- This topic has 48 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
still waiting, saved up yet.
sis/amrac have no arrangement with the sp’s validator.
NO ARRANGEMENT, AGREEMENT, COLLUSION or any other words you choose.
Actually I don’t need to save for a £10k bet – what odds do you want to give me?
obviously evens either I/m right or SL. thinks he/she is right.
I’ll be at fontwell tomorrow with money
obviously evens either I/m right or SL. thinks he/she is right.
I’ll be at fontwell tomorrow with money
Sounds fair odds to me.
I am not racing again this side of Christmas but let me know where you will be standing first half of next week and I will hapily come and discuss business with you.
By the was SL is a she.
obviously evens either I/m right or SL. thinks he/she is right.
I’ll be at fontwell tomorrow with money
Barry’s apparently going to "pay on"; I’d be careful about the terms of the bet though. Unscrupulous bookies will give you the impression that you are betting on one outcome before bamboozling you with terms and conditions. Surely what Shadow Leader is suggesting (quite explicitly) is that the SiS/Amrac staff are the ones who collate and pass on the price information (opening prices, price changes and final shows) to the PA and that the SP validator himself makes a decision on the SP, based on the information provided and his own analysis. There is no claim that the Amrac staff "collude" with the validator, and nor would they need to, merely that all the price data is sourced and relayed by them.
Make sure you clarify the meaning of the term "input". Power to make decisions, no. Power to provide exclusive information, yes. Does that equal "input" in the process? I’d say so but Barry might disagree.
Thank you Rory, Paul – it’s good to see that in this day and age some people can still understand the English language alright!!!
BD (or Patrick, whichever one of you it is, probably both of you) who on earth mentioned arrangements, agreements or collusion? Now you’re just putting words in peoples mouths in a vain attempt to wriggle out of the hole you’ve dug yourself into.
If I were you I’d accept that you’re not as clued up on the matter as you seem to think you are – you’d better go get some shut eye to prepare for the hard work at Fontwell tomorrow trying to keep up with Betfair when making price changes.
You claim sis/amrac provide the data to the validator that decides the sp.
I aint and dont wriggle, let terry ellis be the arbiter.
sis’amrac have no such agreement,
the validator is independant and can use whatever source he likes to obtain odds.
my son patrick laughs at people who post anonymously on chat sites,
I dont tell him I do, I’m to embarrased to admit it.Why are you trying to cloud the issue with semantics and by constantly raising spurious issues in an attempt to confuse the situation?
You are now raising the issue of "agreements" why?
Nobody is arguing the validator is not "independant" (sic). However, if he does not use the SIS / Amrac data how is he suppose to get the data to return the SP? (Just because you spend most of your time in weak AW rings where there are generally more layers than punters does not mean that is the norm.)I frequently witness the collators and validators working together – it is the SP validator who “calls the shots” however the collators and validator work together as a team – it is a symbiotic relationship – that means they both need one another by the way.
May I suggest you make yourself a cup of cocoa and you then go back and carefully read what SL has written – if you want to move your lips whilst reading it nobody is going to mind.
If you are still struggling to understand what she has written then I suggest you write to Santa asking for a new English – Essex dictionary so you can translate what she has said into something you understand.
apologise for not being as articulate as you;
my education was money and mouth,
end of discussion until you oblige, not holding my breath
meantime consider myself right.
If you are still struggling to understand what she has written then I suggest you write to Santa asking for a new English – Essex dictionary so you can translate what she has said into something you understand.
Unnecessary. There’s been a bit too much of that on the forum of late imo.
If you are still struggling to understand what she has written then I suggest you write to Santa asking for a new English – Essex dictionary so you can translate what she has said into something you understand.
Unnecessary. There’s been a bit too much of that on the forum of late imo.
Fair point Cav – even though it was said ironically and out of frustration.
If I have offended anyone, including Barry Dennis, with that comment I apologise.
meantime consider myself right.
OK Barry,
Just for clarity seeing as the thread seems to have now developed several sub-plots and is in danger of degenerating into a silly macho face off which will do neither of us any credit.
To avoid any ambiguity and so we both know where we are coming from – could you please clarify precisely which part of SL’s explanation of the process you disagree with?
From my perspective I contend the description provided by SL is accurate and unambiguous description of the process.
Cheers Paul, wasn’t haven’t a go at you in particular. Your input to the forum is top notch imo.
I’m afraid this thread, like many, has degenerated into a personal argument that seems to have very little to do with the original subject.
I suppose some might find it entertaining in a puerile sort of way, but that sort of banter should really be on its own thread, preferably with a warning notice attached that this is a personal argument and bears no resemblance to a debate.
I know from experience that those who have sidetracked the thread are sensible and reasonable, and do contribute a lot to many serious discussions. Levity is fine…..in its place.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.