Fernlea25

Yep... a holiday surely. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it is from the same litter as Allegro Roxs?

I can't really decide where I stand on the whole issue. On the one hand, I can't stand Tom Waterhouse and would love nothing more than for his face to disappear from our television screens. On the other hand, isn't punting essentially all based around obtaining information which others don't have? I regularly see betting plunges on horses for which there is no discernible reason other than that someone knows something. Likewise horses who on paper appear winners often drift in betting and perform accordingly. Is the real issue here that Tom is a bookmaker and not a professional punter? Do we view what has happened differently given that he sits on the other side of the game from the majority of us? Punters who are close to a large stable are always going to do better than punters without any connection to stables as the access to information is different - is this wrong? I'm simplifying the matter too far most probably as the biggest issue is why the owner was not told of any problem with the horse. But I don't see why Gai would start the horse if she knew it wasn't right... surely she must have thought the horse was okay to run? Obviously there is plenty to come out about what actually went on and we may or may not ever really know. What doesn't quite add up to me, though, is why Tom would tell Andrew Johns that he didn't like More Joyous, yet come out in his own defense once the news broke and say that he had backed the horse and lost money as a result. I don't think Andrew Johns would lie about the conversation, which means Tom lied (1) to Andrew Johns, or (2) about backing the horse and losing money. Why did he lie? Did he realise he had done wrong by disclosing information he knew about More Joyous, and then lied about losing on the race to try and cover up the issue? Or did he just lie about not liking the horse to Andrew Johns? Surely it's the former and not the latter - why would he tell Andrew Johns he didn't like the horse if he actually did? I'll be following this story with interest!

I'd much rather play the $2.50 FF about Thrilling Quest than the $2.10 around Thrilling Brat. I know Quest was the slower of the two heats last week but I think it'll jump straight to the front and stay out of trouble. I'm just not sold on the Brat at Wanganui. I thought Working Working and Cawbourne Flick would both be good place bets off the 1 draw, see they are paying $2 and $1.70 FF respectively so not a lot of value but maybe a little multi on the two of them.

I have this same concern, JackSprat, and have mentioned it on a different thread previously. The basic example I gave was - assume $100 is bet on a race, and for argument's sake say after the take-out that the return to the punter is 80% of this, so $80. If no one gets the result right, the $80 will jackpot to the next race. Is that whole $80 then returned to the punter on the next race, or is only 80% of the $80 returned to the punter? i.e. $64? If it's the latter then the TAB just got $36 off the original $100 spent, rather than the $20. I would love someone from the TAB to come on and answer that one for us.

I don't like the bonus money system. The people who bet on a race deserve to be the ones to collect the returns. As far as I'm concerned there should be no jackpots or carry forwards - even a small percentage should scoop the pool if they're the only one to correctly pick the result, and if no one picks the result of a particular bet type correctly then it should be terminating. I'm sure the TAB loves these because they generate significant additional interest. But, how is it fair that people betting on a carry forward or bonus race have the chance to collect money carried over from a race they didn't even bet on? Doesn't seem right to me.

The owner generally pays the mileage. If the petrol voucher is kept by the trainer and isn't deducted from the owner's bill then the trainer is effectively being paid for the mileage twice.

I saw its first start and looked a little sideways at its performance... Surely getting a holiday after today?

I always enjoyed the quick-fire dual dog meetings that we had running on Tuesdays for a while a few months back. 24 races all over in about 3 hours across two venues - perfect for squeezing in a few punts during the lunch hour. Agree that I definitely invest less when there's a long wait between NZ races. I'm more inclined to go and find something else to do. But 15-18 min gaps are good. Do the TAB not like dog racing on Saturdays and Sundays for some reason? i.e. they think these are "prime time" spots?

Can't believe this thread is still going! Flogging...a...dead...horse...

I agree Sheepshaw, I think there has to be a selection criteria. Whilst I also agree with ReillyM that you sometimes get very odd situations like this with Zebediah arising, it would open a massive can of worms to make selections discretionary. Just to contradict you slightly, ReillyM, I would suspect that there are a number of races (particularly C5 sprints) where the turnover would be better if the best dog in the field wasn't there. Over the past couple of years the majority of C5 sprints in NZ have had red hot favourites - such being the way that in form sprinters often just win start after start after start.

Give up on the maths there, Bear.

Went to the Wanganui dogs on Friday night for the first time in a few years and thoroughly enjoyed the night out. It was the first time I had seen the 'new' grandstand and thought the facility was excellent, It was good to see so many people on course (and a large number of young people). I even managed to back a few winners. Told the missus I'd streak a 520m if Thrilling Brat got beat, but thankfully for all on track I reneged on that promise... the place would have emptied out in no time at all. I liked Rosemore Osti off the 1 box and got a wee bit of the $3.20ff and the $7.20 quinella with Cool Charmer. Also had a few place collects with Cawbourne Flick, Magic Lass, and Enazuma. I lost most of my profit on the aforementioned Brat who raced so wide I could've just about leaned over the outside rail and given it a solid kick up the arse coming down the front straight both times. Apart from a somewhat unfriendly tote operator who didn't seem to know a lot about customer service it was a really enjoyable night... plenty of selection at the bar, the meal was good, comfortable facilities... perhaps could use 1 or 2 extra tote windows?? I will be making the drive up from Wellington more often on a Friday afternoon.

Agree completely. I'm actually amazed as to how many people disagree with this - very surprising. I think the TAB have it right

Sorry Dustydreamnz, I missed that you had already commented about Man Oh Man

I don't want to knock a greyhound but Man Oh Man is one of the worst non-chasers in recent memory. How on earth it was allowed to start 76 times is beyond me and actually a little bit disappointing from the perspective of the repute of the industry. It had too much ability to have stayed a maiden chaser, so it's a bit different to the dogs who continue to be raced even though they don't have the talent to compete in C0.

I understand what you're saying Idolmite... I just don't agree with you. You bet on a runner to place, yes, but your runner hasn't run third in the conventional sense, it has basically only half run third (and half run fourth). I like to think of it that there are never really 4 place-getters, there are only ever 3 - it's just that the 3rd spot is shared by 2 runners in the case of a 2-runner dead heat for third. To me, it would therefore follow that the place dividends of the 1st and 2nd runners are unchanged and the dividend of the shared 3rd place-getters is halved. To me, the argument of "When you back a horse for a place and it wins, you don't expect a share of the win divvie do you, because you actually backed a winner?" is a bit of a red herring and not actually the question at hand. We just have a difference in opinion of how this should work so I doubt any level of explanation on my part would change your way of viewing this (and I'm sure the same is the case vice versa). All the best

I disagree with Steveh and Idolmite. There was nothing more frustrating under the old rules than backing a runner for a placing, have it come first or 2nd, and then lose a large portion of your dividend because 2 runners deadheated for third. If you backed a horse and it dead-heated for third, why should you get more than half of your dividend? Yes, your horse ran 3rd, but I guess technically it also only ran 4th - therefore half your dividend. Surely that is fair? What relevance does the fact that 2 runners dead heated for third have to do with either runner that finished ahead of it?? The old system to me was completey bizarre and I think the way it's being done now makes far more sense. Stake money to the first and second runners isn't reduced so that both third place-getters still get a full pay-out for coming third, is it? I'm not sure where the 8% loss of dividend calculation comes from - my understanding was that under the old rules, the place pool was divided equally into 3 lots, 33.3% each. If there was a dead-heat between 2 runners for 3rd, the pool would be divided into 4 lots of 25% each. Therefore, your dividend would actually be reduced by (33.3% less 25%) / 33.3% = 25%. So you would actually lose 25% of what you would have got had 2 runners not dead heated for third (again, which should have been of no consequence to the runners finishing 1st and 2nd - in my opinion). I will agree with Steve re the rounding down of these half dividends. The take-out by the TAB on all bet types is bordering on a disgrace - surely rounding up of these would be the decent thing to do. I have also noticed the TAB rounding down place dividends in order to subsidise rounding up a runner to $1 for the place where a runner places with a price of less than $1. I'm a bit indifferent to this as I can see the reasons why, but awfully frustrating when you back a runner and end up with a lesser dividend as a result.

I think, if anything, the win by Border Control on Friday night only vindicates the criticism of the drive in the Northern Derby.... as Charles Barkley would say, it was TURRIBLE

You spelt inaccurate wrong

Whether Border Control had the ability to winning the race is totally irrelevant. The fact is, he was not driven in the way that would have given him the best possible chance of winning the race, and this should be punishable under the rules of racing. His best chance was clearly to take a sit behind the favourite and charge up the passing lane in the home straight. Some on here seem to be saying (without wanting to put words in people's mouths) - "it's okay to sacrifice a horse if it doesn't have a realistic chance of winning". I don't think the rules allow this kind of discretion. The point that a couple of people have tried to make being that the favourites ran 1st, 2nd, and 3rd is also completely irrelevant and quite hard for me to fathom. Is everything legit simply because the favourite wins? I don't think so. If you had a place bet on Border Control you could feel quite aggrieved that it was esentially used as the sacrificial lamb for the stable-mate. Driven more appropriately (and more objectively), the horse probably had a very good chance of filling a top 3 spot, particularly given the huge performance it put up after being savaged in the lead. If it wasn't already plainly obvious I'm clearly in the camp that the stipes need to get some backbone and start asking drivers and trainers the hard questions, particularly surrounding tactics adopted during races in the context of "giving the horse the best possible chance to obtain the best possible placing". Good debate on this topic though.

Maybe he's the mystery tote manipulator!

I didn't hear it but it must have been bad to be one of his worst!

Absolutely dreadful. Tote pools generally so small though that if you want to have a decent nudge you're forced into taking the options.

Agree that the drive of Ricky May was poor rather than anything more sinister, but shouldn't there still be accountability for that?

Ricky May's name seems to be popping up time after time for this same thing. If he were driving in Australia he'd have spent half his career suspended.