Naps Comp Settlement

Must admit, for purely selfish reasons I was hoping it would be settled on the official result. But this is such an outrageous, exceptional circumstance that I think our esteemed settler absolutely made the right decision. I know I would have been totally gutted had I lost a point over that. But I don't think such a once in a blue moon event warrants a rule change.

I am of course aware that there is a rule that says the settlers' decision in a grey area is final so I'm not even asking for it be overturned but I'm afraid the precedent means that every time the bookies make an "ex gratia " payout which happens now and then people might argue they should be credited with a winner. It's a bit ironic of course that I probably only noticed it because I happen to be picking for Skinto ( of all people ) at the moment and he was affected like you Reg. Well I've raised it,our most experienced settler thinks it was the right decision and nobody else has shown any interest so I won't pursue it further. God knows how blue the air would have turned if the man himself was around though.     

Its a "betfair exchange" competition and therefore should have been settled as a loser imo as on here they don't do ex gratia payments or pay out on both results and as such "the official result" has the 50/1 poke still as the winner until the inevitable happens in a cupla weeks.
At best maybe all selections on race should have been void as "fav" never won the actual race and has yet to be awarded it  but settlers have a hard enough job as it is so we have to accept  their decision as final even though it could well have implications for relegation spots in Premier table this month.

That's my honest opinion on it having actually backed the horse for a sizeable amount on here and not receiving any sort of return

The official result was the  50-1  won the race
so it should  have been on all  the comps

other  wise u are making up  the rules as you go along

Glad nobody picked it in Division 1 and only just noticed that it was settled as a winner in the Premier. Personally think that is the wrong decision as it didn't win but thats just my opinion.

We don't need another new rule for it though as its the first time its happened this century.

I have to say, I thought long and hard about whether to settle the horse as a winner or loser. If we were using betfair SP then my decision would probably have been different. But a naps competition that uses industry SP should take into account what bookies are paying out on. There's an argument that somebody's P and L should surely be what he would have at the end of the month after backing his selections at his local bookies. And this was a once in a blue moon happening. I thought it would be harsh on the favourite backers to settle it as a loser when beaten by a horse that wasn't even declared for the race!

I can see it was a difficult one but I still think you were wrong tbh. The Naps Comps were well-established before BF SP was introduced so they had to be settled at ISP. Moreover they started well before the Sportsbook appeared so anybody with a Betfair account was playing the Exchange which as shearer....er...smirnoff pointed out didn't pay out on the official 2nd. However I hate to appear to give settlers stick so I will shut up and do my best to keep Skinto up as that might be when the excrement hits the rotator otherwise     

Not sure I'd go totally along with your defence lmlac as if we start taking bookie payouts into account it'll open a very messy can of worms. But as china says, this is a once in a century occurence where the one simple fact is that the winner didn't win because it wasn't the horse named as the winner and should have been disqualified. I have no doubt this result will be overturned soon. It is a mighty big problem for a settler and, since this is not covered by the rules, I think lmlac has to be fully supported.