Forum Replies Created
Sorry master I haven’t. I’m not at the office on weekends, I will check on Monday and get back to you.
The tactics the horse used were the most common tactics that the horse has used – front running. For pity’s sake the horse’s press association comments refer to him as being "driven". There was no "held up in rear, short of room, never placed to challenge" in his running comments which was what punter in fact suggested before the race. The only thing punter predicted correctly about the way the race would pan out was that the horse would get beat. Nothing strange in that – horses with inferior last time out form to the majority of their opponents have an uncanny knack of getting beat.
The horse’s connections put up a gigantic red flag for every punter to see by dropping him to selling company last time suggesting that the horse was nowhere near the force he was. This was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by his performance. he beat the 34 rated Tong Ice by 3 lengths at level weights, on old form he was entitled to beat that horse by over 20 lengths.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, punters had cottoned on to the fact that the horse was now obviously a shadow of his former self and that this was the reason they were keen to lay him at his joke price.
I would suggest that anyone that has to resort to wild theories of larceny to explain this horses replication of his last run doesn’t understand the game quite as well as they let on.
You all thought he was a non-trier, I say he is in terminal decline. Only time will tell of course but I would certainly bet against him ever reproducing 80 rated form again.
You don’t make errors of judgement? So every horse you tip wins except for those pulled by bent jockeys? I think it is pointless continuing this argument any further if that’s your reasoning.
So this wonderhorse, who on his previous run had trounced the 34 rated Tong Ice by a grand total of 3 lengths at levels was now some kind of shoo in to give 8lb to the in form Master T (rated 66) and beat him by 10 lengths! The facts of the matter are simple – the horse was a terrible bet at evens as a reproduction of his previous run would have seen him finish unplaced. It is no secret that the horse is a front runner and that they are unfavoured by Lingfield so he was an obvious lay. It was clued up punters laying him not crooks.
The notion that he has run his best races when chasing the leaders is absolute poppycock. Front running tactics have worked best in the past. His postmark ratings where he has raced from the front or in second place read 81/80/79/81. His other ratings when he has chased the leaders or raced prominently read 59/72/76.
You made an error of judgement guys – get over it.
Punter – I don’t have access to any figures at the moment as I’m not at work until Monday. You say that we would expect to do more trade on a competitive race where there are many different opinions. I can assure you we wouldn’t. There is a direct correlation between the price of the fav in a race and the ammount of trade we do on it – the shorter the fav the bigger the volume. Bearing this in mind it is perhaps no surprise that the shortest priced horse of all those running at Lingfield and Kempton yesterday was none other than Platinum Duke! I believe our biggest volume so far was over 200k matched on Barracouda yesterday, was that one pulled?
So your circumstantial evidence of cheating (that of unusual betting patterns) is pretty thin as nothing unusual occured. I’m looking forward to seeing a recording of the race as it will be interesting to see your more substantive evidence – that of a bent jockey throwing a race. Why am I expecting to be in the position of the little boy as the emperor passes with his new clothes on?
In answer to your other questions, a typical 9 runner claimer might be bet to 115-120% and if you know that an even oney fav is going to finish unplaced the options are simply endless. You can make 15-20 times your stake on the spreads, you can approach an on course layer, you can back all the other horses in the race and even the csf throws up some massive value.
Honestly Punter you sound like a betting shop mug blaming bent jockeys every time you call a race wrong.
I don’t have access to the betting details on the race at the moment as I’m not at work, so I’m speaking off the cuff here and am going on what has been said. But here are my thoughts for now:
1) In a typical race betfair would expect to match 50-75k on an even money shot. So there is nothing out of the ordinary about 40k being matched on Platinum Duke. The fact that it was an all weather claimer on a "busy" Saturday has nothing to do with it. We match as much on the all weather as we do on turf races and there were only three evenly spaced meetings today, so the race would have been the centre of most punters’ attention for 5-10 mins.
2) Punter seems to have come to the conclusion that a single person was responsible for the entire lay side of the bet. As I have said I don’t have access to the figures for now but this is almost certainly nonsense. He draws the conclusion from this faulty premise that the person knew the horse was going to be stopped and was a crook. I don’t think I will even deign this with a comment.
3) the disparity between what a race is worth and what is bet on it and the resulting temptation to cheat has existed long before betfair. We account for only about 5% of horse racing turnover in the UK. If someone knows an even money fav is dead in the water they do not need betfair to make more from it than the race is worth.
4) I didn’t see the race myself but going on sporting life comments it does seem an unlikely case for skullduggery – the horse frant ran.
5) The market at Lingfield can be quite weak and Platinum Duke was arguably backed down to a false price due to the offices backing it (the press association report less than 8k in big bets, including office money, forcing the horse in from 5/4 to evens). The Lingfield bookies were betting to an astonishing 131% in this race and much of that profit would have been built into the, arguably, falsely priced fav. Is it any surprise that betfair layers had to offer a decent premium above even money to get taken? It’s not a case of a cheat(s) laying a non trier, it’s a case of market forces and clued up betfair punters realising that the fav was a bad price and forcing the horse to trade at a price that was more reflective of his chances.
6) Punter mentions exclusive air trading at 4/5 the night before. This was almost certainly someone knowing that the horse would start a lot shorter than forecast and was therefore trying to back it. The horse was trading around the 1/2 mark during the 5-10 mins before the off.