From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sun Dec 2 13:24:53 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 13:24:53 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Sportsbet Message-ID: <003401d489e6$38ab97c0$aa02c740$@ozemail.com.au> Firstly praise - they bet to MBL (and in the case of non-Metro Place, MBL+25%) on all venues, including non-MBL, all days, any time. Limited praise because I reckon they should re-bet you if they later put up a price greater than the one at which you bet - clearly they want to hold more on such horses, so why not allow you to be the one betting more? Now the bad - for illustration purposes I put $2 Place at $3.70 on a Sydney Metro race at 8:52 EDST yesterday That "plunge" causes "Australia's biggest bookmaker" to turn the horse from 12/3.70 to 10/3.30! No, it's not a coincidence and I bet at the same time as substantial bet(s) were made - it happens almost every time I bet; I tested what amount triggered the program and it was $2 - $1 has no effect, aren't they brave. Sportsbet turning prices in often causes a chain effect as others "follow the leader", particularly in minor races with less disclosed form. Not in this case, but often ostensibly a plunge across a range of bookmakers because of a single MBL Place bet, and presumably the same could be prompted by $2. Don't I wish I was as good as their reaction suggests! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 168211 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 161750 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sun Dec 2 13:59:06 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 13:59:06 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: <002201d4884d$39814720$ac83d560$@ozemail.com.au> References: <002201d4884d$39814720$ac83d560$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <003a01d489eb$00020800$00061800$@ozemail.com.au> *Now there's idea Len. Have you got a book in you? I know they say that most journalists have ..... and that's where it should stay, but a biography of life on the punt would be a winner. I'll put my order in now. * Nick, No book in me, or more specifically, no desire. But I hope I have yet another betting strategy in me - as you know, I've taken a number of different approaches over the years, from attending meetings far and wide, the Morphettville Audi, the Randwick HV room, single race exotics, multi-race exotics, fixed price win, place, changing bet determination criteria; if you stand still in this game you will be run over. The outline is in my head and I started writing detailed strategy yesterday; when that's done, then to program; it gets harder every time The only certainty is it will be "my baby" - almost invariably any strategy made available in the public domain quickly falls over. I can't remember the author's name, but an American wrote a book explaining how backing consistent horses was a winning strategy which sold heaps, then 18 months later wrote another book explaining why it was no longer a winning strategy. You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?) and bought his own $100k (in '70's $$) computer and punched card machine. But then he sold his "Mr Magic" odds to NEWS Corp papers (to even out his income he said in justifying the inevitable "If it's so good, why sell it instead of just using it?") and ended up being referred to by an unkind bookmaker as "Silly old bugger", betting $5e/w, a far cry from the day he asked a bookmaker for $1000 @ 8/1 about his horse in the Newmarket, and the smart-arse bookmaker challenged him "Why don't you have a decent bet", so he bet $10,000 and Desirable duly saluted . Cheers, LBL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From punter at internode.on.net Tue Dec 4 18:55:04 2018 From: punter at internode.on.net (PhilM) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:25:04 +1030 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? Message-ID: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. ....to the point he referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's more than happy as my "carer". If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler out there! Congratulations! Phil M p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 20:06:51 2018 From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:06:51 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> Message-ID: Phil, I spent a few months in Adelaide three years ago and Magic was there every week in what appeared mostly a social capacity. He and a few mates would be settled at a table with a bottle of white and taking it pretty easy. I did watch him go up and have a few bets and he appeared to be betting in very small amounts. A mate of mine who's there every week, reckons he leaves before the last religiously, often to go home and watch the football. They reckon a divorce didn't do much for his financial well being either. On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:55 PM PhilM wrote: > > "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used > a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he > had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" > > Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of > the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he > referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies > over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel > bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up > approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB > odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift > possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping > from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to > Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed > down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years > until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to > Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were > not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've > had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty > much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on > the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's > more than happy as my "carer". > > If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler > out there! Congratulations! > > Phil M > > p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be > called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? > > > _______________________________________________ > Racing mailing list > Racing at ausrace.com > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Tue Dec 4 20:24:49 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:24:49 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> Message-ID: <00b701d48bb3$3674fb30$a35ef190$@ozemail.com.au> Phil, The "silly old bugger" comment was made a long time ago - it's 41 years since Desirable won the Newmarket, and Robbie's (I no longer know whether it was Robertson or Robinson - Jones is much easier to remember!) son was already an adult. Apart from the fact he stood still and got run over, he got done over by the ATO for back taxes on his winnings (as have ZR and Walsh in well-published recent cases). Problem was he'd made a property settlement with his wife and the ATO said he and only he was liable for the tax, despite her share being from punting winnings; unfair I reckon! Some people are good at making money, some at managing, some at both, some at neither; they say Don Scott died broke, that Terry Page retired from bookmaking only 3 years after shifting to the Gold Coast, due to stress caused by losing, and A.A. (Tony) Hains , RIP (2015) who you'll remember, was declared bankrupt?.. But what great lives they had (imo). I'll be working until the day I die I figure (after all I'm on formal wife #4 and none have ever done paid work). The author of one of the books I've proof-read (that's as close as I'll go to writing one Nick) said when I professed a dread of having a non-fatal stroke "Huh, you! You'd be still there punching the keyboard with your nose". I've never had much interest in racing per se - don't watch many, know less about horses/jockeys/tracks than the average front bar punter, don't even know the sex of many jockeys as in most cases my database records them as eg NBeriman (but MichelPayne because there are more than one MPayne - by the way she's shot up lately, but is still in the bottom 15% by my ratings since Weir won the MC). Years ago I said to an erstwhile Ausracer that NBeriman had improved :his rating". "Her" he corrected me. LBL From: PhilM Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: They never let up re crops, do they? "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's more than happy as my "carer". If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler out there! Congratulations! Phil M p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From punter at internode.on.net Tue Dec 4 22:28:05 2018 From: punter at internode.on.net (PhilM) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 21:58:05 +1030 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: <00b701d48bb3$3674fb30$a35ef190$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: ? Yeah the ATO ruling on Robertson was a disgusting injustice imho based on what I know of the story! WTF are they trying to emulate, the Family Court of Australia? The one thing I remember about Tony Hains about a year before Carclew sent him broke was Robertson placing a bet of $14,000 to $1,000 on a two year old he owned trained by Colin Hayes having it's first start and getting up. I never saw another bookie get even close to that sort of risk in the Adelaide betting ring in those years. Very surprised he survived to 2015! Wife number 4?!! I know I've missed a lot of posts on Ausrace but that is one massive surprise! I almost can't believe it! Like you, 99% of horse names disappear into the ether for me. How bad is it when I backed the winner of the Melbourne Cup and after a few hours still can't remember the name of the horse?! After many various single malts, and more to follow, cheers, Phil M ----- Original Message ----- From: "L.B.Loveday" To:"PhilM" , Cc: Sent:Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:24:49 +1100 Subject:RE: They never let up re crops, do they? Phil, ? The "silly old bugger" comment was made a long time ago - it's 41 years since Desirable won the Newmarket, and Robbie's (I no longer know whether it was Robertson or Robinson - Jones is much easier to remember!) son was already an adult. Apart from the fact he stood still and got run over, he got done over by the ATO for back taxes on his winnings (as have ZR and Walsh in well-published recent cases). Problem was he'd made a property settlement with his wife and the ATO said he and only he was liable for the tax, despite her share being from punting winnings; unfair I reckon! ? Some people are good at making money, some at managing, some at both, some at neither; they say Don Scott died broke, that Terry Page retired from bookmaking only 3 years after shifting to the Gold Coast, due to stress caused by losing, and A.A. (Tony) Hains , RIP (2015) who you'll remember, was declared bankrupt?.. But what great lives they had (imo). ? I'll be working until the day I die I figure (after all I'm on formal wife #4 and none have ever done paid work). The author of one of the books I've proof-read (that's as close as I'll go to writing one Nick) said when I professed a dread of having a non-fatal stroke "Huh, you! You'd be still there punching the keyboard with your nose". ? I've never had much interest in racing per se - don't watch many, know less about horses/jockeys/tracks than the average front bar punter, don't even know the sex of many jockeys as in most cases my database records them as eg NBeriman (but MichelPayne because there are more than one MPayne - by the way she's shot up lately, but is still in the bottom 15% by my ratings since Weir won the MC). Years ago I said to an erstwhile Ausracer that NBeriman had improved :his rating". "Her" he corrected me. ? LBL ? FROM: PhilM SENT: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM TO: racing at ausrace.com SUBJECT: Re: They never let up re crops, do they? ? "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" ? Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's more than happy as my "carer". ? If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler out there! Congratulations! ? Phil M ? p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Thu Dec 6 07:51:52 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:51:52 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> Message-ID: <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> Phil, " following the Manuel bros..". I remember a particular occasion when Michael Webster played his "game" at Balaklava - JManuel started his run around the ring with a bet with Webster, many eyes watching, Webster drastically turned down a price, some owners of the eyes (not you I hope) rushed to bet that horse with other bookies while Manuel continued around the ring backing his horse, which was not the one Webster wound in - that was done to fool the eyes, including those of other bookies. I used to closely watch the Manuels and other significant players and if they backed a horse I wanted, I'd be one of those rushing to get set with another bookie, but if it was not one I wanted, I'd smile and wait for mine to hopefully drift. So many different tactics, and as the ex-Manager, Premium Customer Services said of the 7 or so in the Randwick HV room, everyone has a different approach, but they can all win. But they would not, could not, all win if they all had the same system, which is why I read Scott carefully and chose to take a different approach. How easily and quickly things can change was brought home pointedly to me when JBCummings was quoted as saying that racing tactics had changed and horses now much more needed to be leading/on pace (not that his suddenly did). There was an almost "overnight" reflection of that in odds and another edge reduced for me. In the Flemington Oaks, 3rd place getter Miner's Miss was predictably massive "unders" on Vic TAB (26.0/5.1) cf BetZero (151/23) and BF (201/18), unusual in a $1million race. Maybe Walter Gor Old ("Sepharial") had something when he wrote in "The Silver Key" of the influence of names - the reason it was predictable is imo much simpler than what he wrote. LBL From: PhilM Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: They never let up re crops, do they? "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's more than happy as my "carer". If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler out there! Congratulations! Phil M p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seanmac4321 at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 12:51:47 2018 From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:51:47 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Len Re miners miss I see that she was ridden by your favourite jockey. Michelle Payne. Double up? Rgds Sean On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:52 L.B.Loveday Phil, > > > > " following the Manuel bros..". I remember a particular occasion when > Michael Webster played his "game" at Balaklava - JManuel started his run > around the ring with a bet with Webster, many eyes watching, Webster > drastically turned down a price, some owners of the eyes (not you I hope) > rushed to bet that horse with other bookies while Manuel continued around > the ring backing his horse, which was not the one Webster wound in - that > was done to fool the eyes, including those of other bookies. > > > > I used to closely watch the Manuels and other significant players and if > they backed a horse I wanted, I'd be one of those rushing to get set with > another bookie, but if it was not one I wanted, I'd smile and wait for mine > to hopefully drift. So many different tactics, and as the ex-Manager, > Premium Customer Services said of the 7 or so in the Randwick HV room, > everyone has a different approach, but they can all win. But they would > not, could not, all win if they all had the same system, which is why I > read Scott carefully and chose to take a different approach. > > > > How easily and quickly things can change was brought home pointedly to me > when JBCummings was quoted as saying that racing tactics had changed and > horses now much more needed to be leading/on pace (not that his suddenly > did). There was an almost "overnight" reflection of that in odds and > another edge reduced for me. > > > > In the Flemington Oaks, 3rd place getter Miner's Miss was predictably > massive "unders" on Vic TAB (26.0/5.1) cf BetZero (151/23) and BF (201/18), > unusual in a $1million race. Maybe Walter Gor Old ("Sepharial") had > something when he wrote in "The Silver Key" of the influence of names - the > reason it was predictable is imo much simpler than what he wrote. > > > > LBL > > > > *From:* PhilM > *Sent:* Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM > *To:* racing at ausrace.com > *Subject:* Re: They never let up re crops, do they? > > > > > "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used > a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he > had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" > > > > Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of > the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he > referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies > over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel > bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up > approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB > odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift > possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping > from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to > Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed > down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years > until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to > Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were > not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've > had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty > much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on > the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's > more than happy as my "carer". > > > > If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler > out there! Congratulations! > > > > Phil M > > > > p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be > called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Racing mailing list > Racing at ausrace.com > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seanmac4321 at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 13:10:50 2018 From: seanmac4321 at gmail.com (sean mclaren) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:10:50 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: And Len I see it broke it's maiden status the start before at Avoca wining by 4.5 lengths. And it then went up in distance by circa 3 furlongs. Challenging to say the least, but obviously not to your computer and the trainer. Interesting the horse wasn't as forward as your computer would have liked? On 6 Dec 2018 11:51 am, "sean mclaren" wrote: Len Re miners miss I see that she was ridden by your favourite jockey. Michelle Payne. Double up? Rgds Sean On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:52 L.B.Loveday Phil, > > > > " following the Manuel bros..". I remember a particular occasion when > Michael Webster played his "game" at Balaklava - JManuel started his run > around the ring with a bet with Webster, many eyes watching, Webster > drastically turned down a price, some owners of the eyes (not you I hope) > rushed to bet that horse with other bookies while Manuel continued around > the ring backing his horse, which was not the one Webster wound in - that > was done to fool the eyes, including those of other bookies. > > > > I used to closely watch the Manuels and other significant players and if > they backed a horse I wanted, I'd be one of those rushing to get set with > another bookie, but if it was not one I wanted, I'd smile and wait for mine > to hopefully drift. So many different tactics, and as the ex-Manager, > Premium Customer Services said of the 7 or so in the Randwick HV room, > everyone has a different approach, but they can all win. But they would > not, could not, all win if they all had the same system, which is why I > read Scott carefully and chose to take a different approach. > > > > How easily and quickly things can change was brought home pointedly to me > when JBCummings was quoted as saying that racing tactics had changed and > horses now much more needed to be leading/on pace (not that his suddenly > did). There was an almost "overnight" reflection of that in odds and > another edge reduced for me. > > > > In the Flemington Oaks, 3rd place getter Miner's Miss was predictably > massive "unders" on Vic TAB (26.0/5.1) cf BetZero (151/23) and BF (201/18), > unusual in a $1million race. Maybe Walter Gor Old ("Sepharial") had > something when he wrote in "The Silver Key" of the influence of names - the > reason it was predictable is imo much simpler than what he wrote. > > > > LBL > > > > *From:* PhilM > *Sent:* Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM > *To:* racing at ausrace.com > *Subject:* Re: They never let up re crops, do they? > > > > > "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used > a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he > had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" > > > > Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of > the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he > referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies > over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel > bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up > approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB > odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift > possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping > from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to > Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed > down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years > until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to > Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were > not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've > had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty > much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on > the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's > more than happy as my "carer". > > > > If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler > out there! Congratulations! > > > > Phil M > > > > p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be > called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Racing mailing list > Racing at ausrace.com > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 13:34:03 2018 From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:04:03 +1030 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Wish I'd seen the Bart quote. Always found him hard to catch but when leader bias became a factor, you could almost rule his out. Catelan Opening would have won a Newmarket, and there were others, who were cruelled by dynamite rails on big days. The old "Ron King" specials. On 6 Dec. 2018 7:22 am, "L.B.Loveday" wrote: Phil, " following the Manuel bros..". I remember a particular occasion when Michael Webster played his "game" at Balaklava - JManuel started his run around the ring with a bet with Webster, many eyes watching, Webster drastically turned down a price, some owners of the eyes (not you I hope) rushed to bet that horse with other bookies while Manuel continued around the ring backing his horse, which was not the one Webster wound in - that was done to fool the eyes, including those of other bookies. I used to closely watch the Manuels and other significant players and if they backed a horse I wanted, I'd be one of those rushing to get set with another bookie, but if it was not one I wanted, I'd smile and wait for mine to hopefully drift. So many different tactics, and as the ex-Manager, Premium Customer Services said of the 7 or so in the Randwick HV room, everyone has a different approach, but they can all win. But they would not, could not, all win if they all had the same system, which is why I read Scott carefully and chose to take a different approach. How easily and quickly things can change was brought home pointedly to me when JBCummings was quoted as saying that racing tactics had changed and horses now much more needed to be leading/on pace (not that his suddenly did). There was an almost "overnight" reflection of that in odds and another edge reduced for me. In the Flemington Oaks, 3rd place getter Miner's Miss was predictably massive "unders" on Vic TAB (26.0/5.1) cf BetZero (151/23) and BF (201/18), unusual in a $1million race. Maybe Walter Gor Old ("Sepharial") had something when he wrote in "The Silver Key" of the influence of names - the reason it was predictable is imo much simpler than what he wrote. LBL *From:* PhilM *Sent:* Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM *To:* racing at ausrace.com *Subject:* Re: They never let up re crops, do they? "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's more than happy as my "carer". If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler out there! Congratulations! Phil M p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Thu Dec 6 15:01:34 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 15:01:34 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <001801d48d18$629f0ff0$27dd2fd0$@ozemail.com.au> I wasn't aware MP was up; jockeys come out in the program wash. MP is a good jockey for me, as while I don't lay, her poor record means I rate the horses she rides lesser than if ridden by, say, LJMeech or SBarr, who rate in the top 2%. I don't care about anything other than how one would do backing them - 26.0 average about horses winning 5% of the time leads to a comfortable lifestyle while 1.95 about horses that win 50% leads to a park bench. I'm not suggesting they are as good as, say, JBowman, but you would have done better backing them than backing JB, and I'm a punter, not an owner or trainer. It's as simple as horses with certain types of names are overbet; others with certain other types of names are underbet. I did the analysis years ago and have not checked it out lately - will do so anon; maybe But a girly name in the Oaks! Has to be overbet on the TAB, as MP has been since the MC. In MP's case there is the extra factor that boys being boys and MP being, again in JBCummings' words "a pretty little thing", MP got an easier time in races (not suggesting collusion, just nature) than, say, Samuel Payne, but after her MC spiel that ended. Remember when DBeadman made his comeback in 2000, after his ministry sojourn? Came up massive "unders" on the TAB every race for yonks. From: Racing On Behalf Of sean mclaren Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2018 1:11 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? And Len I see it broke it's maiden status the start before at Avoca wining by 4.5 lengths. And it then went up in distance by circa 3 furlongs. Challenging to say the least, but obviously not to your computer and the trainer. Interesting the horse wasn't as forward as your computer would have liked? On 6 Dec 2018 11:51 am, "sean mclaren" > wrote: Len Re miners miss I see that she was ridden by your favourite jockey. Michelle Payne. Double up? Rgds Sean On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:52 L.B.Loveday wrote: Phil, " following the Manuel bros..". I remember a particular occasion when Michael Webster played his "game" at Balaklava - JManuel started his run around the ring with a bet with Webster, many eyes watching, Webster drastically turned down a price, some owners of the eyes (not you I hope) rushed to bet that horse with other bookies while Manuel continued around the ring backing his horse, which was not the one Webster wound in - that was done to fool the eyes, including those of other bookies. I used to closely watch the Manuels and other significant players and if they backed a horse I wanted, I'd be one of those rushing to get set with another bookie, but if it was not one I wanted, I'd smile and wait for mine to hopefully drift. So many different tactics, and as the ex-Manager, Premium Customer Services said of the 7 or so in the Randwick HV room, everyone has a different approach, but they can all win. But they would not, could not, all win if they all had the same system, which is why I read Scott carefully and chose to take a different approach. How easily and quickly things can change was brought home pointedly to me when JBCummings was quoted as saying that racing tactics had changed and horses now much more needed to be leading/on pace (not that his suddenly did). There was an almost "overnight" reflection of that in odds and another edge reduced for me. In the Flemington Oaks, 3rd place getter Miner's Miss was predictably massive "unders" on Vic TAB (26.0/5.1) cf BetZero (151/23) and BF (201/18), unusual in a $1million race. Maybe Walter Gor Old ("Sepharial") had something when he wrote in "The Silver Key" of the influence of names - the reason it was predictable is imo much simpler than what he wrote. LBL From: PhilM > Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: They never let up re crops, do they? "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's more than happy as my "carer". If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler out there! Congratulations! Phil M p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Fri Dec 7 07:41:50 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 07:41:50 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? In-Reply-To: References: <72b955749465d713dc93236991edcb8875f4f900@webmail.internode.on.net> <000d01d48cdc$5b479a60$11d6cf20$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <004101d48da4$1edfe690$5c9fb3b0$@ozemail.com.au> I wish he's not made it! At that time I was pretty well "rating to lead, backing to win". That was really KISS. It's of course rather more complicated nowadays - as indicated by this comment from the other Nick (Aubrey) 3 years ago: Hi Len, I can thank you for some insight you gave me some time ago on a "simple way" of estimating the Position At Turn. Its remarkably accurate but often of little value unless considered in conjunction with the other race runners. Cheers, AN From: Racing On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Sent: Thursday, 6 December 2018 1:34 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Cc: PhilM Subject: Re: [AusRace] They never let up re crops, do they? Wish I'd seen the Bart quote. Always found him hard to catch but when leader bias became a factor, you could almost rule his out. Catelan Opening would have won a Newmarket, and there were others, who were cruelled by dynamite rails on big days. The old "Ron King" specials. On 6 Dec. 2018 7:22 am, "L.B.Loveday" > wrote: Phil, " following the Manuel bros..". I remember a particular occasion when Michael Webster played his "game" at Balaklava - JManuel started his run around the ring with a bet with Webster, many eyes watching, Webster drastically turned down a price, some owners of the eyes (not you I hope) rushed to bet that horse with other bookies while Manuel continued around the ring backing his horse, which was not the one Webster wound in - that was done to fool the eyes, including those of other bookies. I used to closely watch the Manuels and other significant players and if they backed a horse I wanted, I'd be one of those rushing to get set with another bookie, but if it was not one I wanted, I'd smile and wait for mine to hopefully drift. So many different tactics, and as the ex-Manager, Premium Customer Services said of the 7 or so in the Randwick HV room, everyone has a different approach, but they can all win. But they would not, could not, all win if they all had the same system, which is why I read Scott carefully and chose to take a different approach. How easily and quickly things can change was brought home pointedly to me when JBCummings was quoted as saying that racing tactics had changed and horses now much more needed to be leading/on pace (not that his suddenly did). There was an almost "overnight" reflection of that in odds and another edge reduced for me. In the Flemington Oaks, 3rd place getter Miner's Miss was predictably massive "unders" on Vic TAB (26.0/5.1) cf BetZero (151/23) and BF (201/18), unusual in a $1million race. Maybe Walter Gor Old ("Sepharial") had something when he wrote in "The Silver Key" of the influence of names - the reason it was predictable is imo much simpler than what he wrote. LBL From: PhilM > Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:55 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: They never let up re crops, do they? "You'll remember Bob Robinson, the IBM salesman who had access to and used a computer before they were commonly available, and was so successful he had a crowd following him to copy his bets (you still here Phil?)" Yes Len, I haven't gone away just yet.... and quite correct, I was one of the most avid followers of "Mr Magic", Shirley and Co. .....to the point he referred to me as "bindi eyes" ;-) Like you, I changed betting strategies over the years many times, from following Robertson, following the Manuel bros; getting massive overs using teletext when interstate TAB's put up approximates, betting trebles and quadrellas for years based on early TAB odds just by comparing paper prices, then Betfair gave me the biggest lift possible in 2001 with some amazing returns in the first few years, flipping from place betting, to taking any overs bookies gave as compared to Betfair, moving from British racing, to Aussie racing as bookies closed down accounts, to correct score and 1st half/2nd half soccer odds for years until TABCorp finally woke up they were giving money away, then back to Aussie racing again. It finally got to the point that the hours worked were not worth the returns gained. I guess I stood still and got run over! I've had one bet in six months, the winner of the Melbourne Cup and have pretty much lost all interest if I can no longer make a decent dollar. Happy on the aged pension now with enough funds to tide me over and a wife that's more than happy as my "carer". If you are still going well Len, then you've likely outdone every gambler out there! Congratulations! Phil M p.s. Sounds as if Bob Robertson (Robinson?) has fallen a long way to be called a "silly old bugger" by some bookie, betting $5 e/w! Seriously? _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sat Dec 8 01:48:20 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 01:48:20 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI Message-ID: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From RaceStats at hotmail.com Sat Dec 8 11:48:47 2018 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 00:48:47 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson, The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only ? * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sat Dec 8 13:05:47 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 13:05:47 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From RaceStats at hotmail.com Sat Dec 8 17:50:52 2018 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 06:50:52 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: [Image result for larry pickering bob hawke in parliament cartoon] And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson, The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only ? * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sat Dec 8 20:23:46 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 20:23:46 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From RaceStats at hotmail.com Sat Dec 8 23:51:32 2018 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 12:51:32 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: Len, The $1.01 put up could be and is mostly for in-play betting. $1.01 has shown to be profitable on horse racing, as many times a horse looks home only to fall at the last or be snatched by fast finisher. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 8:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: [Image result for larry pickering bob hawke in parliament cartoon] And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson, The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only ? * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From robbie at robwaterhouse.com Sun Dec 9 07:47:51 2018 From: robbie at robwaterhouse.com (Rob Waterhouse) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 10:47:51 -1000 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Sun Dec 9 09:41:04 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 09:41:04 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> Message-ID: <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: Image result for larry pickering bob hawke in parliament cartoon And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only ? * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sun Dec 9 09:47:22 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 09:47:22 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-melbourne-cup-blast-from-the-past/2267 From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:41 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing > On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sun Dec 9 10:26:41 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 10:26:41 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <002301d48f4d$7cac08d0$76041a70$@ozemail.com.au> It's a great story from LP, but like you Roman, LP's memory failed him - here's the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCfhoC1vX1M But I still prefer it the way LP told it! From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:47 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-melbourne-cup-blast-from-the-past/2267 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:41 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing > On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sun Dec 9 10:31:47 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 10:31:47 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <002301d48f4d$7cac08d0$76041a70$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> <002301d48f4d$7cac08d0$76041a70$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <002e01d48f4e$326778d0$97366a70$@ozemail.com.au> Ooooops; unlike you Roman From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 10:27 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI It's a great story from LP, but like you Roman, LP's memory failed him - here's the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCfhoC1vX1M But I still prefer it the way LP told it! From: Racing > On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:47 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-melbourne-cup-blast-from-the-past/2267 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:41 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing > On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Sun Dec 9 10:39:45 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 10:39:45 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <003901d48f4f$4cf0e0f0$e6d2a2d0$@bigpond.com> Thanks Len, what a great read. Gee, I did not remember the race finish like that and will see if there?s a replay somewhere. If I was Larry Pickering I would have drawn a gun and shot Bob Skelton and he would not have been convicted of anything bar administering justice. Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 9:47 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-melbourne-cup-blast-from-the-past/2267 From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:41 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: Image result for larry pickering bob hawke in parliament cartoon And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only ? * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Sun Dec 9 10:45:02 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 10:45:02 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <002301d48f4d$7cac08d0$76041a70$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> <002301d48f4d$7cac08d0$76041a70$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <003f01d48f50$09f5b400$1de11c00$@bigpond.com> Aha, that?s a bit more like I remember the race with At Talaq sprinting clear BUT Rising Fear was definitely solid whereas AT was weakening and another 40 metres would have been interesting. Thanks Len. I remember backing the third horse as he had won the Hotham/Dalgety on the Saturday. I would have won on the place side as I think he was about 15/1 or so. Ah, the memories. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 10:27 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI It's a great story from LP, but like you Roman, LP's memory failed him - here's the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCfhoC1vX1M But I still prefer it the way LP told it! From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:47 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-melbourne-cup-blast-from-the-past/2267 From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:41 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: Image result for larry pickering bob hawke in parliament cartoon And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only ? * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Sun Dec 9 12:22:29 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 12:22:29 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <002e01d48f4e$326778d0$97366a70$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> <002301d48f4d$7cac08d0$76041a70$@ozemail.com.au> <002e01d48f4e$326778d0$97366a70$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <005601d48f5d$a6e5de40$f4b19ac0$@bigpond.com> Len, I am starting to struggle to remember my name each morning. It is only when I look in the mirror that I marvel and then come good! Strike me pink as Mo used to say ? I am watching the Capalaba dogs and they have the white bunny dragging on the ground just ahead of the yappers. It?s all straight racing by the looks of the couple I have seen. It actually looks quite good. Prior to that a dog race from Florida with $53 in the Ubet pool. I think I need to go to church on Sundays: it is far too exciting around here. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 10:32 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Ooooops; unlike you Roman From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 10:27 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI It's a great story from LP, but like you Roman, LP's memory failed him - here's the reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCfhoC1vX1M But I still prefer it the way LP told it! From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:47 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-melbourne-cup-blast-from-the-past/2267 From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:41 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: Image result for larry pickering bob hawke in parliament cartoon And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only ? * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robbie at robwaterhouse.com Sun Dec 9 12:41:23 2018 From: robbie at robwaterhouse.com (Rob Waterhouse) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 15:41:23 -1000 Subject: [AusRace] FWI In-Reply-To: <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> References: <008901d48e3b$e7267960$b5736c20$@ozemail.com.au> <005601d48e9a$8ac0b5a0$a04220e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000b01d48ed7$bbcc7ac0$33657040$@ozemail.com.au> <0dbe01d48f37$4bb9fb80$e32df280$@robwaterhouse.com> <001b01d48f47$1a51de90$4ef59bb0$@bigpond.com> <001801d48f47$fe83d690$fb8b83b0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <0e3f01d48f60$4d9e4f40$e8daedc0$@robwaterhouse.com> A great piece! From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 12:47 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-melbourne-cup-blast-from-the-past/2267 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:41 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Hi all, Is my memory fading but did he train Rising Fear? Roman From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of Rob Waterhouse Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Pickering was a surprisingly successful horse trainer, flying his chopper to races (35 years ago). Rob W From: Racing > On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, 7 December 2018 11:24 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI " is it any worse than a certain glossy mag". Not in my opinion, nor as bad as what some corporates do regularly (just one of many general examples outside the blatant breaches that RacingNSW and the NTRC have ruled against me on, or refused to act on - leaving a scratched horse in the market for ages with a comparable book to others, then making a deduction when paying). Nor, in my opinion, and we've disagreed previously, any worse than people putting up 1.01 on Betfair hoping someone makes a slip. I have much more sympathy for someone taking 1.01 than someone buying a computer system as the first can be a slip, the second is a deliberate, albeit poorly considered, action) I'm all-but sure he was never convicted of a criminal offence. He had very loyal friends, and that's a good sign, imo. He had a lung cut out and was given a few months to live without chemo. He shunned chemo and tried non-surgical treatments, and lived almost 3 years. He refused morphine at the end, preferring to be in pain but aware to a pain-free doped-out end. From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:51 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Thanks Len, I think as usual, he?d had a few as well. Didn?t know Pickering recently died, I agree that he was a brilliant cartoonist, but he didn?t just set up one racket, he was involved in many spin-offs even after A Current Affair I think it was went after him. He just kept churning them out, but as you say took a back seat. However, is it any worse than a certain glossy mag? I think not. Lindsay From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:06 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Lindsay, I can't know about how the penalty was determined, or have an opinion as to its appropriateness, but Singo was penalised because: He pleaded guilty to "conduct prejudicial to the image, or interests, or welfare of racing'', admitting comments he made to the media about the mare's performance in the All Aged Stakes were "inappropriate and regrettable''. If he'd only challenged GW face to face in private, I presume she'd had said nothing publicly, so yes, it seems it was his conduct that was penalised, and not only in shooting off to the media - Ray Murrihy said "It wasn't the way to act in the mounting yard at Cessnock more or less Randwick before a Group 1,", although I doubt Murriphy's words were reported accurately you get the message. Singo's great mate Pickering recently died - he had faults. From the SMH (others may not put it so harshly, there were plenty of other schemes around and I have zero sympathy for any of his customers) - "Pickering ran a high-pressure cold-call racket that promised mug punters computer software that would pick winners on the race track for them. Yes, you would have to be a fool to fall for such a thing, but as shysters like Pickering know, there are actually a lot more than one born every minute. Pickering used his creativity to refine the fraud, an early adopter of mailing out glossy video presentations of the good life to be had from the magic of computer power applied to hayburners. His first effort featured himself, but he quickly retired from the front line, hiring an actor for the role, a familiar face from a well-loved soap. It became a very big business with glossy offices in a prime Gold Coast site, the home of so many scams". BUT, on the plus side he was a great cartoonist - loved this one after Hawke gave up the booze: And produced some wonderful articles on his blog, my favourite: Trigger warning for snowflakes, don't read if you don't like the truth. http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-premature-christmas-present-that-can-t-be-changed/6753 From: Racing > On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:49 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FWI Len, why did Singo receive a $15,000 penalty for the More Joyous scandal, when clearly info was leaked that the horse wasn?t right? Surely an owner is able to challenge a trainer if information comes to light. Was it his conduct? Lindsay From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:48 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] FWI Racing stewards penalising corruption and doping without legal authority Matthew Benns and Ashleigh Gleeson , The Daily Telegraph an hour ago Subscriber only * * $7.5 million turf race unveiled for Sydney Racing stewards have been penalising trainers, jockeys, stable hands and owners for offences like doping or corrupt conduct for years without the legal authority to do so. A decision by the Racing Appeals Tribunal yesterday said stewards were not empowered to use the tough rule that has been the basis for a string of high profile convictions in recent years. But Racing NSW CEO Peter V?landys has assured racegoers that the decision has highlighted a legal glitch that has already been fixed and that all existing penalties and suspensions still stand. Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys. Picture: Britta Campion The legal technicality came to light when trainer Carl Poidevin appealed against a stewards? decision to disqualify him for giving false evidence about injecting his horse Master Agar before a race at Kembla Grange in April. The stewards used powers delegated from Racing NSW under Australian Rules of Racing rule 175 to penalise the trainer but during the appeal it became clear those long assumed powers had not been delegated correctly. Racing Appeals Tribunal head David Armati yesterday ruled that stewards are ?not empowered to penalise under AR 175.? The same rule has been used to convict some of the biggest names in racing. Under AR 175 trainers Darren Smith and Sam Kavanagh received lengthy bans for cobalt use and John Singleton received a $15,000 fine for the More Joyous scandal. Mr Poidevin?s solicitor Paul O?Sullivan said stewards had used AR 175 for years to disqualify and suspend trainers, jockeys and owners for offences contained in the act. ?Today?s decision in Poidevin confirms they don?t have the power to do so,? he said. Mr V?landys dismissed suggestions the ruling would open the floodgates for suspended and disqualified racing figures to appeal against the decisions made against them. ?We don?t believe this will have any repercussions what so ever. The people are no less guilty than they were before this and their punishments still stand.? He said the ruling by the Racing Appeals Tribunal was a ?procedural deficiency that has already been rectified?. The powers used by stewards to police racing had been correctly delegated to Mr V?landys as the CEO of Racing NSW but were then delegated to the chairman of stewards rather than a committee of stewards as required. Those powers have now been correctly rectified. However there are suggestions other racing figures who have fallen foul of the stewards could use the decision to try and appeal their suspensions and disqualifications. ?They would simply be wasting their time and incur unnecessary legal fees,? said Mr V?landys. ?I still have the power and I will confirm the conviction and the penalties that have been applied. Nothing changes.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16893 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Mon Dec 10 09:18:11 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:18:11 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? Message-ID: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could check deductions? No longer) At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would everyone, every time? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 65668 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 55114 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 61532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: oledata.mso Type: application/octet-stream Size: 128175 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Mon Dec 10 09:30:58 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:30:58 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <003301d4900e$dca5c3e0$95f14ba0$@ozemail.com.au> The screen shots were in the Ausrace email I received; on the Ausrace site they are at the bottom as deleted .PNG attachments. From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 9:18 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikemcbain at tpg.com.au Mon Dec 10 10:04:23 2018 From: mikemcbain at tpg.com.au (mikemcbain at tpg.com.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:04:23 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> Len Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing yesterday and yes only after I was caught! Mike. From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could check deductions? No longer) At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would everyone, every time? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 65668 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 55114 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 61532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 13:23:06 2018 From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:23:06 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM wrote: > Len > > > > Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing > yesterday and yes only after I was caught! > > > > Mike. > > > > *From:* Racing *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday > *Sent:* Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 > *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > *Subject:* [AusRace] Is this fair? > > > > > > I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were > in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, > Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on > the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. > > > > Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is > 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were > when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click > without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. > > > > > > > > In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com > (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could > check deductions? No longer) > > At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above > without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. > > > > > > > > > > But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it > was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. > > > > > > > > VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would > everyone, every time? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Racing mailing list > Racing at ausrace.com > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 65668 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 55114 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 61532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 61532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mikemcbain at tpg.com.au Mon Dec 10 13:53:40 2018 From: mikemcbain at tpg.com.au (mikemcbain at tpg.com.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:53:40 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <001501d49033$8e810920$ab831b60$@tpg.com.au> Norsaint Here is a recent Statement where the Your Odds were prices taken inside the last 60 secs of Betting. Some of my earlier work indicated the best price of all may be at 30 seconds to the jump? Mike. From: Racing On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 13:23 To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM > wrote: Len Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing yesterday and yes only after I was caught! Mike. From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could check deductions? No longer) At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would everyone, every time? _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 71493 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at rbratings.com.au Mon Dec 10 17:31:01 2018 From: info at rbratings.com.au (info at rbratings.com.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:31:01 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: <001501d49033$8e810920$ab831b60$@tpg.com.au> References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> <001501d49033$8e810920$ab831b60$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <06c201d49051$ed72c720$c8585560$@rbratings.com.au> >From my brief studies, BFSP works best at the longer end of the market. And by that I mean $10+. For those under $10 then you get better value from other products, like best tote or top fluc. Then the problem becomes liquidity. You simply cannot have $200 at BFSP on a $50+ chance and not expect it to effect the odds (in average metro racing in Aus, the UK is different), it does. It also depends on when you place your BFSP bet. If you get in early then you are effectively signalling to everyone else your intentions, as the bet can be seen by all and sundry. The bots are watching this and adjusting the market, usually to your detriment. For the most part the bots trade at the shorter end of the market, this is simply because at longer odds the market is more volatile and with that comes risk. Shorter priced selections have more liquidity, less volatility and more chance for the bot to recover from a market swing. John From: Racing On Behalf Of mikemcbain at tpg.com.au Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 1:54 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? Norsaint Here is a recent Statement where the Your Odds were prices taken inside the last 60 secs of Betting. Some of my earlier work indicated the best price of all may be at 30 seconds to the jump? Mike. From: Racing > On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 13:23 To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM > wrote: Len Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing yesterday and yes only after I was caught! Mike. From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could check deductions? No longer) At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would everyone, every time? _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 71493 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Mon Dec 10 18:02:37 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:02:37 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <006201d49056$573a9030$05afb090$@ozemail.com.au> Don't overlook the BF commission, on NSW 10% unless you qualify for a reduction, 8% WA, 6% others. 10% from your winnings is a hard figure to overcome; I don't even try. From: Racing On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 1:23 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM > wrote: Len Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing yesterday and yes only after I was caught! Mike. From: Racing > On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could check deductions? No longer) At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would everyone, every time? _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 19:16:48 2018 From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:16:48 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: <06c201d49051$ed72c720$c8585560$@rbratings.com.au> References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> <001501d49033$8e810920$ab831b60$@tpg.com.au> <06c201d49051$ed72c720$c8585560$@rbratings.com.au> Message-ID: Interesting John. My example is a small sample size of course and it may be down to stiff luck but a couple were in the over $10 range, namely Voodoo Lad, who was trading around $17 until the last five minutes and then SPd at nearer $12 and something else on Sandown Cup day which halved in price very late. Bloody painful! On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:31 PM wrote: > From my brief studies, BFSP works best at the longer end of the market. > And by that I mean $10+. > > For those under $10 then you get better value from other products, like > best tote or top fluc. > > > > Then the problem becomes liquidity. You simply cannot have $200 at BFSP on > a $50+ chance and not expect it to effect the odds (in average metro racing > in Aus, the UK is different), it does. It also depends on when you place > your BFSP bet. If you get in early then you are effectively signalling to > everyone else your intentions, as the bet can be seen by all and sundry. > The bots are watching this and adjusting the market, usually to your > detriment. For the most part the bots trade at the shorter end of the > market, this is simply because at longer odds the market is more volatile > and with that comes risk. Shorter priced selections have more liquidity, > less volatility and more chance for the bot to recover from a market swing. > > > > John > > > > > > *From:* Racing *On Behalf Of * > mikemcbain at tpg.com.au > *Sent:* Monday, 10 December 2018 1:54 PM > *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? > > > > Norsaint > > > > Here is a recent Statement where the Your Odds were prices taken inside > the last 60 secs of Betting. > > Some of my earlier work indicated the best price of all may be at 30 > seconds to the jump? > > > > Mike. > > > > > > *From:* Racing *On Behalf Of * > norsaintpublishing at gmail.com > *Sent:* Monday, 10 December 2018 13:23 > *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List > *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? > > > > Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. > > Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it > recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. > > It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices > on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM wrote: > > Len > > > > Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing > yesterday and yes only after I was caught! > > > > Mike. > > > > *From:* Racing *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday > *Sent:* Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 > *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > *Subject:* [AusRace] Is this fair? > > > > > > I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were > in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, > Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on > the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. > > > > Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is > 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were > when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click > without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. > > > > > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01D4906F.B97E78B0] > > > > In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com > (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could > check deductions? No longer) > > At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above > without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. > > > > > > [image: cid:image002.png at 01D4906F.B97E78B0] > > > > > > But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it > was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. > > > > [image: cid:image003.png at 01D4906F.B97E78B0] > > > > > > VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would > everyone, every time? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 71493 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 71493 bytes Desc: not available URL: From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 19:22:41 2018 From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:22:41 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: <001501d49033$8e810920$ab831b60$@tpg.com.au> References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> <001501d49033$8e810920$ab831b60$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: Yes Mike, it was the weekly statement which persuaded me there was some merit in BSP. However the majority of "value" was on losing horses, so no damage done there, I suppose. But on the winners is a different story of course. I'm a bit gun-shy for the time being. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:54 PM wrote: > Norsaint > > > > Here is a recent Statement where the Your Odds were prices taken inside > the last 60 secs of Betting. > > Some of my earlier work indicated the best price of all may be at 30 > seconds to the jump? > > > > Mike. > > > > > > *From:* Racing *On Behalf Of * > norsaintpublishing at gmail.com > *Sent:* Monday, 10 December 2018 13:23 > *To:* AusRace Racing Discussion List > *Subject:* Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? > > > > Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. > > Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it > recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. > > It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices > on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM wrote: > > Len > > > > Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing > yesterday and yes only after I was caught! > > > > Mike. > > > > *From:* Racing *On Behalf Of *L.B.Loveday > *Sent:* Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 > *To:* 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > *Subject:* [AusRace] Is this fair? > > > > > > I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were > in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, > Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on > the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. > > > > Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is > 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were > when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click > without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. > > > > > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01D4906F.B97E78B0] > > > > In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com > (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could > check deductions? No longer) > > At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above > without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. > > > > > > [image: cid:image002.png at 01D4906F.B97E78B0] > > > > > > But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it > was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. > > > > [image: cid:image003.png at 01D4906F.B97E78B0] > > > > > > VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would > everyone, every time? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 71493 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 71493 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Mon Dec 10 20:17:04 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:17:04 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? In-Reply-To: References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <005c01d49069$1e12ee70$5a38cb50$@bigpond.com> In my experience around 6/1 plus it?s best on BFSP: a bit below it?s a line ball, after commission, and around the favs the BOB is the best which includes best fluctuation. At anything over $10 with the corps way better BFSP. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 1:23 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM wrote: Len Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing yesterday and yes only after I was caught! Mike. From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 09:18 To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? I don't know if these screen shots will be readable in Ausrace (they were in my test sending to myself), but the first shows a price for #12, Frosty Olaf of 251/26,. I clicked and filled in $50/100 (no prices shown on the ticket). Then clicked Place Bet and the following appeared. Yes it does show that the price I would take by clicking "Confirm" is 126/14, BUT the odds displayed in the book are still 251/26, and still were when I looked again 5 minutes later. Would some at least just click without noticing the discrepancy? OF COURSE. In the next case, #7 was scratched at 7:38 according to Sportingbet.com (remember when Sportsbet also used to show scratching time so you could check deductions? No longer) At 8:32 I clicked on #8, and it appeared in the ticket, but as above without prices, but still showing $2.50 place in the book. But the ticket fills at $1.70 with $2.50 still showing in the book, and it was still showing $2.50 4 minutes later. VERY caveat emptor, as I have warned - yes I picked up the scam, but would everyone, every time? _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Mon Dec 10 20:30:22 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:30:22 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Is this fair? References: <002801d4900d$13668f10$3a33ad30$@ozemail.com.au> <001c01d49013$868e7b50$93ab71f0$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <006d01d4906a$faf72120$f0e56360$@ozemail.com.au> Just looked at the Corporate Fixed price markets for NSW Sat & today from 10 bookmakers. Seems to me you are likely to do better with them, provided you are not cheated, with an average % of <110% on both days (with, unsurprisingly, Rosehill coming in 107%) than with BF, whether SP or Final Price, if you are on 10% commission with BF. Here are the Top Odds Final Market% of the 10 bookmakers I monitor: Saturday 8/12 ALBUR 1 109 ALBUR 2 111 ALBUR 3 109 ALBUR 4 113 ALBUR 5 112 ALBUR 6 113 GUNND 1 113 GUNND 2 113 GUNND 3 112 GUNND 4 110 GUNND 5 110 GUNND 6 106 GUNND 7 109 NEWCA 1 110 NEWCA 2 107 NEWCA 3 111 NEWCA 4 111 NEWCA 5 109 NEWCA 6 108 NEWCA 7 111 NEWCA 8 109 ROSEH 1 107 ROSEH 2 107 ROSEH 3 110 ROSEH 4 111 ROSEH 5 106 ROSEH 6 105 ROSEH 7 106 ROSEH 8 107 ROSEH 9 106 Today: DUBBO 1 112 DUBBO 2 111 DUBBO 3 112 DUBBO 4 107 DUBBO 5 106 DUBBO 6 109 DUBBO 7 113 TUNCU 1 108 TUNCU 2 107 TUNCU 3 111 TUNCU 4 105 TUNCU 5 107 TUNCU 6 107 TUNCU 7 107 From: L.B.Loveday > Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 6:03 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: RE: [AusRace] Is this fair? Don't overlook the BF commission, on NSW 10% unless you qualify for a reduction, 8% WA, 6% others. 10% from your winnings is a hard figure to overcome; I don't even try. From: Racing > On Behalf Of norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Sent: Monday, 10 December 2018 1:23 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Is this fair? Yes, thanks Len, a good warning. Does anyone have any opinions on taking Betfair SP? I started using it recently and have cost myself a bit by not taking an offered price. It appears that Betfair SP is better than the tote and my exchange prices on the losers, but down a bit when they win. Very annoying. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:04 AM wrote: Len Screen arrived perfectly in my email and yes I experienced the same thing yesterday and yes only after I was caught! Mike. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikemcbain at tpg.com.au Mon Dec 10 21:16:36 2018 From: mikemcbain at tpg.com.au (mikemcbain at tpg.com.au) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:16:36 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Just for fun Message-ID: <000801d49071$6f1d91a0$4d58b4e0$@tpg.com.au> Horseburgers et al Bulletin In the UK, some supermarkets have admitted that there is horse meat in their home cooked burgers. Even places like Burger King have had to admit that there are "small amounts" of horse meat in their burgers. Tesco is a big supermarket chain in the UK Within hours of the news that Tesco's 'all beef hamburgers' contained 30% horse meat, here are some of the quips to hit the Internet. Waitress in Tesco asked if I wanted anything on my Burger. So I had $5 each way! Had some burgers from Tesco for my tea last night, I still have a bit between my teeth. Said to the missus, "These Tesco burgers give me the trots..." These Tesco burger jokes are going on a bit...Talk about flogging a dead horse. Last night the wife made meatloaf, so I had dinner with two nags. Instead of choosing rare, medium or well done, it's now "Win, Place or Show" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Tue Dec 11 22:50:23 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:50:23 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Just for fun Message-ID: <00cb01d49147$b4d5e810$1e81b830$@ozemail.com.au> Talk about flogging a dead horse. Make hay while the sun shines Mike, you won't be allowed to say that soon - PETA, using taxpayer money (even if it's only giving deductions to those who donate) are running a campaign to educate ignorant dinosaurs like us that such sayings are an insult to animals, trivialise cruelty to animals and lead us to thinking of them as lesser than humans. Henceforth you must say ".. feeding a fed horse". And: ?feed two birds with one scone? "bring home the bagel" " take the flower by the thorns." "curiosity thrilled the cat" Horseburgers et al Bulletin In the UK, some supermarkets have admitted that there is horse meat in their home cooked burgers. Even places like Burger King have had to admit that there are "small amounts" of horse meat in their burgers. Tesco is a big supermarket chain in the UK Within hours of the news that Tesco's 'all beef hamburgers' contained 30% horse meat, here are some of the quips to hit the Internet. Waitress in Tesco asked if I wanted anything on my Burger. So I had $5 each way! Had some burgers from Tesco for my tea last night, I still have a bit between my teeth. Said to the missus, "These Tesco burgers give me the trots..." These Tesco burger jokes are going on a bit...Talk about flogging a dead horse. Last night the wife made meatloaf, so I had dinner with two nags. Instead of choosing rare, medium or well done, it's now "Win, Place or Show" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikemcbain at tpg.com.au Wed Dec 12 11:39:13 2018 From: mikemcbain at tpg.com.au (mikemcbain at tpg.com.au) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:39:13 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Just for fun In-Reply-To: <00cb01d49147$b4d5e810$1e81b830$@ozemail.com.au> References: <00cb01d49147$b4d5e810$1e81b830$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000901d491b3$1adcabb0$50960310$@tpg.com.au> Len & Co Perhaps I should apologise in advance to all the Tofu loving Vegan?s on the Ausrace list? And just to keep this post horse and/or racing relevant don?t you just love to watch a Steeple race where a horse or Jockey does a ?Bradbury? or a horse like Kiwi comes out and ?Bradburies? them? Nudge nudge ? Winx Winx Mike. From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2018 22:50 To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Just for fun Talk about flogging a dead horse. Make hay while the sun shines Mike, you won't be allowed to say that soon - PETA, using taxpayer money (even if it's only giving deductions to those who donate) are running a campaign to educate ignorant dinosaurs like us that such sayings are an insult to animals, trivialise cruelty to animals and lead us to thinking of them as lesser than humans. Henceforth you must say ".. feeding a fed horse". And: ?feed two birds with one scone? "bring home the bagel" " take the flower by the thorns." "curiosity thrilled the cat" Horseburgers et al Bulletin In the UK, some supermarkets have admitted that there is horse meat in their home cooked burgers. Even places like Burger King have had to admit that there are "small amounts" of horse meat in their burgers. Tesco is a big supermarket chain in the UK Within hours of the news that Tesco's 'all beef hamburgers' contained 30% horse meat, here are some of the quips to hit the Internet. Waitress in Tesco asked if I wanted anything on my Burger. So I had $5 each way! Had some burgers from Tesco for my tea last night, I still have a bit between my teeth. Said to the missus, "These Tesco burgers give me the trots..." These Tesco burger jokes are going on a bit...Talk about flogging a dead horse. Last night the wife made meatloaf, so I had dinner with two nags. Instead of choosing rare, medium or well done, it's now "Win, Place or Show" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From womble at internode.on.net Wed Dec 12 13:30:54 2018 From: womble at internode.on.net (Paul) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:30:54 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Just for fuqn In-Reply-To: <000901d491b3$1adcabb0$50960310$@tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <2278f92d-cc60-45ff-9d91-8e3d7c8dbf61@email.android.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Fri Dec 14 13:14:20 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 10:14:20 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] I doubt even Tony Moffat has come across these systems: Message-ID: <002a01d49352$ba281f60$2e785e20$@bigpond.com> Len - I did and have posted on Ausrace my (flippant) opinion of how useless they may be - numerology and astrology, how stuffed is that? Everybody knows that the winner will have the letters in sequence of a girl/person/pet name you know. Just look. Or seven letters, or start within barrier 8 and no wider Or have the third letter R or carry more/less weight than last start. Interesting (for me) article on the mobile totes of an era before ours http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article020105.html I saw these running, but not working, at Tumut many years ago. The tote had gone back to manual collating/aggregating of betting tickets because the machine was not working as it should. The engineer was American and involved in the Snowy Mountain Scheme but he knew everything about these, he said, except he referred to the town as Tum-it! I'm unsure if he did fix it. This installation may have been the innards of a bus, translocated to the shed for the remainder of its working life. It had two input positions. It was set up for 5 shilling bets when the going price was 2/6d/unit. It could calculate in any denomination, 10/-, a pound, a guinea, a shilling? (that's what they said) Further tote information here http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bconlon/index.html#index cheers Tony LBL wrote: "Came across Scott Williams' book "Can Punting Pay" while shuffling through books, "a result of almost two years full time academic research", which I bought maybe 40 years ago, and which I'm pretty sure I never read much of. Under the heading "Biocycles": "Patrick Evans, an expert in the fledging science of biodynamics has suggested that horses are susceptible to cyclical "off" days", in accordance with the number of days from their birth date. Sceptical? "He has surprised some hard headed gamblers in the UK by correctly predicting favourites that would not win because the race day was an "off" day for that horse". But there's more: Walter Gor Old ("Sepharial") wrote "The Silver Key" which discussed "the influence of the planets on horses, partly by their names (which are converted to numbers related to the planets and partly by the jockey's colours". There are 3 pages of tables detailing the nitty gritty of arriving at selections. And yet more: a table of "Recommended Bets (Based on Numerology)" with the only input required the number of runners. No wonder I never read much of it! LBL --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Tue Dec 25 11:30:40 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:30:40 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Merry Christmas Message-ID: <001001d49be9$110d8150$332883f0$@bigpond.com> To Doug Robb (and his mob), all Ausracers and others Merry Christmas to you all I think everyone who is anyone is here with us, there are 7 vehicles on the drive - nice and who cares if they burn up the internet allocation Anne and Tony Moffat --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Tue Dec 25 11:36:30 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 11:36:30 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] Merry Christmas In-Reply-To: <001001d49be9$110d8150$332883f0$@bigpond.com> References: <001001d49be9$110d8150$332883f0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <001c01d49be9$e13ca400$a3b5ec00$@ozemail.com.au> Thanks Tony, reciprocated. -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 25 December 2018 11:31 AM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Merry Christmas To Doug Robb (and his mob), all Ausracers and others Merry Christmas to you all I think everyone who is anyone is here with us, there are 7 vehicles on the drive - nice and who cares if they burn up the internet allocation Anne and Tony Moffat --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Tue Dec 25 19:40:25 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 16:40:25 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Message-ID: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> Subject: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Originally posted by butthead 2004 (whoever you are) Punters, Here are some thoughts after a couple of years working with a professional rating service. I apply rules based filters to these ratings for most eastern states races - 10,000+ per year. Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform Posted by butthead originally Q1: how would you correct for 12 (a) can't add too much to the top price (b) adjust the next 4 against their value in a 100% book? (c) drop the fav and dutch the next 4 - People do this you know Q2 About 10 - the easy tag is given freely here, what really happens is waiting for the 3 or so (more or less) real F each day Identified out of ROBERTA or Principle of Maximum Confusion rules (see archive) although this is not based around form, even Inracing Knowles Gamechanger has the requirement to include the 1F and 2F in that bet, and the better way might be Biggs P63. Q3 Regarding 8 -Selections (+3 in each race) over a large number of races (10% of available races are mentioned here) reduce to 0% POT over time with +/- 15% over any 12 months. This is disappointing. The rake is increasing also, Shatin, was on 122% yesterday with millions of theirs in the pool (is it still 1:5.5 HK$?). Some weeks ago they had 14 runners with 7 over $200 win Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Wed Dec 26 12:47:09 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:47:09 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Wed Dec 26 14:10:09 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 14:10:09 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> " Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races." My time: (1) Daily download of yesterday's (or that day's if available before bedtime) results, correction of wrong jockeys and update of databases, 5 to 20 minutes per day (5 if no sus jockeys, can be 20 if a number to be chased up from Stewards Reports, videos...). Not time important, as long as it's done before first bets (jockey ratings are recalculated daily - there's "never" a horse backing up from yesterday). (2) Download of fields for day and initial processing - 4 to 10 minutes depending on number of fields. (3) Download of scratchings and jockey changes after official scratchings, and updating fields - 2 minutes, but can be longer if the download is behind and I have to manually scratch and enter jockeys. Repeated (3) as required (eg WA scratchings) (4) Program to analyse, produce ratings 1 minute. (5) Download of 10 bookmaker's prices 1-3 minutes depending on number of fields - 2:10 minutes today. (6) Program to match ratings to prices and produce recommended bets 1 minute. (5) and (6) repeated at will to produce recommended bets with new prices. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. and: best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. For large n, and excluding bets where there has been a late scratching (and thus likely deductions): I average 1.24 times Final Top Win ODDS (NOT price) from the 10 bookmakers (which is a tighter market than SP) and 1.15 times Final Top Place ODDS (and 1.37/1.29 for those that do place) Which should be enough to win, but you still have to bet on the right horses, but if 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections, and I consistently could get 1.24/1.15 times final odds, in theory I could pick by throwing darts and win. -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 12:47 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Wed Dec 26 14:50:33 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 14:50:33 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <004901d49cce$279d18f0$76d74ad0$@bigpond.com> Hi Len, In between Caul races saw your post flash by. You WILL note I said "most punters" and not a desperado like yourself!!! Wow, that's why you win - it's all about the work pre post leading into post time. I have been pricing selections since June and have by the end of today a mere 268 mostly Victorian races but comments for them all and boy I find that tough enough. RK From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 2:10 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt " Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races." My time: (1) Daily download of yesterday's (or that day's if available before bedtime) results, correction of wrong jockeys and update of databases, 5 to 20 minutes per day (5 if no sus jockeys, can be 20 if a number to be chased up from Stewards Reports, videos...). Not time important, as long as it's done before first bets (jockey ratings are recalculated daily - there's "never" a horse backing up from yesterday). (2) Download of fields for day and initial processing - 4 to 10 minutes depending on number of fields. (3) Download of scratchings and jockey changes after official scratchings, and updating fields - 2 minutes, but can be longer if the download is behind and I have to manually scratch and enter jockeys. Repeated (3) as required (eg WA scratchings) (4) Program to analyse, produce ratings 1 minute. (5) Download of 10 bookmaker's prices 1-3 minutes depending on number of fields - 2:10 minutes today. (6) Program to match ratings to prices and produce recommended bets 1 minute. (5) and (6) repeated at will to produce recommended bets with new prices. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. and: best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. For large n, and excluding bets where there has been a late scratching (and thus likely deductions): I average 1.24 times Final Top Win ODDS (NOT price) from the 10 bookmakers (which is a tighter market than SP) and 1.15 times Final Top Place ODDS (and 1.37/1.29 for those that do place) Which should be enough to win, but you still have to bet on the right horses, but if 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections, and I consistently could get 1.24/1.15 times final odds, in theory I could pick by throwing darts and win. -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 12:47 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Thu Dec 27 07:41:45 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 07:41:45 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <004901d49cce$279d18f0$76d74ad0$@bigpond.com> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> <004901d49cce$279d18f0$76d74ad0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <005c01d49d5b$6b15e9d0$4141bd70$@ozemail.com.au> Roman, In my opinion the best advice about betting was what Sean Bartholomew said in an interview way back - he determines what to back then sets out to get as much money on at the best price he can; succinct but who can rationally contradict a successful approach? An example of the advantages of early betting - yesterday my best "over" , viz price obtained divided by SP/SOP was Nhill 3/7, where I got 6.00/1.80 (limited by MBL to $200/$500) at 9:29am and it SP'd at 2.00, Top Fluc also 2.00, with 2.10 available on-line at the jump. It paid 1.80/1.80 Top Tote, varying from 1.60/1.04 (Vic) through 1.80/1.60 (NSW) to 1.80/1.80 (Qld - place pool $651 - if I'd bet $500 into the pool it would have paid 1.00). The average price of place bets I make is 6.5, the average win price 30.9. Don't recall the last time I backed a favourite that was favourite when I bet. The massive jump in TAB's take-out on exotics a few years back (to pay ZR etal rebates?) killed my ability to make a good living betting into TAB pools, so reinvented myself yet again - don't know how many reinventions I've left in me; maybe the one I'm working on now will be the final hurrah! LBL From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 2:51 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Hi Len, In between Caul races saw your post flash by. You WILL note I said "most punters" and not a desperado like yourself!!! Wow, that's why you win - it's all about the work pre post leading into post time. I have been pricing selections since June and have by the end of today a mere 268 mostly Victorian races but comments for them all and boy I find that tough enough. RK From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 2:10 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt " Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races." My time: (1) Daily download of yesterday's (or that day's if available before bedtime) results, correction of wrong jockeys and update of databases, 5 to 20 minutes per day (5 if no sus jockeys, can be 20 if a number to be chased up from Stewards Reports, videos...). Not time important, as long as it's done before first bets (jockey ratings are recalculated daily - there's "never" a horse backing up from yesterday). (2) Download of fields for day and initial processing - 4 to 10 minutes depending on number of fields. (3) Download of scratchings and jockey changes after official scratchings, and updating fields - 2 minutes, but can be longer if the download is behind and I have to manually scratch and enter jockeys. Repeated (3) as required (eg WA scratchings) (4) Program to analyse, produce ratings 1 minute. (5) Download of 10 bookmaker's prices 1-3 minutes depending on number of fields - 2:10 minutes today. (6) Program to match ratings to prices and produce recommended bets 1 minute. (5) and (6) repeated at will to produce recommended bets with new prices. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. and: best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. For large n, and excluding bets where there has been a late scratching (and thus likely deductions): I average 1.24 times Final Top Win ODDS (NOT price) from the 10 bookmakers (which is a tighter market than SP) and 1.15 times Final Top Place ODDS (and 1.37/1.29 for those that do place) Which should be enough to win, but you still have to bet on the right horses, but if 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections, and I consistently could get 1.24/1.15 times final odds, in theory I could pick by throwing darts and win. -----Original Message----- From: Racing > On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 12:47 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kozza1950 at bigpond.com Thu Dec 27 12:40:20 2018 From: kozza1950 at bigpond.com (Roman) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:40:20 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <005c01d49d5b$6b15e9d0$4141bd70$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> <004901d49cce$279d18f0$76d74ad0$@bigpond.com> <005c01d49d5b$6b15e9d0$4141bd70$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <001201d49d85$213bb7c0$63b32740$@bigpond.com> From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 7:42 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Roman, In my opinion the best advice about betting was what Sean Bartholomew said in an interview way back - he determines what to back then sets out to get as much money on at the best price he can; succinct but who can rationally contradict a successful approach? RKOZ: Cannot knock that principle at all. An example of the advantages of early betting - yesterday my best "over" , viz price obtained divided by SP/SOP was Nhill 3/7, where I got 6.00/1.80 (limited by MBL to $200/$500) at 9:29am and it SP'd at 2.00, Top Fluc also 2.00, with 2.10 available on-line at the jump. It paid 1.80/1.80 Top Tote, varying from 1.60/1.04 (Vic) through 1.80/1.60 (NSW) to 1.80/1.80 (Qld - place pool $651 - if I'd bet $500 into the pool it would have paid 1.00). RKOZ: Wow, that's the dream result we all want just once a week! The average price of place bets I make is 6.5, the average win price 30.9. Don't recall the last time I backed a favourite that was favourite when I bet. RKOZ:You certainly forage in the toughest area, Len. The massive jump in TAB's take-out on exotics a few years back (to pay ZR etal rebates?) killed my ability to make a good living betting into TAB pools, so reinvented myself yet again - don't know how many reinventions I've left in me; maybe the one I'm working on now will be the final hurrah! RKOZ: I have never made anywhere near a successful exotics approach due to trying all sorts of approaches I suppose rather than a static X for win y for 2nd and Z for 3rd in trifectas. LBL From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 2:51 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Hi Len, In between Caul races saw your post flash by. You WILL note I said "most punters" and not a desperado like yourself!!! Wow, that's why you win - it's all about the work pre post leading into post time. I have been pricing selections since June and have by the end of today a mere 268 mostly Victorian races but comments for them all and boy I find that tough enough. RK From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 2:10 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt " Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races." My time: (1) Daily download of yesterday's (or that day's if available before bedtime) results, correction of wrong jockeys and update of databases, 5 to 20 minutes per day (5 if no sus jockeys, can be 20 if a number to be chased up from Stewards Reports, videos...). Not time important, as long as it's done before first bets (jockey ratings are recalculated daily - there's "never" a horse backing up from yesterday). (2) Download of fields for day and initial processing - 4 to 10 minutes depending on number of fields. (3) Download of scratchings and jockey changes after official scratchings, and updating fields - 2 minutes, but can be longer if the download is behind and I have to manually scratch and enter jockeys. Repeated (3) as required (eg WA scratchings) (4) Program to analyse, produce ratings 1 minute. (5) Download of 10 bookmaker's prices 1-3 minutes depending on number of fields - 2:10 minutes today. (6) Program to match ratings to prices and produce recommended bets 1 minute. (5) and (6) repeated at will to produce recommended bets with new prices. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. and: best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. For large n, and excluding bets where there has been a late scratching (and thus likely deductions): I average 1.24 times Final Top Win ODDS (NOT price) from the 10 bookmakers (which is a tighter market than SP) and 1.15 times Final Top Place ODDS (and 1.37/1.29 for those that do place) Which should be enough to win, but you still have to bet on the right horses, but if 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections, and I consistently could get 1.24/1.15 times final odds, in theory I could pick by throwing darts and win. -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 12:47 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Thu Dec 27 15:28:39 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 15:28:39 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] bounding horses Message-ID: <002c01d49d9c$a454b1e0$ecfe15a0$@ozemail.com.au> I was looking at BetFair and saw this comment. OUTRIGGER is going much better than form suggests including bounding at the start last time. First time of heard the term "bounding" wrt a horse! I read prolifically, but not about horses - is it a commonly applied to racehorses? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Thu Dec 27 15:56:31 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 12:56:31 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <000801d49da0$8941dc30$9bc59490$@bigpond.com> There were 1684 runners entered yesterday, across 167 races, with 277 scratched and 104 entered for Happy Valley. The oldest was Knucklemanna, 11yo, who did not run. 1. When this was written,(The Observation), he, presuming Butthead is that, meant strategy for both stances, hedge and arbitrage (where he worked) 2. Nothing new as you say. Is there a case for full disclosure now, all runs, private or not, should be exposed, if the argument input is that betting drives racing, then this information is important. 3. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, certainly there is a sameness that rating comes back to the observable good runs. Times pick fast horses, weight ratings pick the same runners type of thing. 4.He, head, worked the distance races, jumps, etc especially, although he filtered every runner, every run. 5. Seems that way. Personally, me, alone, have trouble with Qld, whereas a friend specializes there, and lives there now and bets into a specific class and above there, although backs Qn everywhere 6. Really 7. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, again. 8. Same as 7 9. I work on other than settled strategies - presently $5 on a runner with a win within two runs after a spell , follow for three runs (fit, and placement). 10,11, & 12 Favorites, the perceived best runners in the race -there is a veritable library of writings about these, all true, most wrong on occurrence. An idea I had some years ago, a maxim, theorem, truism, axiom (without bashing the thesaurus at all), was the theory of the quiet shortener, a runner which may, or may not, ascend to fav. This activity applies to 9 also - in addition to a set bet I may have an interest in the runner which announces itself as the quiet shortener. 13 & 14 - no new information offered. Cheers There is good and sufficient reason to not bet. Owners, trainers, others, are part of the subterfuge to enable a runner to win a race set for it to do so -the reason for betting perhaps, and the remainder of us can get stuffed, to misquote a jockey recently. I am aware of two incidents, and have written of them, when a horse was set for a race, to be gazumped by another, also set. Nothing corrupt or seemingly gangsterish existed, both runners beaten had good form, good times, good riders, right distance, right track, everything was in their favour, or not detrimental to them, or any runner actually. Butt had good racing knowledge, seemed to, in several mails to me. His address bounces now, pity. He was going to try HK. Tony Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Not snipped for completeness and reference First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Thu Dec 27 17:45:10 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 17:45:10 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <000801d49da0$8941dc30$9bc59490$@bigpond.com> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <000801d49da0$8941dc30$9bc59490$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <003a01d49daf$b694a6e0$23bdf4a0$@ozemail.com.au> "There were 1684 runners entered yesterday, across 167 races, with 277 scratched and 104 entered for Happy Valley. The oldest was Knucklemanna, 11yo, who did not run". There were by my reckoning 13 TAB Australian meetings with 1070 entered, 217 scratched. To date, I've only got results for 23 meetings Australia-wide for 147 races - maybe the results of the other 20 you have will dribble in in the next few days, or maybe you have some I don't gather results for, or....: *ALBAN *BALLN *BOWRV *CALOU *CAULF DROUI *ESPER *GEELO IVELL KERAN KING *MORPH *NEWCA *NHILL *PINJR QUEAN QUIRI *RANDW SAPCT TUMUT WAUCH WELLI *WWICK -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2018 3:57 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt There were 1684 runners entered yesterday, across 167 races, with 277 scratched and 104 entered for Happy Valley. The oldest was Knucklemanna, 11yo, who did not run. 1. When this was written,(The Observation), he, presuming Butthead is that, meant strategy for both stances, hedge and arbitrage (where he worked) 2. Nothing new as you say. Is there a case for full disclosure now, all runs, private or not, should be exposed, if the argument input is that betting drives racing, then this information is important. 3. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, certainly there is a sameness that rating comes back to the observable good runs. Times pick fast horses, weight ratings pick the same runners type of thing. 4.He, head, worked the distance races, jumps, etc especially, although he filtered every runner, every run. 5. Seems that way. Personally, me, alone, have trouble with Qld, whereas a friend specializes there, and lives there now and bets into a specific class and above there, although backs Qn everywhere 6. Really 7. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, again. 8. Same as 7 9. I work on other than settled strategies - presently $5 on a runner with a win within two runs after a spell , follow for three runs (fit, and placement). 10,11, & 12 Favorites, the perceived best runners in the race -there is a veritable library of writings about these, all true, most wrong on occurrence. An idea I had some years ago, a maxim, theorem, truism, axiom (without bashing the thesaurus at all), was the theory of the quiet shortener, a runner which may, or may not, ascend to fav. This activity applies to 9 also - in addition to a set bet I may have an interest in the runner which announces itself as the quiet shortener. 13 & 14 - no new information offered. Cheers There is good and sufficient reason to not bet. Owners, trainers, others, are part of the subterfuge to enable a runner to win a race set for it to do so -the reason for betting perhaps, and the remainder of us can get stuffed, to misquote a jockey recently. I am aware of two incidents, and have written of them, when a horse was set for a race, to be gazumped by another, also set. Nothing corrupt or seemingly gangsterish existed, both runners beaten had good form, good times, good riders, right distance, right track, everything was in their favour, or not detrimental to them, or any runner actually. Butt had good racing knowledge, seemed to, in several mails to me. His address bounces now, pity. He was going to try HK. Tony Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Not snipped for completeness and reference First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Thu Dec 27 20:32:59 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 17:32:59 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <003a01d49daf$b694a6e0$23bdf4a0$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <000801d49da0$8941dc30$9bc59490$@bigpond.com> <003a01d49daf$b694a6e0$23bdf4a0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000601d49dc7$28feffc0$7afcff40$@bigpond.com> Len - No, I just looked again and there are/were 1684 plus a heading and 167 races (based on TAB1 appearances though) so yes I have more, or..... Continuing, and for completeness, Saturday has the oldest as 10yo Cashed Up Bully ridden by K Rockett at Mareeba - (would he be called Davey in high school - or is that just me) Kerry is riding at 30% overall and has 6 or 7 wins in the last 10 rides. There are 1254 runners on Saturday in 116 races (off TAB1). I have them rated out now. I scratch adjust each race if I have an interest. I did a race and horse handicap course with WATC some years ago - Greg Carpenter and others took it. They were computer based, which hurried things for them but even in the closed racing of WA there is a lot of variables/vagaries Banding and numerical rating must help them surely. The art is correcting what they can't, or can't see, and I don't do that neither, but friends do, and ignore barriers in the process! Cheers Tony -----Original Message----- From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 2:45 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt "There were 1684 runners entered yesterday, across 167 races, with 277 scratched and 104 entered for Happy Valley. The oldest was Knucklemanna, 11yo, who did not run". There were by my reckoning 13 TAB Australian meetings with 1070 entered, 217 scratched. To date, I've only got results for 23 meetings Australia-wide for 147 races - maybe the results of the other 20 you have will dribble in in the next few days, or maybe you have some I don't gather results for, or....: *ALBAN *BALLN *BOWRV *CALOU *CAULF DROUI *ESPER *GEELO IVELL KERAN KING *MORPH *NEWCA *NHILL *PINJR QUEAN QUIRI *RANDW SAPCT TUMUT WAUCH WELLI *WWICK -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2018 3:57 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt There were 1684 runners entered yesterday, across 167 races, with 277 scratched and 104 entered for Happy Valley. The oldest was Knucklemanna, 11yo, who did not run. 1. When this was written,(The Observation), he, presuming Butthead is that, meant strategy for both stances, hedge and arbitrage (where he worked) 2. Nothing new as you say. Is there a case for full disclosure now, all runs, private or not, should be exposed, if the argument input is that betting drives racing, then this information is important. 3. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, certainly there is a sameness that rating comes back to the observable good runs. Times pick fast horses, weight ratings pick the same runners type of thing. 4.He, head, worked the distance races, jumps, etc especially, although he filtered every runner, every run. 5. Seems that way. Personally, me, alone, have trouble with Qld, whereas a friend specializes there, and lives there now and bets into a specific class and above there, although backs Qn everywhere 6. Really 7. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, again. 8. Same as 7 9. I work on other than settled strategies - presently $5 on a runner with a win within two runs after a spell , follow for three runs (fit, and placement). 10,11, & 12 Favorites, the perceived best runners in the race -there is a veritable library of writings about these, all true, most wrong on occurrence. An idea I had some years ago, a maxim, theorem, truism, axiom (without bashing the thesaurus at all), was the theory of the quiet shortener, a runner which may, or may not, ascend to fav. This activity applies to 9 also - in addition to a set bet I may have an interest in the runner which announces itself as the quiet shortener. 13 & 14 - no new information offered. Cheers There is good and sufficient reason to not bet. Owners, trainers, others, are part of the subterfuge to enable a runner to win a race set for it to do so -the reason for betting perhaps, and the remainder of us can get stuffed, to misquote a jockey recently. I am aware of two incidents, and have written of them, when a horse was set for a race, to be gazumped by another, also set. Nothing corrupt or seemingly gangsterish existed, both runners beaten had good form, good times, good riders, right distance, right track, everything was in their favour, or not detrimental to them, or any runner actually. Butt had good racing knowledge, seemed to, in several mails to me. His address bounces now, pity. He was going to try HK. Tony Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Not snipped for completeness and reference First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://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 From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Thu Dec 27 22:33:44 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 22:33:44 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <000601d49dc7$28feffc0$7afcff40$@bigpond.com> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <000801d49da0$8941dc30$9bc59490$@bigpond.com> <003a01d49daf$b694a6e0$23bdf4a0$@ozemail.com.au> <000601d49dc7$28feffc0$7afcff40$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <004901d49dd8$074fbcf0$15ef36d0$@ozemail.com.au> Tony, Another 7 race results came in for PENSH; getting closer. LBL -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2018 8:33 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Len - No, I just looked again and there are/were 1684 plus a heading and 167 races (based on TAB1 appearances though) so yes I have more, or..... Continuing, and for completeness, Saturday has the oldest as 10yo Cashed Up Bully ridden by K Rockett at Mareeba - (would he be called Davey in high school - or is that just me) Kerry is riding at 30% overall and has 6 or 7 wins in the last 10 rides. There are 1254 runners on Saturday in 116 races (off TAB1). I have them rated out now. I scratch adjust each race if I have an interest. I did a race and horse handicap course with WATC some years ago - Greg Carpenter and others took it. They were computer based, which hurried things for them but even in the closed racing of WA there is a lot of variables/vagaries Banding and numerical rating must help them surely. The art is correcting what they can't, or can't see, and I don't do that neither, but friends do, and ignore barriers in the process! Cheers Tony -----Original Message----- From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 2:45 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt "There were 1684 runners entered yesterday, across 167 races, with 277 scratched and 104 entered for Happy Valley. The oldest was Knucklemanna, 11yo, who did not run". There were by my reckoning 13 TAB Australian meetings with 1070 entered, 217 scratched. To date, I've only got results for 23 meetings Australia-wide for 147 races - maybe the results of the other 20 you have will dribble in in the next few days, or maybe you have some I don't gather results for, or....: *ALBAN *BALLN *BOWRV *CALOU *CAULF DROUI *ESPER *GEELO IVELL KERAN KING *MORPH *NEWCA *NHILL *PINJR QUEAN QUIRI *RANDW SAPCT TUMUT WAUCH WELLI *WWICK -----Original Message----- From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2018 3:57 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt There were 1684 runners entered yesterday, across 167 races, with 277 scratched and 104 entered for Happy Valley. The oldest was Knucklemanna, 11yo, who did not run. 1. When this was written,(The Observation), he, presuming Butthead is that, meant strategy for both stances, hedge and arbitrage (where he worked) 2. Nothing new as you say. Is there a case for full disclosure now, all runs, private or not, should be exposed, if the argument input is that betting drives racing, then this information is important. 3. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, certainly there is a sameness that rating comes back to the observable good runs. Times pick fast horses, weight ratings pick the same runners type of thing. 4.He, head, worked the distance races, jumps, etc especially, although he filtered every runner, every run. 5. Seems that way. Personally, me, alone, have trouble with Qld, whereas a friend specializes there, and lives there now and bets into a specific class and above there, although backs Qn everywhere 6. Really 7. I'm not sure, meaning I don't know, again. 8. Same as 7 9. I work on other than settled strategies - presently $5 on a runner with a win within two runs after a spell , follow for three runs (fit, and placement). 10,11, & 12 Favorites, the perceived best runners in the race -there is a veritable library of writings about these, all true, most wrong on occurrence. An idea I had some years ago, a maxim, theorem, truism, axiom (without bashing the thesaurus at all), was the theory of the quiet shortener, a runner which may, or may not, ascend to fav. This activity applies to 9 also - in addition to a set bet I may have an interest in the runner which announces itself as the quiet shortener. 13 & 14 - no new information offered. Cheers There is good and sufficient reason to not bet. Owners, trainers, others, are part of the subterfuge to enable a runner to win a race set for it to do so -the reason for betting perhaps, and the remainder of us can get stuffed, to misquote a jockey recently. I am aware of two incidents, and have written of them, when a horse was set for a race, to be gazumped by another, also set. Nothing corrupt or seemingly gangsterish existed, both runners beaten had good form, good times, good riders, right distance, right track, everything was in their favour, or not detrimental to them, or any runner actually. Butt had good racing knowledge, seemed to, in several mails to me. His address bounces now, pity. He was going to try HK. Tony Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Not snipped for completeness and reference First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://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 _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Fri Dec 28 07:16:04 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 07:16:04 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <001201d49d85$213bb7c0$63b32740$@bigpond.com> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> <004901d49cce$279d18f0$76d74ad0$@bigpond.com> <005c01d49d5b$6b15e9d0$4141bd70$@ozemail.com.au> <001201d49d85$213bb7c0$63b32740$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <004c01d49e20$fe9fbad0$fbdf3070$@ozemail.com.au> RKOZ: Wow, that's the dream result we all want just once a week! It highlights 2 simple truths: (1) Betting to MBL limits, it is more advantageous to bet place, assuming you can make the same profit% on place as on win, you will win much more long-term on place bets; in that example I was limited to betting $200/$500, so assuming a long-term profit of 10%, requiring betting $1m per year to make RW's indicative living profit of $100k per year, you can get there with far fewer place bets, and for those who, like Roman, seem to prefer shorter prices, a far less bumpy ride to that result. Further illustration : to back all 535 horses currently quoted on today's races at top current win price from the 10 bookies I monitor would require $95,165 outlay, but $153,525 could be bet on the place. (2) Betting to MBL limits it matters not what price you get about winners - if I'd bet at SP, 2.00 and, say, 1.20, I'd have had to outlay $1000 win and $2000 place, but win the same. What matters is what price you get about losers. Of course we cannot know which will lose or we would not bet them, so long-term it is very important to get the best price you can about every horse you back. From: Racing On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2018 12:40 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 7:42 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Roman, In my opinion the best advice about betting was what Sean Bartholomew said in an interview way back - he determines what to back then sets out to get as much money on at the best price he can; succinct but who can rationally contradict a successful approach? RKOZ: Cannot knock that principle at all. An example of the advantages of early betting - yesterday my best "over" , viz price obtained divided by SP/SOP was Nhill 3/7, where I got 6.00/1.80 (limited by MBL to $200/$500) at 9:29am and it SP'd at 2.00, Top Fluc also 2.00, with 2.10 available on-line at the jump. It paid 1.80/1.80 Top Tote, varying from 1.60/1.04 (Vic) through 1.80/1.60 (NSW) to 1.80/1.80 (Qld - place pool $651 - if I'd bet $500 into the pool it would have paid 1.00). RKOZ: Wow, that's the dream result we all want just once a week! The average price of place bets I make is 6.5, the average win price 30.9. Don't recall the last time I backed a favourite that was favourite when I bet. RKOZ:You certainly forage in the toughest area, Len. The massive jump in TAB's take-out on exotics a few years back (to pay ZR etal rebates?) killed my ability to make a good living betting into TAB pools, so reinvented myself yet again - don't know how many reinventions I've left in me; maybe the one I'm working on now will be the final hurrah! RKOZ: I have never made anywhere near a successful exotics approach due to trying all sorts of approaches I suppose rather than a static X for win y for 2nd and Z for 3rd in trifectas. LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 2:51 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt Hi Len, In between Caul races saw your post flash by. You WILL note I said "most punters" and not a desperado like yourself!!! Wow, that's why you win - it's all about the work pre post leading into post time. I have been pricing selections since June and have by the end of today a mere 268 mostly Victorian races but comments for them all and boy I find that tough enough. RK From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 2:10 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt " Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races." My time: (1) Daily download of yesterday's (or that day's if available before bedtime) results, correction of wrong jockeys and update of databases, 5 to 20 minutes per day (5 if no sus jockeys, can be 20 if a number to be chased up from Stewards Reports, videos...). Not time important, as long as it's done before first bets (jockey ratings are recalculated daily - there's "never" a horse backing up from yesterday). (2) Download of fields for day and initial processing - 4 to 10 minutes depending on number of fields. (3) Download of scratchings and jockey changes after official scratchings, and updating fields - 2 minutes, but can be longer if the download is behind and I have to manually scratch and enter jockeys. Repeated (3) as required (eg WA scratchings) (4) Program to analyse, produce ratings 1 minute. (5) Download of 10 bookmaker's prices 1-3 minutes depending on number of fields - 2:10 minutes today. (6) Program to match ratings to prices and produce recommended bets 1 minute. (5) and (6) repeated at will to produce recommended bets with new prices. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. and: best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. For large n, and excluding bets where there has been a late scratching (and thus likely deductions): I average 1.24 times Final Top Win ODDS (NOT price) from the 10 bookmakers (which is a tighter market than SP) and 1.15 times Final Top Place ODDS (and 1.37/1.29 for those that do place) Which should be enough to win, but you still have to bet on the right horses, but if 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections, and I consistently could get 1.24/1.15 times final odds, in theory I could pick by throwing darts and win. -----Original Message----- From: Racing > On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2018 12:47 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt First of all, greetings and salutations to all. I hope you have all had a great Christmas time with friends and family and the same for New Years Eve. As I am awaiting Caulfield I thought I would comment on the posting from Tony. I will do this with the RKOZ: interjection below Criteria for a successful selection strategy has evolved to At least 150 selections over 12 months Remove the best result from every 20 winners Produce 10% POT flat stakes (and this is now eked to 1-2%) And I still don't understand that. Fourteen observations on the punt 1. The market is efficient - like the stockmarket, there is no strategy that is better than the market over a large number of selections (although there may be people who hedge and arbitrage the betting market - bookies?) RKOZ: The word "strategy" is incorrect, I feel< and it should state the market order is efficient, that is, favs win more than 2nd favs who win more than third favs etc 2. Like the stockmarket, the real players use information that is not available to the wider market and not reflected in machine generated ratings RKOZ: Agree to a certain degree. Unknown info is an insiders market but I think it is more the use of public information and how you use it that makes the difference. An expert in distance does better, perhaps, than a punter who studies breeding as the first is based on history whereas the second is based on supposition yet the same info is available to all. Other areas of the punt i.e. days since last raced or jockeys are the same. 3. Machine produced ratings perform best with races 1000m-1800m and are biased to horses that run on the pace. RKOZ: First part disagree but certainly favour those who race near the lead. 4. 2yo, jumps, firstup, greater 2000M are not harder than other forms of racing but seem to require specialist skills. RKOZ: Contradictory. It must be harder if you need specialist skills, surelyl!! All aspects of the punt require special skills 5. Ratings perform as well in metro, provincial and country racing RKOZ: All depends on GIGI (garbage in, garbage out) but I don't use ratings so don't know if there is a difference or not. 6. It is easier to pick horses that will lose than horses that will win RKOZ: That's no great insight. 7. Plus 50 units is as good as it gets for any reasonable selection strategy - 150+ selections over a 12 month period - maybe for any selection strategy. Perhaps plus 100 units is as good as it gets for anyone anywhere except the exception. RKOZ: Just not enough stats there to understand the whole premise but I guess the suggestion is winning 50 units on 150 outlay. Gee, rack it up for your next house buy if you can do this. 8. Strategies with large numbers of selections - >10% of available races tend to 0% POT over time with a plus/minus 15% over any 12 months. RKOZ: At all odds of selections seems right as the longer the odds the less chance of winning. 9. Personal selections add at most 5% to any rules based selection strategy over time RKOZ: Assume means on top of a computer generated system. Would agree. 10. The easiest strategy appears to be based on identifying a couple of hundred true favourites a year RKOZ: Yes, agree. Hard to do but they are there. 11. Most identifiable true favourites are widely identified and are the late mail and firm into favouritism if they aren't already. RKOZ: Don't really know. 12. Reasons true favourites don't win -10% over-rated/20% bad day/30% jockey/40% others under-rated RKOZ: Seems reasonable. 13. Money management - best price/cost averaging across TABs is worth 5% and using a bookie maybe worth another 5%. RKOZ: Don't know about an extra 10% overall but yes plus 5 is certainly there. 14. There are many many other selection strategies that may or may not Perform RKOZ: So what. Dumb comment - means nothing. Posted by butthead originally RKOZ: Not sure about the rest. >From my point of view the author isn't really saying anything most solid punters do not already know. The better punters have researched their areas of interest (Len with jockeys as an example) and know those over and underbet and those who are poor back in a field It would be the same with trainers. Re computer generated ratings: what a waste of time for most punters simply because of time and so many races. It would be far easier to tackle the first four favs with the finest of microscopic investigation. AT least some of the ratings work has been done by the price assessors and then by race time others have added their knowledge. From there it is a matter of whether you agree and if you are good enough you win. Lunch is ready!! Ciao Roman Koz _______________________________________________ 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 Dec 29 01:04:07 2018 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 14:04:07 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: <004c01d49e20$fe9fbad0$fbdf3070$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> <004901d49cce$279d18f0$76d74ad0$@bigpond.com> <005c01d49d5b$6b15e9d0$4141bd70$@ozemail.com.au> <001201d49d85$213bb7c0$63b32740$@bigpond.com> <004c01d49e20$fe9fbad0$fbdf3070$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: (Snipped) "(2) Betting to MBL limits it matters not what price you get about winners - if I'd bet at SP, 2.00 and, say, 1.20, I'd have had to outlay $1000 win and $2000 place, but win the same. What matters is what price you get about losers. Of course we cannot know which will lose or we would not bet them, so long-term it is very important to get the best price you can about every horse you back." Hi Len, I'm somewhat befuddled by your statement above. a) Isn't it logical that it doesn't matter what price you get about losers, but what is important is what price you get about winners? b) In your example: Horse Wins - you win $1000 for the win bet and $400 for the place, how can you win the same? Lindsay. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sat Dec 29 07:29:08 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:29:08 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt In-Reply-To: References: <000601d49c2d$7bc92c30$735b8490$@bigpond.com> <003c01d49cbc$ea7f6830$bf7e3890$@bigpond.com> <003101d49cc8$828a7010$879f5030$@ozemail.com.au> <004901d49cce$279d18f0$76d74ad0$@bigpond.com> <005c01d49d5b$6b15e9d0$4141bd70$@ozemail.com.au> <001201d49d85$213bb7c0$63b32740$@bigpond.com> <004c01d49e20$fe9fbad0$fbdf3070$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <001301d49eeb$fc494370$f4dbca50$@ozemail.com.au> No, definitely No. I clearly stipulated " Betting to MBL limits". Under MBL a bookmaker is obliged to accept bets to lose 1000/400 (viz I win 1000/400). No matter what price I get, I win 1000/400 if I bet MBL limits. I got 6.00/1.80, so could, and did, bet 200/500 and won 1400. If I'd taken 3.00/1.50, I'd have been able to bet 500/800 and win 1400; if I'd taken 1.5/1.10, I'd have been able to bet 2000/4000 and win 1400. But I "never" bet at those short prices. Price about winners when betting MBL limits is thus irrelevant. If the horse was unplaced, I'd have lost $700; if I'd bet MBL at 3.00/1.50, I'd have lost 1300; if I'd bet MBL at 1.50/1.10, I'd have lost 6000. Prices about losers matters. I wish I could level stake every bet, but that's sensibly impossible with MBL - eg 18/12 Armidale 2/1, I had $5 the win at 201.00, $25 the place at 31.00 (Sportsbet allows $25 at any price and to $500 rather than MBL $400 the place unlike the more gutless wimps at BetZero who cling to MBL like it's a life-jacket) and same day 90/100 Morn 1/5 at 12.00/3.10 and $33 win only at 31.00 Armidale 3/8. From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Saturday, 29 December 2018 1:04 AM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: Re: [AusRace] FW: From the archives - 14 observations on the punt (Snipped) "(2) Betting to MBL limits it matters not what price you get about winners - if I'd bet at SP, 2.00 and, say, 1.20, I'd have had to outlay $1000 win and $2000 place, but win the same. What matters is what price you get about losers. Of course we cannot know which will lose or we would not bet them, so long-term it is very important to get the best price you can about every horse you back." Hi Len, I'm somewhat befuddled by your statement above. a. Isn't it logical that it doesn't matter what price you get about losers, but what is important is what price you get about winners? b. In your example: Horse Wins - you win $1000 for the win bet and $400 for the place, how can you win the same? Lindsay. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sat Dec 29 09:13:49 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 09:13:49 +1100 Subject: [AusRace] TopSport - big tick Message-ID: <003701d49efa$9c056980$d4103c80$@ozemail.com.au> Checked yesterday's bets this morning and at 6:23am notified TopSport by email that they had not paid me on Gawler 5/3 (place bet at 3.60). 8:03am, received email from TopSport apologising, and money credited to my account. First time I've had an error with them, so WELL DONE, unlike the more common practise of welching and relying on the NTRC to back the bookmaker ("we're on the same side" in an infamous email) or RacingNSW to ignore breaches. Keep on checking! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Sat Dec 29 13:17:32 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:17:32 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Hot new form element found - go D Message-ID: <000701d49f1c$a882ebc0$f988c340$@bigpond.com> Seriously, what happened at Cranbourne yesterday evening (1) Re-badge the place as Dranbourne - why? Race 1 Dwayne Dunn won Race 2 Dwayne Dunn won Race 3 Damien Thornton won, Clayton Douglas didn't Rave 4 Dwayne Dunn won, Dylans Star didn't Race 5 Dylan Dunn won, Clayton Douglas didn't on Don't Plead Guilty (swabbed) Race 6 Michael Dee won, Dwayne Dunn didn't on Duchess Grace Race 7 Clayton Douglas won, Damien Thornton nearly did, and Dwayne Dunn on Da Deputy came fourth (which disproves the theory somewhat, but you have odds to fix that) Race 8 Dwayne Dunn and Delvecchio won Yes, I spent 39 years 6 months and 1 day looking for nuances, but that only means co-incidents shout out also, like they shouted out yesterday I might be onto something indeed Cheers Tony No punting, wood harvesting today --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com From headlesschook at australiamail.com Mon Dec 31 12:40:15 2018 From: headlesschook at australiamail.com (headless chook) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 02:40:15 +0100 Subject: [AusRace] tab ubet xml Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From RaceStats at hotmail.com Mon Dec 31 15:43:18 2018 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 04:43:18 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] tab ubet xml In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ubet still has the JSON feed if that helps, and they will be keeping it for some time. Lindsay. From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of headless chook Sent: Monday, 31 December 2018 12:40 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] tab ubet xml tab.ubet closed the good old website the week before last. and @ xmas i was searching to see if there were any alts and, using duck duck "australia bookmaker xml" i found a forum where they were discussing the problem at forums.ozmium i write code, so i set to and lashed some stuff together and posted it on gitlab, using headlesschook as username and tab_xml as the project. i cant get a sub to the damm forum. Waaaaa. there is enough on gitlab to get my stuff running again and if it helps anybody else, i am happy. If anybody on this list can get hold of that forum and tell them, i will cheer. the code is ugly i have never written beautiful code, just stuff that works. it is python3, should work on python2.7 it runs on linux, i dont use anything else. SO happy new year for 2019. and may your email not be rejected ........ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: