I am 100% with you on all of the above Lomaca. The original point of my thread: County jockeys suck [or they would be riding in the city]. I bet the form. the jocks let me down just too often. I couldn't care 2 bits who they are. They do a lousy job and the ones who are OK and on a good horse I think can win, their price is crap. Lets face it, we are dealing with horses with 2 to 10% SR most of the time. Waste of time regarding consistency of form. Without that, you may as well stand over the toilet bowl ripping up $50 notes.

davez said the money for jam comment, not Duritz.

Duritz, my sincere apologies for the 'jam' quote that wasn't you. Very similar names and easy to confuse in the heat of things.

I do agree that Child's is a good Jockey, a wonderful rider in fact, but I don't think any Jockey in Australia has a POT figure [until I see evidence showing otherwise] for their rides, only a LOT figure. If they had a POT figure we all would have heard or read about it in detail by now.

If any good jockey is on a good reliable horse in the bush, you won't be seeing any 'overs' too often [a long wait between drinks], because all the other punters will be see exactly what your seeing, -the bleeding obvious. They deserve more credit than you seem to be giving them[?]: overs because the 'public' hasn't noticed? You have to spot things far more obscure than who the jockey is to find overs nowadays. Otherwise, how can there be overs on a horse in the bush capable of winning with Child's on-board? It does not compute. Unders is the more likely situation, a bit like looking for overs on a Beadman/good horse/Waterhouse combo. It will be a long wait.

My initial reply here in this thread to nobody in particular, was basically a response to flippant one-liners in general [meaning] that it's simple to win, just do this or that etc.etc.

Winning anywhere is a hard ask, winning in the bush is especially hard due to the mostly low class, unreliable runners and unreliable rides from jockeys [all three often combine to make a mess of anyones handicapping or ratings].
I'm sure many here get a bit peeved with the 'simplicity of winning' theories trotted out in this forum and the underlying innuendo often accompanying them -'winnings easy unless your a dummy [or I'm a genius]'.

If it was simply to win, we would be rolling in it. If we were enjoying that situation, we wouldn't be here unless we just enjoyed slumming it :-)

Yeah I agree re the jocks, ie that you can't blindly follow one, and that "overs" is not as easy to find as just finding a skillful rider. To paraphrase Oliver (D, for Damien, not D for Dickens), - "the best jockey is the one who makes the fewest mistakes."

I think that those theories..... which I prefer to class as anecdotes...... have clearly caught some punters eye and clearly the occurrance (i.e. G Ryan getting 4 winners, #14 winning twice on one day, the top weight wins 4 out of 9, the short-priced maiden winners popped up twice, Following Brendan Tupper.... etc etc)....has repeated/occurred again.....

I wouldn't classify theses as serious systems and I doubt very much that the "intelligent" forum members - expect to profit from them - and would only actually follow thier "theory" (with very little capital investment - as you correctly pointed out it's too hard to win to donate back to them) - where they have not attempted their normal amount of analysis...... and would like to appease their desire to have a "small" wager...

IMHO, these theroies/annicdotes are similar to those threads such as - best jockey, luckiest win, top 5 horses..... memories that are recounted.... and of course are to be discounted as a "Real winning" theory..... but then again.... creativity opens doors to insight.......


Be Good !

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

what a load of twaddle.

its not a system
do not bet on every ride
take your glasses off, give em a clean & reread my 1st post
there was not ever any implication "its easy to win & your a ****wit if you cant"
dont quote me stats, they are meaningless

my original post was intended to be of assistance because once again you appeared to be banging your head against whatever, last time i make that mistake

Davez,

Angry exclamations and saying stats. mean nothing doesn't really give any more weight to your original point that following Childs in the bush is 'money for jam' [it is your quote isn't it?].

OK, so we don't 'bet on every ride', which ones then? A little indication of your meaning might not go astray if you were [genuinely] try to help, otherwise It just leads to thinking you mean only following the Child's rides that win at good odds[?]. If that's the case then we can all 'clean our glasses', throw away our stats. and follow your original kind lead to riches in the bush :-) Obviously that is not what you meant [I hope].

can you not read properly? you continually misrepresent &/or misunderstand the meaning of posts that many members make & then go on & on & on, trying to do ....hmm what i wonder, then again i dont.