Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Having no idea how much they win or lose on betting. Still, if everyone was good at this game there wouldn’t be much game left.
Time might tell that Al Kazeem is a seriously good horse when he’s right and this is as good as Camelot is. I wasn’t impressed (again) with Camelot’s head carriage, and really not sure what to make of him. His form on paper looks decent but dig a little deeper and, as has been pointed out elsewhere on the forum, it is not over-burdened with substance.
I’ve not had a problem with Bet365, in fact I think they are by far the best online Bookie, for reasons that have been outlined earlier in this thread. I’ve been lucky enough to have taken them for almost £20k in the last twelve months, and they still lay me to lose a grand at early prices. I can only think that Eddie’s case has been a bit of a cock-up and it must be worth an email to them at least?
The real cowards amongst the bookmaking fraternity, in no particular order are:
Boylesports (refuse to take my bets but refuse to say why)
Victor Chandler (account closed but had the decency to write and tell me)
Ladbrokes (B.O.G, offers & free bets withdrawn, stakes limited to £15)
Stan James (offer SP bets only, for small stakes)
Paddy Power (early price liability limited to under £100)
Skybet (stakes up to max £20 at early prices)Finally Betfred, who I thought were ok, today offered one of ‘Fred’s boosts’ on a Afsare/Songcraft double at 7/1, which I though was decent value. Prices at time of placing the bet were 13/8 and 6/4 respectively. Afsare refused to go in the stalls, while Songcraft won. Betfred however, rather than pay out on the win single at the price that was available and the time the bet was placed, paid out on a win single on Songcraft at SP (11/10). So by taking the ‘boosted’ double price, I have actually ended up losing money. I tried to have word with them about it but that was ten minutes of my life wasted.
Just checked my accounts and Ladbrokes, Hills and Paddy Power have all refunded Certify bets. Would still rather have had a run at £125ew at 25/1 but a good gesture from them all, and the other firms taking the same stance.
Anyone now the ante-post rules on Certify bets!?
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse, if indeed that’s what he maintains is the reason. He will undoubtedly be sacked, and quite rightly too.
Vaguely remember Jerry O’Dwyer not riding a finish at Sandown a couple of years ago, claiming to have a pain in his leg which obviously affected his arms as well. Either that or he mistook the winning post. Or something.
Because they overwhelm everyone else in GB with the number of horses and jockeys they have.The least they could do is run them on their merit. Do they really have do descend to this level to make ends meet?
So as well as the two positive samples, you object to the number of horses they have and Jockeys they use?! Do you have any idea what would happen if they withdrew their support for UK racing?
I am not defending these two samples because I do not know what happened – my point was that you seem to have an issue with them because of where they are from. And to state that they don’t run their horses on their merits is ridiculous.
Incidentally, Juddmonte Farms and Darley (both "Arab") are among a number of owners that have pledged not to use Lasix on their 2yo horses in America, but why let facts like that get in the way of a good rant.
I don’t expect you to know more than the BHA, or even the average person but you seem to have lumped Saeed bin Suroor and "the Arabs" into this issue along with al Zarooni – why is that? Numerous horses for various trainers/owners have tested positive for banned substances but you pick these two out for some reason, perhaps you can explain why?
Since a penalty was imposed then the trainer broke some law but I am not sure as to which section he violated.Did he not record the medication or did he deny all knowledge of it? To allow ones horses to race while medicated is serious,not to know about it is worse.
Who knows? Why don’t you do a little research and find out what the trainer said about it at the time? Or you could just carry on the wild, baseless insinuation that all Godolphin horses run off their faces on drugs.
No, it’s not standard. It all depends on circumstance, their liabilities and your previous betting history!
To Kill a MockingSeaBird
Kauto Star Wars
Paddy’s return of the Jedi
The Empire Maker Strikes Back
The Phantom Ferris
Revenge of the Phil Smith
Attack of the Clone DevilBookmakers are the only shop you can come out better off than you went in. If you did that at M&S or Harrods or Asda they’d soon ban you from shopping there.
Bizarre logic
Agreed.
I’m sure that Asda wouldn’t mind if a few people came out of their shop with more than they went in with if the majority went in, paid their money and came out empty handed.
VC have just closed my account, without even writing to tell me so. Boylesports closed one after I won a modest sum and Stan James have now restricted me to stakes less than £10. If they saw the state of my other accounts they might change their mind. I know it’s illogical but I can’t seem to back a winner with Ladbrokes and can’t seem to back a loser with VC. If Bet365 – who I have been really impressed with – restrict me I’m not sure what I’ll do. I don’t want to go back to Betfair on principle (premium charge) but unless Betdaq increase liquidity soon I may have to. Either that or give up betting but I love the challenge and the hard work of research, study and note taking that it would be a shame to do so. So what to do?!
The fillies do look an exciting bunch and Discourse looks special. The Colts look disappointing at the moment but I think Crying Wolf will prove himself well above average. There are some nice unraced ones (out of Baya, Grain of Truth and Ishtak plus a half-brother to Saamidd by Dubai Destination).
