talk

Thanks for the commentary Stodge.

The point is how can anyone criticise someone else's work if they can't do any better. The Shark makes no claims at being an expert. The selections are there for those people that can't be bothered picking their own. And hw do we know how well the shark does. Not one critic willing to front up and give that comparison. Deriding one race meetings picks by the Shark is hardley a fair sample.

A lot of people bagging the TAB's selector, yet no one willing to show they are a superior selector. LightsOut, Nomates, Mike28, ivanthegreat - give it a go. Post at a similar time and see how you do.

Is that a yes or a no then Nomates?

Nomates - how about posting your selections, so we can see how you go head to head with The Shark?

$35,000 put through the TAB (pick 4) would have incurred a takeout of about $9,000

Has Leo got his application in?

Upperhand Race 7

R1 1, 8, 9, 14 R2 9, 12, 13, 14 R3 1, 2, 10, 13 R4 3, 4, 6, 12 R5 4, 7, 11, 15 R6 2, 3, 4, 8 R7 3, 8, 11, 16 R8 1, 4, 5, 11 R9 7, 8, 10, 13 R10 3, 7, 8, 15 R11 2, 12, 16, 18 R12 9, 10, 13, 15 Thanks

I hope you have a great day. You have good fields and, with a smidgen of luck, some good weather. Chers Tony

My thoughts are with you Cubes. My deepest condolences. Tony

Des was on radio to drive turnover for the TAB. By talking to trainers and other tipsters he was able to provide people with some knowledge which was an incentive to bet. He wasn't there as a conduit of change. In my opinion he is a loss to racing, as is radio coverage.

Randwick R1 7 R2 8 R3 12 R4 8 R5 5 R6 10 R7 2 R8 9 R9 13 Flemington R1 7 R2 1 R3 8 R4 9 R5 5 R6 10 R7 10 R8 13 R9 13

Take note Cubes - no lights on in the Woolston TAB

I agree nomates. Surely there must be some algorithm they have used to make their decisions including such things as turnover, disposal value of property, cost to run meetings, upkeep cost and use for trials and training. I can think of no reason that such algorithm would not be publicised to industry participants.