poundforpound

How y’all looking now

116 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, Leggy said:

Exactly. All the data I have seen suggests that fields over 7 or 8 runners of course do greater turnover, but at the same time less and less turnover per runner. Berri, if you have a solid business case supporting this idea, please put up the hard numbers, not just your dream. The industry is in the position it is because of wild ideas that have been implemented based on dreams rather than sold evidence, thoughtful analysis and hard data.

In another area, I saw a quote the other day along the lines that if you feel a hypothesis coming on, have a lie down until it goes away. I'd suggest you consider that Berri.

I rather like your last comment Leggy....and thus I’m sharing my latest motivating mantra...

Success is not owned...it’s rented...and you’ve got to pay the rent every day....

NZTR started forgetting to pay the rent about 30 years ago 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Leggy said:

Exactly. All the data I have seen suggests that fields over 7 or 8 runners of course do greater turnover, but at the same time less and less turnover per runner. Berri, if you have a solid business case supporting this idea, please put up the hard numbers, not just your dream. The industry is in the position it is because of wild ideas that have been implemented based on dreams rather than sold evidence, thoughtful analysis and hard data.

In another area, I saw a quote the other day along the lines that if you feel a hypothesis coming on, have a lie down until it goes away. I'd suggest you consider that Berri.

As long as it's not the same''solid evidence,thoughtful analysis and hard data'' that is used to get Stadiums built around the world.

Berri,imo is thinking about where racing in NZ should be headed,not just for tommorrow but 30/40 years ahead.

Its not all about 25 horse fields or 2k long tracks it a heap of things,none of which will be resolved by new incoming imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 3:33 PM, Berri said:

It wasn't the winter racing that stuffed it up, it was the facility and the service. Simple as that. If you have winter night racing, then make sure you don't have to wear Antarctic weather gear to prevent hypothermia. If you don't have women, you don't get men. If you have cold, you don't have women. What's so difficult?

If you don't have good quality meals, you don't get those that can afford race horses to be there. Same as drinks. So if you don't have them both, you don't get people with disposable income going there. Imagine if the Sky Casino only served cod chips, pies and sausage rolls, gave you average carbonated warm beer, and encased the entire floor in a refrigerator. How long do you think it would be for the droves to leave?

101 in hospitality I would have thought.

Always thought the lights idea didn't make sense but then after they were installed perhaps the experiment could have gone a bit longer. However the timing could not have been worse. Many restaurants and entertainment centres went out of  business. Those that survived did so at great cost.

Now Berri you seem to know a bit on UK racing. Don't the UK racecourses have an organisation that concerns itself about the asset structure of the courses as opposed to the racing. Why not here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, crustyngrizzly said:

As long as it's not the same''solid evidence,thoughtful analysis and hard data'' that is used to get Stadiums built around the world.

Berri,imo is thinking about where racing in NZ should be headed,not just for tommorrow but 30/40 years ahead.

Its not all about 25 horse fields or 2k long tracks it a heap of things,none of which will be resolved by new incoming imo.

Agree with your latter comment c&g. Not sure that ''solid evidence,thoughtful analysis and hard data''  have been used to get stadiums built around the world however. Often more like someone's dream.

Can't really buy the 30/40 year plan idea. Think the world and change are far too dynamic for that to be useful. Isn't it racing's persistence with a 30 year old plan that is long past its use by date what has got racing into the pickle it is now confronted with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 6:04 PM, Leggy said:

I think that everything else being equal, you'll find that for the most part, two 12 horse fields will do more turnover than one 25 horse field. In NZ two 7 horse fields do more than one 14 horse for example.

You're so intent on proving your short sightedness it's quite overwhelming. I can feel a hot flush coming on...

Numbers are not the only thing that matters. The conditions of a race, the competitors and the historic value are but three variances that will determine the outcome of betting turnover in any race. What you thickies haven't yet cottoned onto is that under the right circumstances, with the right conditions, horses with 25 runners or more are the biggest betting events. That's just a fact. The Melbourne Cup vs the Golden Slipper. Which one has the greatest betting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if it's hard data, what I will do is post the World's biggest betting events. I will then next post the most successful betting events in terms of stakes vs betting. The only term of reference I will post is that only tote turnover in considered because getting bookie numbers is neigh on impossible to validate. Just give me a day or two to recover from the drive from Jaffaland to the cold south. When you see them you can take what ever you guys are taking and add a couple.

You're all wrong if you think small race numbers improve betting.  If you do, go get your tickets early for the next trains to la la land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Berri said:

And if it's hard data, what I will do is post the World's biggest betting events. I will then next post the most successful betting events in terms of stakes vs betting. The only term of reference I will post is that only tote turnover in considered because getting bookie numbers is neigh on impossible to validate. Just give me a day or two to recover from the drive from Jaffaland to the cold south. When you see them you can take what ever you guys are taking and add a couple.

You're all wrong if you think small race numbers improve betting.  If you do, go get your tickets early for the next trains to la la land.

If you went around NZ Berri most people don’t give a toss about the Melbourne Cup as much as they used to . Main factor is all the Northern horses taking spots that people can’t relate to. You need a balance mate it’s not all about turnover . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, puha said:

If you went around NZ Berri most people don’t give a toss about the Melbourne Cup as much as they used to . Main factor is all the Northern horses taking spots that people can’t relate to. You need a balance mate it’s not all about turnover . 

Good job most people don't give a toss as TAB site couldn't cope with volume and new one  I doubt worth bothering with this year.  Head to the overseas ones .I find  quite a few non racing /punting people mention it iam normally have to ftalk them through the betting process as they  have a few dollars on their once a year punt  plus work sweepstakes seem commonplace . I always get asked to sort it if iam working that day.  Race has raised massively raised in  stature and class in part due to Northern horses .

Bar Addington Cup nothing else ever mentioned about racing unless I organise a night /day out for a group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Berri said:

And if it's hard data, what I will do is post the World's biggest betting events. I will then next post the most successful betting events in terms of stakes vs betting. The only term of reference I will post is that only tote turnover in considered because getting bookie numbers is neigh on impossible to validate. Just give me a day or two to recover from the drive from Jaffaland to the cold south. When you see them you can take what ever you guys are taking and add a couple.

You're all wrong if you think small race numbers improve betting.  If you do, go get your tickets early for the next trains to la la land.

You've missed the point Berri. We know what the biggest betting events are and as you say, that is due to a number of factors. To make your case, you need to show that an increase in number of runners leads to increased turnover per runner. Because of those other factors I doubt that the MC is a good example but if it were, you need to demonstrate that a MC with 24 runners would do  a greater turnover than two otherwise identical races with 12 runners each (and half the stake if you like) for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Leggy said:

You've missed the point Berri. We know what the biggest betting events are and as you say, that is due to a number of factors. To make your case, you need to show that an increase in number of runners leads to increased turnover per runner. Because of those other factors I doubt that the MC is a good example but if it were, you need to demonstrate that a MC with 24 runners would do  a greater turnover than two otherwise identical races with 12 runners each (and half the stake if you like) for example.

That simply doesn't make sense. If you have an 8 race card, you are effectively saying either one of two things, that being if you had all eight races with 12 runners, they would draw more bets that 8 races with 24+ runners, or alternatively, if there were 8 races and some of those races had 24+ entries, then those races with 24+ runners should be split into two separate races with 12 runners each. No logic there.

What you continue to dilute in your thinking is the type, distance and conditions of the races. This is where your theory goes completely hay wire. Handicaps versus WFA have a completely different set of betting expectations. Handicaps on straight tracks versus round the bend tracks with 350m straights are also not comparable. I'm actually not going to debate this because I can't be bothered.  You're too slow to pick these nuances up.

This information will be openly published once it becomes available. The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Berri said:

 I'm actually not going to debate this because I can't be bothered. 

Hmmm.... I'd say it's because you have nothing to support your case so at this point there's nothing to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leggy said:

Hmmm.... I'd say it's because you have nothing to support your case so at this point there's nothing to debate.

Sometimes you can get yourself in a rut leggy. I already know the answer to this because some time ago we did an investigation on the betting performance of numbers in races. There are trends that are obvious and compelling....in fact exacting.  There is an optimal number and a trait in respect of larger fields for races with specific conditions. You talked such rubbish over splitting races that I couldn't be bothered debating that. I told you I'd get the data and publish it for all. Then your latest response.

Thought you were better than that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berri Fruit....I have to say the key stat I’d want to see is how much is invested / gambled on each runner regardless of whether it’s one 24 horse field, or three 8 horse fields.

I’ve always been told that Hong Kong claims the most efficient field size is 12-14, admittedly I’ve never seen the data to back that up, but I’d be keen to see yours if you can prove those numbers are wrong.

One final note me old fruit.....the biggest gambling growth in the world is in sports......and that’s usually a simple two option result

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Berri said:

Handicaps versus WFA have a completely different set of betting expectations

I doubt the average punter in NZ gives a toss about this frankly. And what relevance 20+ fields have here I don't know. You cannot compare what we have, or are likely to have, with the UK, or Australia. As it has never been done here, nobody knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now