Don Frampton

Sheriff has taken the words out of my mouth. Bookmakers have been laying horses to lose for yonks. BF is just one more bookmaker (so long as they have to release betting info if anything looks to be dodgy - just like other bookies have to). BF is much better for the average punter though - because the average bookmaker (layer) on BF is not so clued up. Also, the prices vary all over the place while you are locking them in (often on more than one horse at a time).

I think Aussie Racing Retro screens again on channel 36 Trackside tonight - at 9 o'clock. In my opinion, the worst case I've seen as regards intent in recent times. If it wasn't so serious, the JC could be excused if they were to spend most of the hearing laughing as to the sort of pathetic excuse that might be offered (like perhaps he was on drugs at the time, causing him to think the winning post was at the 250m mark).

If you saw Aus Retro and the Cahill ride (I think it was in the provincials, but it is the one which is the subject of a charge that the horse was not allowed to run on its merits) surely this should add a whole new dimension to protests! Tongue in cheek naturally, but the connections should have fired in a protest alleging interference from their own jockey. Best guess: but for the restraining action of the jockey costing the horse about 8 lengths in the last 300m, the horse looked like he wanted to bolt in by about 5L - all this malarky going on when in the clear with no other horse rear-ends around to disguise his actions. In fact his subtlety was so lacking, the TAB should run a book as to whether he'll get 1 year, 2 years, 5 years (or life - given racing doesn't need blokes in the game who are not fair dinkum).

It's very hard to rock the boat when they think they are sailing in smooth waters. Look they haven't even got the GST issue across the line yet (you know, the one where for the most illogical of reasons, owners are asked to stump up for GST on a trainers share of the prize pool - offered, paid, controlled and determined soley by NZTR). To be fair though, I belieive they are still working on it (albeit I think in an altogether too complex way, which I won't go into). Anyway, they read sites like this I am told and any one of them with a bit of resolve, vision, determination, foresight, logic, grassroots understanding could.....

Not a lot to do with my concept, but a good side-issue nonetheless. Why not do that anyway - as it is logical and I am all for logic-based thinking!

I understand your comment now. The reason I did not immediately click was because I was still thinking of addicted gamblers (as opposed to people running clubs). But you make a good point.

Notwithstanding Leggys comment in no 6 which might use up a few "bad" barriers and make the idea even more workable was that ever to be the case, I don't think you grasped the meaning in my last paragraph. Thus I will repeat it again for you... "Barriers are not only in the eye of the beholder, but they can be more suitably selected to suit perceived or real track bias, likely race tempo, slow or fast beginners, weather forecasts, forecast changes in track ratings, order of race on the program, race distance and other factors specific to individual horse characteristics such as change of gear and experience/inexperience know by connections at time of acceptance." Thus 90% will probably not ask for that barrier range for all the reasons I have given. My best guess is 95%+ would indeed specify their preferences and on summer tracks, preference 2 will be just as popular as preference 1 and for slow get-away horses, preference 3 will be popular too. And on rain affected tracks, deep tracks or even marginally affected tracks later in the day or on easy tracks which some think will get worse if a shower arrives or on tracks with a back-runner bias; preferences 3 and 4 will be very popular for much of the year. Remember also, the stepped "raffles" would start with the most popular band range moving in turn to the next most popular - so ensuring, with spill-overs, the most popular band ranges would be filled ahead of the less popular.

Thats a bit rough. What about the first emergency who is sweating on a wide drawn horse scratching - so he can get in the field and be a good punting proposition from his 6 draw?

I should add that if the preference-bands (of 5 barriers each) were as follows: 1 = a preference for barrier range 1 to 5 2 = a preference for barrier range 6 to 10 3 = a preference for barrier range 11 to 15 4 = a preference for barrier range 16 to 20 5 = a preference for barrier range 21 and over Then... upon acceptance you could advise your order of band preferences as say, for example: 1,2,3,4,5 or 2,3,1 4,5 or 5,4,2,3,1 or 2,1, then any or any Naturally this would be entered into a suitable computer program (that would not need to be particularly fancy, costly, or necessarily integrated into any existing system - in fact a spreadsheet might even be able to handle it). Upon the push of enter, it would immediately crunch the stepped preferences to printout final barrier allocations. Naturally the stepped process would deal with the most favoured band first so that splill over preferences are directed to 2nd preference bands next and so on. On thing is absolutely certain, for a little bit of creative time and effort invested, many more connections will be happy with their barrier position. I know there have been many occasions where a horse of mine has received a barrier that others think is ideal yet I would have confirmed a preference for the very barrier they supposedly see as unfortunate (and though preferences, two unhappy connections might have both been made happy with their draws). Barriers are not only in the eye of the beholder, but they can be more suitably selected to suit perceived or real track bias, likely race tempo, slow or fast beginners, weather forecasts, forecast changes in track ratings, order of race on the program, race distance and other factors specific to individual horse characteristics such as change of gear and experience/inexperience know by connections at time of acceptance.

Not quite sure I understand your post.

Has any racing jurisdiction ever thought of being more flexible with draws at time of acceptance? Thinking about what computers do for us these days, I wonder how hard it would really be for the Racing Bureau to take draw-preferences at acceptance time in (say) bands of 5 out from the rail. I say that because some connections scratch their horse because they draw wide, and others scratch when they draw in 9being horses who are slow to find their feet). And some will think they know the track bias better than others and want to draw in or out or mid-field when others will have the opposite thoughts. Why not keep more connections happy all at once by giving some choice. It could all be done through a computerised step-down process. For example..... While no horse would have to specify a preference (so he would feature in the last draw of untaken barriers) lets say Horse A states a preference for inner band 1 to 5. If coincidentally only 5 horses state that band preference, then only those 5 horses between them would draw lots for barriers 1 to 5. If 6 horses accepted for that band, the horse who missed out would be free from elimination his second preferred band, and so on for all 4 or 5 bands etc. Anyway, such a system could easily be designed and it would definitely result in slightly bigger fields - which is always a plus for TAB betting per race.

Now that is more like handicapping. I believe we should all just decide the rules and computerise it all like we do in the case of most other routine things in this modern world of ours. By all means, change the rules for the computer from time to time, but at least the potential for bias and human errors will no longer be the concern. Basically, design the rules to achieve whatever handicapping outcome the industry desires from time to time. Actually, I have just thought of an unrelated efficiency that computers could help us with - to increase field sizes or reduce scratchings - so I will put up a separate post on that one.

Now that is more like handicapping. I believe we should all just decide the rules and computerise it all like we do in the case of most other routine things in this modern world of ours. By all means change the rules for the computer from time to time, but at least the potential for bias and human errors will no longer be the concern. Basically, design the rules to achieve whatever handicapping outcome the industry desires from time to time.

You raise an interesting thought there Kopia, even if it is a bit tongue in cheek... If the Maori Party are making the case that gambling affects Maoris more than anyone else, then why not specifically restrict all Maoris from gambling? If Maoris capable of self-control are unnecessarily tarred with such restriction, at least such injustice is less than tarring all those of similar self-control within the much larger general population. If the Maori Party's special patronising approach to their own folk is to be taken seriously, wouldn't that be a specially targeted solution leading to a more effective outcome? Of course a better plan might be to identify and restrict potential gambling addicts per se, of any race or creed - but that is too obvious to the wowsers and those that believe certain groups are so special and that everyone else should suffer as a result.

Not really. Too many intermingled causes are always mixed into turnover changes - and even moreso over short periods.