Sharks Bay and Cormack
- pirates
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
leon do you want to discuss these issues you have or not or do you prefer a public forum
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- magiclips
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
I'd love to do a province by province breakdown of all set weights or conditions races other than maidens, to see which has the highest and which the lowest strike rate of the best weighted horse winning. I'd be less amazed to find a T Rex in my garden than to see KZN faring the best but suspect that PE would come out looking better than many may expect. And not just coz of Hear The Drums!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Strucksmartly85
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Hmm guys how many of u play soccer6?i think we betta switch to that afta this kak.well im concidering it very strongly.anyway i wud prefer making dough outa liverpool playing kak anyday...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- rob faux
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
That would be interesting Magic,but I would also like to see those stats by stables.Some stables are far more consistent than others and some stables never get a horse to run 2 races alike,especially back to back.
Magic who has the best(most useful) stats of that nature....for instance in the UK they are big on stats. eg.A filly that wins a maiden ,loses 83% of the time in its next run,if in a handicap......a horse that wins a handicap,and next run is in a higher class h'cp loses 81% of the time.Those are just 2 interesting,and helpful stats!
Does anybody keep those kind of stats for SA racing?
Magic who has the best(most useful) stats of that nature....for instance in the UK they are big on stats. eg.A filly that wins a maiden ,loses 83% of the time in its next run,if in a handicap......a horse that wins a handicap,and next run is in a higher class h'cp loses 81% of the time.Those are just 2 interesting,and helpful stats!
Does anybody keep those kind of stats for SA racing?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- magiclips
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Not that I know Rob, but we might be able to work some of it out from our database.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Bob Brogan
-
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 82713
- Thanks: 6507
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Was reading a punters blog from the UK today,he said that he won`t be Taking a bet at Ffo Las(new track) for at least another 2 years until he`s built up enough data and Statistics.
Are pros really that disciplined?
Are pros really that disciplined?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- harry hotspur
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Leon Torn By Love is actually very consistent over the scottsville 1200 . 1st run 3.9L off them.2nd run 2nd 1.5 to Fantastic Lady.3rd run 2nd 0.5 behind Miss Filly.4th run 3rd 0.6 behind Rothchild Ruby.5th run 3.55 off One Way.6th run probably her best 4th 4.75 off Jo Piper[mr 91] in a plate race.7th run 3.9 off Flashy and today winning.In my opinion she is very consistent down the scottsville straight.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Setaromedia
-
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 3034
- Thanks: 71
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
will take your word for those stats Harry Hotspur, it's not a name I'm up to researching after today. But point taken, as I said before there's surely a logical explanation for the win. Pity most of us mug punters missed it when taking our exotics though. Being the model of consistency that she is, she managed to bump off 98% of the pick6 dreamers (me included) still in with a scream at that stage; 15000 live tickets before, 351 after.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- felini
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Come on guys, why was Sharks Bay so short in the betting anyway?
In my opinion it ran to its current form...
Clearly Silver was better handicapped... It beat Mr Micky Mouse fair and square in mid year and the later franked the form last week...
Give Cormack and the boys a break...
In my opinion it ran to its current form...
Clearly Silver was better handicapped... It beat Mr Micky Mouse fair and square in mid year and the later franked the form last week...
Give Cormack and the boys a break...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- sugahorse
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Harry Hotspur - I agree with your stats - you cannot take the previous placings into consideration, but rather how many lengths behind, and what kind of horses they ran behind
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- magiclips
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Felini, I'm happy if you found the winner but how beating Mr Mickey Mouse can top finishing 2nd in the Mercury Sprint I have no idea.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- felini
-
- New Member
-
- Thanks: 0
Re: Re: Sharks Bay and Cormack
15 years 7 months ago
Magic, I did not find the winner as I did not play over the weekend.
I am wondering how the Mercury Sprint form and some of the Grade 1 and 2 races are throwing out the winners...
In my opinion Sharks Bay is overrated and should have never started an odds-on favorite...
But again, this is just my perspective
I am wondering how the Mercury Sprint form and some of the Grade 1 and 2 races are throwing out the winners...
In my opinion Sharks Bay is overrated and should have never started an odds-on favorite...
But again, this is just my perspective
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.107 seconds