home - to The Greyhound-Database
Home  |  Dog-Search  |  Dogs ID  |  Races  |  Race Cards  |  Coursing  |  Tracks  |  Statistic  |  Testmating  |  Kennels  
 
Facebook
Login  |    |  add_race  |  add_coursing  |  add_dog  |  Membership  |  Advertising  | Ask the Vet  | Memorials    Help  print pedigree      
TV  |  Active-Sires  |  Sire-Pages  |  Which Sire?  |  Classifieds  |  Auctions  |  Photos  |  Videos  |  Library  |  Adoption  |  Forum  |  About_us  |  Site Usage

Welcome to the Greyhound Knowledge Forum

   

The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.

Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.

Please read the forum usage manual please note:

If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.

In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.

Read more...

All TopicsFor SaleGD-WebsiteBreedingHealthRacingCoursingRetirementBettingTalkLogin to post
If you need help or advice about a dog you are retiring then this is the place for you.

Speed can killpage  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

Michael Geraghty
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4132
Dogs 14 / Races 15

24 Jan 2020 01:12


 (2)
 (0)


Graham Moscow wrote:

Let it be Bruce
Time to move forward

EXTERNAL LINK

There is no forward with him, Gov.

It's more like this...

EXTERNAL LINK


Martyn Empson
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 149
Dogs 0 / Races 3

24 Jan 2020 01:20


 (0)
 (0)


EXTERNAL LINK


Michael Geraghty
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4132
Dogs 14 / Races 15

24 Jan 2020 02:38


 (3)
 (0)


It's all just a mixed up bowl of spaghetti, isn't it?

If the theory of 67% can't back up was true, then one can assume that 33% can.
What a lovely punting opportunity that would be for an intelligent alien like Tornado.
You see, all he would have to do generally is to delete the 67% who, through his ingenious system are highlighted from past failures, cover the remaining 2 or 3 dogs in the race and win nearly every time!
Effectively he's betting on a 2 or 3 dog race every time!
Absolutely brilliant!
Nooo, he says because of a weakened breed it's all too hard.
Make it a 14 day break so he has to unravel the winner from 8 dogs instead of 2 or 3 dogs!?!?!?!?!
What a warm caring human being he is.

He calculates ALL distance dogs to arrive at the conclusion 67% of ALL can't back up, yet admits he doesn't allow for INTERFERENCE.
So he has two baskets...1. Backed up 2. Didn't back up. If you got a hip and shoulder mate, bad luck its not accounted for and you go into the "Didn't back up" basket.
So the premise of taking ALL dogs into account relies on "What time" rather than "What happened time".
Well, I guess it saves a bit of "time"...bugger the accuracy.

Speaking of averages, 99.9% of people here(Tornado being the self-agreed .01%) would agree that a heat/final winner in faster time is a fairly accurate indication that it met minimal interference allowing it to demonstrate its ability to back up successfully...no?
Far more transparent than the highly sophisticated two basket-no interference calculated genius record keeping of toe tapping Tornado.

It's OK, Torn...you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Of course they are...

It's gone beyond ridiculous... It's embarrassing.

Tally ho.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 18247
Dogs 14477 / Races 1815

24 Jan 2020 03:18


 (2)
 (0)


Ah Michael

But when it suits his argument he will give you a blow by blow description as well as a breakfast and emptying out report from the trainer to provide why a dog improved it times

Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

It was not missed at all. You failed to check.

I pointed out that True Detective was a victim of unfamiliarity with the BGC710m in its heat - particularly the first turn near the 600m boxes - and therefore ran moderate time. It ran all over the track, thereby increasing its elapsed time.

In any event, its final winning time was still barely average and slower than two other dogs ran in the heats. My guess is that the 700s are a fraction beyond its best distance but it may prove me wrong.

This analysis is probably very sound but if this kind of analysis was done for all the beaten greyhounds as well rather than just put in the ''Didn't Back Up'' basket, willy nilly, then maybe his ratings would have more credibility

Then, apart from interference and injury, there is the X factor, some dogs chase hard one week when they are near the lead and quite a few in the staying ranks. don't chase as hard when they lose sight of the lure which has nothing to do with 'not backing up' for purely physical reasons, onlymental state.

Its far too convenient in Torn's stats to account for those dogs into that category

His stats are therefore too random to consider for any reason at all, either for punting or for policy changes, even though in them somewhere there is an extremely small element of the truth where some dog may have outperformed in a previous week and not backed up.

Therefore, in conclusion, in absence of any other concrete evidence, the rest of us are still correct and Torn is still bugling

Toot Toot



Michael Geraghty
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4132
Dogs 14 / Races 15

24 Jan 2020 03:38


 (0)
 (0)


Sandro Bechini wrote:

Ah Michael

But when it suits his argument he will give you a blow by blow description as well as a breakfast and emptying out report from the trainer to provide why a dog improved it times

Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

It was not missed at all. You failed to check.

I pointed out that True Detective was a victim of unfamiliarity with the BGC710m in its heat - particularly the first turn near the 600m boxes - and therefore ran moderate time. It ran all over the track, thereby increasing its elapsed time.

In any event, its final winning time was still barely average and slower than two other dogs ran in the heats. My guess is that the 700s are a fraction beyond its best distance but it may prove me wrong.

This analysis is probably very sound but if this kind of analysis was done for all the beaten greyhounds as well rather than just put in the ''Didn't Back Up'' basket, willy nilly, then maybe his ratings would have more credibility

Then, apart from interference and injury, there is the X factor, some dogs chase hard one week when they are near the lead and quite a few in the staying ranks. don't chase as hard when they lose sight of the lure which has nothing to do with 'not backing up' for purely physical reasons, onlymental state.

Its far too convenient in Torn's stats to account for those dogs into that category

His stats are therefore too random to consider for any reason at all, either for punting or for policy changes, even though in them somewhere there is an extremely small element of the truth where some dog may have outperformed in a previous week and not backed up.

Therefore, in conclusion, in absence of any other concrete evidence, the rest of us are still correct and Torn is still bugling

Toot Toot

Touché.

I think the bugle boy has had his last blow...so to speak.



Ryan Vanderwert
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4725
Dogs 4 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 03:41


 (2)
 (0)


How's this for logic Michael(re interference):

Bruce Teague wrote:

Ryan,

I see you are having problems understanding a complex issue....

First, your system of personally identifying and quantifying en route interference met by each dog - wherever it occurs - is unsound and unhelpful for various reasons - mainly that it is subjective and also because dogs which hit interference in one race tend to do it in others. So we do not use it...…..

a dog gets interfered with in one race, therefore it gets interfered with in another ? wtf it's hexed?

much rather be subjective thank you !


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 18247
Dogs 14477 / Races 1815

24 Jan 2020 05:03


 (3)
 (0)


Ryan Vanderwert wrote:

How's this for logic Michael(re interference):

Bruce Teague wrote:

Ryan,

I see you are having problems understanding a complex issue....

First, your system of personally identifying and quantifying en route interference met by each dog - wherever it occurs - is unsound and unhelpful for various reasons - mainly that it is subjective and also because dogs which hit interference in one race tend to do it in others. So we do not use it...…..

a dog gets interfered with in one race, therefore it gets interfered with in another ? wtf it's hexed?

much rather be subjective thank you !

Umm, oh gee, I may be going out on a limb here, but maybe they do bump with each other because there are usually 8 in a race all going for early positions.

Toot toot



Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 1911
Dogs 0 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 05:24


 (1)
 (0)


Sandro,

As I read it, you claim that my "stats are therefore too random to consider for any reason at all" but your stats are fine.

Since the sources are basically the same, how does that work?

Otherwise, please refer to my earlier post about collecting and interpreting statistics, particularly apples and oranges.


Michael Geraghty
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4132
Dogs 14 / Races 15

24 Jan 2020 05:33


 (1)
 (0)


Ryan Vanderwert wrote:

How's this for logic Michael(re interference):

Bruce Teague wrote:

Ryan,

I see you are having problems understanding a complex issue....

First, your system of personally identifying and quantifying en route interference met by each dog - wherever it occurs - is unsound and unhelpful for various reasons - mainly that it is subjective and also because dogs which hit interference in one race tend to do it in others. So we do not use it...…..

a dog gets interfered with in one race, therefore it gets interfered with in another ? wtf it's hexed?

much rather be subjective thank you !

I think he's referring to the monthly Meekathara races for blind Greyhounds.
I'm pretty sure even the local tipster there calculates roughly how many lengths the dog loses from week to week.

The mind boggles doesn't it...
I'm also pretty sure there was no repeat business for his Gold rated betting accessory he was selling once they found out it was made of lead.



Kevin Wright
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 5559
Dogs 1 / Races 1

24 Jan 2020 05:40


 (3)
 (0)



We all make mistakes. We all make poor judgments.
We all do things we might not do in hindsight.
We are Human .

Tornado you have to learn to say i am wrong it will help clean your soul wash away the bad jew jew you have within you ..

All the best for 2020 Tornado
best wishes
Guru Kev

If you need spiritual and guidance advice Tornado please feel free to email me at gurukev@gmail.com or 1800 GURUKEV




Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 1911
Dogs 0 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 05:42


 (1)
 (0)


Ryan Vanderwert wrote:

How's this for logic Michael(re interference):

Bruce Teague wrote:

Ryan,

I see you are having problems understanding a complex issue....

First, your system of personally identifying and quantifying en route interference met by each dog - wherever it occurs - is unsound and unhelpful for various reasons - mainly that it is subjective and also because dogs which hit interference in one race tend to do it in others. So we do not use it...…..

a dog gets interfered with in one race, therefore it gets interfered with in another ? wtf it's hexed?

much rather be subjective thank you !

Ryan,

I would have thought that people with lots of hands-on experience with dogs would have noted this point. Like humans, some dogs are clumsy and tend to hit things, usually just running into the backside of another dog or just tangling legs and falling. For example, Sweet It Is did it all the time.

If you keep crediting such a runner with the resultant interference you will soon have it running 20 lengths faster than the track record.

And I still hear no answer to my query about how these credits get assessed for races away from the given track or state. That will be relevant for tonight's Plate at Wenty as well as the upcoming series at Cannington. That's a lot of races, careers and videos to work out.



Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 1911
Dogs 0 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 06:04


 (1)
 (0)


Ryan,

You said, "Disappointing thing is you cldn't help yourself by publicly slagging off yet another organisation in the process of justifying your database. I was wondering how long it wld take when you first mentioned Sure Pick. You do the same thing to people who have a different view to you".

IF you read my post more carefully you would see that I said Sure Pick was a fair enough deal (but others were not) but that I did not agree with an aspect of their system. Like you, their basic public program encouraged people to make allowances for interference - something which I have found unsubstantiated and misleading. Such is life.

Over time I have had quite a few chats with Sure Pick folk - possibly much more than you have (did you buy their program or are you just waffling?). In any event they soon realised a commercial program was a dead duck and so withdrew it, as I have done, too.

If you can't handle people disagreeing with you on technical matters then that's your loss, not mine.


Michael Geraghty
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4132
Dogs 14 / Races 15

24 Jan 2020 06:06


 (0)
 (0)


Bruce Teague wrote:

Ryan Vanderwert wrote:

How's this for logic Michael(re interference):

Bruce Teague wrote:

Ryan,

I see you are having problems understanding a complex issue....

First, your system of personally identifying and quantifying en route interference met by each dog - wherever it occurs - is unsound and unhelpful for various reasons - mainly that it is subjective and also because dogs which hit interference in one race tend to do it in others. So we do not use it...…..

a dog gets interfered with in one race, therefore it gets interfered with in another ? wtf it's hexed?

much rather be subjective thank you !

Ryan,

I would have thought that people with lots of hands-on experience with dogs would have noted this point. Like humans, some dogs are clumsy and tend to hit things, usually just running into the backside of another dog or just tangling legs and falling. For example, Sweet It Is did it all the time.

If you keep crediting such a runner with the resultant interference you will soon have it running 20 lengths faster than the track record.

And I still hear no answer to my query about how these credits get assessed for races away from the given track or state. That will be relevant for tonight's Plate at Wenty as well as the upcoming series at Cannington. That's a lot of races, careers and videos to work out.

You need to read your own posts more carefully, Torn, because they get more absurd the more you write.

"SOME dogs are clumsy..."
So you rate a time on a dog as "not backing up" because SOME dogs are clumsy therefore we must ignore all interference?
If someone hits your car from behind you say, "Don't worry about it mate, my fault, I'm just a clumsy old fool"?

No other interference happens in a race except to ONLY the clumsy ones?

Did you ever do some writing for the Monty Python boys?




Ryan Vanderwert
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4725
Dogs 4 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 06:08


 (0)
 (0)


Bruce as you know you live and die as a punter by the decisions you make.

As for your last paragraph, I had found a respectable way to do that as well and for some tracks even sectionally. Yes it is a lot of work.

I had a really good mentor and was very fortunate I did...….he's still full time and a brilliant judge(one of those subjective ones).

Gotta run Valleys on. Cheers boys.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 18247
Dogs 14477 / Races 1815

24 Jan 2020 06:11


 (0)
 (0)


Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

As I read it, you claim that my "stats are therefore too random to consider for any reason at all" but your stats are fine.

Since the sources are basically the same, how does that work?

Otherwise, please refer to my earlier post about collecting and interpreting statistics, particularly apples and oranges.

You are obviously playing dumb...you can read what I wrote, I am not going to indulge you and repeat it

Toot Toot




Michael Geraghty
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 4132
Dogs 14 / Races 15

24 Jan 2020 07:17


 (0)
 (0)


I think this whole crazy thread can be summed up with two points...

1. Steve and Sandro's comprehensive examples of how stayers can and do back up.

2. Torny's statement that determining interference is "unhelpful" and "unsubstantiated".

I'm sure 99.99% see the picture very clearly.

Ten years of propaganda down the drain, Tornado.



Mark Donohue
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2798
Dogs 6 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 08:15


 (1)
 (0)


You guys ‘crack me up’ with your humour and common sense. You should be paid for the entertainment factor and others included for helping people to make a better decision with their greyhounds and trying to win on the punt. I’d give $10 to Tornado for starting the thread.

Torn (luv it) is still not feeling and seeing it.



Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7565
Dogs 180 / Races 66

24 Jan 2020 10:10


 (2)
 (0)


Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

It was not missed at all. You failed to check.

I pointed out that True Detective was a victim of unfamiliarity with the BGC710m in its heat - particularly the first turn near the 600m boxes - and therefore ran moderate time. It ran all over the track, thereby increasing its elapsed time.

In any event, its final winning time was still barely average and slower than two other dogs ran in the heats. My guess is that the 700s are a fraction beyond its best distance but it may prove me wrong.


Did anyone say....KFC ?

WHATEVER


Ian Bradshaw
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 238
Dogs 6 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 10:20


 (0)
 (0)


steven martin wrote:

Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

It was not missed at all. You failed to check.

I pointed out that True Detective was a victim of unfamiliarity with the BGC710m in its heat - particularly the first turn near the 600m boxes - and therefore ran moderate time. It ran all over the track, thereby increasing its elapsed time.

In any event, its final winning time was still barely average and slower than two other dogs ran in the heats. My guess is that the 700s are a fraction beyond its best distance but it may prove me wrong.


Did anyone say....KFC ?

1st 5. TRUE DETECTIVE

2nd 7. BLUE MOON RISING

3rd 3. BLUE SUMMER SKY

4th 2. JUST TERMS

I have not bothered to compare heats/final times.

I will leave that for Bruce...he can then adjust his program to suit the result.


Patrick D'Arcy
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 187
Dogs 3 / Races 0

24 Jan 2020 10:31


 (1)
 (0)


I've been an breeder/owner for 20 years in Qld connected with various trainers & my dogs, stayer or sprinter,
always ran his quickest time ( barring interference) after the trainer had said pre- race that the dog is " feeling good". That's when I had a punt, a successful system. It wasn't because the stayer had a 14 day break between races or the sprinter, a week's rest. It was because the trainer had fixed all the niggling injuries, got the dog to peak race fitness etc and the dog had drawn a favourable box etc. Stayer or not, a 2 week break between races would severely hamper the trainer in getting his charge to that race fitness level of that "feeling good" dog.
On that basis alone, Bruce, your theory/ suggestion is not feasible

posts 359page  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18