- This topic has 11 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Backed Forgotton Voice each-way on the basis that he had an outside chance of upsetting the favourite but a pretty good one of finishing second. Would never have dreamed of backing him win only. Rag gets pulled out late in the day and bet reduced to win only. Price not even any bigger than when there were five runners.
In my opinion if you place an each-way bet that is what a punter should get. If eight runners are reduced to seven you still get the each-way bet reduced to two places but at a more favourable 1/4 rather than 1/5. As far as I can see there is nothing favourable to the punter in having one type of bet transformed into something totally different. Yes, you might get lucky occasionally but most of the time the money will just go in one direction.
Perhaps I am missing something so could someone provide the reasoning as to why such bets are not automatically voided?
So I am guessing the place money goes into the win money and so for instance a £1 e/w bet becomes a £2 win bet. I did the same with the outsider Brick Red and was not sure wht happened. But as mine was only in a 50p e/w lucky 15 then wasn’t going to worry about it until I’d had a few more places, which didn’t quite materialise. Still, no doesn’t seem fair although you should no the rules (unlike me
) when you make the bet and its the chance you take. As for the odds which you can’t control, the Bookies can and as usual its a two finger salute to the punter 
So no sorry can’t help much but rules are rules.
Every punter knows (or should know) the rules. If backing something first 2 in a 5 horse race we know it will revert to win only if something comes out. May be it is slightly in the bookmaker’s favour.
…But what about times where non-runners favour the punter?
What about when there’s multiple non-runners in a race?
What if there are four non-runners in tomorrows Grand National, all at 20/1?Even allowing for mark ups it’s effectively taken around 16% out of the book, yet bookmakers would not be allowed to make any deduction to winning bets because all are 20/1+ and they need to refund non-runner punters.
If punters want to be as sure as possible of a straight 5 runners they can wait untill near the off time. Then again they could miss the price by doing so.
On the whole I’d say non-runner rules favour punters if anything more than bookmakers.
Value Is EverythingEvery punter knows (or should know) the rules. If backing something first 2 in a 5 horse race we know it will revert to win only if something comes out. May be it is slightly in the bookmaker’s favour.
…But what about times where non-runners favour the punter?
What about when there’s multiple non-runners in a race?
What if there are four non-runners in tomorrows Grand National, all at 20/1?Even allowing for mark ups it’s effectively taken around 16% out of the book, yet bookmakers would not be allowed to make any deduction to winning bets because all are 20/1+ and they need to refund non-runner punters.
If punters want to be as sure as possible of a straight 5 runners they can wait untill near the off time. Then again they could miss the price by doing so.
On the whole I’d say non-runner rules favour punters if anything more than bookmakers.
Most of this has absolutely nothing to do with my original post.
Of course I know the rules – I would hardly have made the post if
I didn’t.The post specifically referred to races where an each-way bet is reduced to a win bet. Are you expecting 36 non-runners in tomorrow’s National? Yes, as I suggested on a few occasions you might get lucky but this particular rule is heavily in favour of the bookmaker. If you place an each-way bet I believe that is what you should get.
Most of this has absolutely nothing to do with my original post.
Of course I know the rules – I would hardly have made the post if
I didn’t.The post specifically referred to races where an each-way bet is reduced to a win bet. Are you expecting 36 non-runners in tomorrow’s National? Yes, as I suggested on a few occasions you might get lucky but this particular rule is heavily in favour of the bookmaker. If you place an each-way bet I believe that is what you should get.
It has everything to do with your original post Stilvi. My point is that some non-runner rules favour the bookmakers (like your example) and some favour the punter (like my example). Can’t expect every rule to favour the punter, it must balance out a bit. A case of swings and roundabouts.
Let’s take a look at the alternatives:
Bookmakers can not afford to pay out on each way betting for a 4 horse race, otherwise there’d be no profit margin (unless shortening all the prices (larger over-round) so punters would get a raw deal in every other type of bet just to cover themselves for this eventuality…So the only other alternative is as you say Stilvi, void each way bets instead of making them win only. You may well want your money back Stilvi. But what about all the other punters who
would
rather have a "win bet" than no bet at all? Do they need to walk back down to the bookmaker to get their small stake money back instead of letting it ride?
You could do a survey to see how many punters would want their each way bet void in that situation Stilvi. Would you have it void going down from 8 to 7, 12 to 11 and 16 to 15 too; where the
terms
have changed? It needs to be a rule that will work under all circumstances.
How many punters (especially newbies) would go to their bookie after their each way bet won expecting a nice pay out, only to be told "Sorry Sir/Madam your bet is void".
How many void bets would go unclaimed?
As it is, only half the bet is changed anyway.
As I said earlier, there are non-runner/each way rules that favour the punter, if this rule was changed then would you expect all the rules favouring the punter to be void too Stilvi?
I agree it can be frustrating, but don’t see a better alternative.
Value Is EverythingIt has everything to do with your original post Stilvi. My point is that some non-runner rules favour the bookmakers (like your example) and some favour the punter (like my example). Can’t expect every rule to favour the punter, it must balance out a bit. A case of swings and roundabouts.
And what a good example you put up Gingertipster, something that never happens
What about the horses every year running loose before a race, many who end up not running but mysteriously get their prices shortened to enable bookmakers to increase their rule 4 deduction, legalised thievery.
Also with late non runners they slash the remaining runners prices in a reformed market that bear no resemblance to the R4 deduction.The only time punters benefit is the occasional rule 4 to early prices and that is all down to pot luck.
It doesn’t balance out and it’s not swings and roundabouts, non runners heavily favour bookmakers.
To get back to the original point, I can see no reason why you couldn’t put at the bottom of your betting slip "No bet if the less than 5 runners" or similar if field reduced from 8 to 7 etc.
I expect bookmakers would say it could lead to confusion etc and just isn’t worth the trouble.
The options for the OP are to leave his bet late or bet with exchanges.
I’m not sure if it is possible but the solution would be to mark on your slip that the bet should be null and void in the event of any n/r’s. Not sure if the high street bookies will accept that these days.
I’m not sure if it is possible but the solution would be to mark on your slip that the bet should be null and void in the event of any n/r’s. Not sure if the high street bookies will accept that these days.
I remember you could virtually stipulate anything on a betting slip years ago, including ‘if winner’ or ‘if loser’ contingencies (do punters still do ‘any-to-come’ bets any more or does my retirement home beckon??).
Mike
Just to clarify I am only suggesting voiding bets where the original bet is changed from each-way to win. In this day and age surely the technology is there for the administration but I suspect the will is not as the rule is clearly in favour of the bookmaker.
I can’t see any reason why this rule cannot be discussed in isolation. Gingertipster, perhaps if you feel the other rules are too punter-friendly you can raise it in another thread rather than adding confusion to this one? The fundemental question here is if you place an each-way bet why should you be forced to accept a totally different type of bet?
I’ve never understood why when each way terms change to the detriment of a bet that has already been placed, then there isn’t some rule 4 arrangement. That is, pay the original places but with a suitable deduction. Much fairer.
I remember those days Mike and I used to be prone to the odd ‘odd’wording myself. There was one method of wording your slip that gave you a big edge – can’t remember what it was exactly, but it allowed you to somehow avoid backing a loser after the event if it had lost but let the bet stand if it won, something like that but involved another horse and wasn’t worded as straightforwardly as that – but my bookie didn’t fall for it (and we only had one bookie where I came from).
Just to clarify I am only suggesting voiding bets where the original bet is changed from each-way to win. In this day and age surely the technology is there for the administration but I suspect the will is not as the rule is clearly in favour of the bookmaker.
I can’t see any reason why this rule cannot be discussed in isolation. Gingertipster, perhaps if you feel the other rules are too punter-friendly you can raise it in another thread rather than adding confusion to this one? The fundemental question here is if you place an each-way bet why should you be forced to accept a totally different type of bet?
Nobody is "forced
to accept a totally different type of bet" Stilvi. You say yourself, you
knew
the rules when putting the bet on.
The bet you struck was
not
just an "each way bet".
When I strike a bet like this I look at it as a "
win bet
unless 5 horses
remain
"
I find wanting your question discussed in strict "isolation" strange Stilvi. In the Big Race discussion thread about
who’d win
the Grand National – I was personally quite happy spending my time looking up the answer for
your
irelevent question and responding to
you
changing tack in to a
going/safety
issue. A subject in my opinion not only better suited by
another thread
, but also to a different section.
Sorry you did not find my points "relevent" to your original post Stilvi, but in my opinion they were relevent. I’ll certainly do as you wish and think twice before responding to your posts in future.
Value Is Everything
) when you make the bet and its the chance you take. As for the odds which you can’t control, the Bookies can and as usual its a two finger salute to the punter 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.