First the Stands, next the Mobiles! Bring it on fellas.

CONDITIONED STANDING START EVENTS AT PENRITH

Wednesday 16 November 2011

Stakeholders please note in January 2012 the PenrithHarness Racing Club have programmed Conditioned Standing Start races at each oftheir Tier 2 meetings.

Each race caters for horses assessed no better than C2that have not won more than $2,000 in their last three starts (catering forapprox. 75% of the horse population).

The handicap marks in these events are based on dollarswon in a horses’ last three race starts and not class, with the ranges asfollows; FT $0-$500, 10m $501- $1,000, 20m $1,001-$1,500, 30m $1,501-$2,000.

For example; a C2 that has won $250 in its last threestarts will be off the FT, while a C1 that has won $1,200 in its last threestarts will be off 20m.

The conditions of the race provide alternatives forconnections of out of form or out of luck horses with the chance to compete offthe front row, while better performed horses will start off marks; they alsoprovide an alternative for horses struggling in mobile start events that may beable to find a more forward position in running from behind the strands.

With the first event programmed for Thursday, 5 January2012 and nominations closing on Friday, 30 December, it is imperative that yourhorse is qualified from a Standing Start during the month of December.

----------

In saying the above (thread title) Standing Starts are for the Dinosaurs.
I realise that they'll allow for ease of Handicapping etc. but geeze, why not focus on the mobile events with more race condition writing ala the Bulli @ Menangle meetings, Bankstown etc? They're not the be all end all either but they're a big step in the right direction.
The earnings last X number of starts aspect to the above really appeals to me, that's how ALL of our bread & butter daily racing should be...but the Standing Start aspect of does not. I say that especially so from the point of view that the push is always on for quick wagering/turnover of races...and these are events that are probably going to take 3 mins+ each on average.

Quote:

In saying the above (thread title) Standing Starts are for the Dinosaurs.
I realise that they'll allow for ease of Handicapping etc. but geeze, why not focus on the mobile events with more race condition writing ala the Bulli @ Menangle meetings, Bankstown etc? They're not the be all end all either but they're a big step in the right direction.
The earnings last X number of starts aspect to the above really appeals to me, that's how ALL of our bread & butter daily racing should be...but the Standing Start aspect of does not. I say that especially so from the point of view that the push is always on for quick wagering/turnover of races...and these are events that are probably going to take 3 mins+ each on average.

Many punters are hesitant to bet on standing start races as it, even in standing start Group 1 races at Melton or standing start Saturday night metro fixtures at Menangle. So who the hell is going to bet on lowly assessed, out of form horses around a track as tight as Penrith? The pools would be terrible, who thinks up these things?

You're right. Hadn't thought of the $ held aspect of it Eric. Probably should have. I was more interested in the Conditioned Racing aspect of it. I don't like Standing Starts. They're a Harness Racing anachronism. I have a bet from time to time and can't remember the last SS race where I put my $ down.
In saying that, it is worth noting this is being run at Penrith and as far as Standing Starts go I am sure Don Clough will be over the moon that the clock has been turned back to the 1950's.
If we could resurrect the NSW Sires Stakes program in all of its gorey glory, halve the Finals prizemoney available to 2yo & 3yo Fillies, bring back stallion book limits & ban the use of semen transport... I suspect he would think all his Christmas' had come at once. :p

I love the idea they are a layers dream bring them back ;) and the turnovers will be awful no doubt as most punters hate the ss races.

Peter Cook, who is the secretary of the NZ Trainers and Drivers Association said this on Harnesslink:

Quote:

Perhaps he should consider why turnovers in the South, where there is a mixture of standing and mobile starts, is almost always far higher than in the Auckland area where mobiles are the norm. Also if he was to research the facts, as have officials at Addington Raceway recently, he may discover that there is no discernible difference between turnovers on standing and mobile starts, at least at that venue.

I don't like them either, but if the above is true maybe more punters should vote with their wallets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by admin

I don't like them either, but if the above is true maybe more punters should vote with their wallets.

Absolutely guarantee these standing starts will have the lowest turnover of the meeting.

Almost every time you see a standing start , half the field is usually side on or gallop away when the strands are released . They are nothing more than a "dog's breakfast" and should be assigned to harness racing history. They have no place these days. I would not invest 10 cents on any standing start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringman

I love the idea they are a layers dream bring them back ;) and the turnovers will be awful no doubt as most punters hate the ss races.

I agree. Some are absolute camels from the SS but will be sent out short because of strong mobile form; others love the SS but walk off the mobile arm and will be sent out overs because of average mobile form. I enjoy the mix of SS and MS races but if punters vote with their wallets and SS turnover is as low as people are saying then I guess they will be gone.

Half the problem in standing starts lies with the trainers/drivers as I have stated before in this forum, most of them haven't got the skill to get horses away from stands. Trainers don't spend the time teaching horses to leave the wire quick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Half the problem in standing starts lies with the trainers/drivers as I have stated before in this forum, most of them haven't got the skill to get horses away from stands. Trainers don't spend the time teaching horses to leave the wire quick.

[VVV] Have to agree with that Don C. I had a crack at it myself once and it's not as easy as it looks. Your stands are a lot different to ours though. You guys seem to walk up and then go whereas over here they seem to want them all standing like they've been cast in bronze before the tapes release. I still don't like stands but your point is well made.

I guess I am bit old school with stands in that I love seeing a field ping off the mark and I love handicap races. I have had my share of sloppy beginners but its was at the workouts/trials and on the training track that they were ironed out not left to chance on race day like so many seem to. My old boss when I was a boy, would give them plenty of practice. As a young impatient lad I would moan to myself about all the mucking around he would do but certainly saw the rewards that were gained when it became second nature. I am happy to say that all my racehorses were good beginners.

Just trolled back through a few months and found two SS Pacers races at Menangle 26/6 and 20/8 (There may be a few others in there )
At these meetings the SS on Breeders day held $45K in the win- The highest win hold of the day. This may be for several reasons EG/ later in the day (was r8 of 9), Karloo Mick was in it.

The SS on the 20/8 held 39K in the win, the 3rd biggest win hold of the night. Again, it needs to be taken into account that it was race 1 that night so would of got a spillover from those punting on the gallops that day.
I realise it will be a different kettle of fish turnover wise running stands at Penrith, but positioned early in the card, they might hold commensurate with what they would for some of those mobile races dominated by an odds on fav...At least with the SS, as GMac says, there may be some false favourites and less likelyhood of one horse stifling the market......
Can only give it a go and see how the participants feel via noms and punters via turnover.....

G'day Fred,
I think the Standing Start aspect of this is ultimately going to be somewhat beside the point mate.
More than anything else I believe it is being aimed at slowly but surely more widely educating Trainers & Owners to nominate their horses using full-on Conditioned Racing principles...this instead of the bullshit C & M handicap them out of contention/push them out through the top scenario that we have at present. That is of course going to be a very long row for HRNSW to hoe...but a journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

G'day Fred,
I think the Standing Star aspect of this is ultimately going to be somewhat beside the point mate.
More than anything else I believe it is being aimed at slowly but surely more widely educating Trainers & Owners to nominate their horses using full-on Conditioned Racing principles...this instead of the bullshit C & M handicap them out of contention/push them out through the top scenario that we have at present. That is of course going to be a very long row for HRNSW to hoe...but a journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step.

The point is not lost on all! Maybe JUST MAYBE....... there is a glimmer of hope that a trainer may be able to place a horse where it has a better chance to reclaim some expenses for the owner. Forgive me guys but this game is not just about punters and turnover. Someone needs to feed the bloody horses and if that means we have to re-educate punters ( and trainers/drivers/horses) to sustain owners who are the lifeblood of the game then so be it.

I remember many years ago the move to mostly mobile racing, we were all told how the yanks were paying so much prizemoney cos they had all mobile racing. What a load of crap!! look at the US now, can't run a track without the support of "slot machines" cos the punters are bloody bored to death and have been punting on numbers for years!

Mobile racing in this country has been pushed by the commercial breeders to falsely enhance the value of stock in order to enhance their own returns, just like mammoth prizemeoney for juvenile racing ie; look at what the major yearling sale "providor" did to their own series recently, carved it up to further promote two year old racing ( I like to call it two year old ruining... the more you push the babies the more you wreck).

God save the owners who, for as long as I can remember, have been getting the rough end of the pineapple due to the selfishness of a number a noisy groups.

The only people ss can benefit are horses who cant must enough pace behind the gate and drop out when in SS they may be able to get into the race at least.

Thanks ringman, spoken like a true, half asleep punter!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

The point is not lost on all! Maybe JUST MAYBE....... there is a glimmer of hope that a trainer may be able to place a horse where it has a better chance to reclaim some expenses for the owner.

[VVV] Others may see it differently but the way I see it....if a horse that you have is only ever going to be competitive in a short series of specially designated, specially conditioned standing start races at Penrith & you're wanting it to pay it's way...then maybe it's time to think about getting another horse. One of the biggest mistakes Owners make is hanging on to a horse that is going to cost more to keept & to train that it will ever have a hope of earning. I've done it myself in the past. Not anymore. If they can't go...then off they go.

Forgive me guys but this game is not just about punters and turnover.
[VVV] I don't neccessarily disagree with that...but you try telling the TAB & the various State Adminstrative bodies the same.
Personally I think we're WAY too TAB focussed especially so in terms of Clubs not going forward with races that have less than 8 noms etc.
I don't expect them to do it with every class but for classes that from time to time or generally tend to struggle...such early season 2yos, fillies & mares races etc...they need to get their individual & collective heads out of their arses and look at the greater, longer term good rather than taking their leads from some bean counting TAB wanker sitting in an office in Ultimo/Pyrmont.

Someone needs to feed the bloody horses and if that means we have to re-educate punters (and trainers/drivers/horses) to sustain owners who are the lifeblood of the game then so be it.
[VVV] I've absolutely no doubt whatsoever that off-course betting is directly responsible for a general dumbing down of the Punters, no doubt about that at all.
Back in the days when you had to be on-course to bet the Punters generally knew more about racing than they know these days.

I remember many years ago the move to mostly mobile racing, we were all told how the yanks were paying so much prizemoney cos they had all mobile racing. What a load of crap!!
[VVV] You must be well older than me (& I'm 43) because I've been around these bay, brown, black, sometimes chesnut & occasionally grey things since I first learned to walk & in all that time never heard anyone suggest such a thing.

look at the US now, can't run a track without the support of "slot machines" cos the punters are bloody bored to death and have been punting on numbers for years!
[VVV] Two completely different industry models & so that's a very long bow to draw. The only thing that we have in common is that both use Standardbreds.

Mobile racing in this country has been pushed by the commercial breeders to falsely enhance the value of stock in order to enhance their own returns, just like mammoth prizemeoney for juvenile racing.
[VVV] Pound for pound that's one of the more ridiculous statements I've read in quite a while. If you can, could you supply me with the name of just 1 of these fat cat Australian commercial breeders? I'd be most appreciative because I'd like to ring them and find out what their business model is. I've got a pretty wide range of friends & contacts throughout the Industry and on the Breeder side, let me tell you...virtually nobody is making any $$$.
Some are keeping their heads just above water but the vast majority are losing money.

ie; look at what the major yearling sale "providor" did to their own series recently, carved it up to further promote two year old racing ( I like to call it two year old ruining... the more you push the babies the more you wreck).
[VVV] You need to do your Homework before shooting from the hip.
Way back at its inception the APG was a 2yo Pacing Colts, Geldings & Fillies Series ONLY.
The man who was the driving force behind it all, George Aiken, only recently passed away.
I attened the 1st APG sale ever and the following year sold a yearling in the 2nd APG Sale held. I've seen it every single step of the way. A 2yo Pacing Series was all it was ever meant to be and it is all that it should ever have been.
The 3yo series, Trotters & so on was added much later on down the track & upon being judged as largely unsuccessful those additions were dropped.
As for ruining 2yos, again...do your homework.
Statistical analysis of a huge number of Australian Standardbreds with regard to wastage in fact revealed the EXACT OPPOSITE to that which you claim above.
Not only was there no appreciable wastage occurring as a result of horses beginning to race as 2yos but in fact there was an indication that horses who started early had more starts lifetime & earned more $ throughout their career than those who started at 3yrs & beyond. Did it occurr to you that despite falling foaling numbers in both Australia and NZ over the past decade or more...we are running pretty much the same number of races in 2011 as we did in the mid to late 1990's...with close on half the number of foals per year?
The Australian Standardbred of today is starting its career earlier, having more starts per year and it is racing for more years than any of its predecessors.

God save the owners who, for as long as I can remember, have been getting the rough end of the pineapple due to the selfishness of a number a noisy groups.
[VVV] Again, you need to do your homework.A recent industry wide HRA survey revealed the vast majority of Breeders (nearly 80%) are also Racing Owners.

Rgds

Jaimie

before one can aspire to wisdom one needs to be able to empathise with all others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by triplev123

Rgds

Jaimie

Forgive me Jamie for having an opinion that is not entirely in line with your own, yes I have been around a bit longer than you, but only by a decade.

your full of cheek aren't you? telling me I shoot from the hip about subjects that were debated long before your were on "hard tucker".
I do my "homework" at the university of life in harness racing, not sitting at an armchair with some piss in my hand.

As for ruining 2yos, again...do your homework.
Statistical analysis of a huge number of Australian Standardbreds with regard to wastage in fact revealed the EXACT OPPOSITE to that which you claim above.

Show me your "statistical analysis" and I will dismantle it, if indeed you possess some crap purported to be such.

Mobile racing in this country has been pushed by the commercial breeders to falsely enhance the value of stock in order to enhance their own returns, just like mammoth prizemeoney for juvenile racing.
[VVV] Pound for pound that's one of the more ridiculous statements I've read in quite a while.

I was engaged in the debate when NSW was moving from predominantly Stand racing to mobiles and our commercial breeders ( none of whom I would describe as "fat cats" ,your words not mine) were openly stating this can only increase the value of our yearlings.

look at the US now, can't run a track without the support of "slot machines" cos the punters are bloody bored to death and have been punting on numbers for years!
[VVV] Two completely different industry models & so that's a very long bow to draw. The only thing that we have in common is that both use Standardbreds.

you really are a genius aren't you? F..k me if you can't see the way we have copied the US business model you really have got your head stuck up your arse!

God save the owners who, for as long as I can remember, have been getting the rough end of the pineapple due to the selfishness of a number a noisy groups.
[VVV] Again, you need to do your homework.A recent industry wide HRA survey revealed the vast majority of Breeders (nearly 80%) are also Racing Owners.

Jamie, I was one of the many participants in these workshops and surveys. Guess what!! The data gathered reinforced what many people ( none obviously as wise as you.) have been saying for decades.... the commercial breeders have had more influence than they are rightly entitled to for decades!!!.

Cheers Jamie,
but do your own bloody home work before you try your half baked bluff tactics on people you don'y know.

dan

G'day Dan,

There's a very big difference between a half-baked bluffing of someone as you're suggesting I am trying to do...and making a reply to them citing facts that attempt to refute their statements.
Of the 7 points of reply that I made, you've also gone and zero'd in on those 5 where I didn't agree with you and skipped over the 2 points you made where I totally agreed with you (the game not being just about punters & turnover) and (re-educating the punters). Perhaps in your haste to tell me I had my head up my arse... you missed those ?

The statistical analysis I referenced was an official study specifically into wastage and the effect that 2yo racing was having on the racing population, one that was commissioned by National & State bodies and one that notably essentially set out with the assumptions you've made, that 2yo racing was somehow bad for the sport.
To their significant surprise it showed the exact opposite to that which they thought would be the case and that which you claim above of 2yo racing.
It not only showed that there was no evidence that 2yo racing had a negative effect on racing longevity but that those horses who had started earlier tended to have more starts per year and race to a more advanced age. It was a study that was very widely known of at the time & it was also widely distributed. I am sure there is a copy lying around somewhere. Someone would have it filed away. I will do my absolute utmost to get hold of it and then reproduce it here on this forum for your perusal.

The facts are that here in Australia whilst annually we are breeding fewer foals than ever before, more of them are getting to the track than ever before, more of them start as 2yos than ever before & once having made the track & a start those horses have more starts per horse per year and per career than ever before. The above cited study came to exactly those conclusions.

Now even if you still don't believe me, just ask yourself how it is that we as an Industry manage to conduct just as many races as we did 10-15-20 years ago with almost half the number of foals produced per year.
There's no escaping the fact that today's Standardbred is a more precocious, sounder, better gaited horse than those of 10-15-20 years ago and the assertion that 2yo racing has a negative effect on racing longevity is a complete and utter furphy.
The main reason for the above is without doubt the vastly increased quality & quantity of the sires that are now available to Breeders in Australia...& coupled with that, while there has been a large reduction in the total number of broodmares being bred to those sires, the results have been greatly enhanced by the hugely improved quality of those active mares.

As for the respective business models of US Harness Racing and Australian Harness Racing, what I said was right.
The revenue streams of AUS & US Harness Racing flow from two entirely different sources.
US Harness Racing does not operate on a TAB turnover basis like we do here. None of the racetracks in this country are similarly reliant upon and so rise or fall on the back of money which flows from a % of Poker Machine revenues legislated to be carved off from the turnover of an associated Casino.
So...no, forgive me but I can't see how we have copied the US business model. 2yo futurity racing over the mile from a mobile start is not a business model.

Moving right along...

You keep banging on about this (influence wise) allegedly over represented group of Commercial Breeders who's wants & needs you believe come at the expense of the Industry.

Ok. So now I'm interested to know what your definition of a Commercial Breeder is?

Is it someone who derives part or all of their income from their breeding activities?

Is it someone who simply breeds to sell either at a sale or as a going concern?

Is it perhaps the Studs and Stallion owners that you're dark on?

To some extent one of those 3 groups has, IMO, a little too much input in the Industry decision making processes & directions.
As an example, I cite the absurd assertion in that HRA Report that here in Australia "we need to breed more horses"....... while at the same time largely ignoring the fact that we need to provide reasonable racing opportunities for 50% of the foals we breed each year...Fillies & Mares.
If that "we need to breed more horses" conclusion did not have significant active Stud & Stallion owner support then I'm Mother Theresa.

There is a HUGE amount of wastage in the Australian Harness Racing Industry but it comes not in the form of broken down horses resulting from excessive 2yo racing.
Rather it comes in the form of fillies & mares that are never tried and so never make the racetrack because having considered their earning potential, their breeders/owners decide they are not viable racing propositions.
That HRA report stated that around 30% of the currently active broodmare population did not race & of those that did make the track, 30% of them did not win a race.
If you want to get angry about something get angry about the disgraceful official resistance there is throughout the entire country to backing enhanced racing opportunities for fillies and mares.

Regards

Jaimie

G'day Jamie,

I would love to see that statisitical analysis you are " referencing". It would be an interesting read and yes I reckon I could pull it to pieces, whilst there is doubt in the world we are getting higher percentages of horses to the races and they are continuing to earn for longer, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that's because they raced at two.

Couldn't agree more about the fillies and mares more racing is required, but gee there is a lot of the little darlings just don't want to be race horses too!

The breed has been improving all the time during my 40+ years of involvement and I believe because of selective breeding more than any thing else. When we were breaking in youngsters in the 60s/70s it would often take weeks to get them pacing.. not now! Bloody things are pacing around the paddock now before they even have a bridle sat on their heads.
But I still see a lot of horses ruined and thrown on the scrap heap because of the lure of, in my opinion, the excessive prizemoney that's available for 2YO racing compared to 3YO and up. Be interesting to do a study on total available prizemoney per starter for each group (2YOs/3YOs/4YO and up) and in each season from 1950 to say 2000. I have no doubt whatsoever a definitive trend would appear.

I am not "dark on" any particular group of commercial breeders, just people who put their own interests in front of the game, and you'd be mug not to acknowledge their existence.

Cheers,

taking the missus into "the tents" tonight do you reckon they can run it with all this rain?

I'll do my utmost to get hold of a copy of the report for you Dan.
I don't know if you know Alan Briggs at all? He's from up Newcastle way and I know for a fact that he has seen the report. He might even have a copy. I'll probably see him tonight at Menangle. If you know him or get a chance to locate him, ask him about it.
Contrary to the expectations of many at the time the statistics within it certainly do indicate that those horses who started racing at 2yrs tended to have longer & more successful careers than those who did not start racing at 2yrs. There are solid & reasonable physiological explanations for this & a lot of it centres around properly stressing the bones, joints, tendons & muscles during the growing/developing phase of the young horse...essentially molding the horse, training it sound.
Some people will laugh at you when you suggest this but I am a great believer in it.
If it were both financially and time wise a practical option I would even go so far as to have weanling foals on a treadmill/walker exercise program.
That's essentially where the because they raced at two years comes into play. Young horses that are properly conditioned and cared for have no greater or lesser chance of breaking down than horses at any other age group. The issue, if there is one, with 2yo racing is not 2yo racing per se but rather that some people obviously don't know how to get the best from them without busting them. That to my mind is more a trainer issue and not a 2yo racing issue.

hI jamie

I read with great interest your little differance of opinion with Old Danno.

Now Iv'e always been of the opinion that if you get them up and running as 2yr olds than you shouldn't expect to be still sending them around as older horses ,so I was a little surprised when you jumped on Old Danno when he suggested the same. Well my 53yr old eyes sure popped when I read your statements about the so callled survey or statistics on standerdbreds saying we were both wrong and I was sure looking forward to reading this report .Well I waited a couple of day's and when you didn't produce it I thought I'll have a go at a little survey of my own.

So I went back to 2003 to look at 2yr olds that would now be 10yr olds,and what better race to look at than the Bathurst Gold Crown and Tiara heats.

I wanted to see what age these babies raced too, after being set for this series, the results are as follows

There were 78 2yr olds drawn to race in 8 races. The age they last raced .

2yr 3yr 4yr 5yr 6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr

12 18 14 10 3 10 4 3 4

15% 23% 18% 12% 4% 12% 5% 4% 5%

Now if my maths are right and I'm sure they are, that is a staggering 68% that DID NOT RACE PAST 5YR OLD. and only 14% that raced after turning 7yr.

After looking at these figures I was already thinking you had been on the turps or smoking funny ciggarets when you made the claim about it being the complete opposite to what Danno and myself had always believed, But I thought well why not have a look at the present day horses to compare the ones that raced at 2yr and the others that delayed there careers till they turned at least 3yr.

So I grabbed this weeks Trotguide and went through every horse drawn to race at Menangle on Miracle Mile night that was 6yrs and older, excluding the Yankee horses as I couldn't find their U.S.A form and seperated those that raced at 2yr to those that waited till they turned 3yr or older, the results are as follows.

6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr 11yr
1 only
2yr - 3yr/ovr 2yr - 3yr/ovr 2yr -3yr/ovr 2yr-3yr/ovr 2yr-3yr/ovr 3yr/over

10 13 5 14 4 4 1 7 0 2 1

Now Jamie you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see there is a pattern here.

Even at 6yr there is a higher % of horses who did not race at 2yr than those that did,but take a gander at 7yr when horses should be at their peak. I'll concede that it is even at 8yr but from then on it is 10 to 1 in favour of those that started racing later in life.

I don't know who wrote or commisioned your mystery statistics but as Old Danno suspects it was probably someone with a vested interest i.e Breeding Industry or someone similar.

There is an old saying you can't have your cake and eat it too, and the same aplies to these horses if you go for them early don't winge if their not going around later on.

So Jamie just inclosing I'll give you a little tip, DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ask someone with a little more knowledge than yourself SOMEONE LIKE OLD DANNO.

The numbers for the Menangle meeting have bunched so I'll see if I can set them out better those raced at 2yr are on the left and the horses that did not start till 3yr and older are on the right

6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr 11yr
2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr 2yr 3/ovr

10 13 5 14 4 4 1 7 0 2 0 1

Buggered if I know what I'm doing with these bloody numbers I'll have a go at writing the bloody things

THE BATHURST FIGURES ARE AS FOLLOWS

OF THE 78 12 LAST RACED AT 2YR 15%

18 LAST RACED AT 3YR 23%

14 LAST RACED AT 4YR 18%

10 LAST RACED AT 5YR 12%

3 LAST RACED AT 6YR 4%

10 LAST RACED AT 7YR 12%

4 LAST RACED AT 8YR 5%

3 LAST RACED AT 9YR 4%

4 LAST RACED AT 10YR 5%

THE FIGURES FOR THE MIRACLE MILE NIGHT ARE AS FOLLOWS

OFF ALL 6YR OLDS 10 RACED AT 2YRS 13 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

OFF ALL 7YR OLDS 5 RACED AT 2YRS 14 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

OFF ALL 8YR OLDS 4 RACED AT 2YRS 4 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

OF ALL 9YR OLDS 1 RACED AT 2YRS 7 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

OF ALL 10 OLDS 0 RACED AT 2YRS 2 DID NOT START TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

AND THE ONLY 11YR KARLOO MICK DID NOT START RACING TILL HE TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

Quote:

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

Buggered if I know what I'm doing with these bloody numbers I'll have a go at writing the bloody things

THE BATHURST FIGURES ARE AS FOLLOWS

OF THE 78 12 LAST RACED AT 2YR 15%

18 LAST RACED AT 3YR 23%

14 LAST RACED AT 4YR 18%

10 LAST RACED AT 5YR 12%

3 LAST RACED AT 6YR 4%

10 LAST RACED AT 7YR 12%

4 LAST RACED AT 8YR 5%

3 LAST RACED AT 9YR 4%

4 LAST RACED AT 10YR 5%

THE FIGURES FOR THE MIRACLE MILE NIGHT ARE AS FOLLOWS

OFF ALL 6YR OLDS 10 RACED AT 2YRS 13 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER So here of 23 horses 10 races at 6. Thats about 45%. Bathurst 2yos to reach 6 were 24%.

OFF ALL 7YR OLDS 5 RACED AT 2YRS 14 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 18% of 2yo Bathurst reached 7. Here that figure is about 25%.

OFF ALL 8YR OLDS 4 RACED AT 2YRS 4 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 50% strikerate here but about 9% at Bathurst.

OF ALL 9YR OLDS 1 RACED AT 2YRS 7 DID NOT RACE TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 12.5% here and about 10% at Bathurst. So pretty close on this one.

OF ALL 10 OLDS 0 RACED AT 2YRS 2 DID NOT START TILL THEY TURNED 3YR OR OLDER 0% compared to 10% Bathurst.

AND THE ONLY 11YR KARLOO MICK DID NOT START RACING TILL HE TURNED 3YR OR OLDER

And you had the hide to suggest VVVs study was impartial?
Your stats from such a small, small cross-section of horses are skewed from one set of horses to the next.
Of course the best open age horses are going to race longer. Now go to a bread and butter meeting and do the same research - and do it for 100 meetings not 1. Remember most of the Bathurst horses only end up being bread and butter horses anyway.

Not to mention a 6yo who started at 2 has had 5 racing years while a 6yo who didn't has only had 4 racing years so you;d probably be better off comparing 6yos who started at two to 7yos who didnt start at two.

Denny, seriously...before you go sounding off, take a look at your own parameters.
You've used a very small sample of 78 horses that competed at one Carnival. How could you honestly place any credence whatsoever in the numbers extrapolated from that...as opposed to a State & National wastage study that was carried out across numerous foal crops?

Statistically, a batch of 30 will give a valid result.

Did you stop to think some of the 2yo,s that raced weren't good enough to maybe even win a co so most probably would have been disposed of in some way, shape or form probably after their 4yo year perhaps

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2minuteman

Statistically, a batch of 30 will give a valid result.

How come two batches of 60 - 100 give a very different result then. And its all relative. A batch of 30 from 60total is different to a batch of 100 from a 100,000 total.

Hi Brendan,
I do not want this to be a "what if" exercise and only make this brief comment.If we are measuring batches of Widgets " two batches of 60 - 100 give a very different result". No they will not.

Check http://www.daa.com.au/analytical-ideas/sample-size/

Back to the original argument of 2 year olds lasting etc. We all know the old saying about statistics but they are only valid if all data is constant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2minuteman

Hi Brendan,
I do not want this to be a "what if" exercise and only make this brief comment.If we are measuring batches of Widgets " two batches of 60 - 100 give a very different result". No they will not. yes they did. The bathurst 2yos V menangle. See my blue writing above on ABitDustys post where the % of horses at ages who started at two are very different.

Check http://www.daa.com.au/analytical-ideas/sample-size/

Back to the original argument of 2 year olds lasting etc. We all know the old saying about statistics but they are only valid if all data is constant.and of course ABitDustys stats weren't exactly constant but the above re skewed still stands

Thanks Ron ;)

We will agree to disagree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2minuteman

We will agree to disagree?

If it helps you sleep at night.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hey, no fair. You're stealing my material Ron. :rolleyes:

Hi Boy's sorry I haven't replied to your threads earlier but I was having trouble logging on.

Now aussiebrenno you seem to have confused the 2 test I conducted they are separate sets of stats but you somehow have combined them .
You surely don't mean that the Bathurst Crown and Tiara horses are bread and butter horses , the reason I chose that series was to get the best result for Jamie's theory as these babies would be the cream of the crop trained by the best trainers in the land ,I thought that the best bred and trained would be better to look at than those of lesser breed and trained.
Also I chose the better class horses at Menangle for the same reasons . You have a go at me for questioning Jamie's beliefs but he has not produced one piece of evidence to back it up at least I have attempted to get some FACTS.

Jamie you challenge the validity of my test because it was on one carnival, But it was on 78 of the cream of the crop as far as breeding and training is concerned, Remember owners have paid upwards of 7 or 8 hundred dollars so were not talking rubbish horses with no ability.

Now do not have the breeding stats for 2001 foals but I would seriously doubt that their were 780 individual 2yr old starters in N.S.W in 2003 so if I;m correct the 78 would represent 10% of starters which is a very BIG sample in terms of surveys.
The same applies to the better class horses ,I doubt you would find another 6 hundred horses of this class in the country so you are talking of a high percentage once again.

To all you critics REMEMBER FACTS AND FIGURES DON'T LIE BUT PEOPLE DO .

As a hobby owner, breeder, trainer, and self confessed bad driver,I would be the happiest bloke around if I was wrong about this. It would save the usual yearly quandary of should I KEEP THEM GOING FOR BATHURST OR TIP THEM OUT .

At the end of the day you really can only go on what you have learned and have been told over many years and go with your own beliefs.

I would love to see a qeuestionair on the subject with the view of all the older trainers I think I know what their response would be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

And you had the hide to suggest VVVs study was impartial?
Your stats from such a small, small cross-section of horses are skewed from one set of horses to the next.
Of course the best open age horses are going to race longer. Now go to a bread and butter meeting and do the same research - and do it for 100 meetings not 1. Remember most of the Bathurst horses only end up being bread and butter horses anyway.

Steady on Brendan, nobody has seen VVV's stats yet let alone have the opportunity to study them.

Loved your bit " most of the Bathurst horses only end up being bread abd butter horses anyway" I think that might be actually backing up the point abitdusty and myself were trying to make.

Cheers,

Dan

Quote:

Originally Posted by A BIT DUSTY

Hi Boy's sorry I haven't replied to your threads earlier but I was having trouble logging on.

Now aussiebrenno you seem to have confused the 2 test I conducted they are separate sets of stats but you somehow have combined them .
You surely don't mean that the Bathurst Crown and Tiara horses are bread and butter horses , the reason I chose that series was to get the best result for Jamie's theory as these babies would be the cream of the crop trained by the best trainers in the land ,I thought that the best bred and trained would be better to look at than those of lesser breed and trained.
Also I chose the better class horses at Menangle for the same reasons . You have a go at me for questioning Jamie's beliefs but he has not produced one piece of evidence to back it up at least I have attempted to get some FACTS.

Jamie you challenge the validity of my test because it was on one carnival, But it was on 78 of the cream of the crop as far as breeding and training is concerned, Remember owners have paid upwards of 7 or 8 hundred dollars so were not talking rubbish horses with no ability.

Now do not have the breeding stats for 2001 foals but I would seriously doubt that their were 780 individual 2yr old starters in N.S.W in 2003 so if I;m correct the 78 would represent 10% of starters which is a very BIG sample in terms of surveys.
The same applies to the better class horses ,I doubt you would find another 6 hundred horses of this class in the country so you are talking of a high percentage once again.

To all you critics REMEMBER FACTS AND FIGURES DON'T LIE BUT PEOPLE DO .

As a hobby owner, breeder, trainer, and self confessed bad driver,I would be the happiest bloke around if I was wrong about this. It would save the usual yearly quandary of should I KEEP THEM GOING FOR BATHURST OR TIP THEM OUT .

At the end of the day you really can only go on what you have learned and have been told over many years and go with your own beliefs.

I would love to see a qeuestionair on the subject with the view of all the older trainers I think I know what their response would be.

Bathurst the best yearling sale and horses go to the best in the land? Bathurst is a nice sale but I think you've got it confused with the APG Premium sales. A stable I'm connected with usually take 1 or 2 or more to Bathurst and usually gets one into a final or at the very least a consolation. Yet the trips to the city are few and far between. Remember 80% of the horses at Bathurst are losers who don't make it to the finals. Those who run in the Silver Consolations for $5K are a lot different to a $25K Menangle race or a $50,000 Bohemia Crystal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

Steady on Brendan, nobody has seen VVV's stats yet let alone have the opportunity to study them.

Loved your bit " most of the Bathurst horses only end up being bread abd butter horses anyway" I think that might be actually backing up the point abitdusty and myself were trying to make.

Cheers,

Dan

First start or two or twenty they were only every going to be bread and butter horses. 80% of the 2yos who head to Bathurst end up in a 5K silver consolation...

I'm going to have to respectfully bow out here Dan because much of any reply that I might make to the above would be very, very likely to offend someone, somewhere...not yourself of course, I'm not talking about giving that sort of offence, as in saying something offensive or whatever. Rather I believe there are a number of assumptions you've made above that in reality are simply not factual & in endeavouring to debunk them I'll open up a Hornet's Nest.
Let's leave it at that shall we...and in the interim I will pull out all stops to track down that study & to post the conclusions here asap & from there...you can interpret them as you see fit.
Btw, be sure to keep putting your 2yos away for another day, the fewer there are around the fewer there are to beat. :p