- This topic has 272 replies, 107 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Surely any prices put up at more provincial meetings on National day are only going to look stupid when all the touches are landed?
Carv
Pretty sure it’s common practice on National day, as those nice bookies would rather deal with the ‘mug money’ when they can have it thrown at them like today.
Pretty peeved myself, as there are some good televised races with no pre-race thoughts from connections.I’d bet you a pony to a quid that races like the Aintree Hurdle used to have a Pricewise box in previous years.
We have done the Aintree hurdle in the past I think, but not for the last few years.
I think all bookies are pretty much snowed under with Grand National business, enquiries, special bets etc today, so it is felt adding more advertised races would probably complicate things too much for shop staff.
- Total Posts 17716
We have done the Aintree hurdle in the past I think, but not for the last few years.
I think all bookies are pretty much snowed under with Grand National business, enquiries, special bets etc today, so it is felt adding more advertised races would probably complicate things too much for shop staff.
Cheers TDK.
Carv
How will you be sending my pony?
Yesterday the Racing Post noted that the big Irish trainers only finished second and third in the Oaks so I watched for the reference to the big Stout stable only finishing second in the Derby but it was not there. How come the Irish trainers deserve a put down ?
Probably because Irish stables provided the first 3 in the betting (and the fifth and sixth) for the Oaks whereas Stoute was responsible for only the third, fourth and sixth favourites. And because "the Irish" is a concept that lazy readers (and writers) can latch onto without much effort.
It is hardly insightful, but I would imagine that is the explanation.
Daylight expressed the reasons very well at:
https://theracingforum.co.uk/forum/v … hp?t=68933Taking a pop at defenceless "johnny foreigner" is regarded as both patriotic and fair game in their narrow minded book.
Doing the same to home based trainers, owners, tipsters, bookmakers and jockeys etc. with any clout and that "offend" is another matter, largely covered by the word "gutless".It is ironic that the paper is now owned by Irish investors but the "journalists" have still not discarded the rampant prejudices and home bias of the clique.
A funny word . Was it belittling the second place finish or the second place finisher? Oxx seldom travels his horses. So getting any place in the Oaks satisfies him.He was more hopeful than confident.(the horse was fancied but I doubt if the owner or trainer backed her)Likewise Aidan hardly expected his to win but will motor on like he did last year when he was second.Being placed in the Oaks is a wonderful achievement for any breeder,just as much as for any trainer.Not real easy to keep the press happy.Stouty was probably disappointed to be beaten when "only"(that word again) days before he did not expect to be meeting New Approach. But he would hardly say he was only second.I only brought this up because not only was the use of only badly done but it was somewhat disrespectful to both trainers and the wonderful Oaks.
Dear Fire fox. I am probably laboring the point. The reference in the Racing Post was not to the horses you mention but to the Irish trainers(who trained the second and third,) if I recall correctly.Forgive me but I am too sleepy to recheck.I have no argument with your post just the Racing Post.
After reading that Ryan Moore needs his arm breaking, John Murtagh ¨spears¨ horses cause their British and Khalid Abdullah is a race fixer on here over the past few days it was with much relief I found some worthwhile input yesterday from the racing media on the weekends events.
Im not a fan of the Racing Post at all, but yesterdays articles from Alastair Down and James Willoughby were excellent. Alan Lee’s piece in the Times today is first class. Very well reasoned and demonstrated analysis on the incident from Sean Boyce in the booth.
The experienced professionals came to the fore yesterday.
Is there a good article based on the front page headline in there today? The last twice I got the paper based on such headlines the articles were in effect PR for Lord Donoghue and Tattersalls. Would I be wasting my money again today?
You would be wasting your money.
Lord Donoghue " We are not here to make punters better off"
I read the article for free on the website. As suspected, a big punter friendly headline leading to a 1 page PR article for Lord Donoghue and the SPRC.
Todays industry section of the news on the RP website has a better article. Well said BigMac, your one of the few.
I do wish Adrian Pariser would stop spouting utter rubbish – the last time he banged on about how wrong the SP process was because of the way it was calculated he reported the way it is calculated all wrong anyway!
He’s starting to make himself look like a right idiot coming out with a load of claptrap to the papers – how on earth he can possibly come out with "We bet to a fantastic percentage and it is not reflected in the SPs" and not see that it is the most utter nonsense is beyond me. It’s a no-brainer – the SPs don’t reflect what is bet on course?!?! How on earth does he come to that conclusion?! Mind you, since the guy doesn’t have a scooby how the prices are returned and just loves the sound of his own voice I shouldn’t really be that surprised….
McCririck is beating a tired and worn drum also. He is trying to simplify the process when in reality the SPs have to reflect what is actually available in the ring. It’s all well and good for him to claim that Joe Bloggs was betting at 16/1 on a horse returned 14/1, but if Joe Bloggs doesn’t lay a bet – and, even more crucially with the new relaxed betting rules, if he isn’t betting each way – how can it be an accurate reflection of what is available to decent money in the ring to return the horse at 16? It’s a fallacy.
Mind you McCririck is also losing it a bit – I’ve heard him saying "suchandsuch horse has now gone 7/2 and is widely available in the ring" when the current show was actually 10/3 and only one board anywhere near him is 7/2. What he does is take a glance at the board nearest him and then claim that price is widely available in the ring/on the rails when it isn’t and he hasn’t even bothered to check. He also tends to report any "moves" being made according to what he actually thought they might be before the betting on the race started rather than what is actually happening. He’s not the only one on the Ch4 betting team guilty of that either – they have a frighteningly persistent habit of talking up the horse they personally fancy and claiming there are market moves for it whilst saying the one they didn’t fancy or put up as a lay is drifting markedly in the betting when it isn’t.
I had noticed the cuttings section hadn’t been updated for certain September information I was looking for. I hope this isn’t the prelude to us having to pay to use the site.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.