• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by chiknsmack

  1. 13 hours ago, Joe blogs said:

    If you have own a dog you will know you have to qualify


    17 hours ago, chiknsmack said:

    (I'm a punter and former licensed owner who never actually owned a dog, so I don't know all the ins and outs).




    13 hours ago, Joe blogs said:

    You can not nominate the computer system will not let any dog into a field that isnt qualified 

    And the dog has qualified 

    Thanks. The info is up now on GRNZ. He won in 23.99 over 410m at Palmy last Monday. I'd have him clear second pick on that (at $3.50, with Bigtime Stella $2) so I've had something on him at $9.

  2. Anyone know anything about this dog, on debut in the first at Palmy tomorrow? There's no qualifying trial details on either the TAB or GRNZ websites. I thought maybe he qualified on Friday and so info hadn't been updated, but wouldn't he have been nominated for the race last Tuesday? Are you allowed to nom non-qualified dogs? Or do you not actually need a qualifying trial to be allowed to race? (I'm a punter and former licensed owner who never actually owned a dog, so I don't know all the ins and outs).

    It's a maiden, the field is Bigtime Stella vs Harpoon Harry vs not much else, and Stella's no star by the looks of it so I probably won't be betting. But it'd be nice to know how Harry goes, if anyone's willing to share any mail.

  3. On Bigtime Willow's profile page on GRNZ, her trial from the 15th of February is listed twice. The first time, the winners time is given as 17.72, the second time as 17.42.

    The winner of the trial was Bigtime Wendle, on her page it's listed as 17.42.

    The runner up was Blazin' Carter, on his page it's listed twice, the first time as 17.45 and the second with no time given.


    If it was really 17.42 or so, Willow would've run around 17.75 and should be $1.50 favourite for the c1 today (as she is). If it was 17.72, she hasn't broken 18 and shouldn't be fave. I guess the fact that the market has her $1.50 means that 17.42 is the correct time, but I shouldn't really NEED to guess.


    I might just take the 3&4 quinella instead. Depending on the trial time, Willow either blows past Light Cruiser or struggles to get past her.

    Screenshot from 2019-04-17 10-37-06.png

  4. Hokitika makes sense; it's a poor track where there is already a surplus of tracks. Dargaville makes sense, you can go all-in on Ruakaka. Stratford has some close neighbours too, so if the locals are happy to close it to focus on the others, that's cool. If Thames can sell up and buy into the new Waikato Greenfields setup (a "RACE Inc." of the north to hold 40+ meetings a year hosted by half a dozen different member clubs), instead of having to give the cash to NZTR to fund a million dollar Derby or two,  then that's fine.

    Waimate, Winton and Wyndham are all dual-code. So NZTR no longer programming races there doesn't mean NZTR can force the harness clubs to sell and give the money to NZTR, which was Messara's plan. It does mean that locals might swap involvement in the thoroughbred code for involvement in the standardbred one, so HRNZ will be happy.

  5. 1 hour ago, Emotive said:

    1. Under what circumstances is the fee refundable? The available info states on return to Australia?

    Seems pretty straightforward then.

    1 hour ago, Emotive said:

    2. What about if the dog dies during its racing career?

    Return it to Australia, get your money back. Don't, then don't.

    1 hour ago, Emotive said:

    3. What if the dog is stood at stud or becomes a broody?

    Return it to Australia, get your money back. Don't, then don't.

    1 hour ago, Emotive said:

    4. What if the dog is not rehomed via GAP, is rehomed via another agency, or is rehomed privately?

    Return it to Australia, get your money back. Don't, then don't.

    1 hour ago, Emotive said:

    5. What if the dog is retired to the owner's couch?

    Return it to Australia, get your money back. Don't, then don't.

    1 hour ago, Emotive said:

    And what about the puppy farmers and their massive contribution to the rehoming issues we are experiencing presently? Are we doing anything to address that issue?

    Every time there's an attempt to dictate breeding restrictions from above, NZ breeders get upset about being told what to do by people who know less than them. And rightly so, IMO.

    Think of the $2000 (should be $5000) Import Fee as not only a fee to cover the cost of Australian dogs being rehomed in NZ, but also as an obstacle to prevent average Australian dogs coming here in the first place. The fewer imported dogs we have in the local racing population, the more room there is for locally-bred dogs. The more room for locally-bred dogs there is, the fewer restrictions that are needed on NZ breeders. The fewer the restrictions on NZ breeders, the more dogs will be bred locally. The more dogs bred in NZ, the more demand there will be for purpose-built rearing, breaking and pretraining facilities run by experts using world-leading skill and technology, which will lead to better NZ-bred dogs.

    If you wanted to tweak the import policy, you could say that c5-winning imports get half their import fee refunded and group placegetters/finalists get the whole lot back. So the best performers can stay in NZ for breeding without being penalised.

  6. 5 hours ago, GOM said:

    Two dog races. not likely to be much excitement.

    Isn't he calling two of the earlier race as well? They might be exciting.

    Two dog races can be exciting, or at least interesting. I've always wondered if it would be worth trying some two dog straight-line lure coursing on the thoroughbred tracks during the "Summer Festival of Racing" or whatever it is where you have big crowds of once-a-year racing patrons in attendance. Have GAP dogs wandering around for people to pet, have the public get up close to the racing, give them something to watch between horse races. The surface might not be good enough, and they like to keep the grass (far too) long nowadays so it might not work.

    I've done alright betting on match races in the past with the Shootout or whatever in Oz so count me as someone who it excited for the two dog races, regardless of whether or not the best racecaller in the country is calling them..

  7. On 3/25/2019 at 11:23 AM, Nasrullah said:

    Doesn't mean Eminent can't be a good sire especially on heavy tracks. His highest Timeform rating is 120. 

    Before the Ranvet the talk was that he didn't handle wet tracks at all and was best on top of the ground.

  8. They were saying that they would pay out on winning fixed odds bets and refund all losing fixed odds bets. So people were able to get on at some stage (and got a very generous "bet to lose nothing"). And tote betting at retail outlets was available all the way through.

    The race was delayed for quite a long time after a jockey was dislodged in the prelim and injured his back, maybe that had something to do with it. Or someone hit the "Close Betting" button accidentally?

  9. The "80" is used to account for their deduction. If they did "100 divided by price of scratched runner", the deduction would be bigger.

    I believe they got the 80 from assuming a 125% market on average. 100/125 = 0.8. They could probably change the formula to use the actual market percentage, but given that they're now using Paddy Power/Sportsbet prices (which, on Australian racing, are from markets set lower than 125% close to race start time) it's probably better financially for punters that they don't. Plus having 80 as their standard number means punters can calculate in advance what their expected payout is, and the TAB won't receive a bunch of complaints from people arguing about their deduction being too big.

  10. On 3/17/2019 at 12:12 PM, poundforpound said:

    So under S16 $$$$ distributions to the code are based on domestic share, so if you’re proposing less meetings can I presume you also want a smaller share of the industry pie ?

    Code distributions are based on domestic share of turnover. If fewer meetings (with higher stakes) mean larger fields, and larger fields mean more turnover per race, you could potentially increase thoroughbred turnover (and therefore code share of total turnover) by running fewer meetings.

  11. A 55% deduction implies the late scratching was paying $1.45 when it was scratched (Deduction% = 80 / price of scratched runner). The closing prices (before deductions) of the field that went around add up to 52%, so if the closing market was at 120% that leaves 68% to have been taken up by the late scratching. A 68% chance of winning equals a price of $1.47 or so, so the deduction looks about right.

  12. 1 hour ago, scooby3051 said:

    Cant win on cattle if they are slow...give the guy a never made a mistake in your life??? How do you know the horse does not go better for him than anyone else. If you look at the form of the horses he has been given to ride his results are pretty good.

    He's ridden one winner from over 100 rides this season. If you're saying his results are "pretty good" given the horses he's been riding, you're saying that his average ride is a 100/1 shot.

    He rode four winners last winter, at an average price of $8.60. His winner this year was a $42 shot, but even if he was exclusively riding $42 shots and was an average rider you'd expect him to have won three races from 120-odd, not one.

    For every dollar you've put on his mounts to win in the last 12 months, you've gotten back 47c. I know you like to protect jockeys around here and that's cool. But you can do that without pretending -53% PoT is "pretty good".

  13. 1.  Randwick R1 : 2.30pm : 5

    2.  Randwick R2 : 3.10pm : 6

    3.  Randwick R3 : 3.45pm : 2

    4.  Flemington R4 : 4.05pm : 1

    5.  Ellerslie R7 : 4.15pm : 6

    6.  Randwick R4 : 4.25pm : 1-2-4 TFA

    7.  Flemington R5 : 4.40pm : 12

    8.  Ellerslie R8 : 4.50pm : 6

    9.  Randwick R5 : 5.00pm : 1-7 QLA

    10.  Flemington R6 : 5.15pm : 23

    11.  Ellerslie R9 : 5.27pm : 11

    12.  Randwick R6 : 5.35pm : 1

    13.  Flemington R7 : 6.00pm : 10 BB

    14.  Randwick R7 : 6.20pm : 8

    15.  Flemington R8 : 6.35pm : 3

    16.  Randwick R8 : 7.00pm : 9 BB

    17.  Flemington R9 : 7.20pm : 12

    18.  Randwick R9 : 7.40pm : 7

    19.  Ascot R4 : 7.45pm : 2

  14. On 3/7/2019 at 1:48 PM, slam dunk said:

    Bookies should not be allowed to monitor individual accounts. They should be on a level playing field with the punter. If Chris Waller has $1000 win on Winx that information is private.

    Raises the question if a trainer has several starters in a race the one he bets on is obviously dynamite information.

    There are two options for bookies to deal with winning punters. They can ban them, which leads to complaints to consumer organisations that bookies are discriminating against people by not offering the same odds to everyone and leads to winning punters using bowlers to get bets on (or racing authorities bringing in minimum bet limits, meaning that anyone taking bets on, say, NSW gallops, has to accept any bet from anyone to lose 2k after 9am on raceday). Or bookies can "cop the tip"; accept the bet from the winning punter and accept the fact that they'll lose money to this punter long term, but that the information they get from seeing this good punters bets will help them figure out their markets.

    You'd have a hard time telling bookies that they aren't allowed to know who is placing a particular bet, especially since there are AML reasons and racing integrity reasons that they could use as excuses.

    On 3/7/2019 at 3:10 PM, poundforpound said:

    My logic is that trainers, jockeys and syndicate managers should be allowed to bet on their own runners / mounts .... but they have to publicly declare the bet to the raceday stewards......wouldn't you want to be on if 10 minutes before the off tomorrow it was announced that Jamie Richards & David Ellis had 10 grand to win on Aotea Lad ?

    I agree with this. I'd make it that bets by connections have to be placed and stewards notified by 9am so they can be publicised as early as possible. It's not much use being told the trainer has climbed into one 10 minutes before the off when you placed all of your bets for the day before the first or left it out of your quaddie.

  15. 2 hours ago, Akcam said:

    The stats on various track conditions (fast, good etc) often do not add up to the horse's total starts

    This is because there's a problem with the good & slow stats. They show the slow track stats under both dead and slow, and don't show the dead stats at all.

    If you go to the extended form, the stats are correct.

  16. Isn't the VRC Derby a good test of the early-maturing 2000m+ horses? It isn't usually won by a horse that goes on to be an elite 2400m horse, but it's often won by the best horse at the time (a horse that combines precocity with the stamina to get the trip).

    Given that owners nowadays are more likely to be urban syndicate members who want to buy a yearling and have it up and running ASAP (as opposed to farmers who can send a mare to the local stallion and chuck the foal in the back paddock for a few years to mature), and given that we just flat out can't compete with Australia for precocious FAST horses, AND given that Euro imports are taking over the open-age 2000m+ races, isn't there good value in the NZ industry focusing on VRC Derby-type horses (early maturing 3yo 2000m+ types)?

    There should be 1400m 2yo races in March (or even February), starting with changing the Ellerslie Sires Produce Stakes back to 1400m. 1600m 2yo races in April and 1800m 2yo races in May should be added too. The horses we should be trying to breed can have a 2yo prep where they get to stretch out a bit, then go for a spell before aiming up at all the Derbies at 3. The best of them can then train on to compete with the Euro imports, while the next tier down can go around on the NZ stayers circuit as older horses.

    It'd be nice to see prizemoney tilted in favour of longer races too, so that a R75 2000m+ race had the same prizemoney as a R85 mile or an open handicap sprint. Account for the fact that getting a horse to run over longer trips takes more time and more training, plus the fact that we want to encourage a focus on breeding and racing stayers. Greyhound racing sort-of does this (420m+ races have higher prizemoney than sprints), but they don't quite account for the fact that sprinters can race more often than middle distance dogs.

  17. 2 hours ago, Flabbergasted said:

    To take it further they could have simply put in one rule amendment that basically said "If you do name a dog that is later found to be crude or offensive etc. then the name will be immediately changed and a large fine and possible suspension imposed as a deterrent.

    This happened to a guy in Australia last year. He gave a horse a name in a foreign language which was offensive and got suspended for 18 months.