Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I refer members to my earlier ‘“Racing industryâ€ÂÂ
Aragorn, and Wallace, are correct. This answer will shoot over most TRF heads, however, the question was asked and I cannot back down from it. Nevertheless, good corporate minds will grasp the dynamics within my response therefore I primarily address them.
Pompete<br>The first part of your question is elementally theoretic modelling or ceteris paribus, yes, and yet, I have an actual model that I had already, in another thread and my book, nudged into economic theory. However, the currently accepted analytical framework is far more complex where it is presently used operationally and too loosely to describe the relationship between both the price and the quantity demanded of an “ordinary goodâ€ÂÂ
Bearing in mind that criticism is essential, I try to give a very balanced insight into evidence regarding ‘crookedness,’ particularly concerning racing here on TRF, marketed and still sitting in the public domain; including copy (Cc.) to the usual suspects. However, it was betlarge and his following comment:<br>“I just find it strange that people can believe in such wild things without the remotest evidence.â€ÂÂ
Re: Aragorn and Heavenly Pleasure.
Racing timeline betting odds’ snapshot<br>Wednesday March 28, 2007<br>4:25 Southwell<br>11/2  Mahmjra<br>8/1  Bollin Derek<br>4:35 Kempton Park<br>5/1  Roznic<br>33/1  Espoir Du Bocage<br>4:45 Towcester<br>33/1  Heavenly Pleasure<br>11/1 Divine Wisdom<br>8/11F  Saphire Knight<br>4:55 Southwell<br>3/1  Feelin Irie<br>8/1  Mid Valley
That corporate bookmaking “connectionsâ€ÂÂ
Quote: from betlarge on 8:04 pm on Mar. 30, 2007[br]
What is more disturbing is that this Betfairesque bullsh*t is being taken seriously by supposedly informed racing people. <br>When a thread draws support from a sophisticated nutter the like of Alan Ridley, then you should know it has plumbed the depths.
<br>Aaah ‘The Ridler’.  I wonder how BODD-M and the SP-related world dominance plot is going? :biggrin:
Mike
Profits are up and everyone without a ‘connection’ is now tagged as the ‘urban poor’.<br>AR
(Edited by AlanRidley at 8:26 pm on Mar. 30, 2007)
rob,<br>poor me, poor me, poor me a drink! With addiction their is no place for ‘dont have to bet’.
The excuses are all dried up.<br>AR
Quote: from reet hard on 12:34 am on Mar. 30, 2007[br]To paraphrase President Truman:<br>"If you can’t stand the heat, wtf are you doing in the kitchen in the first place?"<br>
reet hard are you implying that wrongdoing is acceptable and that if you are conned it’s tough luck? Perhaps you might like to consider the growth in gambling addiction viz the expansion and soon deregulation of all things betting. Fixed-odds one-armed bandits jumped from three to five reels for only one reason – more profit. Poor racing at poor tracks is no better.<br>AR
I voted for 4 because I know a great deal about British horseracing’s “institutionalised corruptionâ€ÂÂ
LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE FOR CORRUPTION
“Courses take blinkered view by making profit their godâ€ÂÂ
Nor1, faultless stuff. However, wit’s excellent thread (Jockey earnings in HK…as told to Court) simply underlines apracing and richard’s double point on “excuseâ€ÂÂ
A very interesting debate, although I thought it would develop a greater head of steam. For example, no one mentioned the mysterious non-appearance of the Jockey Club/HRA’s ‘Inquiry into Inside Information – Phase Two Report’. For me, the report’s absence is more telling than its presence.
Incidentally, Galejade wins the gold star with honours for the very perceptive "what constitutes ‘inside information’" question (page 5).
Nice one, Lingfield.
AR
