![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Wankers
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Exactly my point! THey won. The saints won! Yet they bagged the saints during the week, b/c they were petrified that they might lose some money. THought the saints should have let the footy world know about their injuries, so they could set their books.OneEyedSainter77 wrote:Why should they?
It really irks me when people think it's the bookie's fault for the odds. The idiots who started piling the money on the hawks MADE the odds go down - and when we lost seven of our top seven, of course they kept lowering the odds for the hawks.
Bookies will be too busy laughing their way to the bank to apologise.
I never heard one Bookie winge , they know it can go either way and thats the risk they take so maybe your the wanker for starting a post like thisMoods wrote:![]()
![]()
Wankers
Really?Moods wrote:Exactly my point! THey won. The saints won! Yet they bagged the saints during the week, b/c they were petrified that they might lose some money. THought the saints should have let the footy world know about their injuries, so they could set their books.OneEyedSainter77 wrote:Why should they?
It really irks me when people think it's the bookie's fault for the odds. The idiots who started piling the money on the hawks MADE the odds go down - and when we lost seven of our top seven, of course they kept lowering the odds for the hawks.
Bookies will be too busy laughing their way to the bank to apologise.
Wankers
No worries Gurgman - apology acceptedGurgman wrote:I never heard one Bookie winge , they know it can go either way and thats the risk they take so maybe your the wanker for starting a post like thisMoods wrote:![]()
![]()
Wankers
The ones i heard on radio were not worried at all , so i stand by what i said and no apologyMoods wrote:No worries Gurgman - apology acceptedGurgman wrote:I never heard one Bookie winge , they know it can go either way and thats the risk they take so maybe your the wanker for starting a post like thisMoods wrote:![]()
![]()
Wankers
So on that logic Gurgman, because you didn't actually see/hear something means that it didn't occur?Gurgman wrote:The ones i heard on radio were not worried at all , so i stand by what i said and no apologyMoods wrote:No worries Gurgman - apology acceptedGurgman wrote:I never heard one Bookie winge , they know it can go either way and thats the risk they take so maybe your the wanker for starting a post like thisMoods wrote:![]()
![]()
Wankers
Most bizarre logic I've ever read. What a world you must live in. As long as YOU didn't hear it, it mustn't have happened, and gives you carte blanch to tee off on anyone who actually knows the facts.Gurgman wrote:The ones i heard on radio were not worried at all , so i stand by what i said and no apologyMoods wrote:No worries Gurgman - apology acceptedGurgman wrote:I never heard one Bookie winge , they know it can go either way and thats the risk they take so maybe your the wanker for starting a post like thisMoods wrote:![]()
![]()
Wankers
that is soooo right if they don't like it don't take bets on afl games !backit wrote:An AFL spokesman rejected the betting agencies' complaints.
"The betting fits around our competition and our competition does not fit around the betting," the spokesman said.
If the bookies don't like it don't accept bets on AFL simple.
yep!OneEyedSainter77 wrote:Why should they?
It really irks me when people think it's the bookie's fault for the odds. The idiots who started piling the money on the hawks MADE the odds go down - and when we lost seven of our top seven, of course they kept lowering the odds for the hawks.
Bookies will be too busy laughing their way to the bank to apologise.
The lions backman being Daniel Merritt was just bought up on the the Offsiders on the ABC and confirmed the former Chairman of the club won a good deal of money on Merritt kicking the first goal and donated it to charity, also stated that Voss had to speak to his players about the issue being bought up during the week. The AFL is investigating the incident.golden hawk wrote:the afl are looking into bets made on a backman i think a lions player for first goal big bets were put on him for last weeks game and he did kick the first goal .
anyway stupid person to put so much money on the hawks when they have been up and down , i just wished i put some on you guys at the $2 plus price !
funny thing i don't bet anyway but one day i will give it a go
that won't look good a former chairman of the club they can not do anything to him can they being a former chairman ???backit wrote:The lions backman being Daniel Merritt was just bought up on the the Offsiders on the ABC and confirmed the former Chairman of the club won a good deal of money on Merritt kicking the first goal and donated it to charity, also stated that Voss had to speak to his players about the issue being bought up during the week. The AFL is investigating the incident.golden hawk wrote:the afl are looking into bets made on a backman i think a lions player for first goal big bets were put on him for last weeks game and he did kick the first goal .
anyway stupid person to put so much money on the hawks when they have been up and down , i just wished i put some on you guys at the $2 plus price !
funny thing i don't bet anyway but one day i will give it a go
whatever the bookies are - the punters that backed the hawks are 'friars'!therabbitinthehat wrote:you believe wrong. Shmuck is a slang term for idiot/moron. Shmeckel is a 'prick' as in the thing dangling between your legs.westy wrote:I believe that shmuck is yiddish for prick. So, a lot of bookies are shmucks!