- This topic has 35 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Even though Irving will be better off at the weights, based on the Elite, Stan James seem to me well out of line at 5/4 Irving 8/1 Purple Bay (Hills go 7/2 PB).
With just 8 runners at present, PB seems a most attractive EW bet.
Think this maybe because the Nicholls’ bandwagon has started to roll, pretty damn quickly as well. Even though I probably won’t back Irving, it’s great to see him back so soon after that fall he took at the last at Wincanton. Agree that PB is a solid E/W though with the 8.
I notice all bookmakers have gone 1/4 odds first 2 on this unless all 8 turn up. Since there is a strong chance of at least one non-runner, better to wait till Saturday morning before taking the each way.
I notice all bookmakers have gone 1/4 odds first 2 on this unless all 8 turn up. Since there is a strong chance of at least one non-runner, better to wait till Saturday morning before taking the each way.
That condition (EW 1,2) is not mentioned on the SJ site. It is on the others, though I’m not sure it would withstand a challenge with the likes of IBAS.
I am not a big fan of his trainer but Purple Bay looks big at 8/1.
Ladbrokes are offering 1/5th odds 1-2-3 but you only get 6/1 Purple Bay with them. Still, that 3rd place looks tempting, especially with a 500/1 shot in there, making it effectively a 7 horse race.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I am not a big fan of his trainer but Purple Bay looks big at 8/1.
Ladbrokes are offering 1/5th odds 1-2-3 but you only get 6/1 Purple Bay with them. Still, that 3rd place looks tempting, especially with a 500/1 shot in there, making it effectively a 7 horse race.
I think the bookies have little chance of enforcing this 1st and 2nd only – it defies Tattersalls rules, and I’m confident a challenge would be successful (it is, perhaps, one of the reasons Ladbrokes have offered the correct terms within Tatts rules).
In effect, bookies are trying to marry SP rules with AP rules, solely in their own favour. If they’d added a rider saying that the EW part of wagers would be returned should a horse not run, they might stand a chance.
Bookmakers don’t have to do anything, they can refuse any wager they wish and you can do absolutely nothing about it.
They’re quite happy with their FOBT’s.
Bookmakers don’t have to do anything, they can refuse any wager they wish and you can do absolutely nothing about it.
They’re quite happy with their FOBT’s.
They can indeed refuse any wager. But once they have accepted a wager, it should be subject to Tattersalls rules, which is what they’re all signed up to.
They can indeed refuse any wager. But once they have accepted a wager, it should be subject to Tattersalls rules, which is what they’re all signed up to.
Is there a Tattersalls rule that covers each way betting ante post?
Ante post odds have often had this proviso in the past. They will pay you first 3 if 8 run.
They can indeed refuse any wager. But once they have accepted a wager, it should be subject to Tattersalls rules, which is what they’re all signed up to.
Is there a Tattersalls rule that covers each way betting ante post?
Ante post odds have often had this proviso in the past. They will pay you first 3 if 8 run.
You’re dead right. I just checked the Tatts site – AP betting doesn’t count:
Unless clearly displayed otherwise, all each-way bets except ante-post bets will be settled
on the actual number of starters according to the following place terms: –
• Fewer than 5 runners – all to win
• 5-7 runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2
• 8 or more runners – 1/5 odds a place 1-2-3
• Handicaps with 12-15 runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2-3
• Handicaps with 16 or more runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2-3-4Unless clearly displayed otherwise, all each-way bets except ante-post bets will be settled
on the actual number of starters according to the following place terms: –
• Fewer than 5 runners – all to win
• 5-7 runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2
• 8 or more runners – 1/5 odds a place 1-2-3
• Handicaps with 12-15 runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2-3
• Handicaps with 16 or more runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2-3-4I don’t think this entirely clears it up. I would take this to imply that ante post will normally be settled on the number of runners at the time the bet was struck.This is how it normally works.
However, it looks like bookies are within their rights anyway because the "unless clearly displayed otherwise" clause allows them to do what they like. In addition the ante post rules aren’t prescribed.
Unless clearly displayed otherwise, all each-way bets except ante-post bets will be settled
on the actual number of starters according to the following place terms: –
• Fewer than 5 runners – all to win
• 5-7 runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2
• 8 or more runners – 1/5 odds a place 1-2-3
• Handicaps with 12-15 runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2-3
• Handicaps with 16 or more runners – 1/4 odds a place 1-2-3-4I don’t think this entirely clears it up. I would take this to imply that ante post will normally be settled on the number of runners at the time the bet was struck.This is how it normally works.
However, it looks like bookies are within their rights anyway because the "unless clearly displayed otherwise" clause allows them to do what they like. In addition the ante post rules aren’t prescribed.
Fair points. My own bet was through Oddschecker, which, as you probably know, takes you straight to your betting slip, bypassing the race and its EW terms. The betting slip simply reads ‘EW’. I took a screenshot of it. Screenshots of the others where you follow the same procedure through Oddschecker, show betting slips with ‘EW 1,2 1/4 odds’ on it. So, if PB is third, I’d expect payment.
I wouldn’t see ante-post terms not being clearly defined as a bad thing.
The terms on the day are what they are and I would compare it to statutory rights in that it’s the bear minimum you are guaranteed.
If, in an extreme example, the Lincoln Handicap were to cut up into a hypothetical 7 runner race on the day, you couldn’t expect to get away with panning ante-post punters off with first and second places only for each-way, when there might have been 80 horses in the betting when the bet was placed.
It
should
be a case of what terms were offered when the bet was placed and these will apply, regardless of how many horses actually run.
It’s an old chestnut that bookies don’t have to accept any bet but if the bet is on and terms were not clearly stated, I would think the punter would stand a good chance of winning a challenge on the grounds that there were eight horses in the race when the bet was placed and normal terms for the bookmakers would make that each-way 1/5 odds, 1-2-3
Obviously bookmakers could claim that they were only going 1-2, for whatever reason, but if it’s not on the betting slip or receipt provided they would be on a hiding to nothing when any punter can point to the rules and show the terms that exist for a race with the number of runners listed when the bet was placed.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I don’t understand how Purple Bay is a knocking each-way bet given that
Sea Lord
is the best horse in the Ferguson yard. John Ferguson absolutely adores this horse, who looked like a natural hurdler until uncomfortable on the undulations at Cheltenham and a little below par at Aintree. With the yard flying so high, he’s the forgotten horse here. He won’t be 25/1 when Quinlan stays on Purple Bay and a senior jock is penned in for Sea Lord.
I think Irving probably needs a little further and Purple Bay’s Elite Hurdle win should definitely not be taken literally. That leaves Sign Of A Victory, who isn’t a guaranteed runner, Willie Mullins must have 6 or 7 better than Arctic Fire at home and Aurore D’Estruval is some way short of the best geldings.
My cheeky 50p goes to Sea Lord.
I don’t understand how Purple Bay is a knocking each-way bet given that Sea Lord
is the best horse in the Ferguson yard. John Ferguson absolutely adores this horse, who looked like a natural hurdler until uncomfortable on the undulations at Cheltenham and a little below par at Aintree. With the yard flying so high, he’s the forgotten horse here. He won’t be 25/1 when Quinlan stays on Purple Bay and a senior jock is penned in for Sea Lord.
I think Irving probably needs a little further and Purple Bay’s Elite Hurdle win should definitely not be taken literally. That leaves Sign Of A Victory, who isn’t a guaranteed runner, Willie Mullins must have 6 or 7 better than Arctic Fire at home and Aurore D’Estruval is some way short of the best geldings.
My cheeky 50p goes to Sea Lord.
Sea Lord may be the trainer’s favourite but the handicapper has Sea Lord on 148 and Purple Bay on 161. Sea Lord was dropped 2lb for finishing 6th to Lac Fontana, beaten 23 lengths, in April, and that horse was brushed aside with ease by Faugheen last week. It’s hard for me to see Sea see his way to winning this. (Thats a lot of c’s)
Obviously the Elite Hurdle form might be dangerous to take seriously with Irving falling and Nicholls’ horse must be better than his current mark of 149. However, with Irving favourite here and looking at where the horses were when he fell last time, you would think Purple Bay shouldn’t be far behind, at worst, if he runs to the same level. Purple Bay is 8/1 with Bet Victor but only 4/1 with William Hills and the former price looks big all things considered.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
From my blog on Nov 14
When I tweeted this advice earlier in the week, I got one response: "you’re drunk".
Many reading this might share that sentiment because Purple Bay’s profile is far removed from that of a typical champion hurdler these days. Musselburgh, Stratford, and Taunton have been his stamping grounds rather than Cheltenham, Sandown and Newbury.
He’s not trained by Nicholls or Henderson, but by John Ferguson. The jock who’s had most success on him is a 7lb claimer. But the manner of his victory in the Elite Hurdle last Saturday bore the stamp of a fast-improving horse, for whom a solid plan has been laid out.
Irving’s last flight fall in the race seems to have diverted attention from Purple Bay’s performance. He was first to come under pressure when hitting a flat spot turning into the straight, but when he got back on the bridle, he came away from his pursuers with ease and won with some authority, ears pricked and it took Mikey Ennis a while to pull up.
That was his first run since finishing 7 of 20 in the Galway Hurdle, a race which came within 12 days of his easy Market Rasen victory. I suspect his runs will be a bit more spaced out from now. He has an entry in the Fighting Fifth on November 29th.
At this time last year, Purple Bay had an official rating of 130. It’s now 161. The current champion hurdler Jezki is rated 169. At the front of the festival market are Jezki, Faugheen and The New One, a horse I’ve always liked but one I now believe is just lacking that killer touch.
I’m not saying Purple Bay will win the Champion, but 50s is way too big in my opinion. The experts believe the horse has quirks; other than the habit of hitting a flat spot, (and he seems to run around a bit approaching some flights) I’ve seen nothing to worry me enough not to back him at that price. He’s just 5 and will still be learning. He wouldn’t want to hit that flat spot at a critical stage in a Champion Hurdle, but the hill should be a significant advantage to his racing style.
If he turns up at Newcastle, we’ll learn an awful lot more about him. For now, I’m content to take the chance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.