- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
The first two in the betting in today’s opener at Chepstow were 1/4 favourite and 9/4; 12/1 bar in an 8 runner field. Could anyone please suggest how bookies can justify those miserable odds (other than at a point-to-point)?
I went to warwick dogs one night, first race went 6/4 co favs of five.
Made the old midlands away books look generous.So they don’t lose money, they don’t want you to back them. In fairness they were spot on, finished 1st and 2nd with the rest well beaten, so the prices were probably pretty fair.
Where else can you get a 25% ROI on your money?
The key point is that the bookmakers probably only laid the bar runners to loose change. Effectively it was a two runner race, they are running a business and their aim is to make a profit. As punters we have the option not to bet if we consider the odds too short.
They were betting to just a shade below 140% on that eight runner Chepstow race, better value is to be had on flapping dog tracks. It’s no wonder they now only cater for the mugs on course.
ps. First race I’ve just looked at on the exchange from Leopardstown and they’re betting to 101.4% !!!
This was a prime example of a race bookmakers will alwys use a high over-round.
Front two in the market being the only two with any sort of form. It looked a two horse race and so it proved. However, problem bookmakers also had was it being 8 runners. Had it been 6 or 7 runners (ie 2 to place) am absolutely certain the outsiders would’ve been at least double their prices. But when they all have a chance of getting 3rd bookmakers will keep over-rounds at a maximum. Had it been anywhere else it would probably be the same.Value Is EverythingThanks for the replies, everyone. But if the third place/each way bets were the bookies’ concern why not reduce the odds of the other six runners even more?
I know bookies aren’t obliged to offer prices and we aren’t obliged to bet. But by declining to price the second horse at around 3/1, they deprived themselves of some profit; a few people might have taken on the favourite at 3/1, but surely nobody would at 9/4.
Let’s hope it’s not the thin end of some wedge designed to inflate their overrounds more often.
Thanks for the replies, everyone. But if the third place/each way bets were the bookies’ concern why not reduce the odds of the other six runners even more?
I know bookies aren’t obliged to offer prices and we aren’t obliged to bet. But by declining to price the second horse at around 3/1, they deprived themselves of some profit; a few people might have taken on the favourite at 3/1, but surely nobody would at 9/4.
Why wouldn’t a punter back the 2nd fav if believing it a better than 31%?
The problem was on form the two favourites were so much ahead of the others. Had 3/1 been available it would be too generous. Suspect the two favs only had a slightly higher mark up than a normal race, it’s the outsiders who were significantly shorter priced than their real chance. This was the type of race bookmakers do not want to bet each way. If they hadn’t reduced prices it would be a perfect each way race for the punter.Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.