Peter Harrop

I can only hope Mike, for you sake, that you don't show any ability in your punting. If you do, and assuming the evidence out there is correct, your bet365 account will either be closed, or you will be put on ridiculously low limits. That's why some people call them Bet $3.65. That's how some of these corporate bookies operate. They want people to bet with them, entice them with deals etc, but only if they lose.

Perhaps you can give us some "popular" policies that a populist could latch onto that will benefit NZ Racing?

I don't think I am. My point is that populism isn't always right. Hitler was very popular.

These Trump threads are ridiculous and beyond contempt. If a populist guy means someone who makes fun of the handicapped, brags about the way he is able to abuse women, relentlessly insists that someone releases their birth certificate because the president can't surely be a black man, and going by his display in the campaign has no sense of manners or decency, and who behaves like a child when he doesn't get his way, then no, I wouldn't like to see NZ Racing or NZ, as a country, being taken over by a populist guy.

Cheers! Thanks.

By better service and better betting options offered in Australia, I presume you mean the way they ban you if they get an inkling that you may know what you are doing? In such a scenario, what's the point in even trying?

I will be punting where 1) I know the horses form (ie not Flemington) 2) I think I can get value I'm not personally bothered by the stakemoney.

So we put an all weather track at, let's say, Matamata. What then? Do we ring up all the trainers on Friday afternoon and advise them they have to transport their horses to Matamata instead of Otaki? Then they have to find staff at short notice. Then there's the clash with nearby Rotorua. Then everyone who punted midweek based on the races being run on a heavy Otaki will need their bets refunded. Then the bookies will need to reset the odds. Then horses will scratch due to them not be suitable to all weather. Then they have to try and find some chips and hotdogs from somewhere ... and so on. I would have thought it would be easier to scrub the meeting rather than shift it at short notice to wherever the all weather venue is.

Or would the plan be to make the surface of one track completely artificial? So the Te Rapa turf would be pulled up and relaid with an artificial surface? And would this be very risky for the club? Avondale and night racing jumps out at me.

I'm not convinced it would be good value for money. If the all-weather track is allocated to say, for example, Te Rapa, how many races will actually be run on it? Maybe 40-50 races a year tops. Surely during spring through summer they are going to be mainly wanting to run on the turf. If the Foxbridge Plate is run on it, how many of the good horses would line up? The surface would be something completely different to turf. Instead of scratching for bad weather, many trainers would scratch due to claims that their horses are not suited to the artificial surface. And many other horses would not have even raced on the surface before. Plus the turns will be much sharper if its on the inside track, also perhaps not suiting another band of horses. This also affects punting as there would be very little form to analyse on the artificial track. And this is besides the cost vs population/punting dollar argument.

.... but I agree with you noonu. A 9 year old with an injury ridden past has highlighted NZ racing's poor staying ranks. Seems most of the good ones end up with C Waller, Australia, after their name.

It's you're

Generally I agree with you, but surely saying that owning a horse is to 'meet new friends? prizemoney is not paramount, it's the social outings etc?' is not party policy, on this occasion? I would have thought that what he said there was anti-establishment and that the official line would be that people should own a horse in order to make money?

It's time to go Des? Go where? Des is one of the best things on the station. He offered an opinion. I thought opinions were what people wanted? And incidentally I happen to agree with him on this topic. Essentially you don't own a racehorse to make money. You own one in the HOPE of making money (most don't), much like buying a lotto ticket. Usually the benefits come in the kudos and the socialising and the hobby aspect. It comes down to supply and demand really, as a higher stake level will see a greater demand and therefore greater costs. A similar percentage of owners will always lose. There are some aspects of the industry I would definitely do differently (for example : lowering takeouts for the greater long-term good and returning trackside to free for view to give it the widest exposure), but people have been complaining about the 'state of the industry' since I can remember, and that's a considerably long term. I hazard a guess you could go back 30 years and find an article somewhere about the perilous state of horse racing in NZ. And yet we're still here, and will still be here in another 30, and another 30 after that (even if I won't be).

Yea true. Surely if the first 2 placegetters beat quality horses, then shouldn't that signify a high quality field? I would have envisioned even better fields in the coming years under the new set weight and penalty conditions.

Easter is an iconic race. Thought with the likes of Rasa Lila, Sakhees Soldier, Mabeel, Julinsky Prince, Abidewithme and Snapshot (6 wins from 8 at the time) plus 12 other runners, that last years edition was Group 1 quality. And the year before that the field was even better. Vespa, Kawi, Allez Eagle, Mighty Solomon, Abidewithme, Addictive Habit, Julinsky Prince, Pondarosa Miss, Chintz ....

Barry, you're underselling the interest. Rugby won 2 (All Blacks, Dan Carter) of the 5 awards at the Laureus World Sports Awards in Europe, voted on by journalists and sportsmen worldwide. When was the last time anybody from Aussie Rules or Rugby League did the same? Rugby is actually on the rise worldwide with participation numbers skyrocketing in recent years. Australia isn't the be all and end all. I'm sure none of the Aussie Rules fans over there care how their game rates in NZ.

Well, there were about 70,000 people at the game in Sydney last week. So there's about 70,000 Aussies who give a f---. And the salaries you can get playing rugby in Europe are massive, so there are quite a few there who give a f--- as well. The World Cup there gets sell out crowds. And there's no rule that you have to care about 1 game above another. I enjoy many different sports codes. But the Chiefs are my team in the rugby code and I'll keep watching and supporting them, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Plus, I find the actual rugby as a sport very entertaining.

Not sure it's fair to compare the stakemoney of the two. The rest of the Australian states are more likely to bet on a South Australian meeting than an NZ one. Therefore South Australia has a much bigger pool of betting money compared to NZ, despite their lower population.

Sure. Krishna won on a $42 shot at Ashburton on Friday (which I hadn't taken account of yet in the above stats). More like a 50% profit on turnover now. Has a strike rate of 18.2%, roughly the equal of Lisa Allpress and Matt Cameron, without the same quality of horses to ride.

Krishna Mudhoo. Has a strike rate as good as anyone, and if you'd put $1 to win on all his rides this season so far, you would have cashed in to the tune of 38% profit on turnover.

I never said there wasn't a bias. I haven't really delved into it. When there is a theory, I enjoy looking into the stats to see if the theory has validity. That's what I was doing with my posts here. Trying to work out if there is evidence of a bias To work it out properly, we really need to work out what percentage of the total runners are Ruakaka trained. 31% of the winners trained at Ruakaka doesn't sound so good if we were to find out that 31% of the starters were trained there.

In the 5 meetings at Ruakaka over July-August last year, 29 of the 42 races were won by non-Ruakaka trained runners.

In the 4 previous meetings at Ruakaka (before today), a total of 24 races were won by non-Ruakaka trained runners. Just 9 (27%) were won by Ruakaka runners. Would be interesting to see what percentage of the total number of runners at those 4 meetings were locally trained. I'm picking pretty close to 27%.

On one hand you say Ruakaka has a terrible bias towards horses trained there, and then on the other you say those same horses are overbet and represent little value. Isn't that contradictory? And if you feel some horses are over bet, doesn't it present opportunities to punt those horses which are under bet?