NAPS COMPETITION - Rules Amendment

[Zilzalian]

10 minutes ago, LeMale said:

Unless someone, somewhere has written something i've not seen, i can't see who this is addressed to. 

with respect the person who posted it knows who he is, you could always go back and read the whole of the original thread 15th august if i remember correctly if you curious.

[Zilzalian]

I am beginning to wonder if people have actually read the original thread or are they just reacting to the various comments? i have even gone to the trouble of reposting the original problem on this thread so people can see what is behind the proposed rule changes.

[Zilzalian]

I have also stated (on the 15th) that if @MCLARKE thinks that this is too much bother i will accept NO RULE CHANGE so i suggest that it obviously is too much trouble for some so lets close the debate and leave things as they were, this has gotten very petty and very silly. My big issue with some who have commented is that it is obvious they havent bothered to read the "problem"  and they are chucking in bombs without actually knowing what they are throwing them at.

[LeMale]

Just now, Zilzalian said:

with respect the person who posted it knows who he is, you could always go back and read the whole of the original thread 15th august if i remember correctly if you curious.

Phew! Was just asking because i thought it was directed at me. 

[MCLARKE]

12 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

Possibly? Otherwise could there be a scenario where someone takes a bet at a juicy price and only posts it when it's been heavily backed in? I think the principle of being able to verify that the price was available at the time of posting is relevant. (I check this for all my bets as half the time I'm not putting them on with the firm I mention as I get get a boost on top elsewhere, but I check on the bookies site that the odds I'm quoting are available at the time I post.)

If I was @MCLARKE I'd probably feel I'd had enough feedback now, lock the thread and make my decision. I don't think anyone can expect "one man, one vote" unless they're willing to be elected as the person who runs the naps competition from now on! 

@harry_ragis correct.

As an example the night before you could select 5 horses at 20/1, the following day 4 remain at 20/1 but one has been backed into 5/1 so you select this as your nap.

The screenshot I posted was also from BET365 so @Zilzaliancould just have easily posted this.

I'm happy to keep the thread open, I find it mildly entertaining !

[harry_rag]

7 minutes ago, Xcout said:

Nevertheless, the rules state SP for international.

They don't though. It would be fine at price taken subject to being on ATR. This rule change resolves the anomaly that some meetings are on there one day but not the other, which is a bit random.

I'd suggest that the time IS required to prove that the price was available at the time the bet was posted. You can't have someone posting a price they took hours ago that has since collapsed. Looking at my most recent bet history on 365 it clearly shows the time the bet was posted (though I don't know how to post screenshots without wasting 5 minutes googling to remind myself.)

Essentially this is a fairly minor change to allow early prices to be taken on these bets regardless of the current ATR stipulation. Provided it can be verified that the price was available at the time of posting. (Oh and the new "curfew" rule of course.)

[harry_rag]

1 minute ago, MCLARKE said:

@harry_ragis correct.

As Jane Austen put it, "it is a truth universally acknowledged"! 

[Zilzalian]

13 minutes ago, LeMale said:

I think it's already been covered when MClarke said that a date and time would be needed, so no, it isn't enough proof. 

Then you are free to vote for a no rule change. I claimed to have backed a horse bog at 28/1 i produced proof but still thats not enough? wow what difference would a time and date make? I often put my bets on the night before the race is run.

[Xcout]

6 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

I am beginning to wonder if people have actually read the original thread or are they just reacting to the various comments? i have even gone to the trouble of reposting the original problem on this thread so people can see what is behind the proposed rule changes.

I am thankful for your reposting  of the original problem.

Which is precisely what I mention on my first post, there was no reasoning given behind the announced amendment.

[Xcout]

4 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

They don't though.

My bad, clearly the rules state:

SP Bets only for races in USA, Hong Kong and Australia.

Yet it also mentions:

Early prices can be taken but must be available at the time of the post in the competition thread, these will be checked against   Odds-checker and if the price was not available then SP will be used.

[Zilzalian]

11 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

@harry_ragis correct.

As an example the night before you could select 5 horses at 20/1, the following day 4 remain at 20/1 but one has been backed into 5/1 so you select this as your nap.

The screenshot I posted was also from BET365 so @Zilzaliancould just have easily posted this.

I'm happy to keep the thread open, I find it mildly entertaining !

then all that is required would be this.

 

[harry_rag]

7 minutes ago, Xcout said:

Yet it also mentions:

Early prices can be taken but must be available at the time of the post in the competition thread, these will be checked against   Odds-checker and if the price was not available then SP will be used.

 The first part reinforces the bit about the price being available at the time of posting. I agree with that. I don't for one minute suspect that @Zilzalian would cynically be putting up naps where the price was long gone but the rule closes off that loophole for anyone who was cunning enough. The rule doesn't actually stipulate that the race or price has to be on Oddschecker though that may have been the intent.

To give another good reason to support the change, I looked at one meeting (French or German, I forget) that WAS on ATR, WAS on Oddschecker but the 365 prices weren't displayed.

As long as it's verifiable that the price was available with an approved bookie at the time of posting it seems fine to me.

[Zilzalian]

7 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

 The first part reinforces the bit about the price being available at the time of posting. I agree with that. I don't for one minute suspect that @Zilzalian would cynically be putting up naps where the price was long gone but the rule closes off that loophole for anyone who was cunning enough. The rule doesn't actually stipulate that the race or price has to be on Oddschecker though that may have been the intent.

To give another good reason to support the change, I looked at one meeting (French or German, I forget) that WAS on ATR, WAS on Oddschecker but the 365 prices weren't displayed.

As long as it's verifiable that the price was available with an approved bookie at the time of posting it seems fine to me.

bet365 no longer put EU racing on oddschecker someone explained the reason but i have forgotten it.

[harry_rag]

2 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

bet365 no longer put EU racing on oddschecker someone explained the reason but i have forgotten it.

The reserve the right to put up daft early prices without flagging them for shrewdies to exploit willy nilly in naps competitions! 

[LeMale]

8 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

Then you are free to vote for a no rule change. I claimed to have backed a horse bog at 28/1 i produced proof but still thats not enough? wow what difference would a time and date make? I often put my bets on the night before the race is run.

Going to assume that you were typing before explanation message came up. You seem to be taking this personally and quoting things that have not been said. This is about whether Punters Lounge members are in agreement that rules should be changed or not. You have brought something to the table and stated your case and most points are valid. MClarke could have just said no, he could have just said yes ok i'm changing that rule and i and many others and you would have just accepted it. But that didn't happen, he said it would be discussed and i think that's what is kind of happening now. I also said i would make a case for people who maybe didn't want the rules changed, but couldn't or were to shy to speak up and write about it and i don't remember saying which way i'd vote.

[Zilzalian]

3 minutes ago, LeMale said:

Going to assume that you were typing before explanation message came up. You seem to be taking this personally and quoting things that have not been said. This is about whether Punters Lounge members are in agreement that rules should be changed or not. You have brought something to the table and stated your case and most points are valid. MClarke could have just said no, he could have just said yes ok i'm changing that rule and i and many others and you would have just accepted it. But that didn't happen, he said it would be discussed and i think that's what is kind of happening now. I also said i would make a case for people who maybe didn't want the rules changed, but couldn't or were to shy to speak up and write about it and i don't remember saying which way i'd vote.

I apologise if you took my words the wrong way due to my frustration kicking in on what i consider to be quite a simple matter. but if people just stepped back to the original problem and dealt with that instead of all this back and forth most of it being reactionary rhetoric then i think it would return to being a simple matter of a rule change given the reasons outlined in that original "problem". How about a starting point of- is it fair that i or anyone else should have two bets (that i can verify) be disqualified, one twice on what appear to be flimsy reasons/rules. If no it is not fair then should the rules be changed?

[LeMale]

7 minutes ago, Zilzalian said:

I apologise if you took my words the wrong way due to my frustration kicking in on what i consider to be quite a simple matter. but if people just stepped back to the original problem and dealt with that instead of all this back and forth most of it being reactionary rhetoric then i think it would return to being a simple matter of a rule change given the reasons outlined in that original "problem". How about a starting point of- is it fair that i or anyone else should have two bets (that i can verify) be disqualified, one twice on what appear to be flimsy reasons/rules. If no it is not fair then should the rules be changed?

No problem. I, and i think everybody on here, feels your frustration Zilzalian and we are trying to come to an agreement/possible rule change so that it does not happen again. I don't know about MClarke but i think there have been some good points made, discussed and solved already today. I've already done more bloody typing today than i've done in my whole life, it's like work and i haven't done that for years either! Going to bed now TBC. 

[LeMale]

OMG, no flat racing in UK or Ireland, i'm going to have to look overseas....now, what are those rules again.... ?

[MCLARKE]

A further change to the rules.

• 1 bet per day, Max. If a member posts twice the latest one will count towards the competition.

I propose that this is changed to

If a member posts twice then the first post will count towards the competition unless it is a non runner

Under the old rule a horse could be selected and if it's price difted then it could be replaced with another selection. This does not seem fair.

[Zilzalian]

7 minutes ago, MCLARKE said:

A further change to the rules.

• 1 bet per day, Max. If a member posts twice the latest one will count towards the competition.

I propose that this is changed to

If a member posts twice then the first post will count towards the competition unless it is a non runner

Under the old rule a horse could be selected and if it's price difted then it could be replaced with another selection. This does not seem fair.

Agreed

[Quartu SE]

On 8/22/2022 at 7:10 PM, Xcout said:

As Richard Nixon said "Trust, but verify".

The provided proof has to be check with a third-party, to discard tampering, and for ease of this is that  SP is used, as it can be check on third-party websites (like racing post and attheraces). 

LOL,did he say that before,during or after Watergate? Made me smile btw!!

[The Equaliser]

3 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

A further change to the rules.

• 1 bet per day, Max. If a member posts twice the latest one will count towards the competition.

I propose that this is changed to

If a member posts twice then the first post will count towards the competition unless it is a non runner

Under the old rule a horse could be selected and if it's price difted then it could be replaced with another selection. This does not seem fair.

I did take advantage of that rule once to stay in a comp because of a rule 4 deduction on a non runner.  No probs with the rule change ?

[The Equaliser]

3 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

A further change to the rules.

• 1 bet per day, Max. If a member posts twice the latest one will count towards the competition.

I propose that this is changed to

If a member posts twice then the first post will count towards the competition unless it is a non runner

Under the old rule a horse could be selected and if it's price difted then it could be replaced with another selection. This does not seem fair.

Actually, I think that there should be a discussion and a vote on ANY rule changes not just the ones discussed above. The discussion can ramble on for a designated period of time and then a Vote to approve or reject the amendment takes place in a separately named thread again with a time limit to respond

[Zilzalian]

10 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Actually, I think that there should be a discussion and a vote on ANY rule changes not just the ones discussed above. The discussion can ramble on for a designated period of time and then a Vote to approve or reject the amendment takes place in a separately named thread again with a time limit to respond

Actually i think not, members do/did not set the rules admin did so it should be an admin decision, a decision based on the feedback they have received, any other way or what you are suggesting will just draw out the process unnecessarily. Want an example? Just go through all the feedback and the various reactions to it. some people commented on comments without knowing or bothering to read the original problem and some ended up arguing about the various comments rather than the problem and from what i have seen only a small amount of members maybe 8 at most gave feedback anyway, Most others didnt really care or bother. so that begs the question how many will vote anyway? those 8 or a few more? it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near the hundred plus that usually participate in the comp. the 2 rule changes proposed have had decent enough feedback i see no reason to Stop Mike making a decision on these issues when he sees fit. The 3rd (last) rule change was Mikes suggestion because he identified a rule where the previous version of the rule was open to abuses and therefore wasn't fair on other members, you vindicated his concern by admitting to taking advantage of said rule that as i see it covered people submitting more than one nap in error which i might add i have nearly done myself on occasion forgetting i had already submitted my nap.

[harry_rag]

Getting a discussion on the subject is a courtesy, albeit a sensible one (gauge reaction, sense check the proposal and iron out any ambiguities). Expecting a vote is unrealistic.

Unless, of course, this is the start of your bid to gain ownership of the site and/or take over the running of the competition.

if you feel strongly enough about the subject you could always try and arrange a strike (they’re all the rage at the moment) but I suspect you’d end up as “The Naps Comp one”.

This isn’t a democracy, think of @MCLARKEas a reasonably benign dictator who watches over all our antics with a wry smile on his face.

[harry_rag]

13 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

If a member posts twice then the first post will count towards the competition unless it is a non runner

Under the old rule a horse could be selected and if it's price difted then it could be replaced with another selection. This does not seem fair.

Thanks for flagging that, there’s a week left to exploit the loophole! 

At a push you could interpret the current rule as meaning if your first horse lost you could put up another one and have another crack! 

[Zilzalian]

11 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

Thanks for flagging that, there’s a week left to exploit the loophole! 

At a push you could interpret the current rule as meaning if your first horse lost you could put up another one and have another crack! 

Good eye dear, thats one was of catching @LEE-GRAYS this month avitttt ??

[The Equaliser]

9 hours ago, Zilzalian said:

Actually i think not, members do/did not set the rules admin did so it should be an admin decision, a decision based on the feedback they have received, any other way or what you are suggesting will just draw out the process unnecessarily. Want an example? Just go through all the feedback and the various reactions to it. some people commented on comments without knowing or bothering to read the original problem and some ended up arguing about the various comments rather than the problem and from what i have seen only a small amount of members maybe 8 at most gave feedback anyway, Most others didnt really care or bother. so that begs the question how many will vote anyway? those 8 or a few more? it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near the hundred plus that usually participate in the comp. the 2 rule changes proposed have had decent enough feedback i see no reason to Stop Mike making a decision on these issues when he sees fit. The 3rd (last) rule change was Mikes suggestion because he identified a rule where the previous version of the rule was open to abuses and therefore wasn't fair on other members, you vindicated his concern by admitting to taking advantage of said rule that as i see it covered people submitting more than one nap in error which i might add i have nearly done myself on occasion forgetting i had already submitted my nap.

Sorry but I think you are wrong.  What is the point in Michael @MCLARKE PROPOSING as he did above when NO ONE is allowed to vote on it?  This is just common sense.  Please don't ask me to re-read what you have just said; once is enough.  IMO members will feel more like being part of the PL community if they know that they have a say in what is going on around them.  You don't know how many members would or would not take part in a vote.  The Forum has many members who choose not to post up regularly but that doesn't mean to say that they would not take part in a vote on rule changes.

I would also like to see a new rule introduced that gives a number for example 5+ complaints when the website goes down before we all have to choose another Nap because members say that they couldn't get an entry into the naps comp when many other members did manage to post a Nap on the day.

[The Equaliser]

52 minutes ago, harry_rag said:

Thanks for flagging that, there’s a week left to exploit the loophole! 

At a push you could interpret the current rule as meaning if your first horse lost you could put up another one and have another crack! 

Couldn't happen

[Quartu SE]

There seems to be some confusion between tipping a horse to score points for the competition and betting on said horse,nothing anywhere to say a bet has to be placed,never has been so no idea why anyone is talking about screenshots of bets as opposed to oddschecker? Agree totally with Harry rag,re discussion being a courtesy from Admin,closed loophole seems sensible also.

For the rest I care not,only affects a small % of users and as far as I was concerned it was Caveat Emptor as far as the rules went,no objections to any rule changes btw.