- This topic has 95 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Listen guys, I see this thread as a great light hearted thread and I don’t see the need for anyone to come on here and tell people to "get over it" or to refer the thread contributors as "a bunch of muppets".
We all know there is no system that guarantees a winner, but the programme has provoked debate up and down the country within the racing industry – so whether it was aimed at us race lovers or not, it has had an impact and surely we are allowed to discuss it on here if we see fit.
If however, you are someone who doesn’t want to discuss it and wants us to get over it, then would it not be best for you just to pretend the thread isn’t here and ignore it?
I actually totally agree with Steve (if he has read my post he will realise this) that whether he stood there 9 hours or not tossing the coin is irrelevant (I stated this) – but we are still allowed to debate it aren’t we?
Mike
Hi Mike,
I don’t see the need for anyone to come on here and tell people to “get over it”
I was suggesting people get over their obsession with this coin toss sequence. It’s just such an unimportant point as anyone could get 10 consecutive heads if they spin a coin for long enough.
I don’t know, maybe some people are so determined to find fault with the programme that they’re willing to go on about whether something this unimportant was faked.
IMO, it was a decent show. Not without its faults and I think probably staged to some extent, but still miles better than “Big Brother”, “The Vicar of Dibley” and other prime time dross.
The show demonstrated some interesting points about human thought patterns and behaviours (e.g. she was still convinced by the system even after her horse had clearly been headed for defeat in the previous race) and it’s being widely discussed around the country today.
So, job done.
Steve
I agree with Zoz; I was mortified when I realized it was Nevada Royales race that was being shown, and it was totally wrong showing the reaction of that girl who had backed him; would they have still shown it had he not [eventually] got up?
NWRA
Does it stand for the North Will Rise Again?
Not in 10,000 years mate.
Yes! It’s a reference to the fact that I’m a Fall fan and, well, from the North. A pleasant surprise to see that someone has recognized its source: its a great song!
A couple of points from the program.
The con was based on covering all runners in small field races, but one of the races featured had 16 runners.
How was the photo/number trick done? Are the four racing professionals guilty of taking part in a con to full the audience?
i’m stunned at the coverage this got – he’s an illusionist which means that every trick he pulls is a con
some people actually thought he might be revealing some sort of system and not just be pulling another con – unbelievable
Paul Daniels doesn’t really possess magic powers and Harry Potter isn’t really a wizard
I have read some dodgy threads on here and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Paul Daniels is still on TV? that’s real magic is it not?
Harry Potter is too a real Wizard how else could he fly? or maybe you think his broom isn’t real too.
You have to have more faith mate and understand some of us are gifted. Llook at my mate LGR he tipped a winner yesterday now if that’s not magic I don’t what is
Hi gang
Heres the winning system……….
Back horses with proven ability, suited to the race conditions, fancied to run well that offer a positive risk/reward ratio.
Oh! and be VERY professional about it. The tossers will pay for the winnings.
byefrom
carlisle“btw iam looking for 2 cohorts”
While it was a fun show, what was interesting to me, as a punter, was the filmed reactions of the “civilians” (non-gamblers) who lost their dough on their own particular certainties.
Punters become immune to losing money – sometimes significant sums, amounts which can make a big difference – but there was a genuine despair on show, a type of glassy-eyed shock you can’t fake. Yet, the reaction was over relatively tiny sums.
I found their reactions difficult to understand until I watched an ancient episode of Bullseye on 151 this morning.
In this episode, a pair of Welshman refused to gamble £210, a “State-Of-The-Art” VHS Video Recorder, a Picnic Basket, a Midi-Hi Fi and six bottles of Champers for the opportunity of a much bigger prize. Regular viewers of the show will know the prizes behind Bully’s prize board might be a speedboat, a motorcycle, a caravan or a family car. (I’d punt the lot without a second thought. Would you?)
Now, there might be an argument for keeping the prizes, but not for the next scenario. Big Jim sent for the runners up, from Stoke, who, incredibly, refused to gamble their £200. “We’ll stick with what we’ve got, Jim” said the taller of the two. I was gobsmacked. The implied and actual EV in the gamble is incredible, plus the once-in-a-lifetime TV exposure. I think Bowen was incredulous too; though ever-professional he didn’t show it.
Reluctantly, the Bullseye team wheeled out the third runners-up, two jolly Yorkshiremen, who threw in their fifty quid without hesitation, scored 101 in five darts and walked away with a Montego!
A gambler, is a gambler, is a gambler it seems.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.