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 79467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27252
« 2020-Mar-01, 06:05 PM Reply #450 »
Pathetically small fields riddled with lack of pace and interference issues.

Turnover looked to be affected. Punters hate small fields  :bulb:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-01, 08:09 PM Reply #451 »

RACING at SHATIN  in Hong Kong -- is a no-go area with prevailing inflated fields

We have learned to steer well clear of racing at another un-happy-valley.

While there may be seasonal cycles in the reliability of HK form at Shatin, inflated fields are a turn off there as they are in Melbourne.

..................... racing administrators have a responsibility to deliver fair-racing ......... instead, they choose to take the bucks from inflated fields exploiting faithful (addicted) punters.

.............. no way to run a business...... bar drug-dealing!


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-02, 06:51 PM Reply #452 »


...... why would any racing administrator contemplate running a field of 15 --  all or no star -- runners over 1600m at Caulfield?


..... this begs for a rough result.... one likely to destroy the ASM concept . ..as it should be.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-03, 11:37 AM Reply #453 »


The Minister misses the mark  -- at punters.com.au


This edition of 'A punter of the week' features Victoria's Minister for Racing, Martin Pakula.

20. Serious one to finish, what does racing need to do to get more people interested in the sport?

Attracting the next generation of racegoers in a competitive environment is about a lot of things - horse welfare, admission prices, dress codes/relaxed racing, shorter gaps between races, digital platforms, and broadcasting and marketing. Of course, superstar gallopers help, as we saw on Saturday with Alligator Blood in Melbourne and Te Akau Shark in Sydney.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-04, 07:04 PM Reply #454 »


TODAY WAS A DISGRACE:  does Minister Paulka-- or anyone at RVL -- review racing outcomes?


A celebratory day, of midweek racing, at Flemington today could hardly have cast RVL in a worse light.

............. what happened today, was a disgrace --- incalculable first-four 'dividends' paying  'lotto like' numbers  were associated with a 'quadrella dividend' of some $70,000 / $100,000.

......looking for explanations, grossly inflated fields of low-grade runners must be prominent. 

Reviewing the replays, 'times' were  consistent with a good track -- why did this happen?

.......... RVL should put a stop to inflated-field racing.............. an embarrassment looms with the ASMile.

 


Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6647
« 2020-Mar-04, 09:22 PM Reply #455 »
Peter,

A broken clock is wrong twice a day but you might have managed once in a year to day.... for one for the races.

Extremely late money for Lanes mount but they did not get the win dividend.

Fours

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-09, 08:06 AM Reply #456 »


Seasonal complaints with Melbourne racing on Saturdays


.............the carnival is over for Melbourne racing as the next few Saturdays feature the some-star-mile before the stand-alones at Mourningtown and Smellaratt will make life hard again for the addicted TAB punters.

........ the some-star meeting on Saturday has a headline race but the results for the meeting last year are cautionary:

https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2019-03-16/FLEMINGTON/M/R/1/Win

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-11, 07:21 AM Reply #457 »
Warrick Farm today

Stay well clear of racing at the funny farm today.

Slow rated track with chockablock fields of mid-week runners isa prelude to a 'best not bet' day.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-12, 08:50 AM Reply #458 »


Wasting punters money on races that should not be run


.............. and so it came to pass... another day of overcrowded low-grade races that should not have ben run at the funny farm track.



Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk


Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 21689
« 2020-Mar-12, 10:54 AM Reply #459 »

Wasting punters money on races that should not be run


.............. and so it came to pass... another day of overcrowded low-grade races that should not have ben run at the funny farm track.



Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

Pete,

You are a real "half glass empty" bloke.

First winner on debut Chianti (reminds me of Silence Of The Lambs) was sensational.

Plunge horse got up in Race 4.

High Low Bet in the Ingham colours gets 3 in a row in the 5th.

You are missing out on all the fun mate   :lol:

Offline napes

  • VIP Club
  • Group3
  • User 29
  • Posts: 906
« 2020-Mar-12, 11:12 AM Reply #460 »
Pete's idea of fun,

Racing once a week, only in Melbourne ( but not with Racing Victoria in charge), 3 races, 4 horses in each race. And someone to tell him which horse is guaranteed to win each race.

He'd probably still miss the winner and find something to whinge about  :clap2:

If you don't want your money used on races that shouldn't be run, don't bet, or even better, win.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 21689
« 2020-Mar-12, 02:01 PM Reply #461 »
Pete's idea of fun,

Racing once a week, only in Melbourne ( but not with Racing Victoria in charge), 3 races, 4 horses in each race. And someone to tell him which horse is guaranteed to win each race.

He'd probably still miss the winner and find something to whinge about  :clap2:


  :lol:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-18, 09:54 PM Reply #462 »


TAB Punters bewa Mourningtown looms for Saturday  ... and more mourning on Sunday

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-18, 10:04 PM Reply #463 »


The prospects at Rosehill on Saturday are much the same for the 'put the slipper into punters' day.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-19, 09:33 AM Reply #464 »


Treating TAB punters with disrespect

In the course of a long-winded 'explanation' of the minus 16% betting turnover outcome for the some-star-mile day -- RVL offered this tit bit.

“The importance of starter numbers is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that turnover on Saturday’s secondary meeting at Geelong was up 10% off the back of a 13.6% increase in starter numbers.



Strike me roan........... check the 'results' for Geelong on Saturday:

https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2020-03-14/GEELONG/C/R/8/Win

No TAB punters would have been happy with this  -- the quadrellas paid $8k and 11k ........the first fours, paying an average of 8k, were indicative of unfathomable low-grade nonsense.


.................starter numbers sure are important in presenting low grade product to most punters!

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27252
« 2020-Mar-19, 10:03 AM Reply #465 »
So Mair has been telling us for years that 14 or less is the optimum field size

Geelong on Saturday? :chin:
14
14
11
12
10
14
12
13



So field size has zero effect on dividends as they are perfect size fields for Mair

4 of the 8 winners were 5-1 chances and another 13-2  :bulb:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-19, 11:24 AM Reply #466 »


Field sizes -- 'optimum' meaning 'fair' for punters and owners of the best horses

In the normal course of racing the appropriate field size would be 10 'accepted' including two emergencies.

..........i.e. -------- 8 to run

Field sizes of 14 -- and more -- are entirely inappropriate (except possibly for the icon Group1 races with strict eligibility criteria).

More generally the eligibility of all horses to be accepted would be controlled to ensure all have a real chance of winning.

Note: runners nominated would be 'accepted' (or not) according to the rules -- connections would not decide to accept -- they would be told if they are accepted.

[..............as for Geelong on Saturday ........... I did not make up the results............. if betting is only allowed on the 'win' outcome that may be different .....as is the results were a disgraceful reflection on regional racing...fortunately the TAB pools were of no material consequence.]


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-19, 11:32 AM Reply #467 »


Mourningtown -- obviously -- will be best avoided on Saturday


............. these regional clubs cannot resist the temptation to take more money instead of providing racing likely to be fair to most punters.

Check the field sizes:

https://racingaustralia.horse/FreeFields/Acceptances.aspx?Key=2020Mar21%2CVIC%2CMornington

..............standalone = stand aside

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27252
« 2020-Mar-19, 03:52 PM Reply #468 »
So you admit you were wrong about field sizes and have come up with a new theory 🍾

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-19, 04:33 PM Reply #469 »

Where did I say this, please?

                                Mair has been telling us for years that 14 or less is the optimum field size

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27252
« 2020-Mar-19, 08:15 PM Reply #470 »
Where did I say this, please?

                                Mair has been telling us for years that 14 or less is the optimum field size

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-19, 08:20 PM Reply #471 »


shifty old dog ........... not really a response to the question

Where did I say this, please?

                                Mair has been telling us for years that 14 or less is the optimum field size

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7461
« 2020-Mar-20, 10:01 AM Reply #472 »

Good advice:  'fours'  about 'first fours'....... I qualify


I will pay more attention to 50% place-getters starting at long odds.

F4s, my most common bet --  rarely successful -- are most likely to win when there is a smallish field with clear favourites and the rest of the field goes in for fourth.

Alas, big F4 (and quadrella) dividends occur mainly when a favourite does not win and a race is corrupted by an inflated field.

Some races -- e.g. over 1400 at Caulfield and Flemington -- are notoriously unfair with an inflated field and the favourites cannot get to the front.

Most TAB punters assume the race will be 'fair' and exclude 'no-hopers' starting at more than 10/1.

I would have a rule 'scratching' horses at the gates with an SP > 20/1,  until the field is reduced to 10 or less.

It is syndicates that cover the field and plunder the pools with rough results.

Online wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 27252
« 2020-Mar-20, 03:54 PM Reply #473 »
Wenona
It tells us how stupid Mair is when he tells us his most common bet is F4s and he rarely wins  :lol:

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 1
  • User 326
  • Posts: 5266
« 2020-Mar-20, 08:26 PM Reply #474 »


...... another rough night at the 'vale of tears'

..... the first and last took most punters out of otherwise confident quadrella bets

I will plead guilty to being a 'never learner'  -- just one among far too many sucked in to follow the form.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap