Crosswords0 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ken4155. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Quite so, OG. Things have moved on from the "Challenge round" where the rest battled it out to play the defending chamion in the final.
I fear Andy must be at his absolute best and Novak have an off day to see Andy win. Novak doen't have many off days when it comes to finals. He tends to get them out of the way earlier in the tournament.
I fear Andy must be at his absolute best and Novak have an off day to see Andy win. Novak doen't have many off days when it comes to finals. He tends to get them out of the way earlier in the tournament.
maggiebee; Whilst i have nothing whatsoever against Andy Murray - and have actually won quite a bit of money on him - i will always back Novac Djokovic against any player in the world. Patriotism doesn't even come into it and i hope Murray gets to the final as he may be capable of taking a set of the Jokerman and a 3-1 result is usually a better price than a 3-0 result:-)
An old adage my grandad taught me, Ken." Never bet on nuffink that can talk!"
http://
http://
Yes that was his usual turn of phrase, QM !!
I think his philosophy was to restrict gambling to horses and dogs. But as both you and melv have pointed out it is far from fool proof.
In my earlier days I spent some time working in the “Turf Accountancy” business. Among the establishments I managed in North London was one which was adjacent to a well known tavern. The publican, an Irishman, owned a dozen or so greyhounds. At that time (and probably still now) the prize money for winning an afternoon dog race was about half the weekly cost of keeping a dog in training. Obviously some “arrangements” had to be made to balance the books. Also at that time (and probably still now) to rig the result of a dog race was simplicity itself. No substances are involved. All you needed was the collusion of the other owners/trainers. The tricky bit was keeping the details of the collusion restricted to as few people as possible so as not to spook the bookies.
The guv’nor of the tavern had these arrangements in place regularly. We knew he had and he knew we knew he had. To keep us sweet we would occasionally be given a little bit of “information” from which we might make a bit of bunce. Very rarely did that information fail and a splendid time was had by all on the proceeds.
Happy Days !
Sorry Ken, I seem to have hijacked your thread :-)
I think his philosophy was to restrict gambling to horses and dogs. But as both you and melv have pointed out it is far from fool proof.
In my earlier days I spent some time working in the “Turf Accountancy” business. Among the establishments I managed in North London was one which was adjacent to a well known tavern. The publican, an Irishman, owned a dozen or so greyhounds. At that time (and probably still now) the prize money for winning an afternoon dog race was about half the weekly cost of keeping a dog in training. Obviously some “arrangements” had to be made to balance the books. Also at that time (and probably still now) to rig the result of a dog race was simplicity itself. No substances are involved. All you needed was the collusion of the other owners/trainers. The tricky bit was keeping the details of the collusion restricted to as few people as possible so as not to spook the bookies.
The guv’nor of the tavern had these arrangements in place regularly. We knew he had and he knew we knew he had. To keep us sweet we would occasionally be given a little bit of “information” from which we might make a bit of bunce. Very rarely did that information fail and a splendid time was had by all on the proceeds.
Happy Days !
Sorry Ken, I seem to have hijacked your thread :-)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.