curious

11 minutes ago, Buller Rep said:

Ellerslie will, there is no doubt.

The new Awapuni track not so well, as it's not a StrathAyr track. It is simply a standard track with better drainage, sand slitting and a sand carpet like Te Rapa. 

Foxton not a hope as there are other factors at play. 

We have hardly had any rain for weeks yet Foxton is soft for tomorrows trials. Whilst I love my horses trialing there, Leggy/Curious and mates have created the biggest myth in racing around Foxton.

😄

What myth? 116mms this month. Probably a G4 tomorrow.

I think the likes of Foxton would almost cope if the water table is not too high and the tide is going out.

Hopefully the new Awapuni track and Ellerslie and the new polys would also have that level of drainage.

2 hours ago, Freda said:

Were you ever compelled to go to the school dances - combined with sister school St Margaret's college - where the boys and girls stood around uncomfortably in well-separated groups ?    

Awful occasions..!

Yep that too and the St. Mags head mistress would go around with a ruler to make sure you weren't dancing too close together!

3 minutes ago, Buller Rep said:

Curious, so you are a Christ’s boy? 

Long time ago now but yep.

FAQs

To find out more, check out the FAQs below:

What channels is Trackside on Freeview? 
Channels 23 and 24 

Is Freeview available everywhere? 
Yes, through Freeview’s streaming platform (freeviewnz.tv) but you will require an aerial for UHF reception. UHF Freeview is unavailable in Bay of Plenty (outside of Tauranga and Rotorua), Marlborough, Northland and the West Coast of the South Island. 

What channels are available? 
Trackside 1 and 2. They are exact simulcasts of what is shown on Sky TV, Sky Go, and TAB.co.nz 

Will Trackside Premier be on Freeview? 
Trackside Premier will remain an exclusive product on Sky’s services.  

What's changed with the graphics? 
We’ve made a complete change to the look and feel for Trackside 1, 2 and Premier. These are the first major changes to Trackside’s look and feel since 2014.  

Markets will usually be in favouritism order, except with greyhound racing, where the market will be displayed in box order. 

What were the key priorities for this change? 
We wanted to provide a fresh look and feel for Trackside viewers. Alongside this, we want to be able to showcase data which isn’t available in the current graphics, which you will see rolling out in the coming weeks.  

The way our customers bet has changed a lot in 10 years, and we’ve changed the graphics to reflect that. That is why the main markets you will see will display fixed and tote prices for win bets, rather than including place prices, which are freely available through our betting channels like the TAB app and tab.co.nz. 

Will we see more of the horses? 
Yes! We want to show racing in all its glory. Rather than squeezing the vision in behind graphics, the new  look has more space for live racing vision to be displayed. 

Will our programmes be continued? 
A key part of the Trackside revamp is the continuation of old but revamped favourites such as The Box Seat and Weigh In as well as new programmes which will debut in the new racing season from August onwards. 

8 minutes ago, Maximus said:

If the promo video is anything to go by, the 'refresh' of Trackside graphics uses Te Akau colours ...no surprises there.
Hopefully they will live yp to the promise of informing us all more quickly about more runners/jocks etc ...at present the placegetters/ divvies/margins/time is painfully slow.

Entain 1 Skeptics 1

MM

Have you checked it out?

38 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I'm not a skeptic and this is potentially worthwhile.

But it likely helps betting on offshore races more, in my view.

Maybe, but the various announcements have emphasised a trackside focus on NZ racing and stories.

I'd certainly be surprised if they didn't come home with a mil+. I remember David poring over the turf digest in our school days. Lifetime passion and great to see the little guys' dreams come true. Best of luck to them.

5 hours ago, pete said:

I don't think you're the old woman being referred to 😁

So, Freda is an old woman, just not the one Hesi is referring to?

7 minutes ago, Buller Rep said:

Pete,

Let's be fair about this. Nearly every time someone posts something on this site Curious and others regularly say...Where is the data or something to that effect.

With regard to me proving how successful I have been in the racing and breeding game, no I am not going to publish that on this site or any other. 

However there are a few on here who regularly tell us how successful there are at punting, but of course without the proof.

I am really only playing the game of others.

 

 

It's not a game imo and irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Mardi has previously posted evidence here and/or elsewhere, including stating in this thread, that he pays betfair premium fees which only apply to about .5 % of accounts which make a persistent profit. I wish I could say that I had to pay them too.

8 hours ago, Lightning Blue said:

I see you are still trying to work it all out Mardi . that's excellent . every bit of learning helps as does every Kilo off help (IMO and the entire racing industry that applies the handicaps and apprentice claims on a daily basis ) 

The proof is in the pudding , so let's try and get the Quaddie for you today .  and you wanted example's

I would love to apply Barry's technique of knowing where they might be in the running , but we don't know it for these.

I picked Horsham as Victoria racing is the best (and it's always on my Free to Air racing channel broadcast on tele 😁)

Leg one RACE 5   .. Numbers 1 and 2 have a serious impost of 63kg. BANonKidonk and Luv The Bool.

                   the trainers have however 'seen the light' .and gone with Pozman (3kg claim) and great young apprentice Tom   Prebble  (1.5 kg) respectably,  to lighten that hefty load on their horses back .good smart trainers

 

Looks like the claims weren't quite enough to overcome the non-claiming one?

And the 3 topweights ran 1,2,3.

3 minutes ago, Lightning Blue said:

 and the fact remains is that the claims are being applied so that the horse's has more chance in the race's today . can't see what is nonsense about that. 

That's your assumption. Could it not be that the connections think the rider is the best choice for the horse? Knows it well? Rides it often in trackwork? How do you know it is because they think the weight allowance gives the horse more chance?

44 minutes ago, mardigras said:

yes, but in the same way 0.0001kg of extra weight has the potential to have 'some effect'.

think of how much your punting could improve due to the impact of knowing a rider weighed out at 54.9997kg or 55.0003kg instead of the 55kg they were meant to have. Is this going to have an impact on the result? Because you seem to be suggesting it will.

Riders have .5kg leeway when they weigh out anyway without being declared overweight. You don't know that as a punter if they are, and if weight is that significant, how do you account for that variance in your assessment?

Just now, Buller Rep said:

Posts on both sites from what I can see. Prove me wrong. It is your choice or shut up.  

Point me to a post where you got that impression.

Just now, Buller Rep said:

Isn’t that an about face by most of you?

Certainly not by me. I don't know where you thought I meant otherwise.

1 minute ago, mardigras said:

I expect you are right.

Oh, and it's not all of them and probably not even a lot of them.

29 minutes ago, Our Maizcay said:

the second para of the article Curious posted

"undoubtedly there must be some effect of weight"

it's simple physics

I don't think anyone is suggesting that weight doesn't have an effect. You don't need a science degree to know that if you run 100m, then run it again carrying a sack of spuds, which time will be the fastest.

The question from a punting perspective though is does a 2-5kg weight difference have an effect on time.

The data in the above article says it doesn't.

The Importance of Weight in Horse Racing

Weight is the basis around which both handicapping and traditional form study is based. The well-established principle is that 3lbs = 1 length, or put another way if a horse loses to a rival by a length, if the rival is raised by 3lbs in the handicap and the horses subsequently meet again, that the result should be a dead heat. But is this actually true and can you gain an edge by better understanding the effect of weight on a racehorses performance.

In my own form study I actually totally ignore weight carried, undoubtedly there must be some effect of weight but in my opinion its impact is to minimal to materially affect the result. The reason horses stop winning when they go up in the handicap is in my opinion due to them having to go up in grade and race against better horses, not due to the weight they carry, A telling statistic is that in UK racing top weights win 27% of races, which is far more than they should statistically if weight had the effect it is meant to.

To put this into perspective. Horses are large animals, the average weight of a thoroughbred is around 550 kg's. Two kilograms(5 lbs) represents 0.36% of the horses body weight. Let's translate this illustration to human terms. Two 90kg athletes compete with athlete A narrowly victorious over athlete B over 200m. Same conditions 1 week later this time athlete A must carry 0.36% of his body weight strapped to his back as a penalty. This equates to 330 grams or about the size of a family block of chocolate.

Do you think that the 330 gram penalty will stop a powerful finely tuned athlete from repeating the win? Or will a 2kg weight turn around impede the winning chances of a 550 kg thoroughbred?

So that’s my view is there any analysis to back this up, or disprove my theory?

If we look at what percentage who are carrying more weight from their last race won compared with horses that carried less weight and won. Then this gives us the following stats:

Horses that carried more weight and won 11.5%

Horses that carried less weight and won 7.8%

This appears to show that extra weight carried is not a negative, however this data obviously includes lots of other factors which might be affecting the win %. So another, probably better way is to look at a horses performance as an individual, rather than if it won or lost.

A way of doing this is to look at the change in speed figure produced when weight was either added or taken away. Below are some analysis taken from US Dirt racing.

Test Results - Dirt Sprint - Carrying 5 lbs MORE weight since last start

Speed figure remained about the SAME from previous = 28%
Speed figure IMPROVED from the previous start = 34%
Speed figure DECLINED from the previous start = 38%

Test Results - Dirt Sprint - Carrying 5 lbs LESS weight since last start

Speed figure remained about the SAME from previous = 26%
Speed figure IMPROVED from the previous start = 34%
Speed figure DECLINED from the previous start = 37%

Test Results - Dirt middle distance race - Carrying 4 lbs MORE weight since last start

Speed figure remained about the SAME from previous = 30%
Speed figure IMPROVED from the previous start = 32%
Speed figure DECLINED from the previous start = 38%

Test Results - Dirt middle distance race - Carrying 4 lbs LESS weight since last start

Speed figure remained about the SAME from previous = 23%
Speed figure IMPROVED from the previous start = 37%
Speed figure DECLINED from the previous start = 40%

The improvement or decline of speed figures is virtually identical regardless of whether weight is being added or taken away. This shows to me that my initial thoughts that the effect of weight carried by a racehorse is exaggerated are correct, and I will continue to ignore weight when evaluating a horse race.

8 minutes ago, pete said:

My mistake it was EIPH.

75 - 90% of horses have signs of EIPH after a race. I'm sure if they thought it was at a level that had affected her performance or was likely to this week, she wouldn't be running.

39 minutes ago, pete said:

You're certain she didn't get beaten because of her heart condition are you?

Not that she has a heart condition. Not sure where that idea came from. Surely would have had to have a vet cert to race on Saturday if that were the case.

2 minutes ago, pete said:

Great find Pete. And I suspect any differences are due to the small sample size and general variability due to pace and jockey/trainer ideas about any pace bias the track might have.

The days of real and effective handicaps around Phar Lap's time. Here's the weight spread for the 1929 Telegraph

Topweight Paganelli 9.10

Bottom weight Consent 7.2

That's 36lbs = 16kgs

Funny how some punters are still using the same theories on weight in handicaps that they did then.

59 minutes ago, Lightning Blue said:

It's just a Way to try and give everyone an equal chance chance , based on horses previous performances.

No it's not. It's a way to give better horses more chance than the lesser ones by not having enough weight spread to give them an equal chance as handicap racing is supposed to do.

5 hours ago, slam dunk said:

I am happy to run any query on New Zealand races from a pool of 84,000 races i.e. 30 years but it would need an "intelligent" list of parameters plus filters e.g. we are not interested in jumping races.

Something like what is the average tote price for winners from each draw along with their success rate. Track conditions and distance need to be separated. Even then the anomalies are huge so it needs a clear statement as to what the question is and answer required.

Why don't you run some of the same queries that mardi has reported and thereby verify (or not) his findings?

47 minutes ago, Our Maizcay said:

that's true but nor have I seen any data from those who assert the opposite, and I'm no statistician but I suspect your sample of 10 or 20 Slippers probably doesn't qualify

and it seems there might be two different arguments going on here

one is whether barrier draws have an effect on the outcome of a race (or many races) and the other is whether barrier draws affect the price more than they should

No argument. They do and they do.