Jimbo doesn't use betfair

Like most gravy train journalists he gets on with anybody stewarty. He once said that those who claimed they couldn't get on with bookmakers were either lying or engaged in some type of criminal activity.

I wasn't aware he said that Feck. I'm presuming these were pre-betfair days, when certain trainers had no lose accounts..

Not sure if it was pre-betfair stewarty but he was either lying or naively believed his experience with bookmakers was representative of all punters. I remember another time punters were saying they couldn't get on some horse that had shortened from 5/1 E.P. to 5/2 very quickly. Jimbo stated "I think some people think the bookmakers are some sort of pot they can stick their hand into and lift out a clump of money".

I'm not his biggest fan Feck, but he does seem to have some principles. When chapmions day courses were changed, he did the right thing imo and resigned from the BHA. He also quit sleepy hollow when betfair intervened.

And if I'm honest, on the odd occassion I watch the morning line, he does seem to have more knowledge than most. (at least he knows what a bot is) As for that despicaple cretin who sometimes introduces the show, well, what can I say? Her knowledge of the game could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

No idea if she's still with the bloke who pretended to be a trainer and then went on to get a job with Godolphin!!! Beggars belief. Having said that, they gave J.Carroll a job...

I think he quit when betfair said they would no longer fund timeform charity day stewarty. He does know his horses but clearly not his bookmakers.

Yeah, sure it would be a principle thing over the Betfair/ Charity Day issue. Bit naive of him not to realise that being pals with bookies reps hasnt gained him preferential treatment (in getting on) from bookies, who are prob quite happy to have their card marked as to what he fancies anyway.

No one is going to row in on the side of shrewd winners who take the price. Our / their net contribution is negative--to the bookmaker, to the taxpayer, to the owners and workers and poss. to the tracks.

Someone who wins w/out getting the best prices is short-term lucky or has his finger in some sort of pie, so may be giving something back in one form or other. It wdn't surprise me if e.g. Michael O'Leary roughly breaks even on his betting and ownership--someone in that position redistributes from the punter to the workers.

The only argument we have for being allowed to win in greater volume is that the game will not prosper w/ the perception that you're sure to lose. The issue then for the books and the sport (given the levy set-up) is to limit winners as much as is consistent w/ not alienating the mass of recreational players.