Wanderlust

HUDDERSFIELD@ 1.57
ARSENAL @ 2.05 
30PTS DOUBLE

1.45       WINTER FOG/ res party business
2.25         STAGE STAR/ res good risk at all
3.00        GENTLEMAN DE MEE/ res edwardstone
3.35        SIRE DU BERLAIS/ res Champ
4.15        TEA CLIPPER/res scene not herd
5.15         ANY SECOND NOW/ res run wild fred
6.20        RATH GAUL BOY/ res western zephyr

As in previous years we will be running a tipsters competition for Aintree, Thursday 7th April to Saturday 9th April.
 
Rules:
1 selection per race throughout the competition Bets settled to £1 level stakes - WIN Only Bets settled at SP Highest accumulative total over the competition wins £60 cash (via PayPal) Runner Up wins £25 and the third place wins £15, all prizes via your PayPal account In addition there will be a £10 prize each day for the highest profit for that day No edits allowed in selection posts Losses incurred for losers. Replacement selections for NRs can be posted but must be before the first race deadline All Bets must be posted prior to the first race each day (no exceptions) Not compulsory to enter everyday or every race (so if you miss the first day or two you can still take part) Leader-board posted each evening A minimum of 14 bets is required to qualify for any prizes All welcome, good luck.

2000 WOL
ODISSIO 10/1 BET365
EACH WAY

A few darts flying around here today!!
1.30     DOCTOR PARNASSUS/ res porticello
2.10     TAX FOR MAX/ res first street
2.50      STAG HORN/ res eric bloodaxe
3.30     TORNADO FLYER/ res protektorat
4.10      FUMET D'OUDARIES/ res cousin pascal
4.50      ZAMBELLA/ res vienna court
5.30      HE'S A HARDY BLOKE/ res quinta do mar

Get that dart sharpened ? ?

SOUTHAMPTON @ 1.55
HOFFENHEIM @ 1.53
20PTS DOUBLE

Yes I realised the point about the Rule 4 - in fact I was surprised last night to see the selection had been made so early as there was clearly a risk of a Rule 4. I would like to see the rule changed so that a further selection is only allowed if the original is a non -runner. That is up to the administrators. 
Anyway, it's academic as the revised selection got beat. Bit of a laugh if the original selection drifted out to 5/2 and won.

The reason he has done it is because there was a non runner which would have meant a Rule 4 deduction on his pick, meaning even if it won, he would stlil be under the 10 pts profit threshold.
There is nothing in the rules, but I remember having this discussion with a new member some months back, explaining that technically you could pick 10 different horses and keep changing your mind, however unless your first choice is a non runner then you stick with your original choice. Call it etiquette or good form, its an unwritten rule that we all abide by. However there is actually nothing that stops you doing it. But there is certainly not a rule that allows you to do it either. 

I can't see any rule that allows this to be done

?

?  Oh?  What rule is that?

SOUTHAMPTON @ 1.55
HOFFENHEIM @ 1.53
20PTS DOUBLE

Ouch very unlucky!!

leeds/man united OVER 2.5 @1.61
40 PTS

Doncaster 1.00
Bartholomew J  10/1 ( Bet365 )

If thats aimed at me , Id get your facts correct first before you start making statements
I did NOT  say I would not post unless @The Equaliser refused to post , he stated he might catch me up profit wise so I said Id stop posting until he did, which is quite different than his wrongly perceived version,mind you thats his trait trying to twist everything .
Also as above his posts lead to no value to the forum whatsoever and just turn into schoolboy type bickering.
As they say
Its hard to beat a scholar in a debate  ,
but its even harder to to beat a fool

This is the point! Everybody else (who has chosen to express an opinion) has said so and no-one has claimed that your horse lost. The table records whether the bet was a winner or a loser. Imagine an each way selection that placed rather than won but returned a profit. The table would record it as a winning bet. This despite the fact that the horse did not win the race. Nothing about the table is predicated on whether or not the horse won the race. It is about whether or not the bet was a winning one. A bet that returned less than the stake is a losing one and it really is as simple as that.
I can understand why you queried the decision and why you might be disappointed but in view of the ensuing discussion and clarification I don't think there is any sense or scope in pursuing the argument.

It does not count as a winner. 
On the above example you would "win" because your losses were less, not because you had more winners.
Its common sense really.
McClarke has a hard enough job to do without having spend time having to explain something which is obvious to everybody else on here.

I confirm this, it was I that  had that debate with BH and if the bet has a financial loss then it is a loss. Simple as that!

You are the only one who sees this as an issue. Everybody else agrees that the bet was a loser.

It does not count as a winner. 
On the above example you would "win" because your losses were less, not because you had more winners.
Its common sense really.
McClarke has a hard enough job to do without having spend time having to explain something which is obvious to everybody else on here.

Oh give it a rest please. How dare you drag the esteemed PL membership into this argument - why the hell should any of us give a monkeys for such a petty squabble.
This is - and I hope, will always be - a clear, free-spirited, and honest competition in the name of Billy Hills,
I implore you to stop this bickering and nonsense and move on.
Or quit the BILLY HILLS NAP TABLE, like you abandoned the £20 Daily Challenge thread.

Ooh I do love semantics! As an interested outsider I'd say it's fairly clear, the horse deadheated for 1st place but the bet lost because the return was less than the stake. Had it been greater the bet would have been a winner. The table expressly records the number of bets (not horses) and this bet lost.
Now, had the return been exactly the same as the stake then there would have been scope for a proper argument about whether it was a winner or a loser, given there's no column for a push! 

It does not count as a winner. 
On the above example you would "win" because your losses were less, not because you had more winners.
Its common sense really.
McClarke has a hard enough job to do without having spend time having to explain something which is obvious to everybody else on here.