This topic contains 59 replies, has 31 voices, and was last updated by 
Nathan Hughes 2 years ago.
-
Posts
-
Surely this has gone on too long?
Personally, I haven’t got any problem with people listing their winners before or after the race. What is there to gain from making up winners?
I have much more difficulty with the continued rants about after timing. Only one person appears to be bothered to the point of raising the issue over and over again.
It is effectively suggesting contributors are liars with no proof. Is that really the way a forum should be operating?
I only come in here every so often, but every time I do come in it appears to be the same person calling people out for their bets or aftertiming, and very obviously singling certain posters out for criticism. What is also very noticeable is that he will dish out praise to one certain poster to the point of it being sycophantic, and that will actually congratulate that poster on his own aftertimes. This was particularly noticeable during the Cheltenham discussion, I commented on it and got called a troll for my troubles. I find it all very intriguing to say the least.
As someone who can only aftertime losers, I think it is worth pointing out that aftertiming is a natural occurrence where there is talk of gambling, it is unavoidable, and far less a crime than the trolling which this poster is continually guilty of.
Personally I don’t mind posts like Charlie’s, hasn’t done anyting wrong that I can see. It’s only natural for punters who’ve had a good week to want to tell people about it now and again. Am sure most tell the truth about this sort of thing. However, when others (rightly or wrongly) only remember/see a punter putting up winning bets after the event; you can’t blame them for being sceptical. Especially about the number/amount lost in bets we don’t hear about. Of course there are profitable punters out there who don’t put their bets up beforehand. But screenshots only prove that particular bet, they do not prove he’s a successful/profit making punter, neither does it prove he/she has not had many more losing bets.
“Aftertiming” is not always about telling porkies about claimed winners, it’s often about the punter giving a false impression of being a better punter than he actually is (what’s missing). Although am sure many gamblers do this unintentionally. Part of the psychology of a gambler is to convince himself winning bets are his skill and losing bets are luck and/or forgotten.
To be fair to Judge, my immediate reaction when seeing Charlie’s list of big price winners was ‘I don’t remember him putting any of these up on the actual threads’
Perhaps he’s gone on about it a little too much, but I think his actual point is a valid one in that it just comes across as boastful aftertiming.
However, when others (rightly or wrongly) only remember/see a punter putting up winning bets after the event; you can’t blame them for being sceptical.
MOM,
My post wasn’t criticising Judge.value is everythingMy highlight:
Quality of sprints and group races generally.
Genuineness of Big Orange and Highland Reel.Low points:
Uneven watering.
Media sweeping under the carpet of the USA runners/Clenuterol issue.
Coolmore’s questionable team tactics.value is everythingSurely this has gone on too long?
Personally, I haven’t got any problem with people listing their winners before or after the race. What is there to gain from making up winners?
I have much more difficulty with the continued rants about after timing. Only one person appears to be bothered to the point of raising the issue over and over again.
It is effectively suggesting contributors are liars with no proof. Is that really the way a forum should be operating?
I only come in here every so often, but every time I do come in it appears to be the same person calling people out for their bets or aftertiming, and very obviously singling certain posters out for criticism. What is also very noticeable is that he will dish out praise to one certain poster to the point of it being sycophantic, and that will actually congratulate that poster on his own aftertimes. This was particularly noticeable during the Cheltenham discussion, I commented on it and got called a troll for my troubles. I find it all very intriguing to say the least.
As someone who can only aftertime losers, I think it is worth pointing out that aftertiming is a natural occurrence where there is talk of gambling, it is unavoidable, and far less a crime than the trolling which this poster is continually guilty of.
Well as I said earlier I don’t like to offend anyone, perhaps if you could name the poster that I was being a sycophant towards that would be helpful, that’s the first time I’ve ever been accused of that lol
Personally I don’t mind posts like Charlie’s, hasn’t done anyting wrong that I can see. It’s only natural for punters who’ve had a good week to want to tell people about it now and again. Am sure most tell the truth about this sort of thing. However, when others (rightly or wrongly) only remember/see a punter putting up winning bets after the event; you can’t blame them for being sceptical. Especially about the number/amount lost in bets we don’t hear about. Of course there are profitable punters out there who don’t put their bets up beforehand. But screenshots only prove that particular bet, they do not prove he’s a successful/profit making punter, neither does it prove he/she has not had many more losing bets.
“Aftertiming” is not always about telling porkies about claimed winners, it’s often about the punter giving a false impression of being a better punter than he actually is (what’s missing). Although am sure many gamblers do this unintentionally. Part of the psychology of a gambler is to convince himself winning bets are his skill and losing bets are luck and/or forgotten.
To be fair to Judge, my immediate reaction when seeing Charlie’s list of big price winners was ‘I don’t remember him putting any of these up on the actual threads’
Perhaps he’s gone on about it a little too much, but I think his actual point is a valid one in that it just comes across as boastful aftertiming.
I’m glad I’m not alone here, noone likes to be the lone voice crying in the wilderness
+£73 on one meeting is astounding, I think most gamblers would be luck to make those sort of numbers in a year
I wouldn’t say I agree with you entirely judge.
Can see why a punter like Charlie wants to tell people when he’s had a good week and personally not got any problem with him doing so.I do though see your point, when people only seem to post winners after the event it doesn’t give a fair overall picture of their betting and can get a bit annoying. Although am not sure Charlie is claiming anything about his overall betting prowess.
Just think it is up to us all what we choose to believe. ie Can’t blame Charlie for posting his winners and can’t blame you for not thinking much of it.
value is everythingIt depends how you’re marketing yourself, I think.
If you’re like Cormack with his little tipping service or one of those dreadful Twitter tipping accounts claiming to make profit, you do need to record every bet at the time of placement, record all R4 deductions (rarely done by online tipsters) and be realistic when claiming BPG or BPG+.
Even if you’re just casually contributing to a forum then I think there are a few points of etiquette. It really does depend who you are though. Personally I don’t mind people jumping in mid-thread and saying what they’ve backed (even if the price has gone) if they’re just a friendly benign type. I know I’m guilty of that sort of thing.
What I really object to is when people quote old prices, aftertime, ignore R4 etc and then point to their ‘results’ in the dickwaving arguments that sometimes break out. It’s just not cricket.
Judge i dont see charlie claiming he had single bet in those races, infsct im sure he said why would he in 25 runner races
No ones here to prove profit, so he dosent need to post losers, not many people would cover enough horses to be on a loss on that race should one of them cone up, so yes he may have covered multiple horses in a race but its highly likely if one of them come in hes on a profit for that race
Its a pointless thing to be annoyef about
Judge i dont see charlie claiming he had single bet in those races, infsct im sure he said why would he in 25 runner races
No ones here to prove profit, so he dosent need to post losers, not many people would cover enough horses to be on a loss on that race should one of them cone up, so yes he may have covered multiple horses in a race but its highly likely if one of them come in hes on a profit for that race
Its a pointless thing to be annoyef about
Ok Ham pal, I agree
I thought I would add mt two penn’orth to try and get the thread back on track.
Highlight
Has to be the Gold Cup and what a finish and glad the right one won for the missus!!
And seeing Freddie too was brilliant!!
Lowlight
Somehow managing to back the 25/1 Wokingham winner and still losing on the race!!I though on the whole it was a terrific meeting and a wonderful spectacle!!
High Point
1. Big Orange winning . Did someone call him a “Group 2 horse”. Goodwood Cup has been promoted because of horses like him and OSG.
2. Highland Reel finally winning a big one, and he has had a very tough month
3. New names to the winners list at Royal Ascot eg Murphy (that celebration
) , Stevie Donoghue and two others4. Godolphin making things interesting
5. Despite my hatred for the fashion people on ITV, they were no where near as annoying as Gok Wan. In all, bar a few annoying moments by Plank Chamberlin, the presentation by ITV was excellent
6. Making profit. Only week of the year that I consistently do. All down hill for now until the Irish Champions Weekend though
7. The Weather . There has always been a bit of a stalls bias in sprints at Ascot. High draw often is the place to be. Really , it is where ever the pace is.On the same note, the stall should have killed off the chances of horses drawn wide in the Vase , but it did not. Personally, this is not a week where you put on all of your bets the night before. Great do it if the odds are good, but really, sometimes it is wise to do it race by race to see what the pattern is like
Low Point
1. The soon to be annual gathering of complaining about Ryan Moore where it is not merited eg the Ascot GC ride and Churchill
2. Naught or Nice (John Oxx) not getting her run because of the slipped saddle. Things just can’t get any worse for John Oxx
3. Fair Eva not making Ascot (well, we knew about that in advance) Wonder will see even be back?
4. The realisation that Stoute needs a full time jockey now. Can’t be having different jocks on the horse for every race.
Highlight: Imagining the look on Nath’s face when he realised he had beaten me in the tipping contest.
Lowlight: Worst RA for me in some time. Couldn’t do a thing right.Still loved every second though!!
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
However, when others (rightly or wrongly) only remember/see a punter putting up winning bets after the event; you can’t blame them for being sceptical.
MOM,
My post wasn’t criticising Judge.Sorry Ginge, I wasn’t supposed to have quoted your post.
Highlight: Imagining the look on Nath’s face when he realised he had beaten me in the tipping contest
Istanbul 2005 proportions……….
Don't Eat The Pie and Don't Buy The S*n
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.