2023 Bumper

[Quevega]

Think we need to be careful about not shooting the messenger. The last guy was clearly just trying to be a troll and was rightly banned, that doesn't immediately mean anyone who posts info that everyone who doesn't have thousands of posts is suddenly a troll too.

I can't remember anyone purposely posting false information before the other day, as SeanRock says, we will just end up making people afraid to pass on any information they hear. Owners and trainers are allowed to change their minds, it happens all the time.

It's happens dozens of times.
Not sure what the trainers thing has to do with anything.
I pointedly asked that question on Princess Zoe because the wording of his post's on that subject were quite definitive.

If you can't verify it or back it up then probably best not to bother.
If you are confident in your source then do it with a bit more class and care.

[Saxon Warrior]

Could this be the same posted that pretended to be a Mate of JPs a year ago?

[Quevega]

It's important to question the poster too though surely. If a vague sentence is posted like it was here, isn't it right to try and glean more information so that the forum is as best informed as possible? In that sentence we don't know who the poster has heard the info from and why it is likely the horse isn't going to Chelts.

Even more important as the previous information passed on by the poster was very quickly contradicted by the Trainer. That's not to say that he didn't hear the information, but it might say something about the reliability of the source.

[Quevega]

Could this be the same posted that pretended to be a Mate of JPs a year ago?

Kevloaf will investigate. Innocent until proven guilty.
Only guilty of carelessness at present.

[Istabraq]

I’m not suggesting the original poster has been less than sincere with his/her post but before everyone jumps to the cashout buttons please remember that causing an exchange ripple is a known strategy for punters to get better prices.
As I said, the message could easily be genuine, but we had one member cashing out a great bet on the strength of a clown last week, I would suggest taking time to consider all options before relying entirely on a comment in here…

[Dandrew99]

It's happens dozens of times.
Not sure what the trainers thing has to do with anything.
I pointedly asked that question on Princess Zoe because the wording of his post's on that subject were quite definitive.

If you can't verify it or back it up then probably best not to bother.
If you are confident in your source then do it with a bit more class and care.

I can't recall it happening often, maybe your memory is better than mine.

Again, not saying it is true or false, but a lot of sources would actively not want to be known. I'm more on the side that if the information is correct, I couldn't care less how it was communicated as long as I hear it. And if we start questioning everyone who posts information on here, it's likely that people just won't post information.

I feel like if the thing with Constitution Hill hadn't happened the other day, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Shouldn't let one thing affect the other IMO, although I do agree that it is always better to say where you're hearing information from, even if it's at a very high level (i.e. whether it's source within the yard or a drunk bloke down the pub).

[Quevega]

I can't recall it happening often, maybe your memory is better than mine.

Again, not saying it is true or false, but a lot of sources would actively not want to be known. I'm more on the side that if the information is correct, I couldn't care less how it was communicated as long as I hear it. And if we start questioning everyone who posts information on here, it's likely that people just won't post information.

I feel like if the thing with Constitution Hill hadn't happened the other day, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Shouldn't let one thing affect the other IMO, although I do agree that it is always better to say where you're hearing information from, even if it's at a very high level (i.e. whether it's source within the yard or a drunk bloke down the pub).

Just a bit more context that's all, no one wants names and addresses.
Big old IF in that sentence mate.

[Dandrew99]

Just a bit more context that's all, no one wants names and addresses.
Big old IF in that sentence mate.

Yeah, I think that's fair enough, but we don't need to be saying peoples information is false just because they didn't post where it came from.

Maybe I'm just more trusting than you

[somer1]

Yeah, I think that's fair enough, but we don't need to be saying peoples information is false just because they didn't post where it came from.

Maybe I'm just more trusting than you

Sorry but after last year i only cash out if i know the name and trust the person posting the info. If i lose my cash my fault. Simples as Alexander Meerkat says.

[Quevega]

Yeah, I think that's fair enough, but we don't need to be saying peoples information is false just because they didn't post where it came from.

Maybe I'm just more trusting than you

I don't think most people were claiming it to be false.
They were just not assuming it to be truth or fact.

Most people would seek further evidence or information in order to be able to compartmentalise the information themselves, (i.e to put it in context as to the likelihood or truth behind it) and then choose to act upon it or not.

I think assuming everything to be the truth without questioning or further investigation will often end up badly.

[Dandrew99]

Sorry but after last year i only cash out if i know the name and trust the person posting the info. If i lose my cash my fault. Simples as Alexander Meerkat says.

That's fair enough, but if they don't post the information in the first place then you don't ever get to make that decision.

Someone posts information, everyone can decide if they trust it or not, and they act accordingly. I might trust someone that you don't, and act differently to you, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But if we question it to the extent they never post the information in the first place, then I might never get to make that decision.

[Dandrew99]

I don't think most people were claiming it to be false.
They were just not not assuming it to be truth or fact.

Most people would seek further evidence or information in order to be able to compartmentalise the information themselves, (i.e to put it in context as to the likelihood or truth behind it) and then choose to act upon it or not.

I think assuming everything to be the truth without questioning or further investigation will often end up badly.

Yeah, I don't disagree.

I'm not saying you said anything wrong. But there were other people mentioning bans, looking suspicious, etc. Sorry if it's come across like I was questioning something you said. Absolutely nothing wrong with asking for a source or for more information, but like you said about posting in the first place, do it with class and care.

[Saxon Warrior]

I don't think most people were claiming it to be false.
They were just not not assuming it to be truth or fact.

Most people would seek further evidence or information in order to be able to compartmentalise the information themselves, (i.e to put it in context as to the likelihood or truth behind it) and then choose to act upon it or not.

I think assuming everything to be the truth without questioning or further investigation will often end up badly.

Bang on there Quevega

After reading Twitter, Online Searches, BFX Movements, and sought any news from my own trusted info sources, I am sitting here with no additional support to the suggestion that the horse is missing Cheltenham other than

* What the poster on this thread said

* the fact that post-race that the trainer said he's going to Cheltenham if the horse is ready for it, or wait for Punchestown, if hes not ready.

TBH, its too early for the trainer to determine if the horse will be ready or not for a race in 4 weeks time, unless something is wrong with the horse. So I assume no news is good news on that front a.t.m.

With no links to where the information came from (IE; Twitter, Racing Post etc) or any other explanation from the poster, then I am moved to decide to ignore the post at this point, and to keep note of who posted it - until I know whether the info turns out to be TRUE or FALSE.

[The Giant Bolster]

Bang on there Quevega

After reading Twitter, Online Searches, BFX Movements, and sought any news from my own trusted info sources, I am sitting here with no additional support to the suggestion that the horse is missing Cheltenham other than

* What the poster on this thread said

* the fact that post-race that the trainer said he's going to Cheltenham if the horse is ready for it, or wait for Punchestown, if hes not ready.

TBH, its too early for the trainer to determine if the horse will be ready or not for a race in 4 weeks time, unless something is wrong with the horse. So I assume no news is good news on that front a.t.m.

With no links to where the information came from (IE; Twitter, Racing Post etc) or any other explanation from the poster, then I am moved to decide to ignore the post at this point, and to keep note of who posted it - until I know whether the info turns out to be TRUE or FALSE.

This feels a good summary. For my part, I've cashed one of my multiples where the difference in odds is minimal right now and I have no cash out. I can reinvest if there is a positive update.

[Exar Essay]

Dandrew99 to be clear mate, the only thing I thought was suspicious was that it took me to mention the Punchestown quote, more than a page into the exchange, for the poster to put it up as ‘information’. If you go back and read over the last few pages, that is a little odd to me.