Free £25 Grand National bet

Parsons84

southernscouser wrote: »

Quite often you can place the bets but can't withdraw anything until they have received ID. Worth ringing and asking again, or try placing the bets. As long as you are 18 or older and the card holder you have nothing to worry about.

I think I'll do that, sent a copy of the passport, so fingers crossed.

barnabee

Further update from Quidco:

Also an update on some members questions - we’ve had clarification from Betfair that the wagers need to be on the Grand National as that is what the promo is for.

madkid88

My quidco has not been tracked. ive placed 25 worth of bets

italia

what does it mean 'warning you have entered odds over 99' - i got this when backing an outsider

TractorGirl327

sahra wrote: »

Did you use a credit card like me?

No, a debit card.

It now is saying my account balance is 0.00

But when I click on "My Bets" there is only one there, for £2

WHERE HAS THE OTHER £8 GONE???

Beginning to wish I'd not bothered with this :money:

slickster_2

Hope you don't mind me shoving this in here as you all have free bets and I want to give some help on who to bet on, I run a gambling forum and one of our top tipsters has just given us his analysis for the Grand National, please have a read and good luck with your selections.....

There are many statistics attatched to the Grand National which are churned out year after year. But which ones are actually useful? If there is logic behind a statistic, then the chances are that it will help pinpoint the likely winner. However, without a logical explanation, a statistic could well be just coincidental. This is my reasoning....

Weight Band & Class Band
These two stats go hand in hand, and are usually the first to mind when analysing this race. Regarding the Weight Band, during the last 23 years, all winners carried between 10-0 & 11-1. This can be quite easily explained logically. This is like no other race, and the effort demanded of the runners is more than your average long distance chase. The early pace is ferocious, the field size is huge, the fences are bigger and the course is a huge 2m2f oval with long, energy-sapping straights. There are no undulations or tight turns to break up the pace, so horses rarely get a chance for a breather. The faster the pace is, the more weight tells. Horses carrying above 11st simply don't have enough energy left at the end of the race to mount a winning challenge.
Also, you have to remember that these horses are being asked to jump higher, and drop further, than in an ordinary race. No wonder big-weight carriers don't win the National. Those racing from out of the handicap have not got the class to win this event, unless the ground becomes bottomless, which is extremely unlikely this year.
The Class Band stats tell us that all winners in the last 16 years were Officially Rated between 136 & 155, and every year we are told to concentrate on horses within this group. Personally, I just can't see the logic in this. If there was no ceiling on the weight band, and we were told to concentrate on horses rated 139 and above, then fair enough, logic tells us that horses rated lower than this simply do not have the class to win this race. But how can a horse have too much class for a race? A horse is either up to the task, or not. The reason there appears to be a ceiling on this band is because of the way it is tied-in with the weight band - the higher the horses rating, the higher the weight, and once above 11st, the weight prevents them from winning. So ignore the Class Band and concentrate on the Weight Band.

Jumping Ability
Obviously you need a competent jumper to win the National, but are the fences as severe as they are made out to be? My opinion is that the fences at Park courses such as Haydock and Kempton are just as difficult (or even more difficult) as the Aintree obstacles. The Aintree fences have loose birch on top and allow horses to brush through the top of them without falling. The fences at Haydock, for example, are far stiffer in structure and if a horse hits the top, it's odds-on it'll capsize. Of course I'm not suggesting that the National fences are easier to jump than your average fence at other courses, the sheer size of them cause many horses problems, and the fact that several fences have their landing side lower than the take-off side, regularly catches inexperienced chasers out.
The first few fences usually have more casualties than any other fences, this is not because they are more difficult to jump, but because the field is at it's biggest in the early stages. The less room to manoeuvre a horse has, the harder it finds it to approach the fence properly - if it's stride is wrong it has no room to put itself right. Also the horses view will often be restricted, and seeing the fence late can be disasterous, not forgetting that if a rival horse falls in front of it, then the chances of having room to sidestep it are slim. The pace is furious in these early stages and there is no room for error. A lot depends on luck, no matter how efficient a jumper a horse is. I recall backing Docklands Express in the early 90's simply because he had never fallen, and he fell at the first. Party Politics, a giant of a horse who almost stepped over these fences, won the race in 1992, finished 2nd in 1995, yet fell at the third in 1996.
The first six fences make up just 20% of the 30 fences, yet in 2006 9 of the 17 fallers (53%) failed to get past the 6th fence (5 fell at the first), in 2004 14 of the 22 fallers (64%) came to grief by the 6th fence, and in 2002 56% of the fallers suffered the same fate. In 2000 43% of the 21 fallers came to grief over one of the first 6 fences. In 1999, 33% of the fallers fell before the 7th fence. In 1998 an amazing 65% of the fallers (11 of the 17) failed to get past the 6th fence. In 1994 8 of the 21 fallers (38%) were out of the race by the 6th fence. So being able to jump at speed in a big field is vital, and every single one of the 16 winners since 1991 had either won or placed in a chase with at least 14 runners. This is a vital stat and is completely logical.

Fitness
Some horses are attempting to win the race after a lengthy break since their last outing - but this is a stat that is very much against them. We have to ask why this is. There are many horses which are actually best when fresh, so why do they not win the National? My view is that if a trainer has a horse he is aiming at the National, then even if the horse needs a rest between races, he would give it at least one or two outings during the season to keep the horse ticking over. An outing even as late as early March would give the horse plenty of time to recover. So any horse that arrives at the National without a recent run has almost certainly had problems, which is bad news as to win the National a horse must be at his physical peak. Also horses that are best fresh are often fragile creatures, which are unsuited to this tough event. All winners since at least 1988 had had their previous outing between 16 and 49 days before this race, which seems a logical stat.

Previous Winners
Not since Red Rum has a Grand National winner won the race again, even though plenty have tried. Why is this? Many races throughout the year are won by a horse that won the race the previous season, so why not this one. After all, the horse is proven over the fences, stays the trip, acts in a big field, likes the course, and can win in the Spring. One explanation is the weight, a National winner will be asked to carry a fair amount of extra weight the following year, and this often proves their downfall. My personal opinion of this is that the race is such a test for a horse, to win it takes so much out of a horse, that they are never really the same again. 2005 winner and 2006 runner-up Hedgehunter has a monumental task here with 11-12 to carry (only 9th last year with same weight).

Trip
All winners bar one since 1988 had won a chase over at least 3m 1f - the only one that hadn't was MONTYS PASS, who had won an A class 3m hcap at Listowel. The misconception that a 2m 4f horse can outspeed the plodders causes many horses to be entered each year which have no chance of staying the trip. Before the fences were modified, the pace was slower as the jockeys were more careful over the fences, and this enabled the 2m 4f horses to hunt up the leaders before being unleashed on the run-in and using their pace to win the race. But nowadays the pace finds these horses out year after year. 16 of the last 17 winners had won or been placed in a race over 3m3f or further.

Age
Between 8 and 12 is the favoured age band. 7yo's lack the experience and 13yo's and older are simply to old to be competitive in this extreme test. 9 of the last 12 winners were aged 9 or 10.

Previous Runs
All but one of the winners since 1991 had won a race worth at least £19,000. The one that hadn't, Party Politics, had finished 2nd twice in events worth £23,000 and £37,000.

Experience
Any horse competing here as a novice or in only their second season, is unlikely to win. All winners bar two (BINDAREE and NUMBERSIXVALVERDE) since 1990 were in their 3rd or 4th season chasing.

Time Of Year
All winners since 1988 had won previously in either January, February, March or April.

Other stats of importance...

No French bred horse has won this race since 1909 due to their style of breeding (horses in France don't race over extreme distances so they breed them to have more speed infuence than stamina) and with the physical demands of this race they always seem to be stretched past their limit - plenty have gone close (CLAN ROYAL a good example) without quite getting home, and although the other 'Nationals' have been won by these types, the demands of this race just seems too much for them.

6 of the last 7 winners had previously jumped these fences before (3 fell, 3 placed) - the only one that hadn't was NUMBERSIXVALDEVERDE who had proved his worth by winning another gruelling race, the Irish National. 3 of the last 4 winners had contested (and run well in) the previous years event, so don't be put off a horse just because it wasn't good enough to win it before.

A lot of the runners have already proved their stamina by winning or placing in marathon events but there are still plenty who we can't be sure about. Take a look through their previous runs over trips of 3m or shorter - a National winner shouldn't really have the natural pace to travel well throughout over these distances, so look out for telltale signs that the horse has struggled to quicken when the pace has lifted, race comments like "outpaced 4 out, stayed on" and "dropped rear 13th, kept on under pressure run-in". Most of the recent winners have these comments littered about in their earlier form in shorter races.

Too early for me to do a shortlist but 3 I'm interested in at the moment are

McKELVEY (22/1) - I really fancied this one last year and he surely would have won but for going lame on the run-in. 11-0 to carry which is borderline but 2 quiet runs over hurdles (pleased his trainer, he was clearly running to get fit) suggest he's ready to go close again. Main worry would be how much last years race took out of him but a big price nonetheless.

PHILSON RUN (28/1) - this one reminds me of AMBERLEIGH HOUSE - that one finished 3rd at a big price in 2003 before winning the following year - after a gallant 4th @ 100/1 last year. The ground was too fast last year too, so with slightly easier underfoot conditions this time there's no reason he won't go close.

NAUNTON BROOK (66/1) - not the most obvious contender but overpriced for sure. Was 125/1 last year but took them along for a fair way despite the 1st time blinkers not working. His trainer has won this twice recently and I think he could go well for a long way at big odds.

Actual thread..
http://www.thedailypunt.com/forum/horse-racing/109679-grand-national-preview-2008-a.html

jessicamb

TractorGirl327 wrote: »

No, a debit card.

It now is saying my account balance is 0.00

But when I click on "My Bets" there is only one there, for £2

WHERE HAS THE OTHER £8 GONE???

Beginning to wish I'd not bothered with this :money:

what are you filtering by? matched or unmatched? - there is a drop down box in the middle of the screen.

Matched means you can forget about it for now, unmatched means you are waiting for someone to take the odds you offered.

jessicamb

italia wrote: »

what does it mean 'warning you have entered odds over 99' - i got this when backing an outsider

its to warn you to make sure that you have not entered a mistake

bomb_the_cherry

a couple of you are mentioning £10. You need to deposit and bet £25 for this offer. Once you have bet the £25 it will be returned. Where are people getting the amount of £10 from?!

Toastie

Nutty_Tart wrote: »

Well, I have placed my first ever bet :j (Always avoided the shops - have this image they are full of men in long flasher macs, with a big cigar hanging out of their mouth! :rotfl: ) Have placed 5x £5 bets, used my debit card but had to confirm age by using credit card :mad: Anyway, hopefully all done correctly and via quidco (£50 had tracked by the time I had placed the bets and went back to the quidco screen - very quick). So I should get my £25 stake back, plus £50 cashback :T ..... money is coming to meeeeeee .....

NTx

I'm a bit scared to do it. Why did you have to use a credit card to confirm your age? I don't have a credit card? Is the alternative to use a passport or Driving License. How long would this take to confirm?

I'm a bit confused as you can see.

If quidco is in my name and i used my mum to bet and used one of her credit cards would it be ok?