BILLY HILLS NAP TABLE - February 2022

[MCLARKE]

[The Equaliser]

@MCLARKEI can't see why this has been treated as a loser when it dead-heated for first place.  I can't see anything in the rules to support this.  Please advise?

[Zilzalian]

32 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

@MCLARKEI can't see why this has been treated as a loser when it dead-heated for first place.  I can't see anything in the rules to support this.  Please advise?

Mmm Tricky one, Im guessing and only guessing the negative number is key given that johnrobertsons is also negative and classed as a loser, a win in this competition the "stake" is not returned causing the negative. Basically its the stakes that are halved. I understand why your querying it though.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Zilzalian

[The Equaliser]

16 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

Mmm Tricky one, Im guessing and only guessing the negative number is key given that johnrobertsons is also negative and classed as a loser, a win in this competition the "stake" is not returned causing the negative. Basically its the stakes that are halved. I understand why your querying it though.

Yes, I agree that stakes are halved etc and the only reference I can find in the comp rules are about Rule 4 deductions.  However, no matter how much the returns are diminished the horse was still a winner albeit it dead-heated.  This being so I feel that it should be treated as a winner unless and until the rules have been amended to specifically state that if there is a dead heat then both winners will be declared losers which seems bizarre.

Great 10/1 winner from you today

 

[Zilzalian]

5 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Yes, I agree that stakes are halved etc and the only reference I can find in the comp rules are about Rule 4 deductions.  However, no matter how much the returns are diminished the horse was still a winner albeit it dead-heated.  This being so I feel that it should be treated as a winner unless and until the rules have been amended to specifically state that if there is a dead heat then both winners will be declared losers which seems bizarre.

Great 10/1 winner from you today

 

This is the relevant rule, 

 it is your stake and not the odds that are changed by a dead heat. Whilst each way bets pay out at a fraction of the odds based on the full stake, dead heat winners pay out at full odds but only a fraction of the stake (with the remaining stake being settled as a losing bet).

Dead Heat Rules | Betting Guides | BettingSites.org.uk

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Zilzalian

[The Equaliser]

21 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

This is the relevant rule, 

 it is your stake and not the odds that are changed by a dead heat. Whilst each way bets pay out at a fraction of the odds based on the full stake, dead heat winners pay out at full odds but only a fraction of the stake (with the remaining stake being settled as a losing bet).

Dead Heat Rules | Betting Guides | BettingSites.org.uk

 

 

Many thanks for that.  However, the horse(s) still finished first.  Just as in the KO comp a pl member can win the competition on a negative return as long as his challenger has a larger negative return

 

[MCLARKE]

I recall this debate a while back and the stance that BH took was that if the bet resulted in a financial loss then it would be deemed a losing bet.

[The Equaliser]

7 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

I recall this debate a while back and the stance that BH took was that if the bet resulted in a financial loss then it would be deemed a losing bet.

Sorry, I don't recall this.  To me it's a bit like asking the owners of the winning horses just to share second place prize money.  Absolutely bonkers. When is a winning horse a loser; when it dead heats.  Crazy.

Just as with the KO cup nothing has been done to amend the rules to say if x number of punters can't get on because of technical problems then the comp is re-run again and in this instance there is nothing in the rules to say that a horse that dead-heats is deemed to be a loser.

This all seems to me to be unfair once again in my opinion

[roger2256]

If a horse is backed at say 3/1 e/w and finished 2nd or 3rd it's deemed a loser as far as the comp is concerned because returns do not exceed initial stake , this is no different your  1 pt returned .58  ergo a loser 

The other horse was 4/1 so 1/2 stake at full odds would be .5 x 5 = 2.5  returns -1 stake  = + 1.5 so I assume this would be treated as a winner ??

It's the 1st of Feb if it's important at the end of the month then you can make an objection until then MC's decision must stand .

Edited February 2, 2022 by roger2256
Text

[In Play Race Reader]

10 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

Lots of the winning P/Ls don’t look correct 

[Zilzalian]

8 hours ago, The Equaliser said:

Sorry, I don't recall this.  To me it's a bit like asking the owners of the winning horses just to share second place prize money.  Absolutely bonkers. When is a winning horse a loser; when it dead heats.  Crazy.

Just as with the KO cup nothing has been done to amend the rules to say if x number of punters can't get on because of technical problems then the comp is re-run again and in this instance there is nothing in the rules to say that a horse that dead-heats is deemed to be a loser.

This all seems to me to be unfair once again in my opinion

Ew placed only profit is classed as a winner, so if i backed every day at say 2/1 or even money ew then by your situation (i wont say argument) my places would have to be classed as winners which would make the "most winners" competition farcical (if not for the +10 rule), I can see your frustration but in effect you have had a winner in name only not a financial winner and the whole point of betting is presumably to make money your bet actually lost you money. Just my opinion based on what's happened. If you consider the headings its BETS - WON- LOST not HORSES-WON-LOST  is probably the best way to look at it.

As for the rerun of the KO cup i would hate to win that comp knowing my opponent couldn't get on through tech difficulties, it was/is not ideal but the rerun was a reasonable solution. I can't think of a fairer solution to be honest. Baring in mind i think in effect we are all mates on here, i would hate to fall out with someone over a free competitions that cost us nothing but provides us with a bit of sporting fun with a prize.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Zilzalian

[The Equaliser]

7 hours ago, roger2256 said:

If a horse is backed at say 3/1 e/w and finished 2nd or 3rd it's deemed a loser as far as the comp is concerned because returns do not exceed initial stake , this is no different your  1 pt returned .58  ergo a loser 

The other horse was 4/1 so 1/2 stake at full odds would be .5 x 5 = 2.5  returns -1 stake  = + 1.5 so I assume this would be treated as a winner ??

It's the 1st of Feb if it's important at the end of the month then you can make an objection until then MC's decision must stand .

If a horse finishes 2nd or 3rd it is a loser. i.e it hasn't won the race

I can look at the result of this race until doomsday and it will always show that my horse finished first and was a winner.

The kind of question that needs to be answered is that if this was a KO cup final and I had this horse been in my selections and it was the only one that won and my opponent had no winners then would I be told that I hadn't won the comp because there is financial loss and that I would have to play again the next day? Doesn't seem right to me.

A winner is a winner and I do not believe that this fact should be ignored unless and until there is a proper change to the rules which are shown in writing.

 

[Zilzalian]

The simple way to write a rule would be to say IT IS THE BET and not the Horse that has priority for the competitions, which just clarifies what already happens.

[Zilzalian]

1 hour ago, In Play Race Reader said:

Lots of the winning P/Ls don’t look correct 

Agreed

[roger2256]

8 hours ago, roger2256 said:

If a horse is backed at say 3/1 e/w and finished 2nd or 3rd it's deemed a loser as far as the comp is concerned because returns do not exceed initial stake , this is no different your  1 pt returned .58  ergo a loser 

The other horse was 4/1 so 1/2 stake at full odds would be .5 x 5 = 2.5  returns -1 stake  = + 1.5 so I assume this would be treated as a winner ??

It's the 1st of Feb if it's important at the end of the month then you can make an objection until then MC's decision must stand .

In simple terms ; Wins are winning TIPS  including EW placed selections that made a profit.

[MCLARKE]

4 hours ago, In Play Race Reader said:

Lots of the winning P/Ls don’t look correct 

There were quite a few R4 deductions.

[MCLARKE]

3 hours ago, The Equaliser said:

he kind of question that needs to be answered is that if this was a KO cup final and I had this horse been in my selections and it was the only one that won and my opponent had no winners then would I be told that I hadn't won the comp because there is financial loss and that I would have to play again the next day? Doesn't seem right to me.

Your opponent would show a loss of £3 and you would have a loss of £2.42 so you would be deemed the winner.

[The Equaliser]

11 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

Your opponent would show a loss of £3 and you would have a loss of £2.42 so you would be deemed the winner.

You make my point perfectly.  The winner counts as a winner even though a loss has occurred.  Entrants for the KO cup are derived from the Naps comp so as stated above even though I made a loss I should be credited with having a winner unless and until such a time as you amend the rules.

Very many thanks for answering the question.  I have no wish to argue with you especially if you now have to readjust P/L figures for other results.

BTW have you now been roped into updating the Free Tips tables as they have not been updated since 31.7.21?

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by The Equaliser

[MCLARKE]

3 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

BTW have you now been roped into updating the Free Tips tables as they have not been updated since 31.7.21?

No. I believe these records are maintained by @The Brigadier

[In Play Race Reader]

32 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

There were quite a few R4 deductions.

?

[The Equaliser]

18 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

No. I believe these records are maintained by @The Brigadier

I hope so.  He said he would look into this at the weekend.  It is the flag ship of Punters Lounge so someone should keep it up to date especially as it says "current tips profit"

Edited February 2, 2022 by The Equaliser

[MCLARKE]

@internetmailsstorms in to the lead with 66/1 Leicester winner Turning Gold.

[Wanderlust]

13 hours ago, The Equaliser said:

You make my point perfectly.  The winner counts as a winner even though a loss has occurred.  Entrants for the KO cup are derived from the Naps comp so as stated above even though I made a loss I should be credited with having a winner unless and until such a time as you amend the rules.

Very many thanks for answering the question.  I have no wish to argue with you especially if you now have to readjust P/L figures for other results.

BTW have you now been roped into updating the Free Tips tables as they have not been updated since 31.7.21?

 

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.

[The Equaliser]

19 hours ago, Wanderlust said:

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 wondered when you would stick your oar in.  There are 77 PL members in the current table above for February so far so how you can have the audacity to say that everybody else on here says it doesn't count as a winner is beyond me when only four members liked your comment.  Check the result.  The horse has officially finished FIRST.  IT IS A WINNER.  This is a most winners competition.  There is nothing in the rules that states a dead-heat winner shall be deemed a loser.  Unless and until this is specifically stated in the rules I stand by my request to @MCLARKEto have my selection be treated as a winner.  I say what I like and like what I bloody well say!!.......Georgie Whtbread

Edited February 3, 2022 by The Equaliser

[MCLARKE]

[Zilzalian]

1 hour ago, The Equaliser said:

I wondered when you would stick your oar in.  There are 77 PL members in the current table above for February so far so how you can have the audacity to say that everybody else on here says it doesn't count as a winner is beyond me when only four members liked your comment.  Check the result.  The horse has officially finished FIRST.  IT IS A WINNER.  This is a most winners competition.  There is nothing in the rules that states a dead-heat winner shall be deemed a loser.  Unless and until this is specifically stated in the rules I stand by my request to @MCLARKEto have my selection be treated as a winner.  I say what I like and like what I bloody well say!!.......Georgie Whtbread

The only problem i see with treating it as a winning horse and not a losing bet, and i do get it but if for the rest of the month internetmails plays short price favs ew by the same logic- a place must also be classed as a winner and no doubt because he already has a 66/1 (easily passing the 10+ point requirement) winner the chances are he would waltz in on the most winners comp.

[The Equaliser]

9 hours ago, Zilzalian said:

The only problem i see with treating it as a winning horse and not a losing bet, and i do get it but if for the rest of the month internetmails plays short price favs ew by the same logic- a place must also be classed as a winner and no doubt because he already has a 66/1 (easily passing the 10+ point requirement) winner the chances are he would waltz in on the most winners comp.

I can't quite follow the logic of that.  Internetmails could get 28 placed horse at 66/1 and wouldn't stand a chance of winning the most winners comp.

I feel that the whole administration team at Punters Lounge would have to think very carefully about imposing a rule that states that in the case of a dead-heat a person who's bet shows a negative value should have the horse treated as a loser.

Think about it.  Had someone else chosen the other winning horse in my race then, according to @MCLARKEthat would have been deemed to be a winner and my horse a loser.  You will not find one racing authority in the UK or indeed around the world that will support the idea that there is a winner and a loser in a dead-heat race where there are only two runners!!

I think that it was right to record the negative value of my bet and not right to not record it as a loser.

I do have a lot of respect for Michael @MCLARKE he seems to shrug off a losing bet of £100 at odds of 1/3 and has great financial and spreadsheet skills.  However, when I feel that he has said something wrong then I feel entitled to voice my opinion.

[roger2256]

Knew I'd seen this somewhere, Another well known and respected site does not agree with your opinion. One was credited with a win , the other a loss .

Edited February 4, 2022 by roger2256
Text

[The Brigadier]

On 2/2/2022 at 1:42 PM, The Equaliser said:

I hope so.  He said he would look into this at the weekend.  It is the flag ship of Punters Lounge so someone should keep it up to date especially as it says "current tips profit"

This is being looked into. I am afraid its not as easy as you would believe due to various factors but I'm hoping that we can can something sorted soon.

[harry_rag]

On 2/2/2022 at 9:29 AM, Zilzalian said:

The simple way to write a rule would be to say IT IS THE BET and not the Horse that has priority for the competitions, which just clarifies what already happens.

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!