Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I don’t want to go into depth on PTL, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that 99.5% is an unrealistic figure.
Does that figure include people who no longer bet with them because they wont lay a bet?
How is he allowed to go on RUK/ATR with his so called pricebombs where all customers are apparently allowed £20 at the price but then are not allowed to place the bet by being reduced to some ridiculous amount.
The bloke is a bare faced liar and Corals are a micky mouse firm.
I would suggest they are the parasites rather than the customers.
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".
Hmmm
Never one to miss an opportunity ….
05/12 Wolverhampton dog track ,,,,8 races 45 k in prizes
That’s quite good when compared to todays 30k at Lingfield and owners, trainers and jockeys etc of the 7 winners sharing less than 20k between them.
And just look at the front page of the RP, Lingfield are getting all excited about the introduction of sectional timings for all their meetings, when only a tiny minority of viewers have any interest in it.
The game’s going to the dogs.
We need to wake up , smell the coffee ,
Of course, the prize money is fantastic. And it’s fantastic because French punters are absolutely fleeced. The vast majority of them are exotic/Tierce players looking for a big payout and thus capable of absorbing 30%+ rakes.
Maybe we could be encouraged to bet in such dismal markets ourselves in years to come but we’re just not set up for it as we stand.
I had a debate with Wit recently where he commented that individual groups (eg ARC, JC) could have their own picture rights & betting platforms. Which is fine until you want to to a double at Southwell & Warwick. Or a bet on Man Utd. Or a yankee at different groups’ courses. It would be a total disaster.
The alternative – the BHA having all rights – would be trashed by bookmakers & monopoly lawyers in court for the next several hundred years!
Mike
Are we better off with bookmakers? Are we ****
They wont lay a bet to anyone with half a brain cell.
I fear for the future of the sport, so many long term followers of racing are so fed up at struggling to get bets on I can see many walking away from it.
And look at the pathetic prize money we’re still racing for.
The future is bleak, very bleak.
You say French punters are being fleeced but bookmakers here are fleecing both punters and racing.
I think I saw Gingertipster with one of them at Goodwood earlier this year, wondered what it was.
Watch the 08 CC and tell me anything could give MM 10lb and a beating that day.
You may well be right PC, I remember it well having backed MM ante-post. However, this is about a Fantasy Tingle Creek at Sandown and his form wasn’t as good there.
That does not matter, he was 100% over course and distance and won the Tingle Creek easily. No horse could have done more than that and no reason to believe he wouldn’t produce his best form there if required, he would be fav.
Or do you only back horses in races where a horse has previously shown the best form in that particular race?
I’d run him in the Grand National now it’s just another long distance handicap chase, he’s been a better horse than either of the last two moderate winners of the race, is a better jumper and is a similar age.
They’d have to protect his handicap mark mind, wouldn’t want it getting too low.
I think everyone knew that Pineau is being prepared for one race only this year. I just find it a shame that trainers are now running national contenders over hurdles to protect their handicap marks.
Would have thought it was far more likely his handicap mark would come down rather than go up if running in handicap chases off 151 although it may not apply in the National with Phil (Tinker) Smith applying the "Aintree factor" which should no longer apply now it’s just another long distance handicap chase.
Last 2 winners of the race have been bad jumpers, not especially well handicapped but an abundance of stamina, which is what’s required these days.
It’s more about trying to avoid injury and to get to Aintree in one piece, you need to win a lot of handicap chases to get the £561k you get for winning the National.
They should all run off their current handicap rating, that would possibly encourage horses like Pineau to run in chases as they would be very likely to get their rating down by the time of the National.
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".
Doubt Paul Nicholls will agree with you, and to call the horse a dog is plainly ridiculous, I wouldn’t mind owning a few dogs like him.
The horse is far too young to be making hard and fast rules about, you don’t know he would have downed tools and he was produced far too late today.I take it from what you say that that you considered Sea Pigeon a dog
The horse should have won, it was a poor ride that I would put down to the lack of experience of the jockey.
How many times before has he ridden a horse like this? He thought he would do exactly the same as Warwick but failed to take into account the better class of horse here.
He rode it perfectly up to the second last but should have kicked on after that instead of taking a pull and letting the winner get away from him.
It’s all still a learning experience for the guy.
Is that it?
Is the sole reason for bookmakers to be "poor for punters" just poor prize money?
I can see why poor prize money could be described as poor for owners, trainers and jockeys. But why is poor prize money bad for punters? Please explain.
It’s the opposite of the truth.
Fact is, Bookmakers get
ALL
their money (
profits
) from punters! If bookmakers paid a higher price for their product then they’d have no alternative but to pass that on to the punter through larger overrounds…
…So the
more
a bookmaker pays towards prize money the
less
punters get back… Therefore…
"Poor prize money" is good for the punter
.
You should consider joining a circus and calling yourself Co Co.
You also appear incapable of reading people’s posts before replying to them and giving a straight answer to a straight question
For sure, I’d like them to take a bigger bet, and that’s the ones that will lay me a bet at all. But for the majority of punters I can not see why bookmakers are "poor for punters".
Please enlighten me.Why do you always ask questions that have been answered in earlier posts?
Why do some bookmakers not lay you a bet at all despite being perfectly fine for the majority of punters, according to you?
Why is prize money so poor in Britain?
What is it that bookmakers are doing that is so bad Ricky?
Forget the sound bytes and cliches; what do you actually want them to do and stop doing?Are you really so naive or just taking the pea?
Supposed to be a highly successful punter but loves his licensed thieves
Bookmakers are poor for racing and poor for punters, the only punters who get on with them are the ones who put money in their satchels.
What do you think the pathetic prize money in this country is due to Gingertipster?
The lunatics have taken over the asylum….
If anyone ever doubted who runs British racing , there can be no doubt now …its the bookies , so roll out more AW dross . less small field races ., much more of competitive impossible handicaps , as much racing on a Saturday as your eyeballs can handle (sorry Ray )
Yep the future is not so bright ….the beginning of the end for the diverse racing that made British racing unique is about to unfold ,
We can look forward to a 50 / 50 split of AW and turf as soon as is possible
What a disaster , what a legacy Bittar leaves behind …complete crap ….nothing achieved whatsoever , except a cosy up to the bookies , w
ho pay the minimum to achieve the maximum profit for themselves
How was this ever agreed , surely we can find someone to run and fund our sport without the interference from the bookies
Imo etc
Spot on ricky, it’s thoroughly depressing. A future for the the sport permanently attached to scumbags who wont lay a bet to anyone with the slightest intelligence.
That betting lab on RUK last night was a laugh, where do these geezers get their bets on? Even Willo picked up the so called betting guru (Richard Thomas) on his glorious aftertiming. And there was absolutely no mention of bookmakers restrictions.
We only have to refer to Panorama last Monday to see bookmakers couldn’t care less what corruption or welfare issues there are in a sport as long as they can get their grubby hands on 237 million a year. And of course we have FOBT’s that should never have been allowed in shops in the first place.
Not only have they the sport in their pocket but the two racing channels and the sport’s national daily paper.
I never thought I’d say this but after a lifetime following the sport I’m seriously considering following Paul Ostermeyer’s example last year.
He was on RUK yesterday as the supposed "pundit". How embarrassing. Some folk have no shame, never heard such drivel.
Worst part is, RUK using part of peoples £22.50p monthly subscription to pay the bluffer.
In UK racing break the rules and usually the penalty is afterwards and doesn’t affect the result. The penalties on James give Al Kazeems connections no redress, no possibility of winning the race that they might have done had James stuck to the rules AS THEIR RIDER DID.
The reason Baker didn’t use his whip more was because he was incapable, he didn’t even use his quota up as it took him an age to use it in the finish as anyone who has seen the head on would agree.
Even if steeplechasing is correct and it’s because he’s 4 inches too long it doesn’t change the fact he rode a poor finish and the ride didn’t really deserve a victory.
Which countries disqualify horses for excessive use of the whip?
