supreme malinas photo haydock 1.22 the 2nd...

Yes because they took a while to call it.

Might have gone even bigger?

so you're saying the longer it took to call the bigger the difference betweeen the prices ...not how it usually works....and they got it wrong

yes, it seemed clear-cut once the slow-mo was shown but the longer the delay in the announcement inevitably the less sure the market became.

when the 1st slow mo was shown supreme malinas was always fav 2nd horse was around 6/1 before tightening to around 11/4 at time of suspension
niall read the prices out the wrong way around

looked like supreme malinas but couldn't see the mirror

thought niall was talking sh1te

yeah he was

the thread title can be read both ways

supreme malinas photo haydock 1.22

5.5 the winner according to Niall

the grammar standards on this forum are shocking

1.22 the 2nd...5.5 the winner according to Niall on rtv.  What's wrong with that george ?

See my 11.58 post

When did Niall say this?

supreme malinas photo haydock 1.22

That is what you posted and I had no reason to doubt it as that was about right.

I'm a busy man, I don't have spare time to spend deciphering your posts!

doesn't matter when he said it

you miss out the words "the 2nd "     you should get a job at the bbc   ydc

Of course it matters you muppet, did he say it before or after the slow-mo was shown?

And it matters because I don't trust a muppet like you to relay accurately what was said. I'd like to check it for myself.

he said it long after the slow mo initially shown george

Thank you, wsb.

Someone telling him the odds in his ear and he managed to get them mixed up?

supreme malinas photo haydock

1.22 the 2nd...5.5 the winner according to Niall on rtv. That correct?

niall read the prices out the wrong way around SM was always fav after the slow mo shown initially

Someone telling him the odds in his ear and he managed to get them mixed up?

I think so

the commentary probably confused him too as fitzgerald called the 2nd might have got back up

just looked back at coverage  he said the prices looking at the race replay way after the slo mo.  Clearly talking sh1te and a fair bit from george too.

I'll fix it for you, hapless howard

Haydock 2.40 photo betting

1.22 the second....5.5 the winner according to Niall on rtv.  That correct ?

Then no-one is reading:

supreme malinas photo haydock 1.22

which happened to be true.

you read it wrongly.  the time of the race wasn't mentioned and wasn't needed.   you're another Cider you are.

Cider is a highly regarded and valued member of the Betfair community so I'll take that as a compliment!

howard 21 Dec 25 10:31 
5.5 the winner according to Niall on rtv.  That correct ?


winner was 1/5

winner was never beat if you rolled the slo mo for a yard...but,as i said wheres the angle coming from..obv not what it looked on screen..and no mirror in sight on both courses.

Winner bounced around between 3 and 6 before the slo-mo.

So it's likely Niall just delayed saying what he'd been told in his ear?

surely even niall isn't stupid enough to give out live photo prices over a minute later but you seem to think he might be

Says hapless howard who starts a thread about it 20 hours later

rarely watch saturday racing live george  so poor angle.. Like Cider me genius nearly all  others thick as sh1te

I've watched it back and when the freeze-frame was shown, Niall said probably nearside (ie the winner) whilst acknowledging that it might not be exactly on the line, but when he quoted the photo odds he then followed this by saying that he thought Park Princess might have got back up watching it live, so whatever his source for the odds he believed it.

It's hard to decipher what was going on because he then said Park Princess was on the drift in the betting, so whether he was able to see the odds for himself and got into a muddle, or he was being fed duff info through his earpiece, who knows?

no point trying to work tv guys out. No wonder pro's like martyn julian watch with the sound off.  If any of these guys were special talents and I certainly include commentators they wouldn't be doing the jobs.  I would make an exception for Martyn Dixon publicity useful  for horse watchers syndicates