RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.

Fernlea25

Members
  • Posts

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Fernlea25

  1. Despite my last post about the beloved Steve, I actually think most of the presenters do a good job. One thing that does get under my skin though, is where the studio presenter is talking when the horses or dogs jump from the starting gates / boxes, and instead of just shutting up and playing the commentator, they continue to finish their sentence, stating "they're now racing at Timbuktu, let's get you across to the track, this is Race number 7, and your caller is ............". By the time they pick up the commentary, you've often missed the first 5 or 6 horses the commentator has called. When you aren't familiar with the colours this can be a bit of a pain. I know where the race is, you've been showing it on the screen for the past 2 minutes, same with the race number, and I really don't give a flying faaaaark what the race callers name is.
  2. He's quite popular so I'm going to be unpopular for say this, but Steve Davis - biggest dick head on Trackside. Mondays during the Palmy North greyhounds is an ear-raping I can barely stand. Why he is giving out tips on greyhounds is beyond me, yet still has to gaul to often criticise the Video Watch that Matt Nicholls has come up with... "How on earth has he come up with this one!??? Just look at the track stats, hasn't run a place in the last 3 starts, I couldn't have it" He then proceeds to lecture you as to why the short-priced favourite just cannot get beat and why you should be piling as much money on it as you can... and then after the race (when his tip has got beaten, as it invariably does): "It's not an exact science people, I keep telling you, it's not an exact science". I love a bit of presenter personality as much as the next person, but give me a robot / drone / puppet to read cue cards any day over this idiot.
  3. I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't make any difference. Surely a heavier weight requires more force to pull, wheels or no wheels. The "studies" saying that the weight is of no consequence was probably done by someone of larger disposition who drives harness horses. Ricky May sits too still on short-priced favourites too often for my liking.
  4. Agree. Hence I don't believe Kim Dotcom is a thief.
  5. That he stole? If I posted something on this site which is trademarked, copyrighted, or patented, does that make you a thief?
  6. What are you suggesting Kim Dotcom has lied about? I think John Key and John Banks are the liars.
  7. I thought the opposite. Check out the run to the first bend - his head isn't looking at the lure at all, it's looking straight at the dog outside him (which jumped slightly in front of him).
  8. Fernlea25

    Trevor

    Personally I think Daryl Robinson is very good. Tipping out half the field (or more) seems to be a prerequisite to get a job on Trackside, so a bit harsh to single out Daryl. I actually think he does a good job of throwing out some value in his selections rather than just picking the faves. I think Roso is an excellent presenter but I don't think he has the voice for commentating. Peter Earley is a legend but I don't think he's as sharp as he used to be. Trevor Wilkes sometimes struggles but his enthusiasm for the sport and the job make up for his shortcomings in my opinion. I think the ranks are pretty strong in New Zealand for commentating dog races. The Aussies are generally accurate but they don't always sound very excited to be there - probably because they're calling hundreds of races per week.
  9. A lot of people still attempt to honour their "debts" following bankruptcy even though in the eyes of the law the debts no longer exist. Paying back the debts, or attempting to, would no doubt help people to forgive and forget, and have more faith that he was trying to make a genuine fresh start.
  10. I remember horses rearing up just before the starter lets them go in the gallops and being declared late scratchings (i.e. not receiving a fair start). That is purely the fault of the horse... nothing to do with the starting gates or any other runners. If a harness horse isn't going to reach it's spot on the gate, why not just abort and try again? As far as I'm aware, the race starts at the time the mobile reaches the starting point and pulls away... not at the time when the mobile first starts moving... so horses are being put out of play and punters' dough done for things which happen before the race has even started. Gallops races don't start with horses still standing behind the barriers because they were being difficult to load (and still declare them starters).... they don't just say "sorry you failed to fill your position so now you can start at the back". The loading process is before the race starts, just as scoring up behind the mobile is. The race shouldn't be started until all horses are in position. By ruling a false start when a horse has galloped behind the mobile or not scored up you are not disadvantaging the other horses. Certainly no more than when gallopers have to stand in the stalls for 5+ minutes while they muck around loading the badly mannered ones. You can still punt on the trots while the horses are scoring up, so if they aren't going to declare a false start when a horse isn't going to get a fair start, you should also be able to cancel your ticket during that time. At the moment this is only the case if you've put your bet on within the last minute or so beforehand (and within the bet cancel time limit). These rules are burning punters, and they are going to end up with either 1. people only betting once the horses are scoring up and they can see they'll get a run for their money, or 2. turning people away from the sport and onto something else.
  11. Fernlea25

    Trevor

    Yep constructive criticism is good, I just think that this getting to 8 pages means it has become more of a "let's all just rip shreds off Trevor" thread. I fully appreciate everyone's right to their own opinion and to voice that opinion. If we all thought the same way, life would be boring. I know you, Dusty, like Roso's calling... me not so much. Whilst he can go on about his selections / bets sometimes which is a little annoying, it's never been enough to put me off having a punt on the Addington dogs and I imagine the same is the case for most punters.
  12. Fernlea25

    Trevor

    I was thinking about Trev and this forum the other day... I've bagged him a couple of times, but feel someone on here needs to put in a good word about him. The guy has a huge amount of enthusiasm for the sport and for his race calling. Some of the low-grade racing out of Addington is pretty horrible stuff but Trev still tries to make it sound exciting and is quite informative in his pre-race info he passes over. I don't think the guy is a particularly good tipster and I don't tend to follow his tips much, but at least he always sounds happy to be at work and like he has a genuine passion for the sport. That's more than can be said for some of the zombies they have presenting on the tele these days, commentators included. Yeah he stuffs up his commentaries sometimes, but so do all of them. I appreciate the effort he makes to give you his selections for the quaddie or the treble or the place six prior to the first leg - even if I don't really follow them, some people might. Most other commentators don't even make mention of it. As far as I know he's not turned up fit to perform his job and while he may not be as talented as some of the commentators we've got it's probably about time to stop bagging him on here because I don't think it's productive.
  13. Same deal with Queen Rowdy in the last race I believe. W & T Steele on NZGRA, Peter Taylor on TAB website. No point complaining to the TAB though, can't remember them taking responsibility for an error yet. It would be interesting to know the legalities of the TAB providing incorrect information about their 'product'. Any sellers of 'products' in the more conventional sense have a legal responsibility to provide correct information about said product... and as a consumer, you are entitled to take that information in good faith that it is correct, and if it isn't, the seller has made a misrepresentation and therefore breached their obligations. Further, as a purchaser, your contract is with that seller, not the original producer who the seller has purchased the product from. A shop-keeper therefore cannot pass the buck if they have sold you something on a false pretense, or where information provided was incorrect. When I place a bet, I am a purchaser of a product, and the TAB is the party I'm contracting with. For them to then blame NZGRA, Thoroughbred racing, the racing clubs etc when a mistake is made (misrepresentation) would seem to be out of whack with contractual law. Whilst the TAB clearly don't make mistakes on purpose, they do tend to have a fairly slack attitude to it when they have made a mistake. It is sad the NZ public don't have an alternate local betting agency which would act as an incentive to the TAB to lift their game in this respect.
  14. I'm surprised anyone still watches after the departure of Paul Henry... That Rawdon is dreadful
  15. Clearly he doesn't read RaceCafe... Or maybe he does and just wanted to get under your skin yesterday haha
  16. This debate has been had on RaceCafe many times before. I think people forgot that with the sheer number of dog races in New Zealand each year, it becomes a statistical probability that some dogs will draw the same box multiple times in row, or much more often than others in their career. There is a 1 in 8 chance that a dog gets the same box twice in a row, which means that roughly 1 dog in each race (on average) should start from the same box it had in its previous start. Just like there is a 1 in 64 chance (on average) that a dog gets the same box 3 times in row, so one dog in every 8 races, i.e. more than 1 dog per meeting. Say a dog drew box 1 at it's first start. The next time it is entered in a field, it is just as likely that it draws box 1 as it is for it to draw 2, or 3, or 4... The whole mathematics behind the draw being "random" means that anomalies are likely to occur from time to time. People just think it happens for often because they remember the unusual ones... they forget the thousands of normal ones each year.
  17. He's doing very well thank you - has settled in great and we have lots of fun together. Absolutely no regrets about adopting a greyhound and stoked to have got this big fella.
  18. Favourite dog is Thrilling Ransom... Cost me plenty in the early days of his racing career when he was super quick but erratic, and now he's costing me even more as he's my recent GAP adoptee. Super dog
  19. I understand the races at Cambridge were hand-starts today after a failure with the starting mechanism led to a no race in the first. I'm not 100% sure if both the 375m and 457m distances were hand starts, but I think that they were. I'd be interested in the thoughts of those more learned than me on these matters as to how much the slightest difference in the time the boxes open can make to the way greyhounds begin. I think we can all agree that the first 20m to 30m can be absolutely critical to the outcome of a dog race. Whilst I'm sure starters are doing their best when triggering a manual start, it must be virtually impossible to replicate the timing of automatic starts. I taped some races today and saw that in the C5 457m the clear best two beginners were the 7 and 8, neither of who are notoriously fast trappers (albeit that the 8 was fresh and up in weight), and other dogs in the race who generally jump quick (Fancy Idol and Fancy Jill) were both pretty indifferent at the start. I know trying to draw any conclusions from 1 race is pretty silly given that they are dogs and not machines, but I just wondered whether the timing of the boxes opening contributed to this? Someone once told me that a long lure at the start will lead to the dogs drawn the outside jumping better, and the boxes opening slightly early will be helpful to the dogs drawn the inside. Thoughts? On another note (but kind of related), anyone who has watched the greyhounds from Warragul may have noticed on the tele that the triggering mechanism for the traps seems to be a few metres past the boxes. I've also noticed that a number of dogs miss the start very very badly at Warragul - it may be that there are a lot of inexperienced / poor dogs racing there - or it may be something related to the timing of the boxes opening. Surely the rules require the placement of the triggering mechanisms to be standardised across all tracks?
  20. Yes, life would be quite boring if we always agreed. To me, it's a bit like playing the Cricket World Cup on the sub-continent, then having the final on a green-top in the UK. Greyhound racing is just such a dogs-for-courses sport that I'd prefer to see the best 8 for that particular track. I'm thinking more from the perspective of the owners/trainers of dogs who are proven performers at Auckland (and which would probably have been legitimate winning chances), but missed out, while others who have never raced there got starts. I know that finals don't always end up with the best 8 dogs going around (bad luck in heats etc), but at least it's a level playing field. Sorry - I know this thread was to praise the Trackside coverage and I've railroaded it somewhat.
  21. I'm sure plenty will disagree with me, but I don't like the idea of running heats at different venues to the final. Yesterday, there were 4 dogs in the race who hadn't raced over 527m at Auckland and another who had raced there once previously and was unplaced. Some may say that it adds a bit of interest, but in my opinion it results in a weakened field. Pretty negative post from me, which I don't mean it to be It just seems strange to me that you'd be able to qualify for a final over 527m at Auckland by winning or running 1st or 2nd over 457m at Cambridge... even the form between Addington vs Wanganui vs Auckland doesn't always stack up very well... each track is different in it's own way. I know Piggy Back qualified via the Cambridge route, but he probably would have qualified via any of the venues. If you were to select 8 dogs to race at Auckland, you probably wouldn't have selected half of the ones who lined up yesterday. For a Group race I just think it makes more sense that the heats and final are at the same venue. Thoughts?
  22. What happens to the current commentator? I thought he was doing a very good job given the size of the boots he was trying to fill... was he always purely a stop-gap? I'm sure Roso is a lovely guy but the jury is out on his commentaries for mine