From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Mon Nov  6 19:18:10 2017
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:18:10 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting
Message-ID: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>

Being the MC tomorrow, I thought I should have a bet on the obvious expected
leader, #24.

Big International Bookmaker William Hill offered 26.00 (don't be fooled by
the 61.00  - that's only available to expected losers).

Centrebet, "Take Us On" would take $8 @ 71.00. Boy, that's really letting us
on!

BetZero, living up to their name, would take $0.00 at 51.00. $0.00 says it
all.

Australia's self proclaimed biggest bookmaker, Sportsbet, does better,
willing to take $80 @ 51.00. A solid bet on a maiden at Sunshine Coast
tomorrow, but this is the MC, analysed "to death" by all and sundry,
disclosed form, mature market, you are way below top odds, yet you will only
stand a tired old man for $4k at the lowest odds on offer (well other than
WH's 26.00)!

Next try, TopSport who took the request 150ew @ 61.00/16.00 

Can't report on the others as that was all I wanted.

The corporates are by and large a disgrace and bring discredit to racing.
But I've got praise for one that I'll post anon - got to look up exact
wording first.

LBL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171106/7d5bf0ca/attachment.html>

From peter_dean34 at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 22:31:09 2017
From: peter_dean34 at hotmail.com (Peter Dean)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:31:09 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting
In-Reply-To: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
References: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
Message-ID: <SLXP216MB0781A8D8643BBD96FB6F02F2EF500@SLXP216MB0781.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Len,

Have you tried this process....

https://rv.racing.com/wagering/minimum-bet-limit

Cheers,

Peter

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________
From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com> on behalf of L.B.Loveday <lloveday at ozemail.com.au>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 7:18:10 PM
To: racing at ausrace.com
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting

Being the MC tomorrow, I thought I should have a bet on the obvious expected leader, #24.
Big International Bookmaker William Hill offered 26.00 (don't be fooled by the 61.00  - that's only available to expected losers).
Centrebet, "Take Us On" would take $8 @ 71.00. Boy, that's really letting us on!
BetZero, living up to their name, would take $0.00 at 51.00. $0.00 says it all.
Australia's self proclaimed biggest bookmaker, Sportsbet, does better, willing to take $80 @ 51.00. A solid bet on a maiden at Sunshine Coast tomorrow, but this is the MC, analysed "to death" by all and sundry, disclosed form, mature market, you are way below top odds, yet you will only stand a tired old man for $4k at the lowest odds on offer (well other than WH's 26.00)!
Next try, TopSport who took the request 150ew @ 61.00/16.00
Can't report on the others as that was all I wanted.
The corporates are by and large a disgrace and bring discredit to racing. But I've got praise for one that I'll post anon - got to look up exact wording first.
LBL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171106/e1da9db5/attachment.html>

From tonymoffat at bigpond.com  Mon Nov  6 22:45:11 2017
From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:45:11 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Double and Save - a system
Message-ID: <000001d356f4$b5cbd600$21638200$@bigpond.com>

Mechanical betting systems seek to use race results as if they are
causes.

 

Systems operate generally on the premise that yesterday results will
cause todays results in terms of yesterday conditions.

 

There are limits to how systems can work.

 

Some cleverly researched and designed systems do succeed, but most
fail. 

 

Systems must fail because they are pale and inferior examples of
rating methods, which generally fail also.

 

A review and summary of rating methods shows that the runners are
scored most often on their best efforts, when the best

of their worst effort is typical. 

 

However, there are amusing and instructive anecdotes in the racing
literature on the claims and methods of systems. 

 

The language utilised is that of positivity of purpose with your
method.

 

If it succeeds it is expected.

 

If it does not succeed there is a reason in the rules.

 

 

Double and Save is a system using a saver bet on the favourite - and
the bonus often that occurs with a  bet on specific runners to place.

 

There is a requirement that favourites should be $3.50 or better
before the start.

 

The other runners you choose are those with win dividends of $33 or
less. The selection comes from horses showing $33 or less, and these
are backed

to place.

 

Perhaps cap your runners at 5 per race, the favourite and 4 running to
place. Often the dividends allow you to include more runners but the

results shown here use one favourite and four places to total five, as
suggested. Occasionally the favourite is a joint favourite and if it
can't be separated, using the least place dividend

as the arbiter then wait for another race, or back both as favourite
and reduce your place inclusions. 

 

The method was used first as a way of finding runners to fill a
quinella. Quinella betting this using the system can be rewarding

 

I used win and place in the results here - you must be looking at a
dividend display to formulate your bets. This is a turnoff

for some, and I don't use it.

 

METHOD ONE:

(a)Back the favourite to win if your return after outlay leaves you a
sizeable amount to place on runners to place and pay.

The perfect result would be the favourite to win, and repay you 100%
of the total outlay, then two others to place, to return you 200% at
least

of the outlay. This has occurred, and occurs frequently enough to keep
you interested.

 

(b) Find the runners, in dividend order, paying $33 or less, and back
4 of those to return you total outlay and a further, smaller,  amount.

 

Your bet on this race will have the favourite and four longer priced
horses running for you.

 

I use $100 in the results, this is the upper level for me each race at
present. I use the best of three totes product.

 

If the favourite is less than $3.50 consider another race, somewhere
else.

 

SUMMARY:

(A)   BACK THE FAVOURITE TO WIN $100 IF ITS PRICE IS $3.50 OR BETTER.

(B)    STARTING AT WIN DIVIDEND $33 AND LESS, BACK THE 4 LONGEST
PRICED PLACEGETTERS THAT WILL RETURN YOUR OUTLAY IF THEY PLACE

 

EXAMPLES FROM 3/11/2017

FLEMINGTON RACE 1:

LEVENDI favourite at $4.00 WON 

PLACE BETS decided from 12,10,16,9 - 16 placed - $5.60 

 

FLEMINGTON RACE 2: 7LAVALAVA was trending to favouritism, with a win
differential of 20c, the place dividend was the same as 1Bring Me
Roses

The win dividends were $1 apart at correct weight - you would find
another race wouldn't you, or install another rule to cover this -back
both to win

WIN BETS:So LavaLava was $4.90 and Bring Me Roses was $3.90 - $26 to
win on each $52 out 

PLACE BETS: decided from 2.3.4 - 3 placed-$6.10

 

FLEMINGTON R3: Stay out of this.

There are three on almost equal win dividends, and all three on 2.1
place div, so who is it going to be. What would you select, one of
those did win.

For the place component there are three to choose from as the place
runners, including two placed runners.

All too much to consider in the heat of betting battles.

RESULT: we might have got the winner, and we got two placegetters.
Bend the rules to get a bet - no.

 

FLEMINGTON R4: HARLEM -$4 unplaced

PLACE BETS: 1,3,5,7 -  CISMONTANE PLACED $3.2

 

FLEMINGTON R5:INVINCIBLE STAR  - $$6.4-unplaced

PLACE BETS: 6,8,10,18 - two of those placed -$5.3*$6.4

 

FLEMINGTON R6:  SHOALS (f) WON - $4.7

PLACE BETS; 1,4,6,9 unplaced.

 

FLEMINGTON R7:  ACE HIGH (F) WON $6.80

Place bets: 4.5.11.12 - nil return

 

FLEMINGTON R8: 8 favourites here TOM MELBOURNE,TOSEN STARDOM -back
both at $5

PLACE BET: 4,7,13 -UNPLACED. 

A loss for the system horses.

 

FLEMINGTON R9: favourite RICH CHARM won - $5.20

PLACE BETS: 5,7,12,14 - #7 placed - $3.50

 

RETURNS 55.70

OUT 40.00

PROFIT 15.70 (60.75%)

 

METHOD TWO: 

The favourite is selected as the win bet

The place bets are the four longest priced place dividends.

 

METHOD 3 (deleted) -crazy, illogical, but keeps you in the money more
often than you think possible

METHOD 4: another time.          

 

Cheers

 

Tony (I don't use a system)

 

I backed Hartnell last night

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171106/2a46f15d/attachment.html>

From RaceStats at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  7 00:42:29 2017
From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:42:29 +0000
Subject: [AusRace] Arbitrage Interactive Gambling Legislation
Message-ID: <TY1PR0201MB1037EA8DD6D34CCF0F09AF9EBB500@TY1PR0201MB1037.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Hi all,
With the new Interactive Gambling Legislation rules stopping us betting with UK bookmakers, I'm wondering if anyone on this list subscribes to a sports arbitrage service which covers Australian bookmakers, Betfair and Pinnacle, as most of my Google searches of Aussie arbitrage services, still bring up a majority of UK bookies.
You can reply directly to me or on list, whichever you prefer.
Lindsay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171106/adacce1a/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Nov  7 13:26:49 2017
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:26:49 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting
In-Reply-To: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
References: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-StQC+X7BFtbSDVoXUdJ0kSoUvVwZRa=Wpn2CAdRzUuQA@mail.gmail.com>

I'm disappointed that Michelle hasn't gotta a ride?. Lol

On 6 Nov 2017 6:19 pm, "L.B.Loveday" <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Being the MC tomorrow, I thought I should have a bet on the obvious
> expected leader, #24.
>
> Big International Bookmaker William Hill offered 26.00 (don't be fooled by
> the 61.00  - that's only available to expected losers).
>
> Centrebet, "Take Us On" would take $8 @ 71.00. Boy, that's really letting
> us on!
>
> BetZero, living up to their name, would take $0.00 at 51.00. $0.00 says it
> all.
>
> Australia's self proclaimed biggest bookmaker, Sportsbet, does better,
> willing to take $80 @ 51.00. A solid bet on a maiden at Sunshine Coast
> tomorrow, but this is the MC, analysed "to death" by all and sundry,
> disclosed form, mature market, you are way below top odds, yet you will
> only stand a tired old man for $4k at the lowest odds on offer (well other
> than WH's 26.00)!
>
> Next try, TopSport who took the request 150ew @ 61.00/16.00
>
> Can't report on the others as that was all I wanted.
>
> The corporates are by and large a disgrace and bring discredit to racing.
> But I've got praise for one that I'll post anon - got to look up exact
> wording first.
>
> LBL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171107/e12c8fb0/attachment.html>

From seanmac4321 at gmail.com  Tue Nov  7 13:30:11 2017
From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:30:11 +1000
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting
In-Reply-To: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
References: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
Message-ID: <CAOBDE-S=KtFohVmdPcMgoOKDt7JKQX1Lf0iAzxFF=bFp4EL1MQ@mail.gmail.com>

Len

You don't strike me as a tired old man.

Spritely old man perhaps a better fit.

Have a great cup day!

Cheers Sean

On 6 Nov 2017 6:19 pm, "L.B.Loveday" <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Being the MC tomorrow, I thought I should have a bet on the obvious
> expected leader, #24.
>
> Big International Bookmaker William Hill offered 26.00 (don't be fooled by
> the 61.00  - that's only available to expected losers).
>
> Centrebet, "Take Us On" would take $8 @ 71.00. Boy, that's really letting
> us on!
>
> BetZero, living up to their name, would take $0.00 at 51.00. $0.00 says it
> all.
>
> Australia's self proclaimed biggest bookmaker, Sportsbet, does better,
> willing to take $80 @ 51.00. A solid bet on a maiden at Sunshine Coast
> tomorrow, but this is the MC, analysed "to death" by all and sundry,
> disclosed form, mature market, you are way below top odds, yet you will
> only stand a tired old man for $4k at the lowest odds on offer (well other
> than WH's 26.00)!
>
> Next try, TopSport who took the request 150ew @ 61.00/16.00
>
> Can't report on the others as that was all I wanted.
>
> The corporates are by and large a disgrace and bring discredit to racing.
> But I've got praise for one that I'll post anon - got to look up exact
> wording first.
>
> LBL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Racing mailing list
> Racing at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171107/699938be/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Nov  8 11:22:58 2017
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:22:58 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting
In-Reply-To: <SLXP216MB0781A8D8643BBD96FB6F02F2EF500@SLXP216MB0781.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
	<SLXP216MB0781A8D8643BBD96FB6F02F2EF500@SLXP216MB0781.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <001501d35827$bd83d9e0$388b8da0$@com.au>

Thanks Peter,

 

Yes, but the MBL only applies after 9am (2pm for night meetings).

 

A tome follows, but all should at least read the last paragraph.

 

Of the 3 avenues of appeal - NTRC, Racing NSW and Racing Victoria - my many
experiences indicate that only RV has integrity.

I had hopes for Leigh Dalton at RNSW as he was a noted punter, but amongst
his kowtowing to the Corporates were these two actions:

 

(1) ClassicBet cancelled my account and paid back what they claimed was my
balance (I had no way of verifying that as the account was inaccessible)

 

Here's the relevant part of the MBL, to the best of my knowledge:

 

5.7 Betting Limits 

 

(c) The Approval Holder must not do any act or refuse to do any act to avoid
complying with clause 5.7(a) including but not limited to: 

 

(1) Refusing to accept a fixed odds bet; 

 

(2) Closing a person's account; 

 

(3) Refusing to open a person's account; 

 

(4) Placing any restrictions on a person's account; 

 

(5) Refusing to lay fixed odds to any person when those fixed odds are
Publicly Displayed; 

 

(6) Laying lesser odds to a person than those Publicly Displayed; 

 

Dalton ruled that ClassicBet did not close my account to avoid compliance -
they would say that wouldn't they, but closing it did avoid complying so it
would depend on an interpretation of why they did close it, especially as
the only bets I was allowed at that time were those under the MBL -  but
refused to tell me why they did. If they are allowed to put up any Mickey
Mouse reason and have Racing NSW accept it (eg "We don't like him ") there
is no point to the legislation.

 

(2) As I pointed out, William Hill offered me 26.0 on #24 in the MC while
they "Publically Displayed" 61.0. They did not lay it to me of course, as I
am not stupid enough to take it, but others might, and yes, it was before
9am when WH are entitled by law to not take my bet, nor those of the many
others, but offering manifestly such disparate odds to different people is a
strike against the integrity of racing, and on a previous occasion I filed a
Racing Integrity Information and Complaint Form, but Dalton refused to even
consider it and told me to fill in a MBL Complaints Report, which would have
(p=1.001) have met the same fate as my many other complaints. It was NOT an
MBL issue, as Dalton "surely" knew.

Under certain circumstances (more later) bookmakers are allowed to cancel
bets when the odds laid were in error and that error was "manifest or
obvious" whatever that means - I may rate something 4.00, you 21.00 and
Sportsbet offer 10.00, so which of us, if any, have made an error that is
"manifest or obvious"? Horses are not blackjack decks or dice.

Racing Victoria I have found to be fair and to actively pursue complaints
with the aim of achieving proper outcomes - CrownBet have paid unlawfully
declined bets and altered their software as a result of RV's actions on my
complaints. 

 

NTRC, I figure almost everyone would know are incompetent and, or, biased
(corrupted someone suggested on Ausrace way back by Corporate Boxes at the
Japan Cup, MC.).

To my praise of a Corporate, faint though it may be 

 

Luxbet cancelled a series of bets I placed, all mid-range, only one to win
more than $1,000.

Here's the relevant section of the T&C (standard for NT-registered
Corporates):

 

1.2.6 Incorrect Betting Information 

Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these Betting Rules, if
Luxbet publishes, posts or quotes any incorrect betting information for any
sporting event, such as posting wrong dividends or lines, then regardless of
the cause or source of such error; 

         (a) Error identified prior to the commencement of the event:

If the error is identified prior to the commencement of the event and
notified by Luxbet to the most recent telephone or facsimile contact number
or email address supplied by a Client, whose wager on that event has been
accepted or confirmed by Luxbet, such wagers will be void. 

If the wager is part of a multiple bet, the wager will then be re-calculated
excluding the event to which the error relates. 

        (b) Error identified after the commencement of the event:

If the error is identified only after the commencement of the event or for
any other reason not notified to the Client's point of contact prior to
commencement of the event, the wager on the event shall stand. 

The only exception to this is where Luxbet can demonstrate that the error
was manifest or obvious, or that the Client otherwise should reasonably have
been aware of the error when the wager was placed, in which case Luxbet
reserves the right to void such wagers. 

 

Luxbet agreed they cancelled before the commencement of the events, and did
not notify me, but claimed "a manifest error, and our systems were
displaying incorrect prices, your bets have been void under 1.2.6". 

 

You don't have to be a lawyer, not even a bush lawyer, to understand that
"demonstrate that the error was manifest or obvious" applies, logically and
legally, only to (b) and not to my case.

 

My rebuttal was passed to "management" and "management" rang me and honoured
the bets - the nearest any other Corporate has come was Sportsbet giving me
$600 bonus bets in lieu of dudding me $600. It's not quite the same, but
likely they can't do the math, and as I used them on longer-priced bets, it
got close. Betzero, again living up to their reputation, last week informed
me that a $1.23 bet "will be settled at the revised odds" , but gave me the
opportunity to cancel. Yes, Betzero entered into protracted communications
about a $1.23 bet. PS, the horse lost.

 

So, Thumbs Up to Luxbet.

 

I'd determined that I was going to make a stand if Lux did not pay up, and
NTRC backed them (1.0000001), by taking it to court. Apart from the plain
reading of 1.2.6, I had the following argument: each of my bets with Lux was
individually evaluated and approved by a member of their staff, so if the
alleged errors were manifest and, or, not obvious to highly trained staff,
experts in markets, mathematical whiz-kids, how could they be obvious to a
septuagenarian who has trouble seeing the screen and counts on his fingers? 

 

Now contrast Lux's action with NTRC's ludicrous ruling in my complaint
against WH - they ruled that **even if** WH did not notify me  " to the most
recent telephone or facsimile contact number or email address supplied by a
Client" - I had proved that they did not by screen shots - the odds WH
offered were "manifestly wrong", and "established" that by comparison with
TopSports FINAL odds, the DAY AFTER I bet. NTRC advised me to get legal
advice, but it's those clowns who should get legal advice; can anyone find a
lawyer who will say " The only exception" rider applies to (a)?

 

Of course I seek to bet at odds that are "in error", viz longer than I
consider the chances of winning to be - does anyone take odds that they
think are "unders"?

 

Here's a case study - yesterday at 8:30am, BetZero had Sunshine Coast 6/11
at 4.60, while Sportsbet, Lux, WH, Crown. all had it odds-on. It was not
until 10:30 that Bzero dropped the price to 2.30 in one fell swoop. Was the
4.60 a manifest or obvious error? The difference 4.60 to odds-on was much
greater than the WH/TopSport differential on which NTRC wrongly disallowed
my complaint. PS - it got out to 4.40 and lost. So wtf are "errors" in odds?
Why can Corporates cancel and punters can't? Should I not have been able to
have cancelled a bet on #24 with WH at 21.0 if I'd been stupid enough to
take it (and that is surely what they hope; why else offer the bet?).

 

LBL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Peter Dean
Sent: Monday, 6 November 2017 10:31 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] MC betting

 

Len,

Have you tried this process....

https://rv.racing.com/wagering/minimum-bet-limit

Cheers,

Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171108/67776828/attachment.html>

From earnestern at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 11:39:09 2017
From: earnestern at gmail.com (P Q)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 11:39:09 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Australia's Unluckiest Stable
Message-ID: <CABGB0P0KXBT0_oKukPq=WQv+wDO8M0MJnB1y+ekNEPJhuxozQg@mail.gmail.com>

Deceased:

Rangirangdoo
Sikka
Stout Hearted
Sour Mash
Lucripitous
The Verminator
Boban
He's Our Man
Rockstardom
Tales Of Grimm
Naughty Thoughts
Regal Monarch

Retired to stud but produced foals without tails:

Shellscrape
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171108/42ae9d01/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Nov  8 13:25:49 2017
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:25:49 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-StQC+X7BFtbSDVoXUdJ0kSoUvVwZRa=Wpn2CAdRzUuQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
	<CAOBDE-StQC+X7BFtbSDVoXUdJ0kSoUvVwZRa=Wpn2CAdRzUuQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002601d35838$e6d70360$b4850a20$@com.au>

Sean,

 

You obviously remember the true sexists on this list labelling me a misogynist for pointing out that she was by objective measures certainly not a great rider, arguably not even an average one. "Anomaly Nick" and I, the only two on the list who have reported their own ratings, both had her below average prior to the MC. That win made no difference to my ratings as I ignore long-price winners as outliers; Nick I don't know. 

 

Water off a duck's back - people of the same ilk on this list called me a racist for calling Obama evil, based not on his being half-white, but on his being the only member of the Illinois legislature to vote against requiring doctors to provide medical care for a child, living independently of its mother but the result of a botched abortion (prior to the legislation they were placed in a room to die an agonising death, gasping for breath, needing a feed, and a comforting cuddle, as they are in Darwin).

To my programs, jockeys are just another input, and don't consider sex, indeed I didn't know in most cases who were females until I decided to analyse FvsM performances. So I asked someone to identify F jockeys and spent some time looking at recent riders on DynamicOdds web-site - but that's only a partial guide; I'm looking at the first today, and see Chris Nicoll on #5, and have no idea whether that F or M. Next race, Ashley Doyle on #5, ditto?. 

 

Anyway I came up with a list of female jockeys that all-but certainly missed some, but all-but certainly only contained Fs.  

I then analysed them using TRB ratings, and there was a significant AVERAGE drop off in rating when a F jockey replaced a non-F jockey who had ridden the horse last start, and a significant bounce on average in rating when a non-F jockey replaced a F jockey who had ridden the horse last start. I tested for various days between runs, down to 14 or less to get a more homogeneous group, and the results were always similar. Pretty conclusive? Not necessarily so according to the very astute Ausracer with whom I shared the results and who gave sensible possibilities for the results not necessarily being down to ability, while not claiming they were not. I'll leave you to ponder what those possibilities are.

 

I seldom watch races, and not only is my knowledge below that of most front-bar bettors, it proved yesterday below that of my mother whose last bet was 1/11/2016 when she asked me what my selection was and I replied #24, "That's Gai, isn't it, and that Berry boy", she said. "No idea" - I take no more personal notice of trainers than I do of jockeys. But I like what Gai once said - she's rather be known as a good trainer than a great female trainer. 

 

You may remember that another astute observer who does watch races told me that MichelPayne, prior to the MC diatribe, was given an easy run by "the boys" - heck if she smiled at me and wiggled her taunt arse, I'd let her off the fence at the right time too.

 

Whether he's right or wrong, these post-MC figures are not:

 

They have improved since I last looked - courtesy of 3 good-priced winners in her last 24 rides, but are still abysmal.

 

Rides, 334

Wins 28 (8.4%), which may be good, bad or indifferent depending on the horses, so a better guide is return at level stake SP:

SP return 49.2%, way below average, which still may not be too bad if she were riding long-shots, due to the long-shot effect - the longer the odds, the more negative the expected value of your bet. 

So, here's the cruncher, at my 100% market which properly adjusts for the long-shot effect:

100% market return 59.5% (average is of course 100%), which puts her in the 1st Decile. But still the sexists go pat, pat, good girlie, what a good jockey. Meanwhile those of us who go by results, not sex, have had a bonanza betting against her. Until the past 24 rides.

 

LBL

 

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2017 1:27 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] MC betting

 

I'm disappointed that Michelle hasn't gotta a ride?. Lol

 

On 6 Nov 2017 6:19 pm, "L.B.Loveday" <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

Being the MC tomorrow, I thought I should have a bet on the obvious expected leader, #24.

Big International Bookmaker William Hill offered 26.00 (don't be fooled by the 61.00  - that's only available to expected losers).

Centrebet, "Take Us On" would take $8 @ 71.00. Boy, that's really letting us on!

BetZero, living up to their name, would take $0.00 at 51.00. $0.00 says it all.

Australia's self proclaimed biggest bookmaker, Sportsbet, does better, willing to take $80 @ 51.00. A solid bet on a maiden at Sunshine Coast tomorrow, but this is the MC, analysed "to death" by all and sundry, disclosed form, mature market, you are way below top odds, yet you will only stand a tired old man for $4k at the lowest odds on offer (well other than WH's 26.00)!

Next try, TopSport who took the request 150ew @ 61.00/16.00 

Can't report on the others as that was all I wanted.

The corporates are by and large a disgrace and bring discredit to racing. But I've got praise for one that I'll post anon - got to look up exact wording first.

LBL


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171108/271d702c/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Wed Nov  8 15:25:01 2017
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:25:01 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] MC betting
In-Reply-To: <CAOBDE-StQC+X7BFtbSDVoXUdJ0kSoUvVwZRa=Wpn2CAdRzUuQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <003601d356d7$cb3853a0$61a8fae0$@com.au>
	<CAOBDE-StQC+X7BFtbSDVoXUdJ0kSoUvVwZRa=Wpn2CAdRzUuQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003101d35849$8e8e3e60$abaabb20$@com.au>

Sean,

 

I got this post of yours via Ausrace, and responded at length - the response made the Ausrace Archives, but I did not receive a copy. Did you get it? If not I'll send direct to you.

 

While looking at the Ausrace Archives, I saw this post from you, which I also did not receive.

 

Len

 

You don't strike me as a tired old man.

 

Spritely old man perhaps a better fit.

 

Have a great cup day!

 

Cheers Sean

 

So, after just 2 days as a re-subscriber, I'm gone again - too difficult getting some posts, not getting others.

 

LBL

 

From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of sean mclaren
Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2017 1:27 PM
To: AusRace Racing Discussion List
Subject: Re: [AusRace] MC betting

 

I'm disappointed that Michelle hasn't gotta a ride?. Lol

 

On 6 Nov 2017 6:19 pm, "L.B.Loveday" <lloveday at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

Being the MC tomorrow, I thought I should have a bet on the obvious expected leader, #24.

Big International Bookmaker William Hill offered 26.00 (don't be fooled by the 61.00  - that's only available to expected losers).

Centrebet, "Take Us On" would take $8 @ 71.00. Boy, that's really letting us on!

BetZero, living up to their name, would take $0.00 at 51.00. $0.00 says it all.

Australia's self proclaimed biggest bookmaker, Sportsbet, does better, willing to take $80 @ 51.00. A solid bet on a maiden at Sunshine Coast tomorrow, but this is the MC, analysed "to death" by all and sundry, disclosed form, mature market, you are way below top odds, yet you will only stand a tired old man for $4k at the lowest odds on offer (well other than WH's 26.00)!

Next try, TopSport who took the request 150ew @ 61.00/16.00 

Can't report on the others as that was all I wanted.

The corporates are by and large a disgrace and bring discredit to racing. But I've got praise for one that I'll post anon - got to look up exact wording first.

LBL


_______________________________________________
Racing mailing list
Racing at ausrace.com
http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171108/97c13040/attachment.html>

From tonymoffat at bigpond.com  Thu Nov 16 00:59:26 2017
From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:59:26 +0800
Subject: [AusRace] Australia's unluckiest stable - addendum
Message-ID: <000001d35e19$f397edd0$dac7c970$@bigpond.com>

P Q wrote recently

 

Deceased:

 

Rangirangdoo

Sikka

Stout Hearted

Sour Mash

Lucripitous

The Verminator

Boban

He's Our Man

Rockstardom

Tales Of Grimm

Naughty Thoughts

Regal Monarch

 

Retired to stud but produced foals without tails:

 

Shellscrape

 

And moving with the sentiment then

 

Gerald Murnane writing in 'Something for the Pain' - a memoir of the
turf

(Textpublishing co)

 

wrote a chapter about Lord Pilate and Bill Coffey - Coffey had other
horses

including Straight Irish which ran in Polo Prince Melbourne Cup and
ran a

close up fifth at two-hundred-to-one.

 

With Lord Plate Coffey returned to Flemington from NZ and on a wet
Saturday at Flemington

his horse fell at the top of the straight, it may have been bought
down. The field raced on.

Lord Pilate lay stricken and was unable to rise and those in the stand
watched through binoculars

the ensuing events, the ending was inevitable, and nor was it
ghoulish, it happens sometimes but the

vet arrived, and the track staff arrived and commenced to erect a
privacy shield, and running from the mounting

yard towards this scene was a man.

 

Although running is indicated it was more the stricken endeavours of a
man who needed to get there

as soon as he possibly could, and he did. We watched him kneel near
the horse and hold his head, lying there with

it while the vet readied himself and the track staff put the cloth
shield in place. They didn't impinge or stop

the actions of that man, but waited patiently until the old man, the
timber worker and part-time owner-trainer

had spent the measure of his grief.

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171115/5a23c231/attachment.html>

From lloveday at ozemail.com.au  Fri Nov 17 20:52:32 2017
From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 20:52:32 +1100
Subject: [AusRace] Jockey Rating
Message-ID: <002401d35f89$cc4ca650$64e5f2f0$@com.au>

Saw this in Ausrace Archives:

 

 

Hi,

 

I am using a set of jockey ratings that have been calculated over a 12 mnth
history.

Naturally there are potentially some inaccuracies with jockeys currently out
of form or others recently improved and not commanding a high rating.

My question is has anyone ever done any analysis to determine the optimum
period over which to calculate the rating and how often to update it ?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Peter

 

The " optimum period over which to calculate the rating" is something that I
have never heard a definitive answer to, because there is not, imo, one.
I've tested various periods of time, various number of rides, which to be
disregarded as "outliers" .. and have never satisfied myself as to "the
optimum"; maybe I'm just a hard taskmaster.

 

But " how often to update it" is easy - ideally after every race, if
impractical, then as often as possible. When ConK fielded, he used to keep
horses ridden by a jockey who rode the last winner short. I've not seen
published research into the Impact Value of such jockeys (I've done it, "of
course")  but there has been published research in other sports, such as
basketballers who missed/got their last penalty shot. Without doing the
research, or even knowing much about basketball, common sense tells me that
someone who goaled last shot has a better chance next time than if he missed
(referring to particular players, not lumping them all together when there
are varying levels of ability to be considered) - pot a hard shot, walk
tall, confidence up; miss a gimmee, head down, shoulders sagging, confidence
shot (OK, a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is, I hope, taken).

 

I've seen it at football - take a screamer, kick a 60m goal, and you're 7'
tall, while your opponent shrinks; miss a sitter from 15m and you feel 5'
short, and in either case play accordingly. Why would it not be the same
with a jockey who has just ridden a well-judged ride to land a winner
compared to after he's ridden a stinker? Of course people are different, but
that can be taken into some account by analysing individual jockeys.

 

To today's Bookmaker Joke - I backed MV 1/2 at 71.0 for MBL max with
Centrebet "Take Us On", they treated me with deserved lack of respect and
wind it to 126.0, but wouldn't take any more from me. Is there some sense to
that MO that I'm missing?

 

LBL

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20171117/046112bf/attachment.html>