is his opinion and that is that. That great American runner had a great quote on opinions..seems appropriate here but you can reference that yourselves...

Lets move on from that and my only view is that if if is kept to one thread then fine, no one apart from Pete will keep feeding it.

Admin should only need to intervene if Pete infects other threads?

Bascoe

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Nov-14, 08:14 PM Reply #304 »

SOWS EARS AND SILK PURSES -- be very wary of Newcastle racing on Saturday

For terrible and horrible TV coverage of racing, it would be hard to beat the tripe served up on 2KSKY's 528 this evening as a 90 minute prelude to the $1 m race, and supporting program, at Newcastle on Saturday.

This is even worse than the never-watch stuff on the RVL channel.

Stay well clear of this nonsense.

Grossly inflated fields all day  -- the smell of a buck cannot override the commonsense of presenting a fair program as a 'standalone' and building a reputation for a fair go.

....... wait for the post-mortem on Sunday ......... do not do it again!



Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Nov-20, 08:49 PM Reply #305 »

Stay away from this week's 'standalones' -- unfamiliar  form is not comparable

Most fields are inflated and the clutter makes life hard.

Last year the trifecta and F4 dividends on the Ballarat cup were 3.000 and 66,000 -- not a god look.

The 'gonged' poses a new question but the usual warning signs are there.

One profile race does not make a program -- it does provide a hoax-context for over-hyped  promotion from a compliant, captive media.

.............. do not get hyped ............ have a couple of bets ...... go to the movies .... watch the replays later.
 

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Nov-21, 07:38 PM Reply #306 »


Too many nominations 'accepted' to fill fields should not be

.............a quick perusal of the pre-post markets for Saturday clearly indicate that too many no-hopers are listed to run at both the grange and smelleratt........... administrative greed writ large and fair-racing abandoned.

Offline Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 2
  • User 296
  • Posts: 3238
« 2019-Nov-21, 08:06 PM Reply #307 »
Pete, what is a good number of runners to you.

There were a couple of posters including me commenting on the small fields on Wednesday at Rosehill. It was about 50
In total.

I would be interested in the number of runners for you and your reasons for that particular number.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Nov-22, 07:05 AM Reply #308 »


Field sizes -- the number of runners .....and ...... reasons

The weekly parade of 'rough results' in Melbourne is the best evidence of unfair racing -- institutionalized administrative corruption of the races.

I would like most races to be limited to 10 starters from 12 acceptances. Races run from 'unfair starts' would be limited to 8 from 10 acceptances -- e.g. races run over 1400m at Caulfield and Flemington and sprint races at Rosehill as well as all highway-robbery races run in Sydney.

The principal concern is about ensuring 'fair racing' by limiting fields to runners with a credible chance of being placed. Quality control of the racing product presented is being mocked by paying generous appearance money for running 10th.

This is buck chasing.

If ASIC and the ACCC investigated field-size policies the findings would be damming in terms of 'deliberate product detriment' -- comparable to putting poison in boxes on the shelf labeled fit-to-eat.

One corollary is to not accept nominations of runners content to run 10th -- the stewards and administrators should  have a say on denying acceptances of Bradbury-runners with no credible chance.

In general I would not limit field sizes for major handicap races with eligibility and order-of-entry based on performance -- i.e. most G1 handicaps would have any number consistent with safe-racing.

That said the overall quality of the fields for the Caulfield and Melbourne Cups has deteriorated to the point where 'fillers' cluttering up the fields make these races unfair.

Imagine what Frankie Dettori would say if asked about the Cup fields for horses there to win.

Beyond G1 handicaps the view is very clouded -- many black-type races run in Melbourne simply do not warrant that status -- inflated-field cluttering with 10th-place hopefuls wrecks those races.


Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 26636
« 2019-Nov-22, 11:14 AM Reply #309 »
Well, thank god no one listens to you.

8 horse fields will see racing die

Offline napes

  • VIP Club
  • Group3
  • User 29
  • Posts: 879
« 2019-Nov-22, 12:52 PM Reply #310 »
[If ASIC and the ACCC investigated field-size policies the findings would be damming in terms of 'deliberate product detriment' -- comparable to putting poison in boxes on the shelf labeled fit-to-eat


Libelous ??


Offline Dave

  • Group 2
  • User 2322
  • Posts: 1090
« 2019-Nov-22, 02:40 PM Reply #311 »
Pete you keep talking about huge exotic payouts like that is a bad thing....do you have any grasp of human nature at all??
Why do you think punters take exotic bets??........if they wanted to make it easier to win for a start they could just bet the fav to run a place....do you think they just want to make a 10% ROI?
These are people hoping and praying for a rough result.....that is the whole idea of trying to pick 4 winners in a row instead of one.....or the F4 in the correct order......BIG dividends!!
I never bet exotics and I never buy Lotto/Lottery tickets either.....but hey that is just the way I like to bet........
Why can't you just accept that you are greedy, a terrible judge, don't put in the effort and are a bad loser!!......and you can't have it both ways.....you can't take small risks and get large returns.....well most Punters can't.....
Me thinks all your warnings is really subliminal for your own edification.........trying to tell yourself to take your own advice.....and apparently it isn't working!
To quote William Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 26636
« 2019-Nov-22, 08:00 PM Reply #312 »
Dave, the only reason Pete bleats about F4s is it’s the only way he can attempt to justify his moronic thoughts about racing.....which we all know are driven by self interest

When fronted with facts about the real dividends on the most popular bets, (win bets) & the lack of interference in race fields, the only comfort he can grasp for is some large, obscure exotic divvy, which you point out, people actually want 💡

The blokes a clown as evidenced by the fact that no one comes to his support on his numerous & repetitive posts

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 20758
« 2019-Nov-22, 09:31 PM Reply #313 »

Beyond G1 handicaps the view is very clouded -- many black-type races run in Melbourne simply do not warrant that status -- inflated-field cluttering with 10th-place hopefuls wrecks those races.

This is starting to get some attention.

Last weekend at Sandown there were these races:

Group 3 Sandown Cup $160,000
Group 3 Kevin Heffernan Stakes $160,000
Group 2 Sandown Guineas $250,000
Group 3 Summoned Stakes $160,000
Group 3 Eclipse Stakes $160,000

In the upcoming Brisbane Summer Carnival we will have

Listed Nudgee Stakes $200,000
Listed Gold Edition Plate $200,000
Group 3 Grand Prix Stakes $250,000
Group 3 BJ McLachlan Stakes $250,000
Group 3 Vo Rogue Plate $300,000

The Pattern Committee seems to be biased against Queensland and pro Victorian in some of it's decisions.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Nov-23, 09:35 PM Reply #314 »

Rotted racing -- corrupted by administrators buck-chasing


Reflect on today.

........... a $50,000 quadrella at the mange........... $25,000 at smellerat, coupled with a F4 'paying' some $200,000+ along with other F4s paying 18k, 27k,and 31k.

Promotional talk about 'standalones' is over-hyped nonsense.

Do not forget it.

.......... those responsible for this tripe today should be held accountable...... asked to explain ... then sacked.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 26636
« 2019-Nov-24, 07:47 AM Reply #315 »
1423533754

Offline Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 2
  • User 296
  • Posts: 3238
« 2019-Nov-24, 08:27 AM Reply #316 »

Rotted racing -- corrupted by administrators buck-chasing


Reflect on today.

........... a $50,000 quadrella at the mange........... $25,000 at smellerat, coupled with a F4 'paying' some $200,000+ along with other F4s paying 18k, 27k,and 31k.

Promotional talk about 'standalones' is over-hyped nonsense.

Do not forget it.

.......... those responsible for this tripe today should be held accountable...... asked to explain ... then sacked.

When you mean sacked, who are you talking about? The racing bodies in the states concerned or the people at the TAB for encouraging big fields.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Nov-24, 10:46 AM Reply #317 »



INFLATED FIELDS -- WINNERS AND LOSERS


We know that most -- almost all -- punters are 'losers' even after allowing for them to collectively pay a 15% 'entertainment tax': the effective deduction for most punters is now 100%. Others to lose from this regime are the connections and jockeys denied a fair race. The racing industry as a whole loses its reputation. Top trainers are walking away.

.......... now for the winners

The big winners are the corporates -- including TABs -- betting fixed odds -- rough results skin their customers already 'selected' as unlikely to win. The betting syndicate operators, subsidized with rebates, knock off most of the TABs' exotic pools, especially popular quadrellas almost guaranteed one 'rough leg'. The pre-post fixed-odds offered include an excessive % for the book.

......  the administrators are guilty

RVL and RNSW are responsible for the fair conduct of racing and the idea that they take their riding instructions from 'corporate bookmakers' is abhorrent  -- as is their apparent dedication to pandering to politicians demanding feather-bedding of rural racing not otherwise viable.

..........and ....  consumer protection and competition regulators are as derelict with racing as they are with banking

............ as for the future ....... have a look at the rest of the world where racing is now a relic of once-was.
 



Offline Jeunes

  • VIP Club
  • Group 2
  • User 296
  • Posts: 3238
« 2019-Nov-24, 02:38 PM Reply #318 »


INFLATED FIELDS -- WINNERS AND LOSERS


We know that most -- almost all -- punters are 'losers' even after allowing for them to collectively pay a 15% 'entertainment tax': the effective deduction for most punters is now 100%. Others to lose from this regime are the connections and jockeys denied a fair race. The racing industry as a whole loses its reputation. Top trainers are walking away.

.......... now for the winners

The big winners are the corporates -- including TABs -- betting fixed odds -- rough results skin their customers already 'selected' as unlikely to win. The betting syndicate operators, subsidized with rebates, knock off most of the TABs' exotic pools, especially popular quadrellas almost guaranteed one 'rough leg'. The pre-post fixed-odds offered include an excessive % for the book.

......  the administrators are guilty

RVL and RNSW are responsible for the fair conduct of racing and the idea that they take their riding instructions from 'corporate bookmakers' is abhorrent  -- as is their apparent dedication to pandering to politicians demanding feather-bedding of rural racing not otherwise viable.

..........and ....  consumer protection and competition regulators are as derelict with racing as they are with banking

............ as for the future ....... have a look at the rest of the world where racing is now a relic of once-was.

Intrigued about your perspective on the role of RVL and Racing NSW in Racing. Please expand

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Nov-25, 09:24 AM Reply #319 »



Monopolies are always bad for the customers

Government protected monopolies, especially, are an open invitation to the misuse of administrative 'discretion'.

De-facto an interstate – and international -- cartel among administrators and governments ensures the racing monopoly is, collectively, an ‘un-competitive’ rort.

There is no accountability -- racing that is not commercially viable should be not conducted. Allowing non-viable racing bears on which electorates get 'racing tax money'.

Racing-tax-money is politically special because it is ‘free’ -- outside the state budget process --  and 'washed' through state racing administrations, to which it flows as an 'entitlement' to a share of betting turnover. This is money laundering writ large -- corruption follows as a matter of course.

A 'too-much is not-enough' approach to running races is a waste of money.

The inevitable  next step is administrators and politicians scheming to get more ‘free’ racing-tax-money.

Alas the innovation – corporates betting fixed-odds – once benefiting punters has been turned against them.

When TABs started betting fixed-odds it was a short leap to institutionalize the corruption of the business – turn a 16% limit on the take-out into cop-the-lot, take 100% from most punters. This was done by the payment of substantial prize-money for running 10th and letting any bakers-horse get a run to clutter up any field – almost ensuring rough results.

Nationally, on any Saturday, the pool for the Melbourne quadrella alone runs to some $5 million. Administrators engineering just one rough leg delivers a bonanza for corporates and syndicates (getting rebates) and a wipe-out for loyal punters betting modestly and putting the money in the plunder-pool.

Eventually of course such contrived arrangements self destruct -- RVL in particular now seems determined to have Victoria follow Queensland and South Australia into oblivion so far as its racing industry goes.

RNSW is smarter – stealing the game but risking grave temptation.

The process is insidious as it unfolds to destroy any glimmer of product quality control.

......... others can play with suggestions that some of the corporate ‘bonanza’ is ‘returned’ to the industry in sponsorships and related schemes likely to be welcomed by administrators.

It is too late for me to change my attachment to the punt – others addicted to crosswords enjoy that mental challenge – now I simply bet small, enjoying the chase while knowing the only players still in the business with integrity are the horses and 99.9% of direct-participants.



Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Dec-04, 06:41 PM Reply #320 »


History tends  to repeat -- be wary of the Pakenham standalone on Saturday


 Forewarned is forearmed .............the results for last year speak for themselves:

                          https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2018-12-08/PAKENHAM/M/R/9/Win

Offline HarmersHaven

  • Listed
  • User 1861
  • Posts: 204
« 2019-Dec-04, 07:28 PM Reply #321 »
Races 1 thru 6 on that day were won by 2x favourites, 2x second favourites, 2x third favourites - at an average price of $4.80.

The last three winners paid 10.50, 7.80 and 8.80 - hardly friendless in betting and impossible to find.


Stop lying.


FRO.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 26636
« 2019-Dec-05, 06:59 AM Reply #322 »
Races 1 thru 6 on that day were won by 2x favourites, 2x second favourites, 2x third favourites - at an average price of $4.80.

The last three winners paid 10.50, 7.80 and 8.80 - hardly friendless in betting and impossible to find.


Stop lying.


FRO.


👏👏👏

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Dec-05, 07:16 AM Reply #323 »

................... speaking for themselves

............ the average  F4 dividend for the 8 quadrella races was approaching $10,000 and the quadrella paid $3k.

As I was saying, be wary of the Pakenham 'standalone' on Saturday  --- there are 13 acceptors in most races, some 'accepted' to run should not have been.

Runners with long-odds SPs -- some 200/1 -- should be scratched and not left in to clutter the fields.

A major problem with standlones is administrators going for broke -- full fields with too many Bradburys.

This is shortsighted -- they should ensure a fair go for the punters to build a reputation for 'a good day'.

......... be wary.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4916
« 2019-Dec-06, 02:13 PM Reply #324 »


punters.com.au is similarly wary of Pakenham

Racing heads to Pakenham for their stand-alone Cup meeting on Saturday and it shapes as a tough meeting for punters. Worth noting that some of the local trainers have set themselves for a big day with strong representation.


............... they say 'no bet' about three of the races.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap