- This topic has 148 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
If the stable were going to ‘put one away’ TAPK, don’t you think they’d have chosen something in a wee handicap or whatever rather than one of the highest profile races of the year?
Cormack,they "put more than one away"! Some poor B*****d had laid him at 999/1 purely on the fact that they were told Binny was a Non runner!Do you think these people would have offered such prices if they thought he might just come to himself in the nick of time? Dick Francis wouldn"t have got away with that one!
The ‘poor b*****d’ who laid him at 999/1 was, in reality, simply out to shaft some other ‘poor b*****d’. It’s hard to sympathise.
I don’t sympathise with anyone who loses money by laying 1000 shots, but equally I don’t think there is reason to believe anyone is necessarily trying to ‘shaft’ anyone else.
If I lay a horse with a liability of £4k ante-post, I’d find it useful if someone is prepared to lay me £4 at 1000 to free up my funds so that I can invest them in a different market.
I for one dont care what anybody says as far as Binocular is concerned! That horse had been laid out for the Champion hurdle the moment he finished 3rd in last years race!Its all a bit too coincidental that the horse has "failed" to show a repeat of his run in last years Champion until this years! Nobody can find a thing wrong with the horse,he hasn"t missed any serious work,he"s taken out of the race and drifts to 999/1,he then gets backed off the Betfair boards just before his last piece of work,which just so happens to be amazing and then wins the Champion hurdle in a hack canter! Nobody pulled the wool over my eyes as i have maintained all season he should have gone off favourite! Unbelievable is an understatement!
Your statement is indeed laughable TAPK. The horse never moved or jumped with the same fuency in any start this season until this week. There was obviously something was wrong with him, either mentally, physically or both. From his appearance it certainly did not look like a lack of fitness. Sometimes all the vets in the world can’t find what is wrong and sometimes a rest can solve the problem. How do you know he "hasn’t missed any serious work"?
I suppose had Voy Por Ustedes come back to form in the Ryanair it would’ve been "laid out" too.
Somebody always finds out that a horse is not as seriously injured as first feared. Whether it is a vet, stable lad or whoever that can’t help express a view to someone, who backs it on betfair. All it needs is for a horse to have a 1% chance, and it will be backed on betfair at 999/1, things snowball from there.
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
My view on this is very simple.
If a trainer or owner publicy indicated doubt surrounding a horses participation antepost then he should the horse in question should immediately be removed from that market on the exchanges until such a time when running plans are definite.
The ‘poor b*****d’ who laid him at 999/1 was, in reality, simply out to shaft some other ‘poor b*****d’. It’s hard to sympathise.
Totally agree with that Corm, the person who was probably laughing while they thought they were taking easy money off someone got exactly what they deserved!
Think the idea of TDK about having to submit information about a ‘definite’ non-runner is a good one. A time that the information is recieved should be noted and any betting activity after that official time should be declared void
The ‘poor b*****d’ who laid him at 999/1 was, in reality, simply out to shaft some other ‘poor b*****d’. It’s hard to sympathise.
Totally agree with that Corm, the person who was probably laughing while they thought they were taking easy money off someone got exactly what they deserved!
Think the idea of TDK about having to submit information about a ‘definite’ non-runner is a good one. A time that the information is recieved should be noted and any betting activity after that official time should be declared void
If that were the case, we would here nothing until it was 100% certain a horse would not run. Impossible to regulate. Do you really want to hear nothing about a 3/1 shot that stands only a 50/50 chance of running? Because that would be what happens.
We just have to trust people.
Without the scare about Punchestowns I might have steemed in to back it at the available price. As it was my money was already on, but you know what I mean.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
But the point here is some people are suggesting that trainers are putting negatives about horses participation in order for its price to drift on the exchanges – if a rule was in place that horses were removed upin such comments then there would be no benefits in trainers voicing false comments, i.e there would be nowhere for them to back them at these inflated odds.
For me betting exchanges have ruined racing..
But the point here is some people are suggesting that trainers are putting negatives about horses participation in order for its price to drift on the exchanges – if a rule was in place that horses were removed upin such comments then there would be no benefits in trainers voicing false comments, i.e there would be nowhere for them to back them at these inflated odds.
For me betting exchanges have ruined racing..
So they’d be removed from the markets of both exchanges and bookmakers?
And what if someone backs something in that market without that horse. Nobody would know how they stood. It’s concievable you could win if you’ve backed the horse finishing 4th. Where as someone else will win if finishing 3rd, and another punter will win if his finishes 2nd and others the "winner".
If it’s only the "winner" that wins, then it will totally stop anti-post betting. In fact either way it will severely reduce the anti-post market.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
I suppose your right with them points.
There was just such a cheated feeling about Binoculars win….
I don’t believe Bolger or Henderson did anything wrong in both cases, however Bolger was treated unfairly by the media after New Approach’s Derby win.
JohnJ
The situation was totally different.
New Approach had several alternative engagements.
Binocular only had the one.
New Approach was not injured.
Binocular was.
Not that I think Bolger said anything wrong other than not giving what I believe to be the real reason why New Approach was not going to run.
Bolger always intended to run NA in the Irish Derby and not the English version.
As a two year old it appeared he acted on any going (good-firm to very soft).
However, in the Irish Guineas it was clear he was not moving well on the very firm ground.
It also was close to the English Derby.
But what is the point of waiting for the Irish Derby if it could be firm going again? When there was plenty of cut in the ground at Epsom and the horse recovered quickly from his run in the Irish 2000, he decided to run there instead.
Had Bolger said "New Approach does not act on firm so we will run at Epsom", his stallion career may have been effected. We all know the Coolmore team comes out with spin about their stallion prospects, this was spin coming from a different sourse.Would like to see Lydia’s opinion of the above.
I backed New Approach for the derby on the exchanges at 40something/1, before it was annonced New Approach would run (sadly only a saver bet). No inside information, just because I could see a possibility of running.
Value Is EverythingOne last time for the benefit of those who cant read English or don’t understand anything that hasn’t been written in crayon – I have never questioned the integrity of either trainer, nor do I believe there was any deliberate attempt in either case to pull a fast one in antepost markets.
Lydia Hislop – Many thanks for your detailed reply. I’m away from anything resembling a normal internet connection until tomorrow. I’ll post a reply then.
One last time for the benefit of those who cant read English or don’t understand anything that hasn’t been written in crayon – I have never questioned the integrity of either trainer, nor do I believe there was any deliberate attempt in either case to pull a fast one in antepost markets.
Lydia Hislop – Many thanks for your detailed reply. I’m away from anything resembling a normal internet connection until tomorrow. I’ll post a reply then.
Cav,
Not content with insulting Lydia, you now want to insult every other member.
Have read your first post several times and it can be taken one of two ways.
Either:
Lydia should have taken Henderson to task for Binocular because (in your (supposed by us
) opinion) it was equally as bad as the Bolger case. It was probably your words that Lydia “
rightly (imo) castigated Bolger
for his contrary words and deeds,” which
suggested
to members that you
did
question both Bolger and Henderson’s integrity.
Or:
That the two cases were exactly the same and (without any opinion from yourself
) Lydia should have taken Henderson to task. Double standards.
You did not make it
clear
in your
first post
; therefore you should not castigate others for misunderstanding your post. It is
your fault
for not making things clear to us (in your opinion)
children
.
Yes, you’ve made it clear since
, but those replies are now in this thread. So myself and others have responded to their posts and
not your post
. It may be frustrating for you (as the starter of the thread) that parts of it took a different turn to what you’d like. Tough.
You’re usually a good and respected member of the forum Cav
, this is not up to your usual standard. Indeed, if we are writing in crayon, you’re in the high chair, screaming incoherently.
God, I am using some big words!
I do think you do owe Lydia an apology Paul.Mark
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
I suppose your right with them points.
There was just such a cheated feeling about Binoculars win….
Why? he was 6/1 at best before Nicky said he looked like he was finished for the season.
He then said the problem they thought he had was gone but he wouldn’t run him unless he showed him he was ready to do himslef justice.
He then told everyone he was very happy with the way he had schooled but still wasn’t prepared to commit until he worked on the Friday.
Anyone who can read knew he worked incerdibly well and Nick and AP made no secret of it.
Other than taking you by the hand down to the local bookies to bet the horse what more do you expect?
I would trust the word of Nicky henderson with my life. He isn’t in the game of pulling the wool over peoples’s eyes and uf you feel cheated then look to yourself.
No one forced you not to back Binocular you chose not to because you thought you knew better than Nicky and AP or you didn’t trust them.
You were wrong..end of story.
Lydia has enough grey matter to realise that conning the public just isn’t Nicky’s style…anyway why pick on her? There are thousnads of aricles out there on this issue….incidentally none of them are making a big deal out of this because there is no big dea.
2 Lucky people took a chance and won 25K each….good for them! Never stopped me and thousands of others backing Binny at lesser odds.
It was Binocular’s sudden improvement in health and form which makes me somewhat cynical.
Although I backed Binocular last year when he finished third in the Champion Hurdle, when supoosedly at the top of his game, I readily admit that I had no intention of backing the horse this year at Cheltenham – due mainly to his indifferent displays this season on the racecourse.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Good read, this thread.
In my opinion, the situation with Binocular worked out so
conveniently
for JP, that it made the chance of cashing in on the horse just too irresistable; the horse couldn’t have helped any more if it’d spoke queens english. The best was made of what was once a bad situation, and they were never going to look as bad as Bolger. Job done.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.