its not an equitable way of distributing gates.

What a cool idea MyHatMyCoat, works for me :smile:

On the subject of gates umrum:

An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman were without tickets for the opening ceremonies of the summer Olympics but hoped to be able to talk their way in at the gate.

Security was very tight, however, and each of their attempts was met with a stern refusal.


While wandering around outside the stadium, the Englishman came upon construction site, which gave him an idea. Grabbing a length of scaffolding, he presented himself at the gate and said, "Johnson, the pole vault," and was admitted.


The Scotsman, overhearing this, went at once to search the site. When he came up with a sledge hammer, he presented himself at the gate and said, "McTavish, the hammer." He was also admitted.


The Irishman combed the site for an hour and was nearly ready to give up when he spotted his ticket in. Seizing a roll of barbed wire, he presented himself at the gate and announced, "O'Sullivan, fencing."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

__________________
Ta me go maith

Everyone has their own ideas on things but a professional punter I know who has won for the last 60 years completely disregards jockeys and barriers.
Bad barriers beat bad horses and ensure a better price.
If people make their pay packet betting they should be taken notice of irrespective of what we all think.

...and a bad jockey can defeat a good horse but a good jockey will never defeat a bad horse.

I can't think of too many tracks that I would confidently back an outside barrier in a 1000m sprint. Horses for courses I think.

Cheers.

I can't think of too many 1000m races with large fields that I would even want to bet on regardless of barrier! Generally the larger fields in 1000m races are made up of inexperienced horses with ************ all exposed form.

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

How about Flemington?
:smile:

"Horses for courses" is one of the most overrated sayings I can think of. There are horses that do well at certain tracks, but this is a miniscule number compared to the number of runners.
In fact there is better value amongst horses that have never won on the track - horses that have won a lot of races on the track are usually overbet and undervalue.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 412,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

'Horses for courses' meaning one race at time, one track at a time and one bet at a time. Nothing over rated about that.

Horses that are over bet are generaly called 'favorites'. Meaning what, we should only back the 'value' long shots in outside barriers ? Phooee. You still have to spot em' and back em' and I bet we would get it wrong enough times to look financialy silly. A bit too much backfitted punting going on here [as usual].
Nothing wrong with shortish prices and comfortable barriers [ pull yourself togeather guys. Waxing lyrical a bit arn't we ? ].

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-10 13:54 ]

A bit too much backfitted punting going on here [as usual].

Where? I don't see any (at least on this thread!).

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

Horses for courses means horses perform well at certain tracks and poorly at others.
This is based on retrofitted goobledegook and not as you say one race at a time.
A horse that has won four starts at Caulfield and is racing at Caulfield will always be a couple of points shorter than it's realistic chance of winning.
A horse that is racing at Caulfield for the first time but has won at Moonee Valley four times will usually be at least close to a realistic price depending on other factors.
research of prices for in excess of 14,000 races shows this.



Price and value are two different entities.

BACKFITTED RESULTS CRASH,

Strange I haven't seen you know who from THAT magazine posting on this thread.

Actually they are very kind' they just sent me an email saying I can pay a deposit on my credit card and pay the balance monthly.

My question is that I have subscribed for the last 12 months and if what they send you was any good why would I have to pay off a new subscription.

I would just be happy to pay cash.

Shows how much crap they peddle.