Hesi Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Barry, you are the only person, I have ever seen, comment(see below) on the need for professional marketing to boost racing in NZ(an old hobby horse of mine). The only issue, where does the money come from, marketing expertise and time in the various forms of media, cost a lot of money. Triple Trio was an attempt, but done poorly "Engage an experienced marketing company to support the heavy promotion and development of Summer racing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 The other site has improved dramatically since the absence of one poster. Although some self appointed expert on Melbourne and Caulfield Cup top weights, who thinks only two Caulfield Cup top weights have won in the last 60-70 years, wants that poster back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted July 28, 2019 Author Share Posted July 28, 2019 So, any theories on the fate of that one poster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 I'd say reincarnated as the self appointed expert mardi refers to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 22 minutes ago, Hesi said: So, any theories on the fate of that one poster? It's a little unfortunate by the sounds of things and best not made too much of, but according to his alter ego, it sounds like he's been wetting himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 Yes, sad really. Seems to be talking to himself again too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted July 28, 2019 Author Share Posted July 28, 2019 Found a video on FB that I will try and load when I get home It's pretty bad, so may only stay up for a short while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForValue Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, mardigras said: The other site has improved dramatically since the absence of one poster. Although some self appointed expert on Melbourne and Caulfield Cup top weights, who thinks only two Caulfield Cup top weights have won in the last 60-70 years, wants that poster back. yes and thinks an apprentice allowance helped the winner of the Taumarunui Cup and doesn't understand what the pricing means. No mention of my fancied Dez winning at value. These guys want to win on every race. You can't help fools Edited July 28, 2019 by LookingForValue 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 28, 2019 Share Posted July 28, 2019 2 hours ago, LookingForValue said: yes and thinks an apprentice allowance helped the winner of the Taumarunui Cup and doesn't understand what the pricing means. No mention of my fancied Dez winning at value. These guys want to win on every race. You can't help fools Just another post race pretender. Allowance helps - when they win. But not at other times. Actually, as curious said, not just another person, just someone talking to himself. You'd be hard pressed to find two different people that stupid. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 On 7/28/2019 at 2:48 PM, mardigras said: The other site has improved dramatically since the absence of one poster. Spoke too soon. I think the 'gone to the Maldives' is a euphemism for 'everyone hates me, so I'm not going to post'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 hours ago, mardigras said: Spoke too soon. I think the 'gone to the Maldives' is a euphemism for 'everyone hates me, so I'm not going to post'. The guy is a classic example of a narcissist, read below, could it describe him better Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder Grandiose sense of self-importance. ... Lives in a fantasy world that supports their delusions of grandeur. ... Needs constant praise and admiration. ... Sense of entitlement. ... Exploits others without guilt or shame. ... Frequently demeans, intimidates, bullies, or belittles others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 His primary attribute is that he is of low intellect. It's why he can't understand anything beyond simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, mardigras said: His primary attribute is that he is of low intellect. It's why he can't understand anything beyond simple. Yes, and it appears that none of the remedial classes, holidays with the princess (inflated or deflated), nor any other interventions have worked. A question though for you and any of the other clever people here. I note that in the James Willoughby articles that I posted there, in the female allowance one he has used Impact value to adjust expected chance for number or runners in each race analysed. Exactly what you and I did when we examined the NZ handicapping data pre and post the rating changes for NZTR. Except that we were able to go a step further by using current ratings as a proxy for ability as well. Something that he wasn't able to do leading to considerable caution in his conclusions. My question though is that I see in the earlier study on the 3yo allowance, he has used beaten runners to achieve the same thing as the IV. In your opinions is that as accurate a measure/correction for expected chance due to number of runners per race? Edited August 1, 2019 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Curious, can you explain more about how he used beaten runners? I may have missed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 5 hours ago, mardigras said: Curious, can you explain more about how he used beaten runners? I may have missed that. Oops sorry. That's not where I saw that. Right person. Wrong article. Here's an example though. https://blog.betway.com/horse-racing/further-willoughby-analysis-of-the-effect-of-the-draw-on-the-betway-chester-cup/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 3 hours ago, curious said: Oops sorry. That's not where I saw that. Right person. Wrong article. Here's an example though. https://blog.betway.com/horse-racing/further-willoughby-analysis-of-the-effect-of-the-draw-on-the-betway-chester-cup/ Thanks. My first comment is that the reliability of results of horses that are not within a competitive margin introduces problems. A horse finishing 8th of 18 might well have done so due to many horses behind it being largely untried when it comes to the end result. So the counting of runners having beaten half the field against horses having beaten only a quarter of the field in a small sample, introduces the unknown as to what degree the horses are persevered with. Which is one of the advantages of assessing winning horses which are therefore in contention and have beaten all other runners in contention. So for the Chester Cup, it would have been interesting to see the results of the winner against field size (assuming equalised chance), and also the results of the winner against market assessment. You would need a larger sample than what they had there as that would only provide a small number of winners. Which is maybe why he took the beaten runners approach as it made the sample size larger. Another potential issue is the use of the longshot bias in evaluating the market chance of each runner. Whilst longshot bias exists, it doesn't necessarily exist to a uniform degree across all races, but the application of longshot bias has been done as if it is uniform. Having done some work around longshot bias previously, the introduction and serious volume around exchange betting, makes use of that data less compelling than using data that already has been adjusted for longshot bias. Using betfair or similar exchange data, SP would have been a better method as that would adjust for longshot bias for the specific races in question. But all of that leads me to my main question. How does the 'implied' chance of a horse in a race lead into a calculation of 'implied' expectation around horses beaten. What are the chances of a horse with a 20% success rate have - for beating 75% of the field, or 50% of the field. I.e if barrier 18 every year had a horse at 100-1, how many horses should that stall have beaten to achieve a level/par score based on its price? Can you explain how the relationship between winning chance is calculated against beaten runners to get a relative metric? So not sure how that was all done. Or has he determined the position in each race that constitutes 50% of the market either side, and said that is the par score for each race and assess finishing position relative to that 'position'? If that has been done, then that introduces further issues. A horse starting at 2-1 is already occupying 29.5% of the market (from the table). The finishing position of that one horse will massively influence the 'position' that relates to 50% of the market. "Now, however, we can express the same measure in terms of the percentage of the market beaten; did the 50% of the field make us 50% of the odds?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Thanks mardi. Yes, it does seem problematic for the reasons you state and I'm also not clear on the exact methodology especially in relation to pricing. Beaten runners is a problem as you say because of horses without chance not being persisted with. Similar problem to using beaten lengths in any assessment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Yes, I just can't see how you determine what the par score is for a horse that is 20-1 versus a horse that is 4-1 or 100-1. To know whether they are outperforming their expected position relative to the field - and to what degree. If all are assessed equal, you can at least measure that somewhat relatively because you don't have to consider chance. When dealing with chance such as in the way the example calculates chance, that is chance of winning as I say, so can realistically only be used to assess performance against winning (not filling any other position). Otherwise for each horse you could try and define chance of finishing 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc down to last to see what relative degree the horse has outperformed it's expectation (or not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandpiper Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 By including all runners in the analysis the author has not proven that this is a relevant factor for winners and placegetters. If all the betting was match betting it would be an ideal analysis. Thats not how it works tho. Lets say in an average race there are 5 horses drawn inside and 5 horses drawn outside. These 10 are the non triers. If its natural for the outside 5 to tend to finish behind the inside 5 (after being trapped wide) then this could account for the authors results, and winners/placegetters might not be underbet at all. They may even be overbet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 (edited) As for males first starters versus female first starters. Obviously they should be at equal weights in a handicap race. Handicapping has no place for population type stats. They should be assessed on performance, not crap stats. This is simply not true. Their chances relate to their ability. At the time of their first start, the better ability would have the greater chance. Changing their weights, will just increase whatever chance the female had on relative ability. This is very simple stuff, but the clown is so obsessed with population stats, he can't understand it. Meanwhile In the other World of Ratings based Handicapping with Female allowances...Myrtle has at least an even chance of beating Bertyl with an allowance and progressing into the next grade... Edited August 2, 2019 by mardigras 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 "3 Horses finally meet in a Race...all on Rating 70...a 4yo Colt....a Mare who's so far started in 2 Mares only races...and an early season 3yo filly who's also started only in her age group... Would you start all horses off the same weight with their 70 rating?" Of course they should all start off the same weight. If they don't it isn't anything to do with the gender of the horses. It means the handicapper does a totally useless job. No wonder it is so easy to win at punting. You're competing with twits like this and being supported by a belief that the handicapper knows what they are doing. And they wonder why they consistently lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 3, 2019 Share Posted August 3, 2019 Kind of a stupid question really. Not sure how you could come up with any other sensible answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 22 hours ago, curious said: Kind of a stupid question really. Not sure how you could come up with any other sensible answer. The way the current stupid systems work is that a 3yo filly rated as a 70 is suddenly considered relatively better than that on the 1st of August. Suddenly a horses relative rating goes up for getting a day older. Brilliant. The horse is suddenly better than it was when it last ran. And there are actually people out there that think this is called handicapping. Handicapping by population. It doesn't get much funnier reading this kind of shit. Yet it's pretty easy to simply compare actual ability and rate/handicap accordingly. Too difficult for some simpletons to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 (edited) On 7/28/2019 at 5:01 PM, LookingForValue said: yes and thinks an apprentice allowance helped the winner of the Taumarunui Cup Yep, I think the allowance made no difference to the result. Winner won by 1.8L. Would have probably won by 1.5L+ carrying the extra 3kgs. If not actually more than 1.8L. Especially since the horse has proven it can run effectively at over 59kgs. Edited August 4, 2019 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, mardigras said: Yep, I think the allowance made no difference to the result. Winner won by 1.8L. Would have probably won by 1.5L+ carrying the extra 3kgs. If not actually more than 1.8L. Especially since the horse has proven it can run effectively at over 59kgs. Yeahh... Thommo's's having a 'mare isn't he? Of course your comments above don't concur with the claim that some of us think that weight makes no difference. Perhaps we should run a poll Hesi to see if we can work out who they are talking about. Seems to have run out of arguments on the topic and fallen back on the stakeholders won't have a bar of it. I think you'll find those are the same stakeholders who are squealing the loudest about the low stakes levels and wanting the taxpayer to rescue them from their own stupidity. The only one at NZTR that I ran across who understood was former chief handicapper Brett Scelley. He told me at the preliminary meeting before we did that analysis what we would find with respect to weight spread and the female allowance. Made me wonder why they were asking us to do it when the chief handicapper already knew. Didn't believe him? Of course he left a year later (pushed?) and has been successfully plying his trade for the last 4 1/2 years at the HKJC as the Handicapping & Race Planning manager. Maybe found he had the tools there to handicap properly? Now I think I need a drink before I can face reading any more of Thommo's nonsense. Edited August 4, 2019 by curious 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.