I know Non DYM liquidity is a problem

Think we re maybe exaggerating this a little - if you wanted to four-table £5 turbos (scaries) in the evenings you d be perfectly able to. A lot of different games are offered and most don t run, but you could easily play 15 or 20 games, say, in one evening, if you play what others are playing. The fact that people aren t playing even 5 in an evening is down to something other than liquidity.

We re back for day two today (Friday) with 48k, blinds going to 600/1200/100. Almost exactly average, think there are about 120-odd left of around 300 starters. Did get to about 58k at one stage, nothing very spectacular in the process, pretty frustrating last couple of levels though.

(Obviously we re now not in the 200 side event).

Cheers, gl us.

Treadwell's an interesting chap isn't he. Must be inspirational in the dressing room.

It is a howler though if he only originally gave it not out because he thought he'd nicked it, which is what I was wondering. If he gave it not out on height then the "only clipping" thing is fair enough I guess. But if he didn't even consider the height because he thought he'd hit it, then "only clipping" should be enough to give it out on review once you've proved that he didn't in fact hit it.

agree with that. plus forget the margin of error on the technology, there were enough tv angles all of which showed it clearly hitting, no need to use technology to make a decision on height when it's that clear

Yeah, it's very generous to the umpires with the margin of error as it is here.

Wtf is that - "That's worked perfectly", "Correct decision" says David Lloyd - as he gets given not out in accordance with the on field decision.

But the replay showed it was out...! So how's it worked perfectly and is the correct decision..?

Also, didn't he give him not out because he thought he'd nicked it - suspect he did. In which case the fact that it's "only clipping" the top of middle shouldn't matter.

There's a margin of error with the predictive thingy and so you can't be sure it's hitting when it's just clipping, thus no howler.

It is a howler though if he only originally gave it not out because he thought he'd nicked it, which is what I was wondering. If he gave it not out on height then the "only clipping" thing is fair enough I guess. But if he didn't even consider the height because he thought he'd hit it, then "only clipping" should be enough to give it out on review once you've proved that he didn't in fact hit it.

Wtf is that - "That's worked perfectly", "Correct decision" says David Lloyd - as he gets given not out in accordance with the on field decision.

But the replay showed it was out...! So how's it worked perfectly and is the correct decision..?

Also, didn't he give him not out because he thought he'd nicked it - suspect he did. In which case the fact that it's "only clipping" the top of middle shouldn't matter.

The replay was inconclusive although most people would say he hit the rope. When you touch the rope it's a boundary and always has been. Benefit of doubt always goes to the batsmen.

 There was a great catch a year or 2 back where the fielder caught it realised he would go over the rope so threw it up returned to the field and caught it which is fine.

Sandy

yeah I know the rules (Laws) but there isn't actually anything in them that says the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. My point was that the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt on wicket decisions because it's right that you have to prove the wicket. But by the same token and in the same spirit you should have to prove the six, otherwise the fielder in that case should be the one who is innocent till proven guilty, and it should be the fielding side in that case should get the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah brilliant - you wouldn't choose to have Tremlett there then would you...

Wtf is that - "That's worked perfectly", "Correct decision" says David Lloyd - as he gets given not out in accordance with the on field decision.

But the replay showed it was out...! So how's it worked perfectly and is the correct decision..?

Also, didn't he give him not out because he thought he'd nicked it - suspect he did. In which case the fact that it's "only clipping" the top of middle shouldn't matter.

gutted, but my 1st instinct was he deffo touched the rope.

think most people's would've been but there didn't seem to be any clear shot

does anyone know the actual rule? I assume the benefit has to go to the batsman if there's a doubt, would seem harsh to give them out when not 100%

Does seem like they need to consider rules for this sort of thing, as margins are so fine now that they're using cameras on everything. Agree that benefit of doubt on whether it's a wicket or not should generally go to the batsman - but there's also doubt about whether it's a six or not isn't there...? And that can't be proved either. Maybe it should be a dot ball or something.

Haven't entered one of these for a while, but the threads remain fascinating reading for a variety of reasons...

She's the woman who was married to pass.

Pretty sure this question is too hard if you weren't around 35 years ago. I could only name one - having looked it up I realised that I knew another one but wouldn't have remembered his name, and might have come up with a surname for another given a couple of months to think about it.

All received, cheers.

10% offline
10% by pm - PAID
Greekstein 10%
DMorgan 10% - PAID
MC 5% - PAID
Ripple11 5% - PAID

Understandable, think I could have said the same thing in about eight words.

[MereNovice]

So for MereNovice for example, searching now, you can search 'custom date' from 1-12 March excluding double or nothings, and see he's played 30 games exactly at 23%. Then you do a 'custom games' search for the last 15 games and it gives you an ROI of 57% for that batch.

Think you may have missed this.

Grr, lost heads up in my last game to just miss out on the lead... anyway, fifth batch stats below.

All sold, thanks.

10% offline
10% by pm
Greekstein 10%
DMorgan 10%
MC 5%
Ripple11 5%

pms sent