Daytona Lady-not in picture!

you think it was a mistake ?

drone boys clean up

I think it was poor coverage.

poor coverage is one way to describe it...

i thought that , couldn't believe my eyes ,video minus 2 secs still didn't equal odds on when nowhere to be seen.

in this country it's usually dumb @ss mistakes rather than skullduggery

horse was in picture for a bit...

why does the camera person zoom in so it is out of picture ?

and why does the tv director in the 'truck' not say 'zoom out you clown the winner is coming down the near side' until it's virtually on the winning post ?

if they are really that bad they shouldn't be doing the bl00dy job imv.

I saw it disappearing out of picture, so knew it was there then saw its shadow appear but couldn't tell where it was with the leaders until much too late.

rewatched, yes Hibby, it was, as stew said drone players or shadow watchers made hay.

i saw it going out of picture and thought 'keep an eye on the price'...

all of a sudden it's miles odds on...

would love to know who was pressing the blue button.

or anyone who was at the track swifty.

don't forget those lads.

BSP 13
Timeform reporting the high in-running as 7.4

despite it 'disappearing out of picture'

in touch in rear, pushed along and headway stand side over 1f out, ridden and ran on to lead towards finish

was 'in rear', was 13.0 BSP, was 'pushed along', disappeared out the back of the tv at one point, only won a neck ... and never went above 7.4 in-running ??

*drone/on-track/GPS delete as approp.

2f out...

zoom in zoom in...

50 yards to go...

zoom out zoom out...

lovely.

anyone who deletes 'on track' is a clown.

even any of those.  it was 13.0 standing in the stalls.  came out, in rear ... never above 7.4 ?

i'd understand if it shot out the stalls and went 10 lengths clear ...

by coming out of the stalls and settling in rear its chances of winning immediately doubled ?

why ?

howard 17 Feb 23 18:22 
drone boys clean up

pmsl..with side on and 25yds head start you could be rite..although with £1-3 in ev box there aint much to clean up

OK, shrewd connections knew exactly how they wanted the race to unfold, were clearly happy at each stage, nibbled and then took larger bites at each stage of a very weak friday night in-play market.

SOLVED     with thanks.

ffs, very funny swifty

wernt paying much attention tbh but amazed that a horse thats 11/1 ..presuming 12/13 on bf doesnt trade bigger than 13/2 ir when in last plaice.

it's a joke bookies channel...skybet racing.

they show you close ups and no head ons for certain types of races for a reason and RTV are not far behind them recently.

anywon without drone pics who plays on atr tracks last 3f needs sectioned...

Don't think the Timeform figure represents the same as you'd see on the graph, could well have been a lot more smaller bets from 13 downwards not recorded. I know I layed a horse at 3.1 IR yet Timeform gave a low IR price of 4.5.

1p shows on graph though?

It does but timeform don't record it imo.

took timeform an age to report those in-running prices.  the next race's were up before this one, which was unusual, as were the reported in-running prices.

it wasn't just in rear, it was "pushed along" and disappeared out the picture.  but still didn't trade at over half it's BSP.

what is the min. needed for timeform historicals, £100?

Possibly but don't know.

wasnt pushed along as in 'struggling' and drone controls prices so out of pic on atr of no rellephants hulk .. try using ya heed son.

show me one running today that's last after the start and immediately trading at half its BSP.  be waiting a while ...

if you're happy punting 7.4 when it starts in last place, wtf would you not just back it at 13.0 before it comes out the stalls ??

eye conker hulk..half its sp travelling in last in any race just begs utter disbelief.

in its previous 9 races this has got upset in the stalls and has left them erratically on several occasions.

Finally with my Poirot hat on I have solved the mystery......... ps no charge.

last would suggest it 'left them erratically' again.  so why half the BSP ?

take your point if it bounced out up the front ...

playing devils advocate,  would you rather have £500 on a horse at 13 that (potentially) rears up, veers and is last, or £1000 on at 7 on one that's completey relaxed in the stalls, breaks on terms and settles nicely in rear?

Be interesting to see what Highest IR price Timeform give Lastofthecosmics, as on the graph BF high is about 240 but a tripes supper over 21.

robbie was chucking pennies away..bit like a hoy out at a wedding.

Be interesting to see what Highest IR price Timeform give Lastofthecosmics, as on the graph BF high is about 240 but a tripes supper over 21.

graph 240
timeform 42

ouch ....

if stew's right tho , what's the point of 42?

It's like the 1.01 stats, how relevant are they when you're always  £10k back in the queue?

so was 7.4 the high, or was there much higher that they don't report to Timeform.  same as they've reported 42 as the high here but we have someone saying they saw 240. 

highs the high isn't it, or maybe it isn't.

IPMAX    Maximum price placed in-play (only bets of a payout of more than GBP100 included)
IPMIN    Minimum price placed in-play (only bets of a payout of more than GBP100 included)

So calculated by Purple method, rather than BF method of 100 matched.

So at least £2.39 was staked at 42.0

so £1 matched at 95 isn't the high, £2.39 at 42 is the high.

except it isn't, 95 is.

I had a £20 bet the other day that won and I got 1000 max.

Trouble is I got £0.03p at 1000, £0.04p. at 980 , £0.10p at 880 etc, I think I ended up at 20 for £20 average.

I don't really want to see historical data stating it hit 1000, for 99.9% of punters that's utter b0ll0x.

£1 matched at 95: £1 matched = 50p staked ; payout=£0.50+£47, which is less than 100, so not shown; even £1 staked at 95 is less than 100 and wouldn't show.

The high is =>2.39 staked at 42

i must be old skool.  matched at 42 and 85, the high's 85.  because that's higher than 42.

unless you put an asterisk next to the 42 and explain at the bottom of the page which algorithms you've used to work out your own 'high' because you've personally deemed it's only official if it meets the some weird minimum payment criteria you've dreamt up.

do you really want to know that a horse hit 1000 for 1p. behave yourself hulk.

could have 10p matched at every price from 44 to 990, resulting in a total payout of almost 5 grand.  but because none of them constitute a payout of over £100 the in-running high is reported as 42.

fair point but unlikely scenario in the current climate,  there's bugger all traded at most prices.