Forum Replies Created
- Posts
"all I can tell you, as an ex-owner, is that if a horse is put down on the racecourse (track) rather than when you get it home, the insurance pays out. Call me a cynic, but…………."
This is a quote from another racing forum, in no way do I make any judgement for it or against it. It’s a shocking statement though, in the context of this story.
For sure any punishment would have to, by far, outweigh the crime. Maybe even rewards for ‘stool pigeons’. It would, in my eyes, be the only way to make people fearful enough of the concequences to not get involved.
Sure, the chances of getting caught would be slim. But if you did get caught, you’re stuffed. Zero tolerance type thing. I’m sure that after weighing up the odds, these people would make the right decision if the penelties were harsh enough.
I would doubt you could stop it. All you would need is a friend of a friend, with a PC. Give him access to a bank account and a ‘nod and a wink’ when one isn’t trying. And a percentage for his trouble. How do you stop that?
The only way I see to stop it is to start handing lifetime bans to anyone implicated in such scams. I’m sure that would be enough incentive to dissuade anyone from even trying it.
HeHeHe, you noticed LOL<br>What i’m doing at the moment is laying horses that look like (on form) they should run well. It’s coming up trumps :)<br>Say’s it all really (*he says in an ironic tone*) ;)<br>I’m also working on a system for winning small amounts on a daily basis. A change of strategy you might say. We’ll see how it goes … I’ll have the site back up when things are showing promise on paper.
There is nothing wrong with my judgement i’m glad to say. I never bet on the horse. I was just trying to inspire further thought on the subject.
It’s funny how people in racing circles always try to put a valid reason on a betting pattern that that looks suspect, or a horse that blatently runs a stone away from it’s true running. Let’s try the other side of the coin.
Beauvrai, 105 Wolves. Backed from 16s down to 10s …
"always going well, led well over 1f out, drew clear final furlong, easily"
I’m sure the bookies were not offering 16s about this one out of the kindness of their hearts. They were offering the odds because they gave it no chance. Obviously there were people who knew better.
My point isn’t to be a conspiricy theorist. I simply say that without inside info, you are always playing catch up. That is my point.<br>
No-one knows, heh?<br>1240 Leicester, Last Theatre. TRC team make it a good thing, drifts from 2s to 7/2, outpaced from the word go and never in the race.<br>No-one knows, heh? ;)
The same could be said of backing/laying greyhounds Rory. The moral of the story is don’t bet on what you don’t know. I know nothing about AW and assumed that Creskeld was going to do the business, based on the market and the newspapers. It isn’t easy however to make a bridge between AW and turf form, especially if you specialise in one and not the other. Sometines you just need to take notice of what you hear, that is, in a way, guesswork rather than knowledge.
Well, after calming down and … :laugh:
But I think you all missed my point, which was the betting market that accompanied the race.
Creskeld … 7/4, 6/4. 11/8, 5/4, 11/10 … 5/4, 11/8<br>Shore Vision started recieving money to bring it down to 9/2 from 6s, as the fav started to drift.
My point was, who KNEW the fav was not going to run it’s race and lumped on Shore Vision?
It seemed like a lot of mug money was taken before the true ‘good thing’ actually was backed. I smell something rotten and stand by my original statement.
I don’t doubt for a second that it was not the best betting opportunity on the day. But it nonetheless looked the best bet on the Southwell card. But it ain’t going to get me my money back whatever I think, so to hell with Southwell.
Rory, I would disagree with your evaluation of me. I can handle losing and would not still be gambling if I couldn’t evaluate a race. I’ve been doing this for 30 years. What I can’t handle is being taken for a ride on a hotpot that (IMHO I must hasten to add) was never at the races. I would ask everyone, why the late surge on Shore Vision, if a gamble was going down on the fav?
As far as evaluating a race, just check out the betting tips section for Sunday’s Aintree meeting. And the Titanics section for the last two weeks. I was trusting to luck at Southwell as I am in current need of paying funeral costs which I honestly cannot afford to pay. I rolled the dice, and got F.A. in return. I don’t normally bet on the A.W., as I have total contempt for it. But I needed to take a chance on what I considered the best bet of the day. All or nothing you might say. It’s the last time I give time and money to the dross that is A.W.
I’ll stick with what I know. One thing is for sure, you don’t get very far in this game without a little thing called ‘privilaged info’.
The over-rounds are normally between 101 – 109% near the off. Early doors it’s not unusual to see 135%.
Run them with a Vicks inhaler up their nose. That’s bound to make them twice the horse thaey would be on lasix LOL (Sorry, very scottish joke with a little sarcasm).
What, Tony’s Cronies? Surely not! :laugh:
Actually Panarama had absolutely no bearing on my opinion. I don’t think anyone would assume a sport involving billions of pounds of revenue to be totally clean. There is always a corrupt element around where money is involved. It’s just human nature.
I would say that possibly 70% of us think the game is about 30% bent. I think we will all agree that there are problems to be addressed, but also that most aspects of the game are fairly clean cut. Is this assessment about right? That’s my opinion anyway.
The highpoint of the programme for me was Jimmy Fitzgerald strenuously denying any knowledge of a ‘no lose’ betting account with V Chandler. If there was no law against the practice at the time, why deny it? That just shows me that he was aware that the practice (against any JC laws, or not) was not exactly kosher. And to, later, admit to it just puts him in the same light as Mr Phipps. "Jimmy, you can admit to it! You ain’t doing anything wrong". "Oh, well i’ll admit to it then" is the conversation I imagine after the ‘interview’, after consulting with a lawyer. And Willie Carson’s pandering to Mr Bradley after being copped was, well quite frankly, embarassing.
The Panarama programme was, after all, just one hour long. It cannot expected to be an in-depth report into all aspects of the game. It glossed over the main aspects of the allegations. It did bring some things to the forefront that could quite easily have been swept under the carpet. On that aspect I think the programme did achieve something. I personally would like to see another programme that shows a different view of the arguement. A follow up programme that would cover what has been done about the proposed wrong doing, and show the arguement from a different perspective. It would be nice to form an opinion on the Fallon allegations after hearing Fallon’s side of the story for example.
It was informative though, and I think it served a purpose. I don’t think the programme should be trashed strictly because of it’s one-hour timeslot. There is only so much you can say in 60 minutes.
Thanks for the link Jim. It’s the demo though :(<br>I’ve already got that one.
I can’t believe they are asking $25 for this game. It is after all 5+ years old.
As we are delving thru the archives. Does anyone remember "They’re Off". Three LP set, each containing two races. Six alternative finishes on each race. Racecards, play money and all included in the kit. I’d love it if I had kept my copy that I got for my 10th birthday LOL Who did the commentries for that game? Was it John Rickman? I really can’t remember offhand.
The board game is OK, but not a touch on the original.
