From terry_styles at hotmail.com Sun Jul 2 16:15:55 2017 From: terry_styles at hotmail.com (terry styles) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 06:15:55 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] An Enigma In-Reply-To: References: <000001d2f06d$39b57320$ad205960$@bigpond.com>, Message-ID: Eh, You mean you have not been doing this sort of thing the whole time? Terry ________________________________ From: Racing on behalf of Race Stats Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017 11:05 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] An Enigma Great thinking outside the box Tony! Like the Unitab 100 pointers, it does not contain any allowances for recent form, just peak form. Some of the 100 pointers, have woeful form and should not be ranked on top. One must use more than one criteria or rating to be successful, as you are doing. Be interested to see how this pans out for you without going into too much detail :) Lindsay -----Original Message----- From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017 10:18 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] An Enigma An Enigma I have been watching this for a few years, checking most days for its occurrence and it does recur frequently. If the career figures of a runner are manipulated, de-constructed almost, then the findings re applied to the selection of runners often a new set of runners arrive, off the radar from other logical selection processes. If a runners career performance figures are modified to place it where it is in this preparation then these runners can be considered candidates for selection. An example Warwick Farm race 6 today. 10 Another Snappy has the career figures 31,7,2,3 so 31 starts, 7 wins, 2 seconds,3 thirds to earn a 38.7% place strike rate. That 38.7% is the figure everybody uses, it is representative of this runner endeavours on a race course, over several years. I had thought that this runner has other information titbits you could use. Logically it can't call on its first up figures when it is 3 or more runs in this preparation. You could use the 2nd up figures as well, to really distill the horses potential with what is left. I haven't done that to any great degree. For starters, it is not first up, it's first up statistics are displayed though so if you deducted those from its overall score would this provide us with enough right information on which to base a decision. It may promote it in ranking from 5th where it lingered earlier. It's first up record is 5 starts for nothing, zero. So 31,7,2,3 becomes 26,7,2,3 which equates to 46.15% and Another Snappy is promoted, to 2nd, and is in the mix for inclusion in my betting. 10 Another Snappy won today paying 65.20 and 12.00. Using my rubbery algorithm I had priced it as $3.40 place. Summary: obtain the career performance record for each runner, deduct the first up career performance record, calculate the percentage of what remains and rank that with the other runners. This method selected the 2nd place getter also, who was ranked first. 3rd and 4th rank ran 10th and 11th. I applied a further restriction to runners coming in for consideration. I used their assessed place % and deducted that from the new calculated place percentage, the figure obtained after the first up statistics are deducted. I then rank the resulting figures, the biggest calculated benefit gets recognition this way. Another Snappy had a 7.5% boost. In Doomben race 7, six minutes later, the number one selection, and the favourite won, $2.40, and got a 25% boost In Sandown race 7, Kakanui failed to place In Ballina race 7, Neurum won $6.40 In Gawler race 8, Nishiazabu placed 2nd, rated at $5 to place it paid $8.80, Mighty Maher placed 2nd, rated at 3.40 it paid 3.50. In Warwick Farm 7, 2nd ranking Cosmic Engine won paying $2.60. The flop was Big Cheer. In Doomben race 8, winner Patronizing was third pick but needed a place dividend of $5 and was not selected. Top pick was Flaming Mogul who ran down the track. In Sandown race 8, top pick Two Hats was not successful. In Gawler race 9, there were insufficient starters for us, and place betting requires 8 runners. We picked 2nd and third with this method. In Belmont race 6 top pick Pinsson, with a 35% boost placed and paid $5.10 after rating at $2.50. It may be ok to use both methods, meaning either method, the straight out top pick after modification or what I use, being the ranking of the boost the runner receives. This developed out of a scheme to frank the favouritism of the short prices that appear regularly now, the perceived best runner in the field. This has been an ongoing study. It has been worthwhile. Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Sun Jul 2 20:26:16 2017 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 18:26:16 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] An Enigma In-Reply-To: References: <000001d2f06d$39b57320$ad205960$@bigpond.com>, Message-ID: <000001d2f31d$a3fe9f60$ebfbde20$@bigpond.com> G'day Terry - is this what you do? You did say you use a very narrow subset of data but did not reveal what that is - don't worry this will shrink to middle memory in a few more days. Another aspect I have been looking at for a while is the API, the average prizemoney index. To move on, or away from the data that everybody can use I have been looking at this differently. If the runners earnings are divided by the number of preparations it has gone through then a different, more focused, index can be found. This is ranked also. Its often just re-arranging the top 6 off API(normalised) but it has assisted in sorting selections for inclusion in bets. The number of preparations I use is derived from the first up statistics, then I add one for this preparation. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of terry styles Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2017 2:16 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] An Enigma Eh, You mean you have not been doing this sort of thing the whole time? Terry _____ From: Racing > on behalf of Race Stats > Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017 11:05 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] An Enigma Great thinking outside the box Tony! Like the Unitab 100 pointers, it does not contain any allowances for recent form, just peak form. Some of the 100 pointers, have woeful form and should not be ranked on top. One must use more than one criteria or rating to be successful, as you are doing. Be interested to see how this pans out for you without going into too much detail :) Lindsay -----Original Message----- From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017 10:18 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] An Enigma An Enigma I have been watching this for a few years, checking most days for its occurrence and it does recur frequently. If the career figures of a runner are manipulated, de-constructed almost, then the findings re applied to the selection of runners often a new set of runners arrive, off the radar from other logical selection processes. If a runners career performance figures are modified to place it where it is in this preparation then these runners can be considered candidates for selection. An example Warwick Farm race 6 today. 10 Another Snappy has the career figures 31,7,2,3 so 31 starts, 7 wins, 2 seconds,3 thirds to earn a 38.7% place strike rate. That 38.7% is the figure everybody uses, it is representative of this runner endeavours on a race course, over several years. I had thought that this runner has other information titbits you could use. Logically it can't call on its first up figures when it is 3 or more runs in this preparation. You could use the 2nd up figures as well, to really distill the horses potential with what is left. I haven't done that to any great degree. For starters, it is not first up, it's first up statistics are displayed though so if you deducted those from its overall score would this provide us with enough right information on which to base a decision. It may promote it in ranking from 5th where it lingered earlier. It's first up record is 5 starts for nothing, zero. So 31,7,2,3 becomes 26,7,2,3 which equates to 46.15% and Another Snappy is promoted, to 2nd, and is in the mix for inclusion in my betting. 10 Another Snappy won today paying 65.20 and 12.00. Using my rubbery algorithm I had priced it as $3.40 place. Summary: obtain the career performance record for each runner, deduct the first up career performance record, calculate the percentage of what remains and rank that with the other runners. This method selected the 2nd place getter also, who was ranked first. 3rd and 4th rank ran 10th and 11th. I applied a further restriction to runners coming in for consideration. I used their assessed place % and deducted that from the new calculated place percentage, the figure obtained after the first up statistics are deducted. I then rank the resulting figures, the biggest calculated benefit gets recognition this way. Another Snappy had a 7.5% boost. In Doomben race 7, six minutes later, the number one selection, and the favourite won, $2.40, and got a 25% boost In Sandown race 7, Kakanui failed to place In Ballina race 7, Neurum won $6.40 In Gawler race 8, Nishiazabu placed 2nd, rated at $5 to place it paid $8.80, Mighty Maher placed 2nd, rated at 3.40 it paid 3.50. In Warwick Farm 7, 2nd ranking Cosmic Engine won paying $2.60. The flop was Big Cheer. In Doomben race 8, winner Patronizing was third pick but needed a place dividend of $5 and was not selected. Top pick was Flaming Mogul who ran down the track. In Sandown race 8, top pick Two Hats was not successful. In Gawler race 9, there were insufficient starters for us, and place betting requires 8 runners. We picked 2nd and third with this method. In Belmont race 6 top pick Pinsson, with a 35% boost placed and paid $5.10 after rating at $2.50. It may be ok to use both methods, meaning either method, the straight out top pick after modification or what I use, being the ranking of the boost the runner receives. This developed out of a scheme to frank the favouritism of the short prices that appear regularly now, the perceived best runner in the field. This has been an ongoing study. It has been worthwhile. Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terry_styles at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 15:16:55 2017 From: terry_styles at hotmail.com (terry styles) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 05:16:55 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] An Enigma In-Reply-To: <000001d2f31d$a3fe9f60$ebfbde20$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d2f06d$39b57320$ad205960$@bigpond.com>, , <000001d2f31d$a3fe9f60$ebfbde20$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: Tony, Way back in the archives my post on systems using the 30/1 win of Henderson Bay gave some insight into what I was doing.... back then. But it should be a 'first principle' to do things differenlty to others given that the vast majority of 'others' lose. So anything done well ( some try and do things poorly due to unsound assumptions ) that results in you having your own unique data set to look at is a good start. Focusing on readiness and suitability for today's race is the next step. An example of an unsound assumption, for some instances, is that a high place strike rate is a good thing. I'll give the result of a horse suitable for class 1 racing that has placed 5 out of 7 starts but all of those placings were in maiden class and it's running at 0% place for class 1 and above. Arguably the biggest class gap in racing is between maidens and class 1 so often such horses are a bad bet. On average $$$ I think that the esteemed Mr Minnis used no less than 6 different ave prize money methods, of his own, to pin down suitability and competitiveness for 'today's' race. No doubt removing historical outlier results was one of them given crazy prize money in some races relative to the true class of the race. Terry ps Prefer other things now though to take advantage of 'variance'. ________________________________ From: Racing on behalf of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2017 8:26 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] An Enigma G?day Terry ? is this what you do? You did say you use a very narrow subset of data but did not reveal what that is ? don?t worry this will shrink to middle memory in a few more days. Another aspect I have been looking at for a while is the API, the average prizemoney index. To move on, or away from the data that everybody can use I have been looking at this differently. If the runners earnings are divided by the number of preparations it has gone through then a different, more focused, index can be found. This is ranked also. Its often just re-arranging the top 6 off API(normalised) but it has assisted in sorting selections for inclusion in bets. The number of preparations I use is derived from the first up statistics, then I add one for this preparation. Cheers Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Fri Jul 7 17:30:21 2017 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:30:21 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] The Longshot Plan Message-ID: <000001d2f6f2$e57da160$b078e420$@bigpond.com> >From the Age of systems - the 50's and 60's. The author here explains the procedures completely and advises you must be temperamentally suited to 'play' a system, or else never attempt to operate one in the first place. Systems-operation is no sport for the chicken-hearted, he says Also,You must have tenacity of purpose, repeated. And, Systems fail because the operator hasn't got the tenacity of purpose -this is repeated. Then there are usually examples of bad runs, and straight away, good runs demonstrations. The XX Longshot Plan - you work on 7 races throughout the year. (a) Grand National Steeplechase -the selection is the runner which finished 4th or 5th or 6th in the Kensington Steeplechase a week earlier. If the runner who came 4th is entered, it is the selection. Disregard other entries. If there are no runners from the Q race there is no bet on the GN (b) Footscray Steeplechase - if there is a runner in this that came 4th or 5th or 6th in the Kensington Steeplechase then it becomes the selection. Disregard other entries. (c) Australian Steeplechase - the selection is the horse which won the Godfrey Watson Steeplechase or the horse which ran second in that race. (d) Spring Stakes - the selection is the topweight. (e) Caulfield Guineas - same selection as the Spring Stakes but only if it won the Spring Stakes. (f) Melbourne Cup - the selection is the runner who finished in the Caulfield Cup (g) Sandown Guineas - the selection is the filly who did best of the 4th,5th,6th in The Oaks. A 400 pound bank is suggested and 10% of the highest level the bank reached as the stake. 1953 (a) won 11/4, out 40, in 150, win 110, bank 510 1953 (b) won 5/2, out 51, in178.5, win 127.5, bank 637.5 1953 C unplaced, out 63.75, bank 573.75 1953 (f) won 14/1, out 63.75, in 956.25, bank 1465.75 1954 (a) won 16/1, out 146.57,in 2491.69, bank 3810.87 1954 (b) 3rd, out 381, bank 3429 1954 C won 3/1, out 381, in 1524, bank 4572 1954 (d) won 6/4, out 457, in 1142.5,bank 5257.5 1954 (e) won 10/1, out 525, in 5775, bank 10507.5 1954 (f) unplaced, out 1050, bank 9457 1955 (a) unp ,out 1050, bank 8407 1955 (b) won 7/2, out 1050, in 4725, bank 12082 1955C won 4/1, out 1208, in 6040, bank 16914 1955 (f) unplaced, out 1691, bank 15223 1956 (a) unplaced, out 1691, bank 13701 1956 (b) won 12/1, out 1691, in 21983, bank 33993 1956 C won 9/4, out 3399, in 11046.75, bank 42640.75 1956 (f) won 15/1, out 4264, in 68224, bank 106600.75. 1957 (a) won 11/8,out 10660, in 25264, bank 146041 1957 (b) unplaced, out 14604, bank 131440 1957 C won 4/6, out 14604, in 24388, bank 141224 1957 (d) won 3/1, out 14604, in 58416, bank 185036 1957 (g) won 10/1, out 18503, in 203533, bank 370066. 1958 went unp,won6/1,won8/1,unp,unp. 1959 went unp,unp,won 7/1,won 2/1,won 20/1,unp,won 6/1 1960 went won 25/1,won 5/2, unp,unp,unp 1961 went unp,unp,unp,unp,won 20/1,unp 1962 went unp, won 9/2, won 4/1, unp,unp,unp 1963 went unp, unp, won 1/1,unp,won 25/1 1964 went unp,unp,unp,unp 1965 went won 7/1,unp, won 6/4, unp,unp,won 5/2 1966 unp,unp,unp, unp, won 14/1. It got skinny towards the end, and off a million pound bank you were betting 100,000 each time -that is tenacity of purpose. Summary: (a) GN Steeple, 14 bets, 5 winners, 11-4,16-1,11-8,25-1,7-1 (b) Footscray S, 9 bets, 4 winners, 5-2,7-2,12-1,9-2 (c) Aust Stple, 14 bets,8 winners, 3-1,4-1,9-4,4-6,6-1,7-1,5-2,4-1 (d) Spring Stks 10 bets, 6 winners,6-4,3-1,8-1,2-1,1-1,6-4 (e) Caulfield Gns 4 bets, 2 winners, 10-1,20-1 (f) Melbourne C, 13 bets,4 winners 14-1,15-1,20-1,25-1 (g) Sandown Gns, 8 bets, 4 winners, 10-1,6-1,5-2,14-1 An assessment after a couple of years in would have resulted in you wanting To drop the MC bet, wouldn't it. The race names have changed, the scheduling has changed so the races don't appear on the calendar as they once did. I don't know the basis of the selection rules, they worked occasionally though, right. Typed by the young lady with braces, tanks Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com From terry_styles at hotmail.com Sun Jul 9 15:09:46 2017 From: terry_styles at hotmail.com (terry styles) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:09:46 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] The Longshot Plan In-Reply-To: <000001d2f6f2$e57da160$b078e420$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d2f6f2$e57da160$b078e420$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: Tony, IF, and it is a big IF, one can get the consistency of results than such betting plans certainly can turn a small sum into a big one. Those results do appear to be VERY back fitted of course. Bank growth of 85 times in a day is my record on paper BUT the same plan can lose 100% in a day or make anywhere in between. Terry --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com AVG 2017 | FREE Antivirus & TuneUp for PC, Mac, Android www.avg.com Download FREE antivirus and malware protection. Tune up your PC, Mac and Android devices for peak performance. Surf safely and privately, wherever you are. _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com Racing -- AusRace Racing Discussion List ausrace.com To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Racing Archives. Using Racing: To post a message to all the list members, send email to ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Sun Jul 9 17:56:15 2017 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 15:56:15 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] The Longshot Plan In-Reply-To: References: <000001d2f6f2$e57da160$b078e420$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <000501d2f888$d7cfb480$876f1d80$@bigpond.com> Terry, hi - back fitted, do you think? I have not been able to replicate those results, and I came forward a fair way, towards the 80's. This author has presented his results so carefully and that is what appealed to me. I like(d) the way they wrote their spiel too, tenacity of purpose and if it fails, it's you, not the scheme. Hard to see how the decisions to use the selection criteria arrived, that would be back fitting, as the results thinned in later years. My comment to re-think the use of the MC is wrong. The winners total prices summed to 61, and this figure improved over several years. The original plan called for frequent withdrawals, to pay yourself, and reserve banks, and I think the stake was frozen at $1000 (maybe pounds). Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of terry styles Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 1:10 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] The Longshot Plan Tony, IF, and it is a big IF, one can get the consistency of results than such betting plans certainly can turn a small sum into a big one. Those results do appear to be VERY back fitted of course. Bank growth of 85 times in a day is my record on paper BUT the same plan can lose 100% in a day or make anywhere in between. Terry --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com AVG 2017 | FREE Antivirus & TuneUp for PC, Mac, Android www.avg.com Download FREE antivirus and malware protection. Tune up your PC, Mac and Android devices for peak performance. Surf safely and privately, wherever you are. _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com Racing -- AusRace Racing Discussion List ausrace.com To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Racing Archives. Using Racing: To post a message to all the list members, send email to ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikemcb at southcom.com.au Fri Jul 21 16:03:31 2017 From: mikemcb at southcom.com.au (Mike McBain) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:03:31 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers Message-ID: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> For those Punters that may consider comparing horses Career Earnings or the API derived from Prizemoney please be very aware of the following. AAP form information includes all the various bonus earnings that some horses collect simply from being registered for Owners & Breeders incentives and often paid for running a place as well as winning. AAP form is widely distributed to Newspapers, TAB's and Subbies like Bestform. Racing & Sports do not include VOBIS, SuperVOBIS, SABOIS or other Bonuses in their Online form. The problem that I see is that not all horses in a race are eligible for these bonuses and so any comparisons using Horse Prizemoney or API are not truly apples with apples. We had a race at Geelong last Saturday where AAP had Prince Of Venice with Earnings of $18415 while R&S showed the same horse with $8815 from its four starts with a formline of 7th-6th-2nd-3rd. You can imagine the difference those numbers made to the API? 2.2 compared to 4.6! There have been many such anomalies and in my opinion it makes those particular form criteria useless numbers. I am not aware if the same problem applies outside Australia? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pfjg1g at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 16:56:26 2017 From: pfjg1g at gmail.com (Stuart Mackay) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:56:26 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers In-Reply-To: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> References: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> Message-ID: It's handy to know that APM is available in both regular and bonus forms and should only be used as a guide to determine class in conjunction with handicap ratings and consistency (win% place%). Add fitness and fresh record if applicable and you are a long way towards working out the strength of a race and the possible finishing order. On 21 Jul 2017 16:04, "Mike McBain" wrote: > For those Punters that may consider comparing horses Career Earnings or > the API derived from Prizemoney please be very aware of the following. > > > > AAP form information includes all the various bonus earnings that some > horses collect simply from being registered for Owners & Breeders > incentives and often paid for running a place as well as winning. AAP form > is widely distributed to Newspapers, TAB's and Subbies like Bestform. > > > > Racing & Sports do not include VOBIS, SuperVOBIS, SABOIS or other Bonuses > in their Online form. > > > > The problem that I see is that not all horses in a race are eligible for > these bonuses and so any comparisons using Horse Prizemoney or API are not > truly apples with apples. > > > > We had a race at Geelong last Saturday where AAP had Prince Of Venice with > Earnings of $18415 while R&S showed the same horse with $8815 from its four > starts with a formline of 7th-6th-2nd-3rd. You can imagine the difference > those numbers made to the API? 2.2 compared to 4.6! > > > > There have been many such anomalies and in my opinion it makes those > particular form criteria useless numbers. > > > > I am not aware if the same problem applies outside Australia? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Racing mailing list > Racing at ausrace.com > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From RaceStats at hotmail.com Sat Jul 22 13:11:12 2017 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 03:11:12 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers In-Reply-To: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> References: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> Message-ID: Hi Mike, I must say I don't use career earnings nor prizemoney in any of my methods, but if you go to the RISA site, it will tell you the splits e.g. $8815 plus $9,600 in bonuses. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Mike McBain Sent: Friday, 21 July 2017 4:04 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers For those Punters that may consider comparing horses Career Earnings or the API derived from Prizemoney please be very aware of the following. AAP form information includes all the various bonus earnings that some horses collect simply from being registered for Owners & Breeders incentives and often paid for running a place as well as winning. AAP form is widely distributed to Newspapers, TAB's and Subbies like Bestform. Racing & Sports do not include VOBIS, SuperVOBIS, SABOIS or other Bonuses in their Online form. The problem that I see is that not all horses in a race are eligible for these bonuses and so any comparisons using Horse Prizemoney or API are not truly apples with apples. We had a race at Geelong last Saturday where AAP had Prince Of Venice with Earnings of $18415 while R&S showed the same horse with $8815 from its four starts with a formline of 7th-6th-2nd-3rd. You can imagine the difference those numbers made to the API? 2.2 compared to 4.6! There have been many such anomalies and in my opinion it makes those particular form criteria useless numbers. I am not aware if the same problem applies outside Australia? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikemcb at southcom.com.au Sat Jul 22 15:17:27 2017 From: mikemcb at southcom.com.au (Mike McBain) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:17:27 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers In-Reply-To: References: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> Message-ID: <001201d302a9$cfc63b80$6f52b280$@com.au> Lindsay Thank you for that info and I would greatly appreciate if you could give me an exact link to those splits on the RISA site as am having problems trying to locate it and it does sound like exactly the information I am looking for. With thanks Mike. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 22 July 2017 1:11 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers Hi Mike, I must say I don't use career earnings nor prizemoney in any of my methods, but if you go to the RISA site, it will tell you the splits e.g. $8815 plus $9,600 in bonuses. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Mike McBain Sent: Friday, 21 July 2017 4:04 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From RaceStats at hotmail.com Sat Jul 22 21:08:42 2017 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 11:08:42 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers In-Reply-To: <001201d302a9$cfc63b80$6f52b280$@com.au> References: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> <001201d302a9$cfc63b80$6f52b280$@com.au> Message-ID: Hi Mike, Here is the link http://www.racingaustralia.horse/ Just enter the horse's name. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Mike McBain Sent: Saturday, 22 July 2017 3:17 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers Lindsay Thank you for that info and I would greatly appreciate if you could give me an exact link to those splits on the RISA site as am having problems trying to locate it and it does sound like exactly the information I am looking for. With thanks Mike. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 22 July 2017 1:11 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers Hi Mike, I must say I don't use career earnings nor prizemoney in any of my methods, but if you go to the RISA site, it will tell you the splits e.g. $8815 plus $9,600 in bonuses. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Mike McBain Sent: Friday, 21 July 2017 4:04 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] API & Prizemoney Earnings are useless numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greg.j.conroy at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 09:21:20 2017 From: greg.j.conroy at gmail.com (Greg Conroy) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:21:20 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Calls for ANOTHER POC tax for Aus Racing In-Reply-To: References: <007801d301e7$14afb910$3e0f2b30$@com.au> <001201d302a9$cfc63b80$6f52b280$@com.au> Message-ID: Hi all, In case you?re not aware, there?s much industry lobbying and consternation about the Australian Sports Commission?s review of how to fund Australian Sport into the future (eg, Olympic Athletes, etc). The easy (but flawed) suggestion is to copy the UK?s Lottery concept. But that has major issues in Australia. And now the lottery agents association is saying tax wagering with a new POC tax, not cannibalise us by bringing in a new lottery. However, since the racing industry is suffering from a lack of public goodwill due to the excessive online betting company promotion of recent years, a new POC would probably have general public support at the detriment of the industry and operators. I?ve written and put this solution to the Australian Sports Commission during their consultation phase. It will bring back the goodwill, grow the industry, attract new participants and create punters for the future. Time the industry worked together to ensure racing's future. You can read it here: https://about.rewardbet.com/funding-aus-sport-proposal/ Cheers, Greg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: