- This topic has 28 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
There is absolutely no doubt that the racing industry has ‘conspired’ to dramatically reduce the number of handicaps with 16+ runners by introducing spurious safety limits at certain courses.
Surely, this is more of a commercial decision than anything underhand. The income for racing is mainly derived from the contributions from losing bets, in other words the gross profits of bookmakers. Any strategy which increases these profits makes sound business sense unless it causes a loss of revenue large enough to wipe out the gain. Paying out on the 4th place in 16+ handicaps is generally reckoned to have a negative effect on profitabilty for bookmakers taken over a season, so it has been strategically reduced. A similar thing has happened with the over-round percentage per runner, which has been significantly increased.The effect of the latter strategy on profitabilty is much greater IMO than that of reducing the 16+ handicaps, but is less understood by the average betting office punter.
I hope John MCCririck is watching what is happening to these over-rounds and using his TV platform to make the occasional punters aware of how the price of their entertainment is going up – just like everything else.
Strip out the AW races and the results look less damaging, but still in marked decline. What on earth happened to exacerbate things in 2006? Was it new safety limits left, right and centre?
The following shows the Year, No of 4-place turf handicaps and their percentage against all turf races run. UK Flat races only:
2006 269 7.72<br>2005 438 11.67<br>2004 435 11.73<br>2003 467 12.84<br>2002 548 16.00<br>2001 569 16.75<br>2000 508 15.20<br>1999 482 14.10<br>1998 429 13.12
Mike
What happened in 2006? Horse box limits being introduced on a per-meeting basis on ‘welfare’ grounds. Strange that nobody was calling for these limits and many trainers actively oppose them. I’m sure it’s just coincidence that they invariably mean 14/15 runner maximum fields on courses where the safety limit is more.
As I said, anyone that doesn’t think that the BHB and the industry has conspired against punters here must bark at the moon.
Modernisation of British racing anyone?
(Edited by Glenn at 1:16 pm on Feb. 3, 2007)<br>
(Edited by Glenn at 4:05 pm on Feb. 3, 2007)
So what were the odds of Mr Strachan being a non-runner in an 8 runner race with a short-priced favourite and a long priced outsider beign backed?;)
Blooming Heck .. it just shows you how much racing is swinging in favour of the bookies .. I didnt realise how many 16+ runner races had been got rid of!
Glenn, Every time I bet on a 16 runner hcp. I drastically reduce all the prices of the runners until the book shows exactly 100% betting margin on the place book, and as I am hugely influential in the returned sp’s in the south,
<br>I LOVE IT. and if you dont like it even better
Maybe the stats suggest that there is nothing untoward going on regarding non runners in 16 runner hcaps or 8 runner races.<br>I was just wondering if anyone had the time and resourses to check back over the last few years and see if certain trainers had an unusual amount of non runners in these type of races, which would give some sort of credence to the conspiracy theory, suggesting (if true) that these trainers might be in some local bookies pocket.
Does the rule 4 not affect the place odds as well as the win odds in non-runner cases. Why could the bookies not just adjust the fraction paid out rather than entire place terms. e.g. – pay 1/5 of the odds for 4 places if there is a non-runner in a 16 or 8 runner Hcp.
Welcome to the forum madman marz – interesting name – do we refer to you as madman for short!
Quote: from davidbrady on 1:35 pm on Feb. 7, 2007[br]Does the rule 4 not affect the place odds as well as the win odds in non-runner cases. Why could the bookies not just adjust the fraction paid out rather than entire place terms. e.g. – pay 1/5 of the odds for 4 places if there is a non-runner in a 16 or 8 runner Hcp.
Thanks for the welcome Dave,<br>Actually Madman Marz was the character from a cult 80’s slasher flick simply called madman, I was young then he scared the hell out of me. You can call me Marz or Madman depending what you make of my other posts.
Welcome to the forum madman marz – interesting name – do we refer to you as madman for short!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.