Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I do agree that the decision to allow Ringsend Rose keep the race was the correct one — from a viewpoint of fairness if nothing else.
But from a strict interpretation of the rules does not a horse have to jump any fence that is not signposted with arrow or dolled-off. And I guess it could be argued that since both Orana Conti and Moulin de la Croix (sp?) jumped the fence in question, did not Ringsend have an unfair advantage in not having to jump it.
In the final analysis tho’, I’m pleased that Ringsend and Jimmy Derham were awarded the win.
Aaaah, I see. Thanks for that, I.S.
Yes, then it must have been an oversight omission by my daily newspaper and also in the SportingLife racecard.
(Even in the results section, the SL persists in denying Isabel the "Miss" prefix.
http://horses.sportinglife.com/Full_Res … 14,00.html )LOL, no, C.S. !!
I am very confident that Isabel is "all-girl" in each and every feminine aspect.It’s just that I’m intrigued as to why she isn’t shown the respect of being addressed as "Miss" in a racecard when all the other ladys are. All the riders in this particular contest had a 7-llb allowance, and Isabel by nature of her being a veterinarian surgeon is in the amateur ranks similar to the other riders in the race, no?
Just wondering, tha’s all.
Gents,
May I ask a question, please?Why is it that in yesterday’s card for the race — a Handicap Hurdle for Lady Riders — all the jocks were given the appellation "Miss" except for ………….. Isabel?
There’s probably a very obvious reason, and I am being embarrassingly naive.
Thanks in advance for any reply.
(I also think Isabel is an excellent rider, btw).
LOL Katie,
Pinza, respectfully, having Kempton A/W is very poor consolation for me. Honestly, I have no interest in the sandpit and do not even watch it. It was not for the joys of watching Kempton that I signed with RUK way back in the pre-Setanta days. (And anyway, for any fix of A/W that one might need in these times of restricted NH meetings there is ample provision on ATR.)
And I don’t see why it should be incumbent upon subscribers to underwrite RUK’s profits during a time when that channel’s outlay/expenses are substantially reduced. What makes matters worse is that the "shrewdies" have had the foresight to temporarily cancel their subscriptions whilst mugs like me are locked in to a subscription debit that subsidises this loss of income stream.
I would be interested to know the legal basis for this ……………. the legitimacy of a company continuing to take subscription fees for a contracted service that they cannot provide. If I had the wherewithal I would take a test case, and I suspect that the Court might find against the company. But I cannot do so. All that is left to me is fire off a couple of irate emails to Gillingham House ( which I have done), or set up some Facebook group to embarrass the company into doing the "decent thing". I don’t see what else I can do?
Will’s article is spot on and
Yesterday at Plumpton there were four boxes full of in-running players.Good grief!!!
As Drone suggests above, conditions must be close whereby a declining critical mass of available money is reached in which on-course InRunning players have only other on-course InRunning bettors to engage them. Surely at this point in time most if not all stay-at-home punters recognise the folly of betting in-running during the final furlong.How does this recent trend towards on-course InRunning betting affect the operators of Exchange Shops/Trading Rooms? Or those individuals paying the domestic SIS rate of £8 K per annum? Both systems are now obsolete, surely ………. or at least not as attractive a proposition as they once were?
Yes, delighted that the Big Fella is showing positive signs of recovery.
Surprised also to hear on ATR today that trainer Brendan Powell is recovering from a "mild" heart attack.Best wishes to them both ……….. and to Mick Fitz too.
Awful news !
This puts the day’s racing under a very dark cloud indeed.
My deepest sympathes to the family and friends of all affected by this terrible tragedy.Cheers Carvills’, thank you for that.
Yes, that was how I had always assumed it might be, but recently I was returned an amount of €113.75 on the above specific bet to a €50 stake in a regional small-chain independent’s shop
When I questioned the settlement, I was given a curt "Rule4"
reply.The clerk’s apparent certainty about the matter made me less sure of my claim, and I reluctantly accepted the winnings.
Now however, armed with extra confidence I shall be returning to the shop on a point of priciple if nothing else.
Could one of you kind gents clarify a matter for me please?
The scenario is:1) I back a horse early morning at 6/4 Best-Odds-Guaranteed.
2) During the course of the morning, the third favourite in the race is withdrawn subsequent to me placing my bet.
3) The 6/4 horse which I backed becomes liable for a Rule4 deduction of the early price.However ………………..
1a) When the on-course market is formed 15 minutes before the race, the 6/4 early price horse is put in at 6/4.
2a) It remains at 6/4 up to the off and is returned SP at that price.
3a) Clearly there will be no Rule4 deduction on this race at SP as the market was formed long after the much earlier withdrawal of the early 3rd favourite.My question is:
Is my early morning 6/4 bet at B-O-G liable to Rule4 deduction ?
If so, then I am worse off on this bet compared to SP even though I am supposely on at Best-Odds-Guaranteed.Thanks in advance for your help.
You’ll often find problems with Betfair at around 3:00 pm on Saturday afternoons (Footie kick-off time, and a flood of money seeking to be matched). Usually has resolved itself 15 minutes later
I don’t quite understand your purpose in personalising this issue, and I am loath at any time to discuss my betting levels. That is a private matter.
But yes, at the back-end of September 2008 when the new charging model was introduced, a proportion of my Betfair returns became subject to a Premium Charge deduction. I immediately took measures to ensure that such would not happen again.
Now, can we leave it at that, perhaps?
How lame must these excuses — offered and accepted — become before someone in authority calls "You’re ‘avin a laugh" !Yes it is ………….. because you have assumed in your above example that the Betfair player will be already liable for the PC charge. As suggested in a previous post, the smart Betfair punter will have found a way around avoiding this Premium Charge ……. quite possibly by trading between the Betdaq/Betfair platforms.
So, in the specific example you’ve illustrated above the fairer scenario would be that the differential between the Back and Lay sides would be 2%-3% ………. the normal commission rate. Not a huge penalty for that Betfair gambler in order to maintain his avoidance of the Betfair 20% Premium Charge.And all of that is assuming a kind of worst-case-scenario. In most instances the informed gambler who has done his form-study to identify a Loser will feel fairly confident that the market will vindicate his conclusions later in the day by lenghtening out the price of his Loser. He will have first Laid the horse on Betdaq and Backed back nearer the Off on Betfair at higher odds. Usually, the smart informed gambler will in fact turn a profit on his trade even though his prime intention was as a mechanism to avoid his Premium Charge.
Not an entirely Baldric-esque strategem, if you think about it.
Absolutely, there is always that danger lurking in the background.
But I’m sure you will agree that it is "easier" to pick a loser than a winner?
Anyway, the gambler smart enough to qualify to pay the Premium Charge will by definition be smart enough not to make a habit of overly Backing winning horses on Betfair which — after form study — he expects to lose.Yes, best wishes indeed to Ballyvesey!
That opener is as competitive a Class4 novice hurdle as we will see all season ……… with Walamo, Carsonstown, Victory Parade.
A sweet card for sure at Ffos Las today, with all the top jocks in attendance …… Ruby, AP, Geraghty, Dickie J, et al. I’m really looking forward to it.
Great to see such a good fill of declarations …………. funnily enough the nearest (?) racecourse to Ffos Las — Wexford — is also racing today with a maximum complement of 131 declared runners. (And yet some people say there is no demand for all these racemeetings, and that the numbers need to be pruned back. )
