RaceBase

I notice a new NZ racing website out there floating around in the ether. Its been put together by Gil Dymock and includes analysis and tips of upcoming races.

http://formguide.vpweb.co.nz/default.html

Hello,

I also have a website that has been in operation for 3 weeks. It offers tipping on New Zealand racing and Sports (Super14/NRL etc..) Please feel free to have a look by clicking on the link below.

http://donneystips.synthasite.com

And also ...
http://www.nzratings.com/

kiwiflyer wrote:And also ...
http://www.nzratings.com/

Very nice looking site !

mrracebase wrote:

kiwiflyer wrote:And also ...
http://www.nzratings.com/

Very nice looking site !

Thanks mrracebase

I hope it is acceptable for me to reply directly to your post. I too hate spammers!

As a web developer it's always nice to receive compliments like yours.

I am privileged to work with two of NZ's most intelligent and knowledgeable guys in the horse racing industry. Bruce Sherwin and Tony Pike submit quality race ratings, selections, speed maps and day reviews for most NZ thoroughbred meetings as well as the major Australian races.
While ours is a subscription based site, we offer a free 1week trial with all our plans so that enthusiasts are able to assess for themselves the quality of the site.
To make it even easier for your forum members though I have set up a free account which will remain valid for two weeks from today.

www.nzratings.com
username: racebase
password: racebase123

Again, thank you for your kind words.
Any suggestions for improvements for our site will be appreciated. As always ... it's a work in progress!

Regards
Bryan

bcoppersmith wrote:

mrracebase wrote:

kiwiflyer wrote:And also ...
http://www.nzratings.com/

Any suggestions for improvements for our site will be appreciated. As always ... it's a work in progress!

Regards
Bryan

As you did ask for suggestions . . .

First up, the name — NZ Ratings.

Where are the ratings? I see plenty of selections, but no ratings. You can't get away with saying "we rate this horse ahead of that horse". Supplying ratings means assessing each horse's chances and assigning the chances a numerical value. The horse with the highest number is the top rated horse. Simple and pretty much standard worldwide.

Not only is the service not giving ratings, it is decribing itself as "NZ's Premier Race Rating Service". You don't think that's a bit of a stretch? As Ricky Gervais said when he read “God saw the light and saw that it was good” from the book of Genesis, “Well, no, it is good. But . . . you know . . . we’d all like to write our own reviews.”

(He's on youtube . . . worth a look.)

Maybe put in a season of selecting and then see if someone else awards the Premier title.

Tighten up your spelling. Horses prep for racing by attending trials, not trails. (Once is a forgivable typo; three or four times with nary a sign of "trials" is a different matter.) That was the worst; there were plenty of others. Then again, this is 2009 and the internet — nobody seems to give a damn.

Your SEARCH feature doesn't work . . . not for me, anyway.

The NEWS feature is just a link to NZ Herald racing stories . . . pretty much worthless.

That'll do for now.

Thanks for the input Gil
It's great to see an enthusiast ... and yes ... I did ask for that didn't I?
Let's see now ... I'll answer this as best I can given that I am the webmaster and wrote the post so must take responsibility )
1. Where are the ratings? - The "Selections" reflect expert ratings by Bruce Sherwin and Tony Pike (see their profiles on the site). Bruce produces the selections by "assigning the chances a numerical value" and post those as "Selections" - are we not talking semantics here?
2. Is it NZ's Premier Rating Service? I certainly believe it is when compared to the amateurish efforts that I personally have seen online. Subjective ... certainly! Objectively ... only time will tell. I look forward to future reviews!
3. Tighten up the spelling. Posting the "Selections" in a timely manner is an exercise in co-ordination and is time critical. Certainly! I am totally responsible for errors and omissions. Bruce and Tony have their work cut out for them just producing the volume of information for the site. I personally have taken responsibility for the layout, graphics and typos. I have already noticed that the guys spell checkers are changing "trial" to "trail" and have already corrected many of these. I will incorporate this particular error into my automated database formatting engine and will shoulder full responsibility for any future spelling mistakes. (What were the plenty of others? And I DO GIVE A DAMN - REALLY!)
4. The Search engine doesn't work? I have tested it on all platforms with no issues. But then as we are a new site I may have missed something. Can you let me know what operating system and browser you are using so that I can ensure the search system works for you. I admit that I have not had time to make the magnifying glass "clickable" yet but if you type your query and hit return/enter it should work.
5. The News ... well we all like the search engines to love us don't we. Useless? Maybe ...
Hey Gil ... I really do appreciate your feedback. As a web developer I sit in front of the best computers and software available and without input from users I am somewhat myopic.
Please... keep it up
Regards
Bryan

Bryan

1. This point is absolutely fundamental. It is not, repeat NOT, a matter of semantics.

Selections are just that, selections. In short, they are tips. If you want a better word, they are opinions. I've no argument with Sherwin and Pike being described as "experts"; patently, given their backgrounds, they are. But they are not providing ratings.

Here's one example of how ratings could look (just one of many, many variations) . . .

2.35 — RUMBLETUM HANDICAP, R90, 1600m

Dumbledorf . . . 68
Bolingbroke . . . 64
Shimbleshanks . . . 57
Grabbit . . . 54
Anscoot . . . 54
Dance Floor . . . 50
Big Fella . . . 48
Acer . . . 45
Spider-Man . . . 40
Wolly Wolly . . . not rated
Drongo . . . not rated

Maybe then add some comments along the lines of DUMBLEDORF has come out on top, but only by a few points over Bolingbroke, the barrier draw and course record tipping the scales. (Basically, explain why the ratings have thrown up this horse.)

Your "ratings" look like this . . .

Ratings: 15-16-5-1-2

Those aren't ratings; they're just the order in which your bloke fancies them.

part 2 (Peter will have to get his people to fix this thing; after a dozen or so lines the type disappears from sight and jumps like a frantic flea when I try to add to it)

2. I've already argued the "ratings" bit so let's deal with "Premier" (I'm assuming you're referring to the quality of selecting when using that word and not the website design and layout). As this is a racing argument, I'll use the Coupland's Bakery Mile as an example. This kicked off a few years ago as a $250K race — richer than the Thorndon, richer than the Captain Cook, richer than the Easter Handicap, all group ones. So, was it awarded group one status from the get go? No. It started as, from memory, a listed race, then graduated to group three and is currently group two. In other words, it had to earn its ranking. So do you . . . even if, as you claim, Tina Turner like, you're better than all the rest.

3. I went through the site and saw plenty. Don't feel too bad, though. I made my living for many years as a proof reader and then as a book editor. They tend to jump out at me. And I'd describe three or more as "plenty". Mudgeway, as in Mudgeway Stakes, was one. Do the sort of work I was doing and you'll find out just how important names are. The variant spellings tend to stick in my mind; Mudgway Stakes is one such sticker. Looser for loser was another. Spell checkers are all right up to a point, but they can't spot a dud spelling when it's a legitimate word in its own right. I've an idea I spotted the odd misplaced apostrophe; but don't worry, I'm one of only 175 people in New Zealand and fewer than 4000 worldwide who know where the 'pos goes every time.

part 3

4. I typed "trials" into the search box and nothing happened. Further, there was nothing I could do to make something happen. I then tried "trails", thinking that "trials" was a complete non-starter on the site, but again nothing and again no way to kick the thing into action. My operating system is Windows something and the browser is Internet Explorer (assuming that I've understood what "operating system" and "browser" mean). I'll try that "hitting enter" trick. Hey, it worked. And whaddaya know, trials outscored trails 30-12.

5. Are you suggesting that the links to the Herald racing stories are some sort of subterfuge to increase the interest of the the search engines? If so, it's a dumb move. You'll just annoy your subscribers. When I saw the News heading, my immediate thought was links to news items that were, for me, out of the way, something a bit exotic I'd otherwise miss. But the Herald? Give us a break.

Other stuff:

Do you really need Vicki's View? You've set out to provide a selection service for serious punters — at least, I think that's been your aim. And then you tack on some sheila's breeding burbles. In one stroke you've downgraded the operation from serious to semi-serious. The next step is "fun" — and after that . . .

Under the heading Pool sizes, your man waxes lyrical about commingling (although he calls it co-mingling, which is all right). He says the website would never have happened without commingled pools. But he then supplies selections for Dargaville, Paeroa and Gisborne. These are the Curly, Larry and Moe of North Island tracks. Are our Australian cousins betting on meetings at these outposts? In commingled pools? If they are I'd be hugely surprised. And if they're not then the commingled pools point has no merit. It's a classic dichotomy.

More stuff

Dichotomy would be a good name for a racehorse.

I had a look at the site while not logged on. Someone happening on the site would want to know what you're offering and how good you are. His first action would be to click on to, say, NZ Cup day to see how you went. When he then clicks on Selections he gets a come-on to subscribe and if he then goes to Results he gets just the shortened version. What he wants to see is what the paying subscriber saw on raceday morning.

There are other bits and pieces too. But everything pales into insignificance behind that RATINGS claim. What you're supplying are not ratings. If your man is basing his selections on ratings, then publish the ratings. If not, then use the correct labels.

I've refrained from commenting on the quality of the selections.

I do agree with mrracebase, it's a nice looking site.

addendum

One thing I'd do would be to drop the numbers after the horses' names. This sort of thing, "Given the pace of the race, a flip of the coin Amaryllis (5) and Yeah Barbie (8)", should be "Given the pace of the race, a flip of the coin Amaryllis and Yeah Barbie".

Nobody putting on a bet will be relying on your numbers being correct; they'll want to check the numbers for themselves. At least, they shouldn't be and they should do.

From your point of view, adding the numbers is adding work. Further, it's adding work that won't be appreciated when it's correct but will bring condemnation when it's wrong. And you will get them wrong at some stage. I'll go bank on that.

Hi Gil
What a wonderful response! Just the sort of information I need. You make some valid and helpful comments.
I am away today in Auckland and will respond in kind this evening.
Regards
Bryan
www.nzratings.com

[quote="Gil"]More stuff

>Dichotomy would be a good name for a racehorse.


Find me a commentator that can pronounce it and I'll agree

Larry

bcoppersmith wrote:Hi Gil
What a wonderful response! Just the sort of information I need. You make some valid and helpful comments.
I am away today in Auckland and will respond in kind this evening.
Regards
Bryan
www.nzratings.com

Hi Bryan,

Are you a racing man or just providing the website for the 'experts'?


And I agree with Gil (as any racing 'expert' would) ... ratings are numerical values assigned to the runners ... you'll have to change the marketing ramble to 'NZ's Premier Selection Service' or something similar

Larry

Hi Larry and Gil

I am certainly not a racing man although it is certainly a fascinating industry. I have so far only had one "flutter" on Race 1 at Waipa on Sunday as Bruce had said "Best play: Not much between 1-2-8 on ratings". I had a huge punt for a $2 boxed trifecta ($12) ... and picked up $180! I can see how that can get addictive.

The way I see it (I can feel Gil's wrath building already ), the whole issue with the "Ratings" debate lies in what is used to make the "Selections". And the guys do indeed base their selections firmly on speed ratings. Add to this their combined experience and knowledge in breeding, training, commentary, sectional and trackwork analysis, computer betting and yes, ratings, we post a summary each race and predicted results. The "Best play" comment generally reflects a confidence level in the race and possibly recommended punting strategies.

So while our customers do not get specific "ratings" they do get what they came for ... selections based on speed ratings. And they all seem very happy with that.

Gil, I have cleaned up all the "trails" "trials" issues and will be vigilant in the future for spelling mistakes. It's a tricky one really as it does become a very manual process given that a lot of commentary includes reference to a horse "trailing" another so with time constraints on race days there is often not enough time to publish the core material and check every last detail. I too come from a publishing background having started in the 80's one of the first computer (PC) based typesetting companies in NZ. I learned very much from working alongside Janet and Paul Bateman and was always astounded at the skills Janet demonstrated on proof reading ... truly an art form!

Oh I nearly forgot ... for those wishing to see the extent of the service without subscribing, there is a 1 week free trial available and the "Archives" are also available to non-subscribers.

Regards
Bryan
nzratings.com

Wow Bryan. You're not a betting man yet when you do decide to have a "flutter" (a time-warp to the the 1950s moment there) you land on the first race at a Te Awamutu Sunday meeting — in an event which your man has described as "A really competitive race to kick off proceedings", in which he's named five chances, in which his "best play" advice is a wishy-washy "Not much between 1-2-8 on ratings. Depends on odds. ? value." In other words, "I can't really sort this out; don't bet."

You've been webmastering this site all through September and October, well into November, through the best that spring racing has to offer both here and in Victoria, with all the great advice passing through your keyboard . . . yet when you finally burst out of your shell and have a crack with real money it's on R1 at Te Awamutu, on a Sunday, dodgy weather, and you just happen to go with the first three picks of five with a bet your man didn't recommend.

Unbelievable! And I mean that literally. I don't believe it. I'm calling bullshit on that bet. It never happened.

part two

This is a telling statement: "I am certainly not a racing man." That's obvious. If you were a racing man — more specifically, a betting man — you would know what is meant by the term "ratings". Like any activity — whether a profession, a branch of science, a form of artistic expression, a craft — racing has its own jargon, its own terminology. Certain words mean certain things; they don't have the manifold meanings they might have in the outside world. Ratings is one such word. It cannot be fudged. If a betting man is told, "I will supply you with ratings" then there will be certainty in his mind as to what he'll get.

You're not supplying ratings. You're supplying a set of selections which you claim to be based on ratings. (It smacks of John Smith and the Book of Mormon and his "Trust me".) If there are indeed ratings, then let's see them. To use an American expression, "I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me."

Funnily, you've come up with the term "speed ratings". This is a new one on me. There are ratings and there are speed maps. Has your man somehow combined the two?

part three

This is interesting: "Add to this their combined experience and knowledge in breeding, training, commentary, sectional and trackwork analysis, computer betting . . ."

I've conceded earlier that your guys are experts. There's a caveat to that, however. They are "racing" experts. That doesn't necessarily translate into "selecting" expert. And "selecting" expert doesn't necessarily translate into "betting" expert.

First up, breeding means diddly-squat when applied to betting. If you're buying an unraced horse, look at its breeding; if you're backing a racehorse, look at its form. Next, training. I've known a few trainers in my time, among them some fine conditioners of horseflesh. But while they knew when their own horse was fit and ready to go, they weren't great analysts of the opposition. So proficiency at training doesn't mean a lot when it comes to sorting out if A can beat B. Commentary? A skill about on a par with taxi-driving when applied to picking horses. Sectional and trackwork analysis. Now you're talking; these mean something. Haven't seen too much mention of them in the recommendations, though. Computer betting? Any fool with fingers can bet on a computer. And many do.

Well Gil, I guess I'll have to wait for some constructive or meaningful criticism before responding.

bugger, part four got lost on its way to the dance; I'll try again

Anyone buying goods and services, whether from a bootmaker, baker, barrister or barista, wants them delivered on time and in good condition. Nobody expects perfection, but neither are they interested in excuses.

You want to make a bird of getting horse names right, though.

As for proof reading, it's just an indoor job with no heavy lifting. It's a long way from being an art form. Maybe you should visit a museum.

bcoppersmith wrote:Well Gil, I guess I'll have to wait for some constructive or meaningful criticism before responding.

Bryan

Tell us how you decided the trifecta on R1 at Te Awamutu would be a good vehicle in which to set off on your journey into puntingland.

I'm intrigued. Sceptical, sure. Sceptical to the point of non-belief, in fact. But also intrigued.

Bryan

Are you still there?

Thought I'd keep this going. I wouldn't have bothered but this sort of comment gets me: "compared to the amateurish efforts that I personally have seen online". As does this: "NZ Ratings aims to give you the right information to make money from betting on thoroughbred racing, long term. Sherwin and Pike, personally, set the bar a little higher, targeting a return that at least justifies the time and effort employed. And to this end, they have consistently achieved their goals." (Who wrote that? Sounds like Saatchi & Saatchi on acid.)

There are a few things about your site I find strange, weird even. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say amateurish.

You have a Best Bet, a Next Best and a Value Bet. Except sometimes you don't. Like for Riccarton last Saturday when the Best Bet is not a horse but a race (incorrectly labelled the 2000 Guineas) and there's a series of bets on Katie Lee — including, amazingly, two units (out of twelve) for a place . . . on a horse that was never going to be better than even money a win and eventually paid $1.70/$1.10. Anyway, what happened to the Next Best and Value Bet? And what prompted all that detailed betting strategy?

Then there's the Best Play feature and the distinctly odd habit of running through the merits of up to half a dozen starters then deciding that the Best Play is to not have a bet, or this Best play: No interest or this Best play: Tough race – not sure.

Two things strike me here. First, you're taking money off people on the basis that you're experts and can sort out the way to bet . . . and then you decide it's too hard. That's the whole point of a selection service . . . although it's hard you're supposed to overcome the difficulty. If you went to the dentist and he said, "Whoa. I can't touch that. I've got no idea how to fix it", you'd never go back. Second, if you don't want to recommend anything, why preview the race in the first place? It's not as if you're previewing every race . . . only five from Tauranga and five from Riccarton last Saturday. No Best Plays at Riccarton at all and just the first three covered at Tauranga.

part two

Here are the Ratings and Best Plays from Te Rapa on November 7, starting with R2 . . .

Ratings: 7-6-1-4-3-8

Best play: This is a very competitive race ratings-wise, but we do like Justa Kinda Magic (7) each way.

__

Ratings: 2-8-11-1-15

Best play: Cautious

__

Ratings: 5-8-9-1

Best play: Given the pace of the race, a flip of the coin Amaryllis (5) and Yeah Barbie (8).

__

Ratings: 1-14-15-8

Best play: Khemosabi (1) - This is a good horse.

__

Ratings: 6-3-5-4-2

Best play: Cautious

__

Ratings: 9-2-5-Any

Best play: A tough race.

__

Ratings: 14-4-9-8

Best play: Not much between these horses, should be some value to play.

__

Ratings: 4-12-3

Best play: Gendarme (4) a good bet, but odds will be short.

__

Ratings: 14-3-7-13-16

Best play: Dasoudi (14) is likely to be at good odds here. Value bet.

part three

I've got no idea how the "ratings" work and no way of knowing. How come some races have six runners "rated", some five, some four, some three, some two. And what's this? Ratings: 9-2-5-Any. What the hell is Any? Where did that spring from? How is a punter supposed to use that piece of information? The whole "ratings" thing is a mystery, a nonsense, a figment of someone's imagination — take your pick.

In the Best Plays —

R2: A set of figures to show just how "competitive" would have been nice.

R3: What does "Cautious" mean?

R4: And a "flip of the coin"?

R5: At last, something decisive.

R6: Another cautious. Why bother with the "ratings" then?

R7: Looks like the "ratings" threw up three contenders then threw in the towel.

R8: I've no idea what "should be some value to play" means. No idea.

R9: Some more decisive picking . . . well, the second piece of decisive picking.

R10: Opinions vary on what "value bet" means but at least this was a one-horse recommendation.

part four

I've no idea who would subscribe to this service, although my best guess would be "nobody".

There is no pattern to the selecting, no consistency of races covered, crap midweek meetings get the full monty yet Riccarton (and I know it's in the South Island but at this time of year it's a de facto central districts meeting) got just half cards — oddly, though, a couple of races down there copped extended coverage.

And all those Each Way recommendations, on horses that turn out to be $1.50 and shorter on the place tote. The only horses pushed as straight win bets invariably run at even money or shorter.

The website is far too flash and tries to do far too much. All those wasted pages for FAQs, Blogs, and even, for the love of God, a Live Chat. How bloody pretentious can you get?

By contrast, Formpro is a dog's breakfast of a website. That's because it's a one-man show . . . the guy who does the selecting, and all the work behind the selecting, also looks after the website. (At least, I'm guessing it's a one-man show; he can't possibly be paying for that layout.) It might look as rough as bags but here's the thing . . . he throws out his share of winners. And his selections are backed up by sound reasoning — in his case based on sectional times. I don't subscribe but I always check in to see how he's done; and I've got to say, he has his moments.

That's enough from me. Except that I have an apology. I misread the betting advice on the 1000 Guineas. The two units a place were to go on Aspinal, not Katie Lee. Still a strange, and poor, investment though.

Wow Gil. Some of your criticsms might be ok but I'm taking a look at the nzratings page anyway. I need some help with my punting.

apunter wrote:Wow Gil. Some of your criticsms might be ok but I'm taking a look at the nzratings page anyway. I need some help with my punting.

We all need help with our punting, mate. No man is an island, sufficient unto himself — John Donne (probably not a betting man but a source of sound advice in many fields). It's where you go for that help that matters.

It also depends on what sort of help you want; in what areas you are seeking advice.

I go to the TAB's excellent on-line form guides and search through for horses dropping in class or having an edge in weight or coming back after top-class form the previous season (maybe after having a quiet run fresh up) or doing something that marks them as a bit special. I then check the videos on the NZ Racing site to confirm what the form guide told me. When I've found what I want, I put them together in a betting mode that suits me.

That's all free. A bit time-consuming but I've got the time.

If you want all the sorting out done for you, Racebase's programme will do it for a modest fee.

You have a great website that could be a good site to visit and subscribe. Maybe I could be a good visitor that regularly visiting those websites. I think I should try to check the videos on the NZ Racing website.


_________________
Multivariate Testing

Hi, for those who may not of received my email yesterday please check out my website www.donstips.com any feedback/comments are welcomed. Thanks