Forum Replies Created
- Posts
What happened Ireland today ?
Called Living Next Door, today’s Paddy Power Chase, Wrong Turn for the whole race. Wrong Turn ran for the same connections and was pulled up.
He regularly does it, it just so happens one won today. Can only put it down to lack of preparation, homework and laziness. Obviously he’s allowed to get away with it so has no incentive to improve.
Not sure "should have won" is the right expression in this case Eddie. The horse is a dog. If he wasn’t a dog there’d be no reason for exaggerated waiting tactics that make him difficult to win with. Therefore may be "should have won had temperament not been an important part of his make up" – might be more accurate.
imo temperament can not be taken out of the equation
. If Sam had judged the race to perfection and got the horse’s head in front near the line he "should have won". Had Sam chose to get after V V earlier would probably have downed tools before getting anywhere near the front; ie "should not have won". Had Sam ridden the horse nearer the pace and got to the front too soon and downed tools; "should not have won".
There was always a good chance temperament would mean the horse "should not have won".
Hmmmmm
I’m sure we’re all agreed now, Vibrato Valtat is no dog and he should have won at Cheltenham when given a crap ride by Sam
Chief its ok , I kinda got lost as well , its bloody Corm trying to start another whip war …I swear that bloke ignores this outpost most of the year …but as soon as a whip thread appears ….he’s like a bee to Honey ….
Some folks eh
You’re right cormack, Zarkandar would have won but the jockey and/or horse didn’t deserve to win whereas Jacob and Reve De Sivola did.
Twiston Davies rode a bad race and deserved to lose.And just think what you would be taking away from the spectacle and excitement of the race. The commentary would be "And Zarkandar takes it up despite the jockey going to the front far too soon but it’s irrelevant as no one else has a whip so he wins easily" It would be boring.
steeplechasing has told you todays whip is more or less a feather duster so what’s your problem with it? Do you think it hurts the horses? Do horses still get marked with it these days?
I’m surprised at you ricky, never thought you could be so naive.
steeplechasing has it in a nutshell which make the penalties imposed currently for the "offence" positively draconian.Which other major racing countries impose such draconian penalties on riders trying to win?
Not only Condon broke the rules but so did the second jockey so the race would go to the 3rd past the post, if the stewards have counted correctly. What a farce.
Jacob also used his whip too many times on Reve de Sivola but got away scot-free, the stewards must have used their discretion for that one
Yet some amazingly want to extend it to disqualification
British racing would be a laughing stock.If such a thing was imposed, turnover and levy would be decimated. Imagine backing a winner and not knowing you were drawing until faceless stewards had counted up whip strokes of each individual rider in a race, not to mention whether some were actual whip strokes or not. Do you think stewards are capable to do it? The game would be a farce and how long would it take to weigh in bearing in mind it would have to be done for every race?
And lets not even get into it being an open door for corruption both in the stewards room and out on the track. What better way to lose a race would there be than to break the whip rules?
Bittar’s getting desperate now, peddling Big Mac’s long held view that small fields lead to integrity issues. Big Mac will be in ecstasy.
Where is the evidence? Did all the recent corruption cases involve small fields? Isn’t it easier to "hide" one in a big field?
It’s laughable, even bookmakers don’t want small fields but the BHA are continuing to put them on because they are frightened at the possibility of losing levy from bookmakers. You couldn’t make it up, what a mess.
They wont lay a bet but received a free diary from Coral’s and they didn’t even ask for the 87 pence postage, put RUK to shame.
RUK has been a big disappointment, proliferated by bookmakers adverts, frequent poor presentation and lack of interest in the racing. Should be doing so much better for a subscription channel charging £22.50p a month.
Shouldn’t be this way but I’m actually looking forward to cancelling RUK in the near future.
Too much racing, this is what happens when you’re dependent on bookmakers for an income. No reason why it will change.
Too much racing, yes. Am sure Bookmakers like as much competitive racing as possible, but suspect one competitive race brings in more money than two uncompetitive races. So doubt they’d be happy with the situation either Eddie.
I’m sure that is true Gingertipster but why is there too much racing then and no sign of a decrease in meetings next year or in the foreseeable future?
It is because of racing’s relationship with bookmakers and the need to produce races for punters to bet on and racing to receive levy.
The BHA are frightened that if they reduce meetings they will receive less levy, it is a never ending circle that will never be resolved while racing is dependent on bookmakers for an income.
Bring on the PMU, the future is too depressing following the same path racing is currently going down.
In Britain if more than 7 runners and an odds on or short price fav, the 2nd and 3rd favs (at least) will be substantially under the true win odds with bookmakers, to apparently compensate them for the place part of each way bets.
However they don’t allow meaningful each way bets on those sort of races anyway, so have the double whammy in ripping punters off in them.
Too much racing, this is what happens when you’re dependent on bookmakers for an income. No reason why it will change.
A tote monopoly won’t work. People already have the option of betting with the tote and most prefer bookies. We have a different culture to other countries. The problem for racing is not that bookies are turning people off racing, it’s getting them interested in the first place that is the issue. People are more and more betting on things like football (with bookies) and other things such as poker. The young just do not have an interest in racing and a tote monopoly will do nothing to change that.
How will a tote monopoly work ? Are we to have hundreds of shops started up ?
I expect plenty said the same when someone tried to start an exchange 15 or so years ago.
You state people have no interest in racing but according to betlarge in an earlier post there is tremendous interest here particularly when compared to France yet they have a successful Tote despite apparently it not being much good, so no good reason why a good one wounldn’t work here is there?
As bookmakers have little interest in laying decent bets any more may be they and their shops could be used as commission agents for a PMU, money for no risk would surely satisfy the parasites.
So what is your experience with bookmakers Ken or are speaking on behalf of others like betlarge?
Do you have a highly profitable relationship with them and no problem getting a bet on?
Big race tonight at Kempton, a 19 grand handicap and Big Baz a "strong" 6/4 fav from 2/1 with the parasites despite being freely available at 3/1 and above on the exchanges, for good money. Returned 3/1 on there.
Come racing and/or get the value with bookmakers
and not a single word about it on the bookmakers channel.Would have been 3/1 on a PMU. Wonder what Simon has to say about it?
Do we really want to continue with this shafting of punters and at end of the day racing?
Just how do you benefit from there being bookmakers? Do you show a profit from them? Do you beat the price with them?
I don’t bet with bookmakers but I believe people should have the choice to do so if they prefer.
Mike
It makes little difference whether you do, the same applies to others, what’s the point in having the choice if you’re not allowed to win? Or in more and more cases just bet with them?
And don’t think Betfair are any different, they used to welcome winners but that has long since gone, they want all the money for themselves now.
What racing needs is a Tote system where punters are just betting against other punters and the best man wins. There would be no refusal of bets, you could have as much as you want on and all the profits would go to racing.
This would hopefully lead to a lot less racing and a lot more prize money and quality of racing.
Apart from a tiny minority why any punter would prefer the current system with bookmakers is a mystery, it’s more or less admitting you are a loser.
Bookmakers just rip off punters and racing alike.Now they’ve got their FOBT’s they’ve got to protect that profit at all costs, the sooner they are banned the better, they should never have been allowed in the first place.
"betlarge":2p6mnufc wrote:
Unfortunately not practical in the UK with current set up and the parasites creaming off a lot of the money.
As far as win singles are concerned, The Tote is broadly the same as PMU operations around the world.
Except the pools are weaker because nobody wants to bet singles on The Tote. Self-fulfilling really.
Mike
betlarge,
Just how do you benefit from there being bookmakers? Do you show a profit from them? Do you beat the price with them?
If managing to do either or both the above how do manage to keep your accounts open?
You can’t really be as desperate as some and be prepared to accept £1.67, £1.21 or whatever the parasites at Power, Coral, Bet365 etc will allow just to keep your account open?
Or do you just like to look at the list of prices in Pricewise and pick one out at a price even if you can’t get it?
I’m afraid it’s just not regular winners who are unwelcome with the parasites these days and that can’t be good for racing.
As you say the win single is the most popular bet in the UK and surely there is no better bet for a PMU than a win single?
Then bet your singles on The Tote. You can do for every race, every day.
Mike
Unfortunately not practical in the UK with current set up and the parasites creaming off a lot of the money.
Certainly the Tote/Exchange route mentioned by Drone for the benefit of British racing is the brave and correct path to follow and preferable to just kowtowing to the parasites year after year.
However, I do think a PMU would be a financial disaster for the UK. The most popular bet in the UK is the win single. The absurdity of betting win singles into PMU pools is self-evident. The very act of placing your bet (at odds unknown, of course) helps to lower the odds you receive. You have literally no chance of making a profit.
Mike
As you say the win single is the most popular bet in the UK and surely there is no better bet for a PMU than a win single?
If anyone places a bet now mid morning you don’t know what odds you will get unless taking a price, which often you can’t and even then I would have thought there’s a fair chance the price will be bigger by racetime.
As we know the vast majority of betting on a race is done in the 5 or 10 mins before a race by which time we would have large pools, in which you would have an excellent idea what price you would be getting.
If you put a lot of money on one horse you should receive lower odds, it’s called market forces.The size of stake for the vast majority of punters would make little difference to the price in the few minutes prior to the race, in decent sized pools.
What a PMU would also eliminate would be the same sort of skulldugery some have accused James Best and others of in recent times.
Could Barney Curley have succeeded in his coups under a PMU system?
Not least it would also eliminate the blatant manipulation of prices by parasitic bookmakers, some may even describe it as licensed corruption particularly at evening all weather meetings.
