[Think that is very wrong switching 5 places to 4 without any non runners. Feels at least a bit sly]

If you haven't had a bet in PP you prob should do.. 18runners, 5 places pretty sweet...

Doesn't really matter what you go for i dont think.. I like Caid De Berlais @ 14/1

indeed

N1,  anyone saw what happened with ours, fell way back then came again, did it hit a fence?  

waiting for replay, had written it off but seemed to come back once the jumping finished

Was ready to post hope they pay first 17.

Think that is very wrong switching 5 places to 4 without any non runners.  Feels at least a bit sly.

They did that?  That is awful.  I tend to think firms need to cover themselves a bit more in terms of reducing place terms when there are non runners on these races where they pay extra places as they leave themselves wide open but if there are no non runners it is just awful imo

According to the Guardian the lady that started the petition against him has been receiving up to 500 abusive tweets a minute.  If true that is both amazing and vile.

That is simply impossible.

You can search the tweets a person has received by using @ in the search box.

I saw she had some horrible remarks aimed at her, but 500 a day would be exaggerating, 500 a minute is far more than Bieber gets

Yeah it does seem fairly unlikely but if she is even receiving fifty a day it is pretty horrendous.  I just don't get what would make someone want to do something like that.  I mean I find Nigel Farage  pretty unsavoury but I can't imagine ever tweeting anything at him never mind threatening him.  I just find it bizarre

PP offer help. This came through today, can anyone help? How likely are the favs for Cheltenham to win say 1,2,3,4 races in the season.

Is this an offer where you can back the top of the market Cheltenham ante post markets that are best price with PP blind or does it need some more thought than this?

Cheers

Cheltenham Festival Ante Post Special: Place a €/£20 Ante Post bet on any runner at the Cheltenham Festival and get a €/£5 free bet every time they win during the season.

Gold Cup

Bobs Worth 10/1,
Holywell 10/1,
Champagne Fever 12/1,
Cue Card 12/1,
Silviniaco Conti 12/1

Champion Chase

Sprinter Sacre 9/4,
Sire De Grugy 4/1,
Champagne Fever 10/1,
Simonsig 10/1,
Balder Succes 14/1

To request odds send ODDS FAUGHEEN CHAMPION HURDLE

Qualifying bets must be Single only, €/£20 win or €/£10 each way & placed before 31/12. Max €/£5 free bet per selection per win. T&C’s apply.

Think it probably has value for any horse you think is close to the right price basically.  Perhaps concentrate on horses that are a short price in their next race...that way you are ensuring yourself of 3 or 4 quid of ev and it is hard for an ante post bet to be that much off

According to the Guardian the lady that started the petition against him has been receiving up to 500 abusive tweets a minute.  If true that is both amazing and vile.

Just read a tweet that made me remember Luke Schwartz......what happened to him?

His stars account is up $200k in 48 hours i read.

If it is the last 48 hours I think I deserve a cut for motivating him by mentioning him in a "whatever happened to thread" 

Fred Jackson is back and I expect he'll be used more as a short-gain receiver, rather than trying him through the middle of a very sturdy DL. He only played a third of snaps on Sunday and had four targets for 39 yards (on top of 10 rushing yards). Combined run&pass yards is 55.5 (shouty red man) and I'd happily take the overs in a close game. Thoughts?

i think he got 7 carries on Sunday, splitting time with Brown and Dixon?

is that likely to increase tonight, 4 days later? he is listed as "questionable" on the injury report

i think i would pass, against a stingy defense, until i knew he would get a "normal" workload

what would a quote be if he was uninjured?

He's got to be gambled on, though. We simply have to beat Miami. The schedule remaining is so bad compared to them that being a game ahead is critical.

Stats by week
1: 61 rush 13 rec
2: 24 rush 27 rec
3: 34 rush 78 rec
4: 33 rush 52 rec
5: 49 rush 58 rec
6: 26 rush 17 rec
and then injured in the next game

He won't get the full workload. They'll use Dixon and Brown to split the carries for sure. Miami are good against tight ends, so the slot for short passes into Jackson seems ideal, if they're watching Chandler.

If he was getting the full workload, the line would obviously be bigger. Ever happy to defer to your knowledge on these matters.

Don't care as long as we win

Buffalo News reporting that Jackson is almost certainly out.

As you were, folks. Back we all go now to IMWKIYWIGMTACP (I'm Mildly Well Known if you watch ITV Get Me to Annoy Chris Packham)

Doesn't that provide an opportunity?  Bryce and Dixon both available at 16/1 for first TD which both seem fair and so, probably, is the 10/1 Watkins.  Bryce and Dixon at 11/4 anytime also has to be value no?  Any view on which is better if you had to pick?

It isn't really about Evans anymore I don't think.  You can't reasonably or legally prevent him from working in whatever capacity but that puts the onus onto the clubs and when they sign a player they are effectively saying they think it is acceptable for that person to be put up as a role model to their community.  If my two year old daughter for some reason decided to become a blade when she was 6 or 7 it would make me incredibly sick to see her cheering a convicted rapist but it would have been Sheffield Utd that were responsible for that situation effectively because they still have a choice to make.

LOL at the 418am post.   Get used to it and get some kip when you get the chance.  Congrats.

Another very good piece by Mike Goodman in Grantland today about the demise of Gerrard (and Toure).  As a neutral I think Rodgers biggest challenge is finding going to be the whole process around dropping Gerrard which is going to be emotionally and politically difficult but is absolutely neccesary if they want to win in longer run.

Charlie Webster currently on Newsnight talking about the case and her resignation as a Sheff Utd patron.  Very impressive individual and hugely convincing in her arguments imo.

How can the gambling authorities allow a t&c that states they can close accounts without informing the account holders. Do they bother to check these things? Some of these rules are really really scary and the post about Barrow is just crazy.

The regulators have no interest in helping and protecting punters.  If you look on the Gambling Commissions website they have a pdf which explains what they do and on the second page it has this:

"We don't resolve customer complaints.   Operators who hold a Gambling Commission licence must have
procedures for handling customer complaints and arrangements for
disputes to be referred to an independent third party"

For UK bookmakers that "independent third party" is IBAS and IBAS's funding comes from SIS who are the "one ordinary member".  SIS's main business is the provision of pictures and info to the betting industry but if you look at the shareholders of SIS it is like a rollcall of major UK bookmakers.  Ladbrokes own 23%, Hills own 19.5% Fred Done owns about 13% in total so it is hard to argue that the "independent third party" is actually independent at all.  It is all wholly unsatisfactory but as I mentioned above nobody really seems to do anything about it.

Red, is there a list of requirements that an operator has to fulfil to get a license do you know or is it just a case of fill in a form and pay a fee?

I don't think it is quite as simple as that.  Basically from what I can gather they have five main, and fairly broad, criteria (from their site):


    1.identity and ownership – the identity of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application and or, in the case of an application for an operating licence, who ultimately owns a corporate applicant.
   2. finances – financial and other circumstances of the applicant, past and present, and or person(s) relevant to the application. For operating licences this will include the resources likely to be available to carry out the licensed activities.
   3. integrity – the honesty and trustworthiness of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application.
   4. competence – the experience, expertise, qualifications and history of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application.
    5. criminality – criminal record of the applicant and or person(s) relevant to the application.

You can definitely argue that in situations like this that a firm like Betway are in breach of points 3 and 4 but I get the sense that it isn't something that is ever really brought up.  The default seems to be that licensing hearings are held in private which doesnt really promote transparency.  I have, in the past, had some dealings with the Gambling Commission and I would have very little confidence that they really understand the industry and have a sense of very much other than the key policies dictated by government so I would think that their focus is really on things like ensuring firms aren't used to launder money, preventing under age gambling (I honestly think they spend 30%+ of their time on this), preventing criminals getting licenses etc etc.  These are obviously very noble and important goals but they do nothing to protect and represent the millions of ordinary punters that are betting every day.

 Punters need representation that can lobby on their behalf, represent their interests in licensing hearings and just generally work hard to ensure that their interests are served and hold firms to account.  If Betway thought that cancelling a bet 3 months after it was placed for the sake of 300 quid might lead to someone opposing their license then they might think before doing it for example and there are lots of other things that punters could do but it involves coming together and being organised and having some people that are willing to put some time into it.  Maybe something worth having an offline discussion about?

Interesting analysis of Dejan Lovren's start at Liverpool.

http://gemsandrhinestones.com/

Yeah this is a really good piece.  It is written by Nick Goff who is Corals head of football who is a pretty good judge.

How can the gambling authorities allow a t&c that states they can close accounts without informing the account holders. Do they bother to check these things? Some of these rules are really really scary and the post about Barrow is just crazy.

The regulators have no interest in helping and protecting punters.  If you look on the Gambling Commissions website they have a pdf which explains what they do and on the second page it has this:

"We don't resolve customer complaints.   Operators who hold a Gambling Commission licence must have
procedures for handling customer complaints and arrangements for
disputes to be referred to an independent third party"

For UK bookmakers that "independent third party" is IBAS and IBAS's funding comes from SIS who are the "one ordinary member".  SIS's main business is the provision of pictures and info to the betting industry but if you look at the shareholders of SIS it is like a rollcall of major UK bookmakers.  Ladbrokes own 23%, Hills own 19.5% Fred Done owns about 13% in total so it is hard to argue that the "independent third party" is actually independent at all.  It is all wholly unsatisfactory but as I mentioned above nobody really seems to do anything about it.

This was posted on the Betfair forum two days ago by holloway (an 11 year member):

I opened an account with them in July because I noticed they were 16/1 about Barrow winning the conference north, I tried for £100 at the 16/1 they layed me £20 and then knocked it straight into 11/1, I only tried tonight to log onto my account for the first time since placing the bet  after reading this thread and was unable to logon, so I phoned them to be told my account has been closed and my £20 stake will be refunded in the next few days, it' seems a coincidence that Barrow are top of the league and are now 11/10 to win it, I complained how can they close my account after having one bet that wasn't even settled and if I never contacted them tonight they probably wouldn't of even give me my money back, I think this is unacceptable and this firm shouldn't even be allowed to trade.

So four months after they take the bet they decide to cancel it and if the thread wasn't there he still would be in the dark that his account was closed.

Oh my, now that is bang wrong, & completely indefensible.

I get very uncomfy when the mob get out on the streets with their pitchforks (see 'Stars), but even I can't defend this.

By definition, they could do that with ANY bet that looks like winning?

As someone that has worked on both sides of the counter I generally feel a bit uncomfortable with a lot of the anti bookmaker stuff.  As a bookmaker you have to protect your profits and sometimes that involves making decisions which promote your self interest over that of some punters but there is also a huge responsibility on the part of operators to protect the integrity of the "game" overall and doing some of the stuff that firms like Betway do isn't only bad for punters it is actually intrinsically bad for other operators too but the problem is that nobody will stand up and put their head above the paraphet.  There have been attempts in the past to organise a punters association and, like the poker players associations, they generally fail through apathy and most fo the operators are too myopic to get involved.

does 16.6 (vii) mean if you punt based on a tipster in a daily rag you will get your loses confiscated?

In reality almost certainly not but the problem is that it could and if, for example, you followed one of the Betting Emporium tipsters, or put a bet on for a friend that was also getting the same bet elsewhere there is a good chance that they refuse to pay you on the basis of this.  As I mentioned yesterday most firms have some kind of rule that can work like this.  If I recall correctly Ladbrokes have a rule barring you from acting as a syndicate which could also be very loosely used but the key difference with Betway seems to be how they are applying it.  It is unreasonable and unfair and they do appear to be applying it just to get out of paying.