A litter I bred recently made 5 Group finals.

A bitch I recently bred produced & Group 1 winner.

Another bitch I recently bred produced a Group 1 winner.

No Australian Cup winners or finalist in that lot but I'm knocking on the door.

What about your effort Malcolm? Please do tell.

So are those the ones you accidentally sold..???

Ok , yeah I owned a bitch that's mother's sister held a track record.

Yes I bred a bitch that threw a track record holder.

I knew my d1ck was bigger than yours.

Sheldon,

1. It is not necessary to go to "your TAB account". All those figures are publicly posted on the Results option for any TAB meeting past or present. (I do not understand your "non-log-in" comment as TABCORP would be seriously misleading the public, the shareholders and the stock exchange if it published two sets of figures).

2. I have just shown at Richmond (Fri) and Wenty (Wed) meetings that there is little substantive difference in turnover between 330m and 400m/618m, or between 280m and 520m resp. I used Win only but I doubt that adding the exotics would change things much. As a further example, at that Wenty meeting the best four turnovers were races 1 and 3 (both 280s) and races 7 and 8 (both 520s).

3. Such a comparison is entirely logical when you consider who is doing the betting. Many indicators (eg overbet favourites, Next Ups, use of smart phones, small pools, etc) confirm that most Tote betting now fits in to the "mugs in pubs" category. These folk tend to ignore form or cannot read it when they do look.

4. By all means delve into long strings of races to produce even more accurate figures (but it is a laborious exercise and I can't be bothered). Again, I have seen no evidence over the years that the pattern will be any different.

5. I continue to be amazed at the relatively high proportion of odds-on pops even though their career form justifies nothing like that. They are mathematical nonsense - eg 3 wins from 25 starts may or may not justify being favourite but never odds-on. More mugs in pubs?

6. Any analysis of prices and pools has to consider independent factors such as time of day, day of week, crowding of the programs, trot delays, SKY 1 v SKY 2, and so on. These are frequently more important than the greed of a mug who can't be bothered working out the form.

7. On personal observation, a good number of trainers join in to the "mugs in pubs" category as they clearly have no idea of value. Some also often state they prefer the corporates for the certainty, whether or not they are taking crook odds or not - usually they are. Good luck to them as they will need it.

In short, I cannot buy your five grand advantage.

Now I understand why he has so many broodbitches...

If you look at the take out from exotics then that pushes win returns down even more. Hence races less than 400m often not a leg oF quaddie.

Like you said you cannot be bothered doing the exercise so when GRV present figures like 600+ races have 15% bigger pools it hard to argue until you do the figures yourself.

I have not seen such GRV figures. They certainly have the ability to pull them out but have they published the actual averages?

There were some casual figures mentioned on GD some time ago but - once again - they had very unusual features about them which explained the reasons for the variations - and it was only a couple of races so not very meaningful.

The quaddie could be meaningful but that is still a bit of a throwaway line and is a different argument to the one that says X distance is better than Y distance.

I said I would not bother because it is a lot of work to no end result.

I had a comparable discussion with a state CEO some 4 or 5 years ago when he said Maidens were good because they pulled in just as much as the graded races.

My reaction was no doubt but that's the problem!! You have to look at who is doing the betting.

Sheldon,

OK, I have relented after thousands of requests. I checked out all the February meetings at Sandown. Win only. VicTab. Some 90+ races. Rounding off, the average turnover was ....

Sunday
595m - $3,500, 515m - $5,500

Thursday
595m - $9,500, 515m - $9,000

The points of note were (a) race to race there was a 100% difference between high and low and (b) the only two 715m races scored a bit higher than others.

Roughly, this is consistent with the numbers I noted for those Richmond/Meadows examples recently - ie no special attachment to the distance of the race.

Otherwise, I repeat what I said the other day ...

"6. Any analysis of prices and pools has to consider independent factors such as time of day, day of week, crowding of the programs, trot delays, SKY 1 v SKY 2, and so on. These are frequently more important than the greed of a mug who can't be bothered working out the form."

In other words, from the individual gambler's viewpoint, betting preferences are essentially random. He is a fan of four-legged poker machines.

GRV may well have calculated a little differently but whatever they came up with would still be subject to the above checks and balances and also to the presence of special influences such as a pro having a go at a First Four clean-up on a single race.