Barney Curley gamble

mr.jingle

When was the last time you seen one of these going astray! Sommersturm backed from 2.25 into 0.8 (my dad said he was 2/1 this morning an went off 1/3!) but finished 5th without ever threatening to land a blow.

Also tonight at Towcester a horse called Jeu De Rouseau has been backed from 33's into 6/4-evs some places! This horse was once trained by Curley! Will be interesteng to see how that one runs later???

Goldcupfav

mr.jingle wrote: »

When was the last time you seen one of these going astray! Sommersturm backed from 2.25 into 0.8 (my dad said he was 2/1 this morning an went off 1/3!) but finished 5th without ever threatening to land a blow.

Also tonight at Towcester a horse called Jeu De Rouseau has been backed from 33's into 6/4-evs some places! This horse was once trained by Curley! Will be interesteng to see how that one runs later???

Winner alright !!

larsson7

3 out of 4 aint bad. Legendry day in gambling history shortest sp one lost but with trebles of 6/1 4/1 and 25/1 coming in I'm sure Barney easily pulled 7 figures. The last one was pure genius, I'm sure the horse never seen Grant's stable.
Brilliant, similar to the O'Hares not so long ago but for this old legend this is much better. Greatest ever is Curley

Colonel Sanders

BOOKIES COUNT COST OF GAMBLE

Colonel Sanders

Jeu De Roseau lands huge punt at Towcester

Cantoris

It's hard to have much faith in the system when the likes of Curley and Byrnes can pull of these shenanigans every year. While I don't mind mugging the bookies, I think they bring racing into disrepute when they pull of major strokes like this and treat the ordinary racing person with contempt. How could you have fancied some of the horses today. I feel sorry for the poor horse that nearly beat Chris Grants one. That was their Gold Cup, foiled by a stroke.

admiralofthefleet

didnt he have a winner at brighton as well?

UrbanSea

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

didnt he have a winner at brighton as well?

Ya,agapanthus,one of the ones that were mentioned in the article.

Morgans

Cantoris wrote: »

It's hard to have much faith in the system when the likes of Curley and Byrnes can pull of these shenanigans every year. While I don't mind mugging the bookies, I think they bring racing into disrepute when they pull of major strokes like this and treat the ordinary racing person with contempt. How could you have fancied some of the horses today. I feel sorry for the poor horse that nearly beat Chris Grants one. That was their Gold Cup, foiled by a stroke.

Spare me the hand-wrining. The ordinary racing person knows when Byrnes and Curley are trying. The ordinary racing person would have known that backing any horse in that Towcester race that they were opposing a Curley gamble. The ordinary punter probably got involved in the gamble and won money on the race - or those may have thought that the Curley gamble was making the price on his fancy twice or three times the odds. Just like the ordinary racing person will know when Curley's next run and drift that they wont be fancied and will lose. It is up to the authorities to put in place some security against this - will test the horses then. Even if Ruby Crown's gold cup was a 4,000 hurdle at Towcester, they simply came up against a horse that was too good on the day. IF it was his Gold Cup, maybe he wasnt trying his hardest on his previous runs to blow his big chance.

mike65

I have to agree Curleys notoriety esp is understood by all but the most hapless/innocent punter (and they clearly need to stop gambling).

catmelodian

Who?

Bluetonic

catmelodian wrote: »

Who?

Are you a newcomer to racing?

krustydoyle

Id a €5 treble and the 1/3 shot (i got 7/4) let me down and i got 5/2 on the first 2 winners..

Fair play to them if you if you ask me, no harm in cleaning out the bookies for a few bob every now and again..

And it must take some planning and getting enough on before they cop on whats happening??

catmelodian

Bluetonic wrote: »

Are you a newcomer to racing?

No never heard of this geezer though.

krustydoyle

catmelodian wrote: »

No never heard of this geezer though.

Jesus look him up, because you'll be amazed at some of the gambles he's pulled off..;)

Bluetonic

catmelodian wrote: »

No never heard of this geezer though.

Strange, how and ever your starting point should be 'Yellow Sam' in Bellewstown for your research.

Goldcupfav

Charles Byrne's gamble on Napa Starr in the 7.40 at Killarney tonight was 11/2 into 2/1 now.

Cantoris

Morgans wrote: »

The ordinary racing person would have known that backing any horse in that Towcester race that they were opposing a Curley gamble.

It is up to the authorities to put in place some security against this - will test the horses then.

Not if they put their bets on in the morning. The Grant horse had no recent form and therefore would not have appeared on the radar. These 50/1 shots do win sometimes but they don't end up being 5/4 shots!!

And the fact that you suggest its up to the authorities to put in place some sort of security against this suggests that there is an issue with this. I'm not one normally for handicapping a trainer but in the case of Byrnes, Curley and Martin, I'd start with 100 and let them prove the mark should be dropped.

Cantoris

Goldcupfav wrote: »

Charles Byrne's gamble on Napa Starr in the 7.40 at Killarney tonight was 11/2 into 2/1 now.

I don't have a problem with this one as he had plenty of form in the book and could have been fancied anyway.

Morgans

Cantoris wrote: »

Not if they put their bets on in the morning. The Grant horse had no recent form and therefore would not have appeared on the radar. These 50/1 shots do win sometimes but they don't end up being 5/4 shots!!

And the fact that you suggest its up to the authorities to put in place some sort of security against this suggests that there is an issue with this. I'm not one normally for handicapping a trainer but in the case of Byrnes, Curley and Martin, I'd start with 100 and let them prove the mark should be dropped.

Those who put their bets on the morning should know that the market can give clues - like Nappa Star, who you don't have a problem with.

Those who backed Blackstone Vegas in the morning got a 5/1 winner when 1/3 shot Summersturm was beaten. They should be delighted they went against Curley.

Of course, the whole handicapping system is a system for cheaters. It is something that you need to come to terms with. Why stop at Byrnes, Curley, and Martin. Is it just those that the media have problems with that upset you. Wigham I'm sure is another. Sir Mark of course is the media darling. Not one word said when he pulls his tricks, Cumani, O'Brien, Dunlop, Pipe, Flynn, A Mullins, Jonjo, Ferdy, O'Grady or any "shrewd" stable that knows the time of day. At least with Curley, Martin and Byrnes you generally know when they are trying and more importantly when they are not trying.

Why isn't JP warned off racing for life for running non-triers every single week of the jumping season for the guts of three decades? Is it just because he is media-friendly?

If its ok for Nappa Star to be gambled off the boards when he opens at 11/2. Its not ok for a horse at 50/1. Where is the cut off point that a gamble is acceptable?

Those who backed Desert Romance in the morning should be delighted at the 10/1 SP given the gamble on Nappa Star went astray. It seems that its only when the gambles come off that there is an issue.

finbarrk

catmelodian wrote: »

No never heard of this geezer though.

I would have thought that anyone with the smallest bit of intrest in racing would be aware of Barney. I had the pleasure of meeting him once.

Cantoris

Morgans, using the racecourse as a schooling ground is not allowed and APO'B should have been reprimanded for what he has done this season. Running a horse over a mile and stepping it up to 1m2f to win when gambled is not questionable unless there is a serious improvement in form. If there is a serious improvement in form the stewards need to be satisfied that it ran on its merits before and I'm sure that's where Prescott comes in and whether they are allowed to run on their merits.

We have seen countless times over the last few years how Byrnes horses run. Laetitia, Solwhit (Tom Doyle incident), Pittoni (when he won first). And those weren't trying and he was irate with the latter two. Curley's horses had little or limited form and he simply takes a horse that had ability abroad, runs it down the field for two/three years, gets it 30lbs down the weights and then lands a gamble with it. That's entirely different to a horse improving for a step up in trip, as long as that horse was allowed run on its merits before the step up in trip.

Your belief that just because they advertise their gambles cannot be used as a defence. If I wave a gun at someone before I shoot them (thus giving them the chance to run away), am I a better person than the lad that shoots them in the back when they don't know. Both times, same result, go to jail.

Morgans

Yes. But what you are saying is essentially that all trainers should be in jail. Maybe start with JP McManus trainers? JP McManus himself, maybe all his jockeys. That would be a start. Aidan O'Brien also. Nah, better if we got the parasites like Curley and Byrnes out. They are the target.

99% of trainers, with their owners, at one stage or another target certain races and try to ensure favourable handicap marks. Its just when certain trainers actually pull one off that everyone says that its a disgrace. Using all sorts of "heads on a pin" type arguments to damn those certain trainers. Curley, Martin, Byrnes and Wigham, Stuart Williams another. These should have all horses handicapped at 100 and then see if they are up to it??

Had the two Curley horses and the one ex Curley lost as Summersturm did, there wouldnt be a word about it, nor would there have been anyone who benefited from the inflated SP of the winner giving back their money to their bookie.

Its only when they win that the "holier-than-thou, think of the children" type arguments come out. Where is the thread about David Casey pulling a Tony Mullins horse owned by JP for not trying at Killarney?

Cantoris

Do you think the police catch all the crime that goes on? No. So why don't we all rob banks, push drugs or break into houses? Outside of the moral integirty some of us have, the deterrant is the criminal law system and you could go to jail. Yes, it doesn't stop everyone robbing banks but it should put off the vast majority.

So the real issue is that the racing authorities are not enforcing long enough bans. If the system was like Japan or France, there would be fewer issues. In Japan, if you're found to have done anything hookey you get banned for a year minimum. If a jock comes off a straight line, ban. Full stop.

So for Fame & Glory when he was beaten first time out, they would have brought in an expert to say that the horse looked fat in the ring, questioned O'Brien on using the racecourse as a schooling ground, then brought in Murtagh to questionn why he was so easy on him and then agree to ban O'Brien or Murtagh or both. Can you imagine. Banned from having a runner in the first Classics. He wouldn't do it again. Of course there would be uproar from Coolmore, but c'est la vie.

So just like thieves and scumbags, you will find them everywhere and some will take the chance on the deterrant or at least allow their horses to show their true form earlier. Curley would have been banned for life long ago, as would Martin and Wigham. And would our sport be worse off for that. I doubt it. Curley's gamble will be forgotten by the end of the week.

Morgans

Cantoris wrote: »

Do you think the police catch all the crime that goes on? No. So why don't we all rob banks, push drugs or break into houses? Outside of the moral integirty some of us have, the deterrant is the criminal law system and you could go to jail. Yes, it doesn't stop everyone robbing banks but it should put off the vast majority.

So the real issue is that the racing authorities are not enforcing long enough bans. If the system was like Japan or France, there would be fewer issues. In Japan, if you're found to have done anything hookey you get banned for a year minimum. If a jock comes off a straight line, ban. Full stop.

So for Fame & Glory when he was beaten first time out, they would have brought in an expert to say that the horse looked fat in the ring, questioned O'Brien on using the racecourse as a schooling ground, then brought in Murtagh to questionn why he was so easy on him and then agree to ban O'Brien or Murtagh or both. Can you imagine. Banned from having a runner in the first Classics. He wouldn't do it again. Of course there would be uproar from Coolmore, but c'est la vie.

So just like thieves and scumbags, you will find them everywhere and some will take the chance on the deterrant or at least allow their horses to show their true form earlier. Curley would have been banned for life long ago, as would Martin and Wigham. And would our sport be worse off for that. I doubt it. Curley's gamble will be forgotten by the end of the week.

Despite the arguement are getting increasingly wishy-washy as they progress, I agree wiht the sentiment. When I see something like the punishment meeted out the to big boys that you mention there, then I think it will be ok to whine and moan about Curley. Until then, banning Curley, Martin, Wigham, Byrnes et al, is only picking at the edges of the problem - a soft target that the sport would be better off without in the opinion of many.The entire handicapping system, how its supported by the bookies etc and the whole fabric of the sport needs to be examined. Nicky Henderson, found doping horses, is forgotten about within a few months, without a whimper from the media.

Also, your idea of rating a Curley horse at 100, until it proved otherwise, wouldnt have prevented the gamble that was landed.

You also never answered the question about Nappa Star. 11/2 to 2/1 is ok. 50/1 to 2/1 is not. What is the cut off?

ComplyOrDie

Cantoris wrote: »

So for Fame & Glory when he was beaten first time out, they would have brought in an expert to say that the horse looked fat in the ring, questioned O'Brien on using the racecourse as a schooling ground, then brought in Murtagh to questionn why he was so easy on him and then agree to ban O'Brien or Murtagh or both. Can you imagine. Banned from having a runner in the first Classics. He wouldn't do it again. Of course there would be uproar from Coolmore, but c'est la vie.

You do realise that
-O'brien is regarded as one of the best racehorse trainers in the world
-Murtagh is regarded as one of the best jockeys in the world

And you want to bring someone in to tell them how to go about their business. Thats like saying send trevor from the local golf corse out to tell tiger how to play golf .

Do you realise that in the majority of cases horses come on from the first run of the season (and this is not from lack of training)

Why would you expect murtagh to be hard on the horse when he has a long season ahead (he could sour the horse by beating the sh!t out of him).

And lastly john oxx was praised for his training of sea the stars. This was an excellent performance because it is extremely difficult to get a horse 100% for the day and in this case he done it over and over again throughout the season. Horses go over the top, get sour from too much racing, get sour from doing the same thing over and over again (garde champetra- went to bolger and came alive) Break down and on occasions have bad days. So all in all i think it's every owner and trainers entitlement to take the chance of landing a gamble like the few choosen few mentioned. It is also worthwhile to note that of the 4 runners curley had running there were 38 other competitors that could have won those races and as you know one did.

Cantoris

ComplyOrDie wrote: »

You do realise that
-O'brien is regarded as one of the best racehorse trainers in the world
-Murtagh is regarded as one of the best jockeys in the world

And you want to bring someone in to tell them how to go about their business. Thats like saying send trevor from the local golf corse out to tell tiger how to play golf .

Do you realise that in the majority of cases horses come on from the first run of the season (and this is not from lack of training)

Why would you expect murtagh to be hard on the horse when he has a long season ahead (he could sour the horse by beating the sh!t out of him)

And you do realise that the above is a very innocent view of the world. This has nothing to do with who is a good trainer or a bad trainer. That's like saying we can't tell a jockey he gave a horse a bad ride because we have never ridden in a race before. The very fact that you think the question could not be asked of O'Brien just goes to highlight the problem.....the Henderson effect mentioned above (which I agree with Morgans on).

If O'Brien knows he won't be asked any questions, why wouldn't he bring a horse "fat" to the racecourse. From comments I heard from those I respect at the track that day, he was miles short of fitness for a horse having his first run. No-one needs to be told a horse comes on for its first run, but this was a horse three weeks away from his first run.....and you know he won on his real first run of the season. and if Tiger is driving into the Woods (pardon the pun) from every tee box, it's not mad for the lad beside him, maybe Trevor, who keeps driving the ball straight to have a little word in his ear. What's wrong with that?? The authorities are there to make sure the laws are upheld......irrespective of whether O'Brien breaks them or anyone else.

Cantoris

Morgans wrote: »

Also, your idea of rating a Curley horse at 100, until it proved otherwise, wouldnt have prevented the gamble that was landed.

You also never answered the question about Nappa Star. 11/2 to 2/1 is ok. 50/1 to 2/1 is not. What is the cut off?

You're right about the 25/1 gamble. It wouldn't have stopped that as trained by Chris Grant, but other ways to skin that cat. The three flat horses could be trated a similar way.

On Napa Star, does that mean that any horse who is backed falls into the same category as a 50/1 shot to 2/1. If Napa Star was being placed on yielding ground and had shown his best form on fast ground then it is reasonable to think that connections would back him in and punters would follow. It's in the form book and doesn't take a leap of faith. Explain to me how you could back the Chris Grant horse other than his 3rd placing to Won In The Dark 3 years ago?

ComplyOrDie

Cantoris wrote: »

You're right about the 25/1 gamble. It wouldn't have stopped that as trained by Chris Grant, but other ways to skin that cat. The three flat horses could be trated a similar way.

On Napa Star, does that mean that any horse who is backed falls into the same category as a 50/1 shot to 2/1. If Napa Star was being placed on yielding ground and had shown his best form on fast ground then it is reasonable to think that connections would back him in and punters would follow. It's in the form book and doesn't take a leap of faith. Explain to me how you could back the Chris Grant horse other than his 3rd placing to Won In The Dark 3 years ago?

His had some decent form in flat maiden's (shows he had ability), and obviously current connections thought he would come good in the end over hurdles (kept going with him), which he did. The money he attracted would suggest he was well in himself in the period leading up to the race (he probably had an injury or virus, hence the bad runs) :D:D:D:D:D

ComplyOrDie

Cantoris wrote: »

And you do realise that the above is a very innocent view of the world. This has nothing to do with who is a good trainer or a bad trainer. That's like saying we can't tell a jockey he gave a horse a bad ride because we have never ridden in a race before. The very fact that you think the question could not be asked of O'Brien just goes to highlight the problem.....the Henderson effect mentioned above (which I agree with Morgans on).

If O'Brien knows he won't be asked any questions, why wouldn't he bring a horse "fat" to the racecourse. From comments I heard from those I respect at the track that day, he was miles short of fitness for a horse having his first run. No-one needs to be told a horse comes on for its first run, but this was a horse three weeks away from his first run.....and you know he won on his real first run of the season. and if Tiger is driving into the Woods (pardon the pun) from every tee box, it's not mad for the lad beside him, maybe Trevor, who keeps driving the ball straight to have a little word in his ear. What's wrong with that?? The authorities are there to make sure the laws are upheld......irrespective of whether O'Brien breaks them or anyone else.

[HTML]why wouldn't he bring a horse "fat" to the racecourse[/HTML]

what a stupid stupid stupid statement. You're right "an expert" we will all bow to you.

I can imagine o'brien having a chat with john maginer before the race.

"well john as you know fame and glory is worth million after winning the Irish derby and finishing second to what is said to be the best horse in the world (ever) in the English derby and champion stakes."

But wait for it here is my favorite part

"but today we will purposely depreciate his stud value by millions by running him for the craic when he is fat and 3 week's 1day and 12 seconds away from a run (the lad on telly said that's how far away he is from a run so it must be true, I'm the trainer but what would i know)"
:D:D:D:D

Morgans

Cantoris wrote: »

You're right about the 25/1 gamble. It wouldn't have stopped that as trained by Chris Grant, but other ways to skin that cat. The three flat horses could be trated a similar way.

On Napa Star, does that mean that any horse who is backed falls into the same category as a 50/1 shot to 2/1. If Napa Star was being placed on yielding ground and had shown his best form on fast ground then it is reasonable to think that connections would back him in and punters would follow. It's in the form book and doesn't take a leap of faith. Explain to me how you could back the Chris Grant horse other than his 3rd placing to Won In The Dark 3 years ago?

Towcester selling hurdle provides shock result. Had he not been backed and won at 50/1 I wouldnt have batted an eyelid. There are thousands of horses yearly who win races that I dont fancy, and couldnt fancy.

Wasnt one of the horses backed from 7/1 into 2/1. Presumably, that passes the Cantoris test as he was possible to fancy in the morning. Nothing untoward there, and if Barney left it at that, there wouldnt be a problem.

Im afraid all these lads are doing is bending the rules - not breaking them. And until rules are brought in and applied to everyone equally, they are free to do this.

Cantoris

ComplyOrDie wrote: »

You're right "an expert" we will all bow to you.

"but today we will purposely depreciate his stud value by millions by running him for the craic when he is fat and 3 week's 1day and 12 seconds away from a run (the lad on telly said that's how far away he is from a run so it must be true, I'm the trainer but what would i know)"
:D:D:D:D

Did I say I was an expert? Nope.

Were you at the Curragh that day? Did you see him or can anyone tell you how he looked? Three people who I talked to and whose opinion I respect as seasoned racegoers and industry people said he was "fat".

What he did that day makes absolutely no difference to his stud value. If he wins three group 1s this season, do you honestly believe anyone will look back and say "but he was beaten in a race at the start of the season". Crikey. In fact, his stud value has not been impacted one way or the other by his second run. His stud value will be determined from now on. So, yes, he could easily turn around to John and say "We're gonna win three group 1s with this fella, so you know the score today".

ComplyOrDie

Cantoris wrote: »

Did I say I was an expert? Nope.

Were you at the Curragh that day? Did you see him or can anyone tell you how he looked? Three people who I talked to and whose opinion I respect as seasoned racegoers and industry people said he was "fat".

What he did that day makes absolutely no difference to his stud value. If he wins three group 1s this season, do you honestly believe anyone will look back and say "but he was beaten in a race at the start of the season". Crikey. In fact, his stud value has not been impacted one way or the other by his second run. His stud value will be determined from now on. So, yes, he could easily turn around to John and say "We're gonna win three group 1s with this fella, so you know the score today".

If you think they purposely ran the horse knowing he would get beat then you are deluded. Anyway this topic had gone way off point. So if you are not happy with the methods that were used to increase the horses odds (they could be legit) thus giving the owner and trainer a higher % return on investment (gathering from your previous post i would assume that you feel these people (curly) are unfairly taking advantage of common punters and other trainers, horses and owners in the races in which they run. If this is the case you want to see new rule brought in t(o correct the so called problem)

Know the bookies are the people who create the prices. They were the ones who had the horse in question at 25-1. In a sence they are responcible for your so called problem if you ban them there would be no big gambles (having been in nad al sheba a few years ago they have a pool/jackpot and no betting)

Below are the current odds for the 140 york which i took prices from paddypower (as an example i'm not picking on paddypower, the same will apply for any traditional bookie you choose)

[HTML]1:40 HANDICAP 5f (YORK) Paddypower




Horse Name Current odds %
Russian Spirit 5.5 18.18
Fol Hollow 9 11.11
Fathom Five 9 11.11
Judge N Jury 10 10
Jaconet 10 10
River Falcon 11 9.09
Johannes 14 7.14
Le Toreador 14 7.14
Rebel Duke 14 7.14
Ishetoo 14 7.14
Rievaulx World 14 7.14
Bertoliver 14 7.14
Tabaret 16 6.25
Peak District 16 6.25
The Nifty Fox 20 5
Swiss Franc 22 4.54
Hamoody 28 3.57

Total % 137.96
[/HTML]
as you can see from above the market adds up to 134%, what this means is that when the market closes the bookie should theoretically have made a profit of 34%. Does this figure seem high? it is, bookies have been playing unfairly for years (no restrictions have been placed on them). yet they complain about exchanges (the same market on betfair is 102.7%)

if you want to have a fair racing world why dont the bookies have restrictions forcing them to have markets under 105%. In 2008 there pre-tax profits was €79m. (by the way this is not going to change and i dont expect it to, but in an ideal world this is how it would work. But Cantoris we don't live in a ideal world and you have to play the hand your dealt (unless your barney :D)

So i say fair play to barney curly for some marvelous coups

Cantoris

ComplyOrDie wrote: »

If you think they purposely ran the horse knowing he would get beat then you are deluded.

Of course they didn't purposely run it to lose. They were not to know they would lose. In fact they would have been delighted if he could win when he was that "fat". She's Our Mark just outstayed him when his fitness failed him.

I don't see your point on the Paddy Power odds. But you have touched on another topic. Racing's funding. You are right. Bookies are parasites, feeding off others. And you don't need to go as far as Nad Al Sheba to find a tote monopoly. Just go to France. And compare their prizemoney to ours. I'd more than happily have a tote monopoly in Ireland if it protected prizemoney for Irish racing and meant we retained owners. Not sure what this has to do with a thief.

ComplyOrDie

Cantoris wrote: »

Of course they didn't purposely run it to lose. They were not to know they would lose. In fact they would have been delighted if he could win when he was that "fat".

Why would you question their performance if their intentions were good?

By the way congratulations on your success with Brave Inca a marvelous horse on his day. But can you please tell me what happened on his first four runs. How in fact a horse who on his best could have a rating of 167 and yet he failed to win a handicap off 91 not only did he fail to win but he was beaten a distance. On that occasion he he had the benifit from experiance and a recent run and still only managed to finish 14th of 16.

Now i know horses can have a bad day, it can take a while for the penny to drop and they can on occasions need to strengthen up but come on 76lb of a difference thats over 5 stone (horses don't really improve 5 stones) so was there some shenanigans going on there. And on the off chance he had a bad day a 92 rated horse won one of those maidens.

I am aware there was not a major gamble on him when he won, but he had obtained a low handicap mark and his 1st win in a handicap was a penalty kick off 96. Had he won a maiden he would have a mark of around 110

Morgans

I was arguing with Cantoris here, but the previous post is way off the mark. Not even in the same ball-park. I hope Cantoris treats it with the respect i think it deserves, and doesnt bother replying.

Cantoris

ComplyOrDie wrote: »

Why would you question their performance if their intentions were good?

I'm going to go back to the naive comment I said earlier and leave it at that.

Morgans is probably right, I shouldn't even entertain a response on Brave Inca. Comply, you really know nothing about Brave Inca other than what's on the TV. And even then, I doubt you really know him. owning a horse like him has educated me that those on the outside haven't a clue what goes on behind the scenes. BTW, have a look at the cross hurdle in his first handicap hurdle and that will give you your answer. And then have a look at his first handicap hurdle at Fairyhouse and tell me what price he was in-running. That should then answer your own question

mike65

Curley has two up tomorrow, both at Lingfield.

UrbanSea

Cantoris did you own Brave Inca?

Cantoris

greetings wrote: »

Cantoris did you own Brave Inca?

I owned a half share with my brother and father and the other half was owned by another family. We had great fun with him and luckily we have a few more now that are doing well for us too, so the fun keeps going......albeit at a different level but still get the same buzz out of winning races, wherever they are.

UrbanSea

Well done on him anyway,great horse and good luck with the rest of them

Cantoris

greetings wrote: »

Well done on him anyway,great horse and good luck with the rest of them

Cheers

Denners

He was the first ever horse I backed at Cheltenham and won .Think he was 3 or 4/1 ish, class horse.

SilverCircle

Barney Curley strikes again!! 6-40 at Kempton tonight, Allanit (morning price 6/1, returned 9/4Fav). Interestingly, he had a runner in the very next race, 7-10 at Kempton, Aviso (morning price 7/1, returned 7/1, no interest in the market) Race comment reads "in rear, ridden 2f out, never dangerous". Surprise, Surprise, given that there was no interest in the horse in the betting market. You just have to marvel at this guy. There is a romanticism to it all, but for the "mug" punters it's a disaster. Unfortunately a lot of the guys I meet in the bookies would not even know that the Curley winner was punted on this morning and they would also possibly back the loser based on his connections. It's a case of you can't win. I have been a mug punter for too many years to remember, but no more. I have given it up. I will enjoy other aspects of my life now. Never again coming out of the bookies without the price of a litre of milk.

What finally convinced me were two things, firstly I read Ruby Walsh's autobiography and while he is a fabulous sportsman and a high achiever to be admired, his attitude towards and consideration of the punter sums it up, racing is not run for the punter, EVEN THOUGH they contribute by far the most to it, because without the profits earned by the bookmakers there would be many, many less sponsored races and therefore an exodus of owners etc from the game. But as Ruby says, he rides the horses for the owner/trainer not for the punter. Fair enough.

The second incident was recently I opened an internet account with William Hill Bookmakers. No problem, very user friendly, open the account lodge initial deposit and away I go. Topped up a few times after losing initial deposits and then I had a few winners and decided to withdraw funds. Lo and behold, you are put through the hoops. You must provide "proof of age" before you can WITHDRAW your money, no such requirement to DEPOSIT money with them. It's as plain as the nose on your face. When they have your money, there is no way you are getting it back without a lot of hassle and dedication to go through the hoops. Goodbye to all that Mr William Hill. You won't get any more of my money.

PeterKelly!

Wow, what a gamble...7's into 9/4 in kempton, there must've been a tidal wave of cash to move that one in. And It was so obvious that aviso was going to be a non trier in the next race because he wasn't touched at 7/1....although hang on....did't he win a little handicap last year @ 25/1? whooooaaaahhh....then next time out got hammered at 5/2, what??? Barney is just messing my little head around here. Stop playing mindgames with us barney ! I've a william hill a/c aswell , jeez they really are tricky gangsters eh? Asked me to verify my a/c imagine that ! I had to show my drivers licence to the manager of my local shop. That was it. Managed to withdraw enough for a pint of milk but saw one of barney curley's machines was fav in the next at wolver so had to get stuck in. Oh dear....

SilverCircle

LOL Peter. William Hill do not need to employ PR people when your around. The point I was making was that there was no request for age verification until I tried to WITHDRAW money. I could bet awy losing for as long as I liked apparently but I had to email or send a photo MMS of my passport or drivers licence to their customer service office (in Gibraltar) to prove I was legal. I was never offered the option of showing my ID to a local shop manager.

And you should give up that owld milk its not good for the cholestrol level. Byeeeeeeee.

Malarkey121

Barney is back today! 3 of 4 up and lets say it is already a nice pay-out