Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Chaps


interesting to read your posts. I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to betting. I have a weekly one on football during the season but I'm interested in learning about online betting which I imagine you do. The only time I did this was a couple of years ago. Having had a few jars and knowing nothing about horses I decided to bet on the Grand National. I used my credit card to bet and subsequently found I'd been charged on my statement more than what I had bet. I did query it but don't remember what I was told.Does betting this way cost you more or what's the story?


Declan

If you use a credit card it is classed as a cash withdrawal and you will charged a handling fee along with the appropriate interest charge - if you use a debit card you should have no charges.

I use a William Hill account mainly and the horse-racing is Best Odds Guaranteed (BOG) which means that you are paid at the better odds if the price drifts.

Even tho i love a bet (nice winner today:))and i have backed Westwood and Furyk in the Open) gambling is for mugs!!!

I have now bet ?75 total - hopes now last mainly with Watson, Westwood and Furyk, However I go into tomorrow with little confidence of a winning bet, as there are so many potential winners.


I think it would p1ss me off completely if Stewart Cink won, I feel it in my blood that another American journeyman might come out on top, this would be hugley depressing. Westwood would be my best result, but I felt he just began to show some nerves in the last 2 holes tonight and I'm beginning to think Jim Furyk might be my man. Or who knows a +2 player may make a run, in which case I have Villegas and McDowell. Its a fascinating Open, lets hope the last day lives up to the billing.


MY ?75 has been placed as follows:

BETS: Name:Odds:Bet Amount:Potential winnings

Lee Westwood 34 ?10.00 ?330.00

Jim Furyk 34 ?5.00 ?165.00

Martin Kaymer 48 ?5.00 ?235.00

Graeme McDowell 65 ?8.00 ?512.00

Camilo Villegas 90 ?2.00 ?178.00

95 ?5.00 ?470.00

Tom Watson 40 ?3.00 ?117.00

Justin Leonard 75 ?2.00 ?148.00

Justin Rose 100 ?2.00 ?198.00

Zach Johnson 100 ?10.00 ?990.00

Padraig Harrington 48 ?10.00 ?470.00

Rory McIlroy 40 ?10.00 ?390.00

Darren Clarke 330 ?1.01 ?332.29

340 ?1.99 ?674.61

770 ?2.00 ?1,538.00

David Howell 520 ?2.00 ?1,038.00

Had a covering bet on Cink today to win ?70 - but a ?20 loss overall on all my Open bets. But the biggest disappointment is that Watson and Westwood missed their chance. Cink did not have to deal with the pressure of having the lead, so I'd almost have preferred anyone else ahead of him, another American nobody wins the Open to add to Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton etc.


Having said that it was the most exciting Open for years, great entertainment. Poor Tom, should have the claret jug tonight but for the second shot running through the green at 18. Watson was one of my/everyones boyhood heros. Very sad.

Well my ?10 on Australia at 7:1 is now depressingly looking like it was a good bet - they're up to 5:2. It's one bet I'd really love to lose. At least I'll have something to drown my sorrows if the 'unthinkable' happens. (Sadly, for me it was always only too thinkable).


Reg Smeeton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?10 on Australia to win at Lord's at 7:1. Bookies

> are already writing Australia off, but this is the

> team that scored 670 just last weekend....England

> enforce follow-on, Australia score 450 in second

> innings, England crumble chasing 200 with Clarke

> and North spinning them to victory on a fifth day

> pitch. Alas it's only too plausible an outcome, 7

> to 1 seem like good odds.

...tend to wait until all the big transfers are completed, but just thinking about Citeh and their current spending spree, odds must be getting shorter by the week so they sound perfect for your laying system, if they don't get Terry they'll just go for someone else until they eventaully get someone, will probably have some of Owen to be top scorer, I think he's around 20's, will also look for some specials like L'Arse dropping out of the top four next season; your Pompey bet is starting to look good, if they're going to be bought out by this Sheikh guy why does everyone still want to leave?...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • A Google search brought up eleven Chango  branches, although they don't all seem to be listed on their website. In the order they came up: East Dulwich, Clapham Common, Mayfair, Wandsworth, City of London, Wimbledon,  Parsons Green, Kensington, Highgate, Richmond, Hampstead. I think it is the positioning of this new branch that has mostly got to me. I accept that they would have to go for where a space became vacant, but Lordship Lane is pretty long, even just the part with shops in,  and choosing to  open a stone's throw away from Chacarero seems mean, to say the least. I wonder if they have made contact with Chacarero. It would be nice to think they had (in a friendly way, obviously!) As regards the apparent  marketing spiel, at least one of the online reviewers also refers to a Chango branch (the Parsons Green one in this case) as a "gem". Probably just coincidence and a word in common use to describe such places. I wouldn't know. I'm ancient 🤣
    • I like empanadas. I don't think Chango is a massive chain - it's got a few stores all in London I believe (stand to be corrected if I've got that wrong). I don't see a problem with them opening on the Lane personally. I really like Chacarero, but that doesn't mean that they should be immune from competition - if they're successful and open a couple more stores, are we then meant to stop supporting them for being a 'chain'?  That opening post does sound a lot like marketing spiel though. Is the OP perhaps connected to the new business I wonder?
    • According to what I can see online, Dynamic Vines and Cave de Bruno sell totally different kinds of wine to each other.  Dynamic Vines  "work with independent winemakers who produce outstanding wine using sustainable practices in the vineyard and minimal intervention in the cellar".  Cave de Bruno specialises in French wines and spirits from small independent producers. So two different USPs, and no doubt two different but overlapping customer bases who can afford these wines. Probably different again to the people mainly  shopping for wine at Majestic or the Co op. On the other hand, the two empanada shops appear on the face of it to be selling virtually identical products. But time will tell, won't it? Let's see how they are both doing in - say - a couple of years' time. Impossible, of course, to compare that with how they would have done if there had been only one of them. I just feel more  sorry for the original one than for  the one which can apparently already afford to have a number of shops in places like Mayfair and Highgate. I'm tempted to buy something there every week, and I don't even like that kind of pastry 🤣
    • Not only can he turn olive oil into Vermouth, but also water into a wine. A true miracle worker.  I wouldn't say a wine shop sells a wide variety of things - and there are two right next to each other.  And once upon a time, upmarket pizza shops were very specific. So were burritos etc. These Argentinian cornish pasties are clearly becoming mainstream; we should consider ourselves lucky to be witnessing this exciting upward trend within our lifetimes and on OUR HIGH STREET. We can tell our grandkids that we remember when there was no internet and no empanadas.  I'm sure that if the family empanada people have a good business head, they'll be able to ride this wave of competition, just like Bruno has. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...