The Racing and Football Betting Thread.

Although clause 28 was amended in 1963,thanks mainly to the hard work of The Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations,I still agree that Archie falls foul of the amended rules.
Therefore he shouldn't get the profit.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

mark leach wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

mark leach wrote:Rt I didn't pick Gamesome on Friday I picked the lucky dip so I should have £3.44 profit as well.

Archie..knowing you are a stickler for the rules I had to do it by the book. It looks like you have fallen foul of Clause 28 old boy. Therefore..no profit for Friday...Sorry..but rules are rules.

Rt I have never herd of clause 28. You said you get a lucky dip if you don't pick a horse so I should get Fridays profit. I'm going for Cosette in the same race as your pick today.

Archie, don't confuse Clause 28 with Clause 23. They are two entirely different kettles of fish.

 Clause 23 of the CONGU Unified Handicapping System covers the “Annual Review” of rules and regulatations (these should be completed for all members,) and it gives guidance on “General Play” adjustments, If it is felt  that the profit is too  high, or low, and not representative of current rules of betting gamesmanship.. It basically allows members to protect against “bandits,” and to re-set the rules according to the occasion.

What a load of rubbish. I have never heard of Rule 23 or 28. You used to call the lucky dip the joker but you never mentioned any stupid rules and I haven't confused anything because I've never heard of these clauses until you invented them.

Bwfc1958 wrote:Yosemite - 19:10 - Nottingham

Unplaced

mark leach wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

mark leach wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

mark leach wrote:Rt I didn't pick Gamesome on Friday I picked the lucky dip so I should have £3.44 profit as well.

Archie..knowing you are a stickler for the rules I had to do it by the book. It looks like you have fallen foul of Clause 28 old boy. Therefore..no profit for Friday...Sorry..but rules are rules.

Rt I have never herd of clause 28. You said you get a lucky dip if you don't pick a horse so I should get Fridays profit. I'm going for Cosette in the same race as your pick today.

Archie, don't confuse Clause 28 with Clause 23. They are two entirely different kettles of fish.

 Clause 23 of the CONGU Unified Handicapping System covers the “Annual Review” of rules and regulatations (these should be completed for all members,) and it gives guidance on “General Play” adjustments, If it is felt  that the profit is too  high, or low, and not representative of current rules of betting gamesmanship.. It basically allows members to protect against “bandits,” and to re-set the rules according to the occasion.

What a load of rubbish. I have never heard of Rule 23 or 28. You used to call the lucky dip the joker but you never mentioned any stupid rules and I haven't confused anything because I've never heard of these clauses until you invented them.

Archie...the rules are the rules. I created the joker/lucky dip to cover those who maybe didn't get the chance to post a selection or were unfortunate to pick a non-runner. You had time on Friday to pick a horse of your choice so you shouldn't really get the lucky dip because you don't fit the criteria. I have had a look for the definitive answer as to the rules and I found Clause 28 in the Old Moore's Almanack ( Voortrekkers Edition ) and it is quite specific. And I quote...................

" CLAUSE 28: The JOKER / LUCKY Dip shall ONLY come into play in the event of a selection being declared a non-runner. This rule was ratified by the Chairman of the Jockey Club Sir Dennis Thatcher in 1982 and still stands today.

"

Impeccability ... 20:40    Nottingham

Banks of the Croal wrote:Impeccability ... 20:40    Nottingham

Banksy..you are a fair man. Do you think Archie should get the lucky dip?

boltonbonce wrote:Cool Beans   8.10 Nottingham

Unplaced

If he hadn't  posted he should have got the lucky dip, but posting saying he was going to pick one but the lucky dip was better odds isn't in the spirit of the competition. We could all wait to see how the lucky dip does before making our predictions.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:Cool Beans   8.10 Nottingham

Unplaced

I'll have the lucky dip.

Barb Dwyer wrote:If he hadn't  posted he should have got the lucky dip, but posting saying he was going to pick one but the lucky dip was better odds isn't in the spirit of the competition. We could all wait to see how the lucky dip does before making our predictions.

Exactly my point. He chose the lucky dip after it had ran.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Lucky Dip.. Egyptian 8.20 Chelmsford

The Lucky Dip won at 7-1.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:Lucky Dip.. Egyptian 8.20 Chelmsford

The Lucky Dip won at 7-1.

I want the money,and don't throw any clauses at me. 

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:Lucky Dip.. Egyptian 8.20 Chelmsford

The Lucky Dip won at 7-1.

Can I cancel my earlier prediction.

I was in first.

I was wondering if Archie fancied taking part in the music competition? If so...I think this would be a good opening gambit for him.

I  think clauses 23 and 28 and amended versions state quite clearly and without favour to the afore mentioned Archie.

That he should not be allowed to profit from such deeds as using the afore mentioned Lucky Dip and therefore should willingly and without malice forfeit any monies accumulated on this occasion.

Yes. What Banksy said.

Whatever it is.

BWFC58 are you also in agreement?

Barb Dwyer wrote:If he hadn't  posted he should have got the lucky dip, but posting saying he was going to pick one but the lucky dip was better odds isn't in the spirit of the competition. We could all wait to see how the lucky dip does before making our predictions.

This post represents my thoughts exactly. Archie should not receive the lucky dip winnings.