yeah - what is the point - those sorts of form comments are merely the opinion of one newspaper writer. Most seasoned punters would prefer to ignore the remarks entirely as they have their own opinion.

stack up POT for most newspaper tipsters and you'd be lucky to find one that is in the positive.

Other than targeting horses with negative comments from the race reviewer , I am still non the wiser what you would like comments on.

I hope its not a sort of "Riddle me this Batman" game.


Heres one.
Target top 6 selections from anywhere & bet all those with negative race comments from race reviewer & hope the Fav does not win all day.

Must be 4.50+

__________________
Cheers.

You're a suspicious lot. I need those who view but don't post to comment. The more feedback the better.

Ok Lets see.
This is a one out piece of data relating to one contender for an up comming race.
Had 5 starts for 3 placings, reasonable contender.
Of the 5 starts, we are only shown 4 (12s03)the fifth and first was unplaced
however, this exposed form shows potential.
It is increasing in distance (up 200m ea start) with only marginal weight
diff from first start back (.5kg) this would be considered within it's scope.
Track conditions of previous runs; dead to slow, if current conditions, same or better, it is in with a chance.
Days since runs about same approx 20 days.
Lightly raced
My money is on

G'day Barny. I'm a bit befuddled? Are we supposed to glean the six examples of ??? from only the text you've given in the original post, or from our own research of Whoishe's form leading into that 3/1/09 race?

__________________
...time held me green and dying, though I sang in my chains like the sea. - Dylan Thomas

If we're just supposed to glean pointers from the given text from the opening post, then:

- Better results from increasing distances. Finished 12th at 1412m, then 3rd at 1600m in it's last 2 races. Could suggest it's better suited to a longer distance, which it's about to get.

- Decreasing margins as fitness increases coming back from spell (and possibly being gelded). Finished 6 lengths back 1st race back from spell, then only 1.6 lengths back in it's 2nd race back, and about to race it's 3rd race back from spell.

- It had never raced on a Good track before, but you couldn't glean that from what was given.

- The wording "lucklustre" and "just fair" suggests that maybe the trainer wasn't targeting or intending to win either of those first 2 races, and maybe even told the jockey to ride on pace early knowing that the horse probably wouldn't last the distance on pace, but would at least gain some fitness needed to race out the 1800m distance in Whoishe's 3rd race back from the spell.

- The Bookies SP price compared to the tote price is a bit of a clue that the horse isn't a bad prospect. The Bookies are basically broadcasting to the public that they don't want to take any bets on Whoishe. I remember one time a few years ago when I was still pretty green to racing, I blindly went to put a bet on with a bookie in the betting ring with about a minute to go before the race, and he just smiled at me, and suggested I go put it on with the Tote instead. He didn't want my money, even though it was only $50. From memory, the bookies price had been $5 and the Tote price was over $12. It was stupid of me not to check the Tote price before I'd gone to the bookie, but I'd just forgotten to check first. The horse won of course, and when I walked back into the betting ring after the race, the Bookie winked at me and smiled. Say what you will about bookies, but they are pretty smart to be able to identify a likely winner even though it might be $12 on the Tote.

Are any of those points what we're supposed to be looking for Barny?

__________________
...time held me green and dying, though I sang in my chains like the sea. - Dylan Thomas

Just set yourself up now with a mag titled say, "unspeculative injvesting" or maybe "impracticle betting" sock it too em' and charge like the "Light Brigade" with every disclaimer under the Sun, and you've "made it"!

Used to be a lot of good discussions on here, years ago, maybeI’m not the best at starting them eh? I’ma bit disheartened at the lack of responses and whatever was said to me thatended up being moderated.

Silver and sand pretty much got to the guts of most of thepoints but there were two points that I consider important but I actuallycouldn’t be bothered going into a lot of detail because it appears worthless. But the summary of a couple of worthy pointsare;

1) Most systems end up with the first four in betting andthe comparable tote figures to the SP reflect the popularity and unders when asystem horse wins.

2) The improversmethod (which darkydog2002 touched on) outlined in my original post, with acouple of filters, and selecting the correct race (a 5/1 ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Melbournelace> Cup winner is the same as a 5/1winner at Wagga) throws up some serious longshots with maybe half a dozen betseach week.

I did say “All will be revealed” but I would really only be givingmy info to the lurkers who don’t bother posting. So I’m reneging.

OK Moderator, as soon the OP will post something worthy of making a constructive comment on I will.

Until then will YOU do us all a favour in return for supporting your forum, by sending posts like the one in question to the general forum where all and sundry drivel is allowed?

Will you?

Thank you Sir.

Sorry...Riddles & cryptic messages just does not cut it

How can anyone put forward anything constructive , it would all be guessing trying to unravel what the point may be .

Then get all huffy when folk say they cant make head nor tail as to what you are tying to say.

Why not try just getting to the point without the smoke & mirrors like everyone else does on this forum.

We could all put up volumns of text , then ask ... now what do you make of this , it happens all the time.

What is it that happens all the time?

__________________
Cheers.