Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LOL, no I couldn’t stick it. I had an atrocious Cheltenham (had 2 winners and ended up roughly 80 pts down) so figured I’d get Tom to win it back for me over the flat season! Didn’t have the cahones (or the bank) for it in the end.
Part of the problem was that he might have a midweek or a Sunday tip (more often than I realised) so you would have to buy the online paper nearly every day to be sure.
I pulled the plug on 30th April. He tipped a 16/1 winner on 02-May and a 20/1 winner the following weekend!
I select my own losers now.
Well you don`t have to blindly follow him,but theres no doubt for months now his information has been classic. And has turned up some very clver winners. He tips more than one of course,and ,if your unlucky or lazy or rushing, and don`t turn over the page, you`d have missed it,as his main selection was on the page before
Have to disagree with you in relation to a couple of things there Roddy
1. Where a tipster specialises in tipping big-priced winners, in order to make money following him, you really do have to back every single one because you can’t afford to miss a day in case that is the day that the 50/1 winner wipes out the previous 49 losses
2. As TipsterForm says on previous page, prior to Saturday, his Pricewise column was almost 60 pts down since 01-Jan and that’s a lot of losers for anyone’s bank to bear. A lot of these were unplaced as well (believe me I know, I was backing them!)
Now I’m not knocking Tom because he knows what he is doing (his reasoning for his selections is worth buying the paper for more than the actual tips IMO) and everyone goes through a bad patch but sometimes I do feel that we are a little in awe of him, not least because of the glorified hyped-up crap that the RP puts up after he tips a winner. I mean he tipped 13 losers in a row at Royal Ascot before Brown Panther went in and the headline in the RP next day was something along the lines of "Bookies reeling after Pricewise tips a 9/1 winner". The RP should really have the full stats to hand for all to see. Otherwise it’s just all smoke and mirrors.
I think the wording was such that he is bound to ride Native Khan if the owners so wish and also that he is bound NOT to ride against Native Khan
The Irish Tote, up to very recently, paid out on 4th place in all races with 16+ runners, handicap or not
I wasn’t aware that Totesport did the same.
The most amusing IMO has to be Bouncy Bouncy
Who runs tonight
And wins tonight at 11/2
But me being the tit I am, didn’t back it!
Murray and Djokovic are in different halves of the draw so they won’t be meeting each other, unless in the final. So they won’t be meeting each other!
No the point is why should I, who fancies the outsider of a trainer’s 2 horses, have to suffer because others back the shorter-priced loser
A lot of the time trainers possibly don’t actually know which of their horse is best until they hit the racecourse, especially those which are unraced.
Ravens Pass won his Mdn as a 20/1 shot, beating 2 other Gosden horses in the same race. A 33/1 shot came 3rd and the shortest priced horse was 4th at 14/1. I wouldn’t regard John Gosden as a trainer to put the punters away.
Anyway where do you stop with coupling?
In NH racing you could have a race with 3-4 runners owned by JP McManus, all with different trainers and another 2-3 owned by Trevor Hemmings, again with different trainers. If one of each was trained by the same trainer you could have up to 8 horses being coupled in the betting.
In flat racing, Coolmore could have 5-6 horses in any one race, with up to 3 different trainers.
I took a dislike to Mr Carson when he leapt to shield Fallon form the questions of Paul Kenyon in a BBC documentary a few years ago. It’s widely accepted now that Fallon is less than squeaky clean if not a proven in cheat.
Is it?
I would presume that money is part (if not most) of the reason. A trainer can save on fuel etc by sending 2 or more horses to the same track in the same box rather than sending them to different tracks.
There is nothing stopping anyone from backing both horses anyway so no need to couple them for betting purposes
What does the phrase "not within Paragraph 7.2" mean from the BHA rulebook?
It would appear to suggest that a horse who has won a Novice Hunters Chase can still be classed as a Novice
Absolutely shocking
This sort of thing really should be kept strictly to Haydock and the other well-known chav courses
There is no place at Ascot for this sort of behaviour
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
If it deserves a ban, then the ban needs to be meaningful so the ban should on days that the same class of race is being run.
So a 4-day whip ban for excessive use in a Group 1 should served on the next 4 Group 1 days
Otherwise it’s hollow justice
