54 bets 7 winners plenty of short winners in those but many of them of some signifcance none the less.
1. Dave F. 8-11 takes him to within 33p of the leader.
2. Rod B. 2-5 takes him 2nd in the plate.
3. Justin 2-5 his 25th winner and maybe the the one that secures the plate now 35 points clear.
4. Howard 6-5 moves him from 10th to 7th and in the money.
5. Martin L. 2-5 keeps alive his faint last minute rally to capture a cash place in the plate.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Monday, 10 January 2011
10jan11 I'm back
By popular demand - well Vince actually
After a tough weekend of only 9 winners from 106 bets today saw a little bit of an improvement, recording 8 winners from 53. Best was Neil with 10-1 winner after that the rest were either 4-1 or worse. Leader Vernon popped in a 2-1 winner to recreate the small gap between himself and Dave F. who has been sitting out and allowing Vernon to drift back towards him.
Plate sees Justin in a very strong position 34 points clear of Kevin W. in 2nd. The slight worry for him is Rod, a good late finisher in the plate, who has 4 bets in hand and is 35 points behind in 3rd, so not quite out of it especially with 10 point winners in play now.
After a tough weekend of only 9 winners from 106 bets today saw a little bit of an improvement, recording 8 winners from 53. Best was Neil with 10-1 winner after that the rest were either 4-1 or worse. Leader Vernon popped in a 2-1 winner to recreate the small gap between himself and Dave F. who has been sitting out and allowing Vernon to drift back towards him.
Plate sees Justin in a very strong position 34 points clear of Kevin W. in 2nd. The slight worry for him is Rod, a good late finisher in the plate, who has 4 bets in hand and is 35 points behind in 3rd, so not quite out of it especially with 10 point winners in play now.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
05jan10 busy day
Lots of winners today 13 winners from 55 bets including 16 forced losers. Mostly short priced but a couple of 7-1 winners one was for Joanne which pushed her back into the cash in 7th. The best winner was 10-1 for Roger D. who brought up a treble to go +11.75 and into 9th place.
In the plate Justin has continued to forge ahead while Kevin W. sits out and is now on 176 points v 157 and still with one bet in hand.
A final bit of info from the holiday period where I took a bit of a break from this blog was to report the longest price horse ever selected and that was 250-1 for Pat Quinn Jnr and it finished 3rd, unlucky. Remember however that the maximum price rule applies for the first 40 bets of 33-1 - that rule will effectively ends on Sunday this week.
In the plate Justin has continued to forge ahead while Kevin W. sits out and is now on 176 points v 157 and still with one bet in hand.
A final bit of info from the holiday period where I took a bit of a break from this blog was to report the longest price horse ever selected and that was 250-1 for Pat Quinn Jnr and it finished 3rd, unlucky. Remember however that the maximum price rule applies for the first 40 bets of 33-1 - that rule will effectively ends on Sunday this week.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
RULE CLARIFICATION 04jan11
A very difficult issue has arisen, because we have had so much bad weather and so many cancelled meetings with completely blank days, loads of players have with a month to go gone dormy. There are always a few that drop out a bit early for whatever reason but this time we have over 50% already in this position.
So recently one or two players have been sending in, in a single text message, a main nap with a follow on selection in case their first selection is a non-runner.
Clearly we have not had this situation before and so we don't have a precedent or rule to cover this circumstance.
The general principal that we have always adopted is that we can't change the rules half way through a competition everyone who enters must know the rules before they start. So as this circumstance complies with all the current rules and to make sure we are sticking with our main principle of 'not making up new rules as we go along' we have, in principal, to accept this is valid and that in general a reserve submitted in this manner should count as a valid selection should the first selection be a non-runner.
However the rules do say that 'in the event of a non-runner any replacement nap must be submitted before the 1.30pm cut off' and so on that basis if the first nap selected is still scheduled to run at the 1.30 cut off it would not have been possible to submit a replacement and so our interpretation is that it is therefore not possible to submit a reserve and comply with this rule.
So if the first selection is declared to run at the 1.30 cut off and subsequently fails to run (e.g. withdrawn at the post) then the reserve selection cannot be valid and will not count.
Clearly this interpretation needs to be communicated to everyone so we have and maintain a level playing field for all so I will be sending out a text to summarise all this.
Please note that we intend to (subject to final approval) introduce a new rule ready for the next competition making it clear that in future a second selection will only be a valid nap if it is submitted in the period after the first selection has been declared a non-runner and before 1.30pm.
Hope everyone understands, it is probable that the above interpretation is what we really meant but as it doesn't actually say that we think this solution is fairest for all and will allow those accidently caught dormy because of the weather to protect against wasted bets.
So recently one or two players have been sending in, in a single text message, a main nap with a follow on selection in case their first selection is a non-runner.
Clearly we have not had this situation before and so we don't have a precedent or rule to cover this circumstance.
The general principal that we have always adopted is that we can't change the rules half way through a competition everyone who enters must know the rules before they start. So as this circumstance complies with all the current rules and to make sure we are sticking with our main principle of 'not making up new rules as we go along' we have, in principal, to accept this is valid and that in general a reserve submitted in this manner should count as a valid selection should the first selection be a non-runner.
However the rules do say that 'in the event of a non-runner any replacement nap must be submitted before the 1.30pm cut off' and so on that basis if the first nap selected is still scheduled to run at the 1.30 cut off it would not have been possible to submit a replacement and so our interpretation is that it is therefore not possible to submit a reserve and comply with this rule.
So if the first selection is declared to run at the 1.30 cut off and subsequently fails to run (e.g. withdrawn at the post) then the reserve selection cannot be valid and will not count.
Clearly this interpretation needs to be communicated to everyone so we have and maintain a level playing field for all so I will be sending out a text to summarise all this.
Please note that we intend to (subject to final approval) introduce a new rule ready for the next competition making it clear that in future a second selection will only be a valid nap if it is submitted in the period after the first selection has been declared a non-runner and before 1.30pm.
Hope everyone understands, it is probable that the above interpretation is what we really meant but as it doesn't actually say that we think this solution is fairest for all and will allow those accidently caught dormy because of the weather to protect against wasted bets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)