Altho rather downbeat. So no certainty

And given they are imo a false fav we have the open market I was hoping for

well i hope that we don't end up with another odds on fav winner before final night like the last 2 years and so predictable.

i listened to the song on youtube and if he comes across exactly like that on the night then the juries may choose it to be the winner. Will the pv go for it?

Sophisticated / beautiful songs don't have a good record.

And it entered the Norwegian charts but there's been hardly any fuss about it compared to past favourites.

I hadn't read about that GB2. I doubt Ivey will be paid out

Us poor punters like Ivey need every edge we can find

sorry another OT:

...it's a tricky one this as Mr Ivey has admitted to gaining an advantage by making certain requests that Crockfords readily accepted ~ they had no need to do this but chose to do so and as such must bear some of the blame for their losses.

If I were presiding, if able I would rule and order Crockfords to pay Ivey 50% of his winnings plus interest at 8% pa:

1) It was Crockford's cards that had the imperfections ~ in future they should endeavour to use flawless cards.
2) Crockfords readily accepted Mr Ivey's requests to change the playing cards ~ they could have refused to do so or asked him to leave the establishment.
3) Crockfords readily accepted Mr Ivey's requests to rotate certain cards ~ they could have refused to do so or asked him to leave the establishment.
4) Crockfords readily accepted Mr Ivey's requests to raise the maximum stake to £150,000 from £50,000 ~ again they could have refused to do so or asked him to leave the establishment.
5) Would Crockfords have refunded Mr Ivey's losses had he somehow ended up losing? No, so they can't have it both ways: if you cannot win, you cannot lose!
6) Being the oldest gaming house in Britain, they should by now know of any advantages players can attempt to gain and knowing this they still offered to play punto banco.

6) Mr Ivey has admitted to gaining a mathematical advantage over the house as a result of the imperfectly cut cards being rotated by the house. As such, he may not have been as successful had the house either refused to change the cards or not agreed to rotate them. As such he should not be awarded his full winnings.

Ivey was doing what hackers claim to do...free consultancy to identify systemic weaknesses. Need to read up on the Aussie Open one. For some reason I am not so sure about the dogs aftertimer even though similar to the Ivey case. Doesn't feel right. In the old days the bookie near me would let you get on after the first furlong or so but not after the horse had won.

Mr Dobson was charged under laws introduced last year by the Victorian government that make it an offence for anyone to "engage in or facilitate any conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of a sport or racing event resulting in financial advantage".
He was accused of "courtsiding".


I don't see how the reporting of a match corrupts a betting outcome. thats like saying if there were two media company broadcasting a match, one with a four second delay and one with a six second delay, the company with the shortest delay are criminals.

...and those who watch live sport on a HD channel are just terminally stupid.

sanna    307,788     25.8%
ace    283,831     23.8%

That gap is more than accounted for by the keeping of voting after jury declaration imo. After Ace 97, Sanna 90 was announced from juries the Sanna voters would have had motivation to vote and multi vote.

The above motivation is why Ace's final prices were too low, not too high (as per insider theory), and thus were a rational lay.

Yohio got the most votes of all the 32 semi finalists and then came a poor 4th in the final with 9.3%.

Shows how things can change - running order etc.

My Martin Stenmarck bets just done both times plus Songbird not far off winning the 1st heat