Four other runners ran quicker than that in the heats, or the same, but could not manage it this time.

So, TT improved in the final, one other runner (Rajasthan) repeated his moderate heat time, while the other six runners ran an average of four lengths slower. They all began pretty much as expected, with Rajasthan and Blue Moon Rising leading the way. Finals are always tougher, of course, but I could not see the same spark in this race. The edge was not quite there.

All things considered, the betting order and the actual prices were pretty accurate. Victorian tote pools were more than double those in NSW but the dividends were very similar.

Win pools for the two big races were $50k/$22k in Victoria and $20k/$13k in NSW. Business with the corporates is again unknown.

Where to from here? Well, there is nothing to suggest that the best eight stayers the country on offer or those just behind them are really in the top class. TT was, but is no more. Maybe thats part of the cycle?

But there is little doubt that distance racing every 7 days is not ideal for todays greyhound. You can never be sure. The outcomes in 2019 were no different to those experienced dozens of times before - the majority run slower.

Crying over ripped up tickets?

..............

Aaah, there you are.

I'm confused.
I can't be bothered checking but you say four others ran faster than their heats last week, PLUS the winner.

Then on the next line you say 6 runners ran 4 lengths slower on average than last week.

Which one is it, Tornado?

The writer strikes again !

I think that is one of the reasons why he gave up punting / analysing / whatever he was doing, because he was confusing himself let alone us. Too much data !

He underestimated a few things, but I'll let him try and work it out.

By my understanding the word 'average' is the key......his system averages the dogs last x amt of runs so ideally he cannot tell from one run to another exactly what times the dogs have run... his database again by my understanding doesn't hold each run.....nor does he take into account how many lengths the dog loses in checks in the run or how much slower or faster the track is from one wk to the next.

So if your dogs gets smashed in the final for example it doesn't take that into account cos its averaged, and your dog wld have performed poorly through no fault of its own and will be statistically branded as a 'poorly performed' in the 2nd wk.

Yet there is little doubt distance racing every 7 days is not ideal for todays greyhound....ummmmm

He cant categorically prove what he's saying because the data base wasn't built for that purpose we just have to take his word for it.

Why is it we have to constantly listen to what his database cant and will never be able to prove and always just fallback only to his interpretation of what it shld be ?

And the conclusion from this is always along the lines of 'there is little doubt distance racing every 7 days is not ideal for todays greyhound'

Can you imagine what he wld do if someone from GRV or any such authority that gave him a similar response without being able to prove what they are saying ?

Just one problem with that, Ryan...he no longer uses a data base...remember?

Agree with most of the other.
Poor old Tornado made 5 points to predict the outcome and got them all wrong.

The most hilarious part of it all was the dog who he has continually hammered for months...WON!!!

Talk about karma!

If we take the old fella's logic and say 67% of all stayers won't be able to successfully back up within 7 days, especially proven dogs with history, wouldn't you view that as a golden opportunity rather than a disaster?
You only have 2 or maybe 3 dogs to consider...
You could lay those 2 dogs to win a very nice profit, no?
Maybe retire after a few years?

But then again he is a commentator.....whatever that means.

Out of the 8 runners in the BT, 6 runners ran slower than last weeks heats.
1 about the same and bugger me, old TT ran quicker.
So, Bruce the Tornado' s theory seems to be right...right?

So then I thought I'd be a bit objective and check the M/Cup run on the same night over 520.
Well bugger me, his theory works for 520 too because 7 out of 8 runners went slower! It's worse than the stayers!!!

Can't be right, so I went to our mate TJ's amazing victory in the Casino Cup...guess what?
5 runners went slower, 2 went marginally quicker, and the champ blitz it.
So it also works for 484m too!

What do you reckon I'll find when I check a few 400 finals?

So in summation, its probably a good idea to have finals of all distances 14 days apart?

Nothing to do with finals being harder races where most runners are close to each other in ability hence more possible interference?

Couldn't be.

Cosmic Rumble? etc, etc?

Between you and me, Mark, once a mug punter always a mug punter.
He's become a closet.
Make no mistake, he still punts and he lost on the BT...funny they both have the same initials.
That should have been an omen to stay away.

End of story.

If I was Tornado Teague I'd be taking note about his own post heading.
Its bad stuff.

I am ignoring most of the nonsense that goes on here as it often lacks logic (with one exception) or fails to quote correctly. And abusing me serves no purpose at all.

However, I am a bit puzzled by your repeated mention of the need to adjust times for past interference. I have responded to this before (mainly as it is very subjective) but I am wondering how you manage to do this yourself. There are over 10,000 dogs currently racing in Oz. How do you keep track of them all? It would require a big staff.

Similarly, you have taken that "average time" point out of context. It is but one of 10 or 20 factors that the program would routinely look at. The idea is you consider them all and make adjustments as personally suits you. The program's prime asset is that it has a better memory than you or I do.

All of this would look better if some of the commentators made a effort to assess the two big races themselves - before the jump, that is. You could have obtained $6.00 about both the winners!

I've noticed that you continually ignore facts and logic when they don't suit your opinion, Tornado.

Ryan is all over it.
You should take notice of him as you may learn how to be more consistent in your predictions.
It can't get any worse, surely!

I'll let you know what I find in the 400 finals.

Care to make a prediction?

That's fine except that there are almost no comments on the former and lots on the latter.

Since it is difficult to discuss betting unless you also delve into detailed form analysis this puzzles me. In practice, we need all aspects to make sense of policy problems - which was why I opened this thread and one other.

When I offer facts, I get told that's not good enough - there are better facts available. Really? Where? If I say white, you say black. If I say black, you say white - always without backup stories and often with irrelevant digressions.

Another thread also raised the question of a decline in ability for dogs to run out 500s - which is obviously related to the same stamina issue I identified, although I concentrated on the 700s. Coincidentally, that also happened to be a key problem for the Wheeler lineage some years back, before he changed his policy, mainly by importing USA blood, and soon enjoying greater success.

(At that time, Wheeler dogs had not only been wanting at 500m, but were also fading at the end of 450m. How do I know? Because I surveyed performances of every one of his dogs over a three month period).

Anyway, we all know that the industry is radically short of dogs, that distance racing is especially lacking, that we are asking dogs to race on dangerous layouts, that short races are becoming more and more common, that trainers refuse to adjust to different lures - or even in some cases to live baiting - and that real punters have largely disappeared to be replaced by mugs in pubs.

All these are either cultural problems or management failures, or both, and constitute huge strategic challenges.

I would think all that demands some serious thought. It is not getting it.

Are you OK, Torn?

and apparently tt only won cause one of the dogs moved out of its path. they should just award the win to that dog then huh?

Ok now this has gone far enough Bruce !

Stop saying I'm abusing you as I have not. I cldn't have been because I was talking to Michael about your average times and how they don't prove your initial premise. No abuse there.

You don't have to rate every track or dog running in the country nor include any other factors other than adjust the track and adjust for checks the dog has in the run to prove your point. You for various reasons unfortunately cant do that, therefore your point remains unproven. QED.

No one else has to prove anything, you made the statement therefore the onus is on you to prove it. End of story.

I think the bag has busted and the marbles are going everywhere.

So interference was not incorporated in the data you sold to unsuspecting believers of your holy betting grail?
The one thing that happens in every single Greyhound race?

Well, I'll tell you who does have a better memory than you or your computer, Tornaado Targen.

Your EX clients!!!

Give them back their money, Tornado...it's the right thing to do.

He can't , especially if he laid TT to forever and back on Betfair

Reckon he did! Lol.