Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
.
Show More
Sometimes you just have to laugh. Didn't fancy the fav and backed the second ew. Did everything right and gets thinned by a 100/1 poke. To make it worse I backed Hobbs in the first purely seeing as they're running into form 
1.2 vs 5s
Would be a travesty. Small novices bump a long way from the line
and the runner-up never looked like getting past
Would be a travesty. Small novices bump a long way from the line
and the runner-up never looked like getting past
one went on sunday btn nose but was worse than this !imo.
it was jumping the last whats the problem..not the run in.
How can you say it didn't cost the r/u a nse. can't. so comes down to whether they are accountable for interference whilst jumping.
The bump was over the last. rare to see them thrown out that far out.
Wow - amended
Shocking decision.
Nearly a furlong run in and best horse 'won'
Shocking decision.
Nearly a furlong run in and best horse 'won'
Mat22 24 Jan 24 13:50
Already settled on the photo and money in my account
not for much longer mat..ysc.
Already settled on the photo and money in my account
not for much longer mat..ysc.
Obviously happy to get the win but think the other one is unlucky to get thrown out
Interference is interference,but the fact remains, the further out that interference happens, the less likely it is that the stewards can be of the opinion that on the balance of probabilities the result was affected.
shocked there. oh well guess they will take it of my account now 
generally you're looking at odds against result stands if there was interference, and the distance was a nse (or dh) imo. that's the starting point.
if anyone backed the hobbs winner on here3 woulda shirley laid it in the stoowards or photo
FFS when last time you seen one thrown out when interference that far out over the jumps?
Jan 24, 2024 -- 2:00PM, Poppydog. wrote:
1.2 vs 4.8
Cider, I disagree with your first point, but of course the finishing distance is key, but how far out the interference happened is also (usually!) an important consideration.
the one on sunday was 2 bumps on the run in and looked a lot worsen than this but its outta our hands !
true odds I'm talking about. so anything odds against is value.
obviously you have to apply that logic to what actually happened. but logic dictates if there was confirmed interference, it cost something, and if the distance was a nse, that's the race.
obviously you have to apply that logic to what actually happened. but logic dictates if there was confirmed interference, it cost something, and if the distance was a nse, that's the race.
Mat22 24 Jan 24 13:59
FFS when last time you seen one thrown out when interference that far out over the jumps?
was one i think at exeter few mths ago happened 3 out.
FFS when last time you seen one thrown out when interference that far out over the jumps?
was one i think at exeter few mths ago happened 3 out.
Only £1700 matched in the stewards market. There would have been a lot more had they not stupidly settled the win market so early.
Cider, I disagree with your first point, but of course the finishing distance is key, but how far out the interference happened is also (usually!) an important consideration.
It doesn't happen too often at the obstacle, with a nose the difference. I had in my mind the well reported reversal in the stayers hurdle at Chelts for the placing. So felt more than likely it would be chucked on the day. Also likely it will be challenged.
It doesn't happen too often at the obstacle, with a nose the difference. I had in my mind the well reported reversal in the stayers hurdle at Chelts for the placing. So felt more than likely it would be chucked on the day. Also likely it will be challenged.
Cheers Rico
Another lesson learnt.
Thought the photo was being to generous...
Saw the bump,,,,thought even with an Enquiry did not expect reversal.
Another lesson learnt.
Thought the photo was being to generous...
Saw the bump,,,,thought even with an Enquiry did not expect reversal.
Sandalwood at Taunton. Interference after 3 out.
Mat22 24 Jan 24 13:59
FFS when last time you seen one thrown out when interference that far out over the jumps?
was one i think at taunton few mths ago happened 3 out.
FFS when last time you seen one thrown out when interference that far out over the jumps?
was one i think at taunton few mths ago happened 3 out.
https://www.racingpost.com/results/73/taunton/2023-04-13/835820
if it jumped across the runner-up at the first hurdle and cost it a length does the result still get reversed.
only got beaten a nose ?
only got beaten a nose ?
just watched it again..winner stumbled on landing and looks like its edged a yd left forcing 2nd to move slightly left..it lost no momentum and had plenty time if was good enough..a harsh disq mo.
I thought bookies paid first past the post and then also paid on amended result.
I'm with 365 and just found out that their rules state they only pay first past the post.
I had no idea it had been changed.
I'm absolutely gutted.
I'm with 365 and just found out that their rules state they only pay first past the post.
I had no idea it had been changed.
I'm absolutely gutted.
Very harsh i feel a bit aggrieved there.
not only lost the winnings of the photo plus my stake on it.
U get involved Rico with the photo or Stewards?
not only lost the winnings of the photo plus my stake on it.
U get involved Rico with the photo or Stewards?
denise only earns a million a day yorrick, give the cow a break ffs ....
i seen it edged left way after the last so for that reason although it looked nothing i didnt get heavily,involved..i did have £50 in the foto but decided to get out.
yorrick 24 Jan 24 14:22
I thought bookies paid first past the post and then also paid on amended result.
I'm with 365 and just found out that their rules state they only pay first past the post.
surely cant be right..they are obliged to pay on the offical result.
I thought bookies paid first past the post and then also paid on amended result.
I'm with 365 and just found out that their rules state they only pay first past the post.
surely cant be right..they are obliged to pay on the offical result.
Hey Up!!
They just paid out!!
Wahay! from misery to joy to misery to joy = mugged in the finish by 100/1 shot, winner disq,
thought I'd lost me money, money paid out.
All's Well That Ends well, to carry on the Shakespearian theme.
They just paid out!!
Wahay! from misery to joy to misery to joy = mugged in the finish by 100/1 shot, winner disq,
thought I'd lost me money, money paid out.
All's Well That Ends well, to carry on the Shakespearian theme.
She's still taking your bets.
means her traders have decided she'll be getting it all back, and a bit more.
means her traders have decided she'll be getting it all back, and a bit more.
Mat22 • January 24, 2024 2:23 PM GMT
Very harsh i feel a bit aggrieved there.
not only lost the winnings of the photo plus my stake on it.
yes, that's usually how betting works.
Very harsh i feel a bit aggrieved there.
not only lost the winnings of the photo plus my stake on it.
yes, that's usually how betting works.
You're telling me she recognises a mug when she sees one?
Glad I missed the first few hours today. Very fair chance I wouldn't have spotted that interference and done some serious £££s on FPTP in the photo.
realities of having an online bookmakers account is they can analyse everything you do and send you an email telling you to fk off if they feel you are not going to be profitable. if you haven't received that email they are presumably happy with your custom.
Jan 24, 2024 -- 3:06PM, hulk23 wrote:
realities of having an online bookmakers account is they can analyse everything you do and send you an email telling you to fk off if they feel you are not going to be profitable.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539