Latest Cases - February 2013

No joy for Mr Jones…

7th February 2013

Good afternoon, friends,

In this issue of Punters’ Verdict

  • Defence witnesses for Peter Jones…
  • Undisclosed losers represent a black mark…
  • Don’t fall victim to Sod’s Law…
  • How it all worked out for a Verdict reader…

Defence witnesses for Peter Jones...

Last week’s column on Peter Jones and his Betting on Horse Racing service generated a fair bit of response from Verdict readers – which is just how we like it. And one or two items of correspondence suggest I might have been ever-so-slightly unfair to Mr. Jones.

If or when new facts or different perspectives present themselves I like to think I’m fair-minded enough to draw attention to them.

In my column I related my story. That Mr. Jones (a complete stranger) had contacted me (unsolicited) via email boasting about a winning tip that he’d never sent – and suggesting I might like to pay him for it.

That’s exactly how it transpired. I never received the original tip. Mr. Jones sent his ‘result’ email to TWO email addresses I own. The tip was sent to neither (and I always check my SPAM). 

But a couple of Verdict readers had slightly different experiences….

  • GW wrote to say: ‘Peter Jones emailed me also about Oscars Den but he did so at 2.30 on the afternoon of the race. I had to go into town so I went into the Bookies and backed it at 3/1 with £20….’ 
  • RT also contacted us: ‘I got the Peter Jones bet on Oscars Den before it ran. It had gone into my junk mail… I then got the same email as you asking for £100…’
  • And GA got in touch too: ‘This man sent me the information on OSCARS DEN 5/1 at 12.30pm. I was told there would be no mistake and that this was a major punt. A very strong bet was advised. The owners and all the connections of the horse were going to Lingfield to hammer the bookies.’

Fair enough. It seems a tip was sent out. And I am happy to set that small part of the record straight. However, the rest of my comments in last week’s column still stand.

Undisclosed losers represent a black mark…

There was a little more background to GA’s email than I refer to above….

He first heard from Peter Jones in early October 2012 – when the tipster requested £100 in return for the name of a horse that Jones reckoned had 15lbs in hand on the handicapper and which was expected to win an upcoming race. (The Judge notes: Jones appears to come across a lot of these 15lb well in horses – that’s the very same back-story he came up with in his email to me!)

GA was promised his money back if the horse didn’t win. And he took the plunge – sending Jones the £100. Six days later Jones was in touch to tell GA that the gamble was off because the horse had gone lame.

Jones said he had another couple of good things lined up over the next few days. But GA asked for his money back. And Jones returned his money later the same day – a gold star for Peter Jones.

During November and December Jones sent GA 3 tips – free samples of what he could expect as a paid-up regular. All were heavily backed (suggesting Jones knows something) but all the horses lost (suggesting that whatever it is he knows isn’t entirely reliable). (The Judge notes: None of these 3 losing gambles are referred to or recorded on Jones’s website – big black mark)

Then Peter Jones – ‘monster’ gambler and friend to trainers and owners up and down the land – went quiet.

Don’t fall victim to Sod’s Law…

GA heard nothing more from Jones until he sent the information on Oscars Den on 29th January.

But having already lost £300 already on the strength of Peter Jones and his inside information, GA decided not to bet the Tim Vaughan trained bumper horse – and, in so doing, he missed out on a payout.

The moral of this story is clear: if you’re going to give a tipster a chance you must give him the chance to perform over a reasonable number of bets or a reasonable period of time – or, once you’ve decided not to use a tipster, you must stick with your decision.

Dipping in and out of a service exposes you to Sod’s Law which states: you will miss the winners and latch onto the losing spells…

After the Oscars Den win Verdict reader GA took the decision to forward Peter Jones £100 – for 3 selections in upcoming races – exposing himself to the full force of Sod’s Law…

GA promised to let us know how it all worked out…

How it all worked out for a Verdict reader…

I must admit I hadn’t expected to hear from GA again quite so quickly. But he was back in my in-box with his report this morning….

Peter Jones has been a busy bee over the last 7 days. GA says he’s already received the full benefit (if you want to call it that) of Mr. Jones’s next three pieces of advice. Here’s the gist of what GA told the Verdict:

  • STRIKE ONE: Peter Jones recommends backing MARY’S PET at Lingfield last Friday. He reckons Lee Carter’s mare is 15lbs well-in and something approaching a certainty. She was sent off the 9/2 3rd favourite in an 8-runner field (not a bad price for a certainty!) but couldn’t justify Peter Jones’s confidence and was beaten home by the front two in the market.
  • STRIKE TWO: Peter Jones is back at Lingfield on Saturday for his next selection – ELECTRICIAN who is running for Tim Pitt in the 1m Seller. Just 6 runners go to post and the 4-year-old is 5th in the pre-race betting – eventually going off at 8s. It’s a big call from Peter Jones – and he didn’t get it too far wrong to be fair. It might be said that he found the value. The horse dead-heats for the runner-up spot – just a half-length behind the winner.
  • STRIKE 3: Yesterday Peter Jones advised backing AL RAQEEB in the 7f Handicap at Kempton Park. Jones claims to be friends with the jockey, Adam Kirby. And he’s been told this one can’t be beaten. The money certainly comes for the horse – he’s sent off the Evens favourite. But Marco Botti’s 3-year-old can’t justify the faith and doesn’t pose a threat – beaten two and a half lengths.

Sod’s Law certainly bit GA in the backside?

Meanwhile not a word about these failed selections appears on Peter Jones’s website.

I’d like to be able to say that I expect Jones will get round to updating his results shortly.

But I don’t. His track record is one that appears to ignore failure. To believe his website claims you have to accept that he picks selections very rarely – and always wins with them when he does. The fact is he appears to pick selections more frequently than he lets on and plenty of those selections are losers which are subsequently ignored and airbrushed out of history.

For me honest and accurate reporting of results is a central plank of a professional and trustworthy tipping service. Peter Jones’s service – as evidenced by his own website – is an awful long way from meeting that criterion.

I’ll be back with the Verdict next week.

The Judge 

To start receiving The Judge's free weekly email, please enter your details below...
We take your privacy very seriously and will never pass your details on to anyone else
Use of cookies in this website
We use cookies to give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website