Quote: Old Lady Leg @ 7th March 2019, 2:35 PMNo it isn't...ahem. ;-)
The sale price is £37.76: if that were half price, full price would be £75.52 which is 2p less than the actual full price of £75.54
That's where the figure of 2p came from.
Having recalculated, I now realise that £37.76 is in fact only ONE p less than half the original price of £75.54.
I sit corrected. 
Picked up my copy of the Racing Post this morning. It's gone up from £2.90 (which was bad enough) to £3.20.
How much!!!!?
Conveniently just in time for Cheltenham week.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 9th March 2019, 12:16 PMPicked up my copy of the Racing Post this morning. It's gone up from £2.90 (which was bad enough) to £3.20.
I haven't bought a newspaper for decades (literally!) and was absolutely astonished in a newsagents recently to discover that a national newspaper now costs more than about 10p.
If I want to read the Racing Post, I can pop into my local bookies and read it on the wall for nothing.
I'm not daft!
Quote: Rood Eye @ 9th March 2019, 12:34 PMIf I want to read the Racing Post, I can pop into my local bookies and read it on the wall for nothing.
I'm not daft!
That's what I do on quiet sporting days but on big race days or when there's an extensive football programme or when there's racing on tv I like to give myself a bit longer to absorb the information. And to have it at my finger tips for reference throughout the afternoon or evening.
I also like to sit for an hour over a coffee and a copy of the Racing Post. One has to indulge in a few guilty pleasures in retirement.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 9th March 2019, 1:28 PMThat's what I do on quiet sporting days but on big race days or when there's an extensive football programme or when there's racing on tv I like to give myself a bit longer to absorb the information. And to have it at my finger tips for reference throughout the afternoon or evening.
I also like to sit for an hour over a coffee and a copy of the Racing Post. One has to indulge in a few guilty pleasures in retirement.
Fair enough, Billy.
I used to be an avid fan of horse-racing until the advent of the betting exchanges that enabled trainers and jockeys to back a horse to lose - and then make bloody sure that it did.
In my heyday, I backed "Jet Ski Lady" in The Oaks and she won at 50 to 1!
Luvvly Jubbly!
I used to own a 12th share in a racehorse.
That's when you find out they don't run true races to give the punters a chance.
It was called Laser Lady and trained by Steve Norton.
We bought it as a one year old and on its first race; 5 furlongs, Pontefract, Norton told us to get what we could afford on it. I didn't take a price and it came in from 33/1 to 12/1 and won by 20 lengths. (5f)
It went in every punters book.
The trainer then told us he would run it 5 or 6 times to lose to bring its price back up.
He always told us when it would win.
That's why I always preferred dog racing to horses. It's just a bunch of dogs running as fast as they can to catch a stuffed rabbit. No jockey onboard to throw the race...
Quote: DaButt @ 9th March 2019, 3:55 PMThat's why I always preferred dog racing to horses. It's just a bunch of dogs running as fast as they can to catch a stuffed rabbit. No jockey onboard to throw the race...
Maybe they should have monkeys on their backs.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 9th March 2019, 3:43 PMI used to own a 12th share in a racehorse.
That's when you find out they don't run true races to give the punters a chance.
It was called Laser Lady and trained by Steve Norton.
We bought it as a one year old and on its first race; 5 furlongs, Pontefract, Norton told us to get what we could afford on it. I didn't take a price and it came in from 33/1 to 12/1 and won by 20 lengths. (5f)
It went in every punters book.
The trainer then told us he would run it 5 or 6 times to lose to bring its price back up.
He always told us when it would win.
Is this in any way libelous?
Horse and trainer long since dead.
Of course, running it "to lose" doesn't automatically signify skulduggery. He may run it over the wrong distance, on unsuitable going or in too high a class of race. Then, when he wants to win, run it back over the correct distance on suitable going in a lower class race. These are all things that scrutiny of the form could be picked up by a discerning punter. It all adds to the skill & judgement of trying to find the winner.
Funny thing today ie racing.
Put a bet on a horse with part of the name 'Rosie'
One of my grandchildren 's name.
It was a photo finish with my horse in it at 12/1
So I stood to win a fair few quid.
After they studied the photo, mine was declared the winner.
Sky paid me out and I had another bet with the winnings.
It later transpired that they had been looking at the wrong photo and in fact my horse was second.
The placing were altered and sky took the winnings back out of my account.
I went nuts, they surely can't take money back. Especially as i had spent some.
I couldn't get through to sky services - I imagine they were deluged with complaints.
About an hour ago they have put the money back.
Skybet paid me out on the original result, didn't take it back (I kept checking), I haven't used it and it's still there.
Strange.
Just checked my account and it says goodwill payment next to the bet.
This was the 1:50 PM at Sandown, a course which has two finishing lines.
There are two finishing lines at Sandown because the chase course and the hurdles course finish at different angles and, in order to be fair to all runners in a given race, the finishing line should be at right angles to the direction in which the runners are running when they finish.
The race in question was over hurdles but the photo was taken in error at the finishing line used for chases.
"One for Rosie" was marginally in the lead when he crossed the chase finishing line but was marginally behind when passing the hurdles finishing line.
Unfortunately, the wrong image was sent to the judge by the racecourse photo finish operator.
Bets on horse racing are settled on the official result at the time of the weigh-in , although some bookies will also pay out on horses that pass the post in the lead but are subsequently disqualified.
Assuming the error was detected before the weigh-in and that, therefore, "One for Rosie" was never the official winner, I think Sky have every right to amend the accounts of customers who were paid out in error.
PS. After writing and posting the above, I've just seen Stephen's message in which he says his bookie has allowed him to keep his winnings as a gesture of "goodwill". That makes sense but I have a feeling Stephen wouldn't have been so lucky if he'd won a fortune rather than an amount that the bookies are prepared to give away in order to retain his goodwill.
It sounds like the question is do Sky have the right (is it in their T&Cs) to take money from an account under any circumstances without prior notice to the customer. If it's not then I think Stephen should make a complaint. Regardless of why the decision was changed it was of no making by the winning punters and once that payment was made to their accounts the transaction was complete and that's the end of it. If they then realise the error and wish to reclaim the winnings paid out they should make a written request by email outlining the mistake, offering a grovelling apology and asking for permission to take it back from the account.
Removing funds from a customers account should always be done with the full knowledge and permission of the account holder but it could be in there T&Cs that they are permitted to do it with payments in error.