- This topic has 25 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yes, I did read the original question Robert, thank you very much. But it appeared from your post…
Using any such method that leads to 70+% losers,
year after year after year, is madness
.
… that you did not.
The question said:
"There is a three horse race, your life depends on finding the winner and the only information you have is the name of the horse that each of the above has selected, AND THEY’VE EACH GONE FOR A DIFFERENT BEAST!You must place the bet, it wins and you live, it loses and you are history. Whose rating would you follow"?
It was your line I was responding to Robert, not the original post. Your line had absolutely nothing to do with David’s question. The original question was not suggesting a method used
"year after year after year"
…
But thought I’d give you the courtesy of responding to it anyway.
Patronising XXX!
Ginger,
I had hopes that your keenness might eventually lead to your development in racing.
If you cannot understand that:
"Using any such method that leads to 70+% losers, year after year after year, is madness."
refers to using Timeform, Racing Post etc rated selections of the original question then there is no hope.Robert and Gingerform,
I could be wrong but after careful and considered analysis I believe this thread is designed to be what is colloquially known as a ‘bit of fun’
This can be the only conclusion can’t it? As surely the reception class at punting playschool were taught at their mothers’ breast that employing unadjusted form ratings to pick winners leads to certain, possibly lingering and painful death
Therefore there seems little point in dignifying it by stating the bleedin’ obvious
However I’ve no wish to be a party-pooper so my ‘fun fun fun’ reply would be:
give me the three horses, give me the three ratings, give me a blindfold and give me a pin…then leave me to die in peace
Ha ha, very witty Drone you patronising XXXX!
Ginger,
I had hopes that your keenness might eventually lead to your development in racing.
If you cannot understand that:
"Using any such method that leads to 70+% losers, year after year after year, is madness."
refers to using Timeform, Racing Post etc rated selections of the original question then there is no hope.… Then I understood you perfectly well in my first post. I was AGREEING with you Robert, that any such method IS MADNESS. But David’s original post had nothing to do with a serious selection method. Just as Drone points out, a bit of fun.
I said:
"
Agreed
Robert, "top rated" tells the punter only a fraction of what he/she needs. It should NOT be seen as the "tip". But the information needed is in the write up".
I say again, I AGREE with you that any selection method on ratings alone would be MADNESS. I was just pointing out (quite reasonably I thought) that punters should not judge Timeform on ratings alone.
I don’t judge your "development" or "understand"ing of racing and I don’t see why you should do the same with me Robert. I know enough to make a good consistent profit on my betting and in a couple of weeks am in a racing team quiz defending our title against the likes of Racing Post, Raceform, racing journalists, trainers and jockeys. So please don’t judge my racing knowledge on word skills Robert.
Value Is Everything[I am in a racing team quiz defending our title against the likes of Racing Post, Raceform, racing journalists, trainers and jockeys..
In the land of the blindfolded the one-eyed man is king
So don’t forget your eye-patch Gingerquizzer
Don’t need an eye paych just yet Drone, but if the Glaucoma gets worse may need one on both eyes!
May be the old saying is right.
It
does "make you go blind"!
Value Is EverythingMay be the old saying is right.
It
does "make you go blind"!
Possibly, but while it’s the case that the occasional percentile rank is refreshing and certainly nothing to be ashamed about, I’ve found that over-indulgence tends to result in addiction and thence the inevitable 10,917 posts on TRF evangelising it as better than the ‘real thing’ – blindly backing the Timeform top-rated
Generally speaking I’d choose the OR over the other two as a reference point to begin analysing the race for three reasons off the top of my head,
1) The official handicapper uses ”lite” data analysis to ascertain his figure, ”horse x beats y by z distance” etc etc. This is perfect as the data is going to be basic, yet consistant in its calibration method.
It will also be potentially misleading + inaccurate in terms of identifiying the horse with the greatest potential for scoring if taken at face value. None of the horses mental,physiological,pace,trip,ground,run style qualities and whatever else are conveyed specifically in the rating and even if they were how can you gauge the accuracy of the co-efficient awarded in one overall rating.2) The ratings data is free to the public
3) The ratings are directly related to weights which the horse will carry in handicap races therefore giving an opportunity to gain direct feedback as to their general accuracy for prediction in a ”real life” scenario
As for the original question about having one bullet to kill myself with would I choose Timeform, RPR or OR…I dont know, wasn’t that a scene in the Deer Hunter?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.