- This topic has 31 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Should be declared a non-runner. The horse refused to race, never went past the starting line so punters should have their money back.
Please can we have this rule changed ?
I backed The Minack so have no financial interest in that incident
The start, like the finish is part of the race. If a horse is to be treated as a non runner, the jockey should dismount and lead it off the track, not line up and start to ride a race when the tapes go up.
Think Golan Way knew what was in store for him, thought they might have put him back over hurdles this year after his jumping over fences last season.
Golan Way is a good enough jumper of fences
IF
he can dominate. Hates being crowded and can sulk in amongst horses. Once he’s out on his own in front is genuine. Surprised to see his jockey walking him around with others at the start. Third to Quito De La Roque at Aintree isn’t bad chase form.
There were lots of possible pace horses in the Badger today, so very doubtful Golan Way would get his own way.
Agree Yeats, the start is part of the race. Had I backed The Minack I would not want any rule 4 deduction.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
There was a time when the Golan Ways of this world would have definitely been deemed non-runners – the only difference now is it affects the levy, and thereby racing’s income.
The rules are meant to promote equity – for the punter whose horse never started, there is none.It doesn’t happen often enough to make a difference to the levy Reet.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Expert on that as well, are you, Ginger?
Come off it Reet.
You gave an opinion.
I gave an opinion.
That’s what this place is all about.Value Is EverythingAs it is a Rule 4 deduction then it is one set of punters subsidising anbother set.
Whether you feel that is morally better or not may depend
on which of the two you backed but given that some would
not know and hence not collect refunded stakes on Golan
yet all who backed Minack would have the deduction then it
actually counts against the punter to refund.As levy is based on bookmaker profits not turnover then surely
levy neutral as refunds to Golasn Way backers come from those of
The Minack.There are too many questionable starts in jump races without these non non-runners.
My bugbears are when the field is strung out by a ridiculous amount or where a runner is allowed to get a flyer.
Although I saw a new one this afternoon – the Sandown 15:00 – when half the field were still in the collecting ring when the starter released the tapes.
- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
I give a considered opinion, usually confined to subjects I have some understanding of.
You toe the party line, and build your opinion around it.Ginger
I give a considered opinion, usually confined to subjects I have some understanding of.
You toe the party line, and build your opinion around it."Usually confined to subjects (you) have some understanding of".
No Reet,
Some people are against Authority every time.
I listen and form an opinion for or against.
I’d like to see Summer Jumping banned, how is that "toeing the line"?Stick to the thread please Reet.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
As it is a Rule 4 deduction then it is one set of punters subsidising anbother set.
Whether you feel that is morally better or not may depend
on which of the two you backed but given that some would
not know and hence not collect refunded stakes on Golan
yet all who backed Minack would have the deduction then it
actually counts against the punter to refund.As levy is based on bookmaker profits not turnover then surely
levy neutral as refunds to Golasn Way backers come from those of
The Minack.Doesn’t work like that though Richard, as the bookies hang on to a percentage of everything they take.
If that sum is (say) 10%, then on a high profile race like today’s, a R4 of 10p in the £ would have meant them taking (say) £200k (10% of £2m – sp 8/1 – allowing for overround) less on the race nationally, of which £20k, annualised, would amount to a not inconsiderable drop in profit for them, and consequently, the levy.OK lets take yesterdays example at Wincanton.
Market Overrounds are as follows :
The Minack 26.67
Gone To Lunch 14.29
Golan Way 11.11
The Rainbow Hunter 10.52
Benbane Head 10
Meanus Dandy 9.09
Richards Sundance 7.69
Madison Du Berlais 7.69
Alderluck 6.67
Checkerboard 6.67
Hello Bud 4.76
Quilinton 1.49
Dovers Hill 3.85
——
120.5So bookmaker would take £26,667 on The Minack at 11-4 and pay out £100,000 making overall profit on the race of
£20,500
if they all ran.
If Golan Way was a non runner then refund of bets from the turnover of £120,500 would be £11,111. Payout on The Minack would be reduced by the 10p in £1 Rule 4 to the profit element of the win bets (26,670 x 11-4 x 10%) £7,334,25 so becomes £92,665,75.
Therefore total payouts to punters are now £92,665.75 + £11,111 = £103,776.75 making new profit on the race by declaring Golan Way a non runner (£120,000 – £103,776.75)£16,223.55
Therefore reduction in bookmaker profit of
£3.776.45
and hence as levy based on bookmaker profit a fall in the levy.
Where am I wrong ?
Although I saw a new one this afternoon – the Sandown 15:00 – when half the field were still in the collecting ring when the starter released the tapes.
I noticed that too, can you imagine the furore if one at the back had jinked and dislodged its jockey off the track, presumably as the starter had started the race it would/should be declared a runner.
I notice on the BHA website stewards enquiries and fines at Sandown regards passport irregularities for Gary Moore and changing equipment after weighing out for Victor Dartnell but nothing about the starter being punished for starting a race with half the field off the track. What a surprise!
- Total Posts 17716
OK lets take yesterdays example at Wincanton.
Market Overrounds are as follows :
The Minack 26.67
Gone To Lunch 14.29
Golan Way 11.11
The Rainbow Hunter 10.52
Benbane Head 10
Meanus Dandy 9.09
Richards Sundance 7.69
Madison Du Berlais 7.69
Alderluck 6.67
Checkerboard 6.67
Hello Bud 4.76
Quilinton 1.49
Dovers Hill 3.85
——
120.5So bookmaker would take £26,667 on The Minack at 11-4 and pay out £100,000 making overall profit on the race of
£20,500
if they all ran.
If Golan Way was a non runner then refund of bets from the turnover of £120,500 would be £11,111. Payout on The Minack would be reduced by the 10p in £1 Rule 4 to the profit element of the win bets (26,670 x 11-4 x 10%) £7,334,25 so becomes £92,665,75.
Therefore total payouts to punters are now £92,665.75 + £11,111 = £103,776.75 making new profit on the race by declaring Golan Way a non runner (£120,000 – £103,776.75)£16,223.55
Therefore reduction in bookmaker profit of
£3.776.45
and hence as levy based on bookmaker profit a fall in the levy.
Where am I wrong ?
Richard
I estimated total turnover on the race at £2m, you’ve commuted it to £200k. Neither of us know for certain, but – as the 2nd most valuable race on a Saturday – I’d suggest my figure is closer to the mark.
With that assumption granted, bookmakers would be dropping £37k profit on the race – which, annualised, comes to a tidy sum.I backed the Minack so I’m not prejudice
No way should they have got their money back and I get less.
It’s mine and I’m keeping it.
Apart from that the horse was given ample opportunity to start and therefore the blame lies firmly with the jockey and the horse himself.
It’s like this: If Jimmy Tarbuck OBE was playing tennis and took a wild swing, sending the ball flying toward Golan Way and it hit him square between the eyes you might get your money back because it would be an extraordinary set of circumstances, especially as Jummy play golf not tennis
If a horse decides he’s not having any you get diddly squat back.
Rules are fine as they are get used to them
I haven’t estimated turnover to be anything just used percentages and hypothetical book complying with overround for simplicity.
Same Maths apply to all levels of turnover with the resultant fall in profit.Just multiply it through to whatever you feel turnover to be.
As you think it is higher then resultant £ loss will also be even higher and hence so would reduction in levy by deeming to be a non runner. As you say could argue as much as £4k levy impact.
Therefore as it is just one punter paying another what is the point of reducing levy just for those who were clever enough to back the winner to reimburse others ?
Much is made of the PR angle of this but can be a high cost to pay in current financial climate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.