- This topic has 33 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
"There are so many horses being backed Gary, why is that?"
Not satisfied with a 100-1 skinner last year Glenn’s "trilaterals" cynically shortened up a dozen horses late on resulting in a returned SP percentage of 155%.
Then they have the front to claim that they lost heavily on the race. If they did they are bigger muppets than us poor punters: can anyone explain why a firm facing a million liability wouldn’t hedge back into Betfair where the winner (like everything else) would have been trading significantly bigger than the returned SP?Carv,
Agree with you. Bookies were a disgrace, allowed to get away with it by BBC. I was shouting at the TV when Wiltshire and Parrott were saying about that. Though to be fair have heard C4 say similar stuff on their racing.
Do think McCrirrick talks twaddle about how good bookies are when paying 5 places. I had a bet with Stan James who were paying "enhanced" win only prices. Without 5 places bookies could afford to work to a lower over-round.
Even saw McCrirrick say how bad the 155% was on ATR. If he was to explain the Table Of Odds And Chances and how important it was, to the saturday punter; people would not take these crazy prices.
Am afraid bookies at Aintree rarely get the opportunity to take good money from an ignorant public. They took them for a ride.
Value Is EverythingWe have come a long way from the 1991 Derby to the 2010 Grand National which was actually underround
13 ran TIME 2m 34.00s Total SP 114%
1st OWNER: H R H Prince Fahd Salman BRED: Barronstown Stud TRAINER: P F I Cole
2nd OWNER: Hamdan Al Maktoum
3rd OWNER: Henryk De Kwiatkowski
I agree, horses shortening by half there last odds all down the field and no way reflecting there odds, wagers and chances. It was an unmitigated disaster and the top four should be ashamed of themselves for there cowardice.
Once a year punters wont be back after seeing a horse jump boldly over 8ft ditches for 4 and a half miles like Black Appalachi did and be rewarded with a quarter or fifth of 14/1
I walked into Ladbrokes an hour before the off and it was like a normal Saturday with nobody waiting to to bet, despite this I was pounced on to fill in a quickslip bet by the National assistant. I refused but the fella says it will help us if you used the quickslip. I looked at the counter and back at him and answered perhaps it might help you further if I go down the road to Hills.
All part of the plan to stop you thinking and reducing the risk to themselves if everybody and anybody had picked the winner. I honestly think that the media are not exactly in the pay of the bookies but the BHA encourage cross the field promotion of horses with little chance to win to spread the betting evenly and build up favourites with little chance.
Even saw McCrirrick say how bad the 155% was on ATR. If he was to explain the Table Of Odds And Chances and how important it was, to the saturday punter; people would not take these crazy prices.
I beg to differ. If the matter were explained to most ‘Saturday punters’ it would go in one ear and out the other. That is why the bookmakers can get away with it.
Rob
I’m not sure how these things work so would I be mistaken in thinking that whereas with a bet on a normal betting slip, unless it’s an unusually large bet that the shop are obliged to phone through to Head Office, the information about the stake and horse remains in the shop whereas, with the quickslips, the computer reading these is able to instantly relay this data thus enabling the potential liabilities to be quickly expunged via the racecourse bookmakers? If so, should the public be discouraged from using quickslips in order to maintain the bigger SP’s?
Even saw McCrirrick say how bad the 155% was on ATR. If he was to explain the Table Of Odds And Chances and how important it was, to the saturday punter; people would not take these crazy prices.
I beg to differ. If the matter were explained to most ‘Saturday punters’ it would go in one ear and out the other. That is why the bookmakers can get away with it.
Rob
Never a truer word spoken. Some people struggle with the concept of odds let alone overrounds.
There are two rules of thumb for bookies at Aintree. AP, Ruby, and last year’s winner, lay them short for the muppets. Then shorten everything else in the 10 mins before the off.
To have the gaul to say they took a hiding after shortening the winner from 20s into 10s is ridiculous.Lots more rules of thumb on this years. The only woman on Character Building shorterned cos of once a year punters.
Why was Joe Livley shorterned right up? Lots of Uncle Joe’s and granddad Joe’s thats why. Its pathetic. Leave em in at the price they were backed at, its not improving there chances just the bookies liability.
If Joe wins at 80’s its made a few ladies weekend but the bookies cant have that. To say they lost ten million on the favourite winning is bollox, Only the favourite cos of mccoy riding it with one of your rules of thumb.
I dont understand completley how the overround works
but i know its something on the liability of losses against the odds and bets taken. Should run around 110% to give a small profit under any circumstances I guess like the Zero on a roullette wheel.Is that the gist of it?
The easiest way to work out the percentage of the book for each horse is as follows, for a 3/1 shot …
3/1, swap the numbers around then add 1 to the second figure = 1/4 = 25%
Do that with all the runners and you have the underround (<100%) / overround (>100%).You got the gist of it, the 10% belongs to them no matter which horse wins they win the 10%.
Lots more rules of thumb on this years. The only woman on Character Building shorterned cos of once a year punters.
Why was Joe Livley shorterned right up? Lots of Uncle Joe’s and granddad Joe’s thats why. Its pathetic. Leave em in at the price they were backed at, its not improving there chances just the bookies liability.
If Joe wins at 80’s its made a few ladies weekend but the bookies cant have that. To say they lost ten million on the favourite winning is bollox, Only the favourite cos of mccoy riding it with one of your rules of thumb.
I would expect that the likes of Character Building and Joe Lively would be shortened up because of the amount of money taken due to the very reasons you mention.
I would expect that the likes of Character Building and Joe Lively would be shortened up because of the amount of money taken due to the very reasons you mention.
Not mention the likes of Flintoff. Well, I say ‘the likes of Flintoff’, he’s the only one I can think of at the moment!
I disagree with the poster who said we’d be better off if the bookies didn’t 5 places each way. As somone who thinks each-way terms are something of a disgrace, I think they should pay five place more often.
Also lest we forget, Ladbrokes,Corals,Betfred & Hills were only paying four places & I’m willing to bet all the money in my pockets that they were more responsible for the massive over-rounds than anyone else.
I’ll admit to being one of those people who doesn’t fully understand over-rounds. I think that may be because if I’m happy with the odds on offer, I’ll always take a price.
I would expect that the likes of Character Building and Joe Lively would be shortened up because of the amount of money taken due to the very reasons you mention.
That’s all very well David, but how come in that situation nothing drifts in price?
I would image that most once a year punters were delighted with their 10/1 on the McCoy winner.
It is perfectly reasonably to question that if each of them was given a ‘Table of Odds’ before they walk into the bookies would they still place a bet – I don’t know – but you know once a year do these things don’t really matter.
What a load **** on here.
There are people up and down this country that backed the winner and are over the moon to have done so…..is it right the odds they were returned…no….but do they care?….no….let them enjoy their moment….
Even saw McCrirrick say how bad the 155% was on ATR. If he was to explain the Table Of Odds And Chances and how important it was, to the saturday punter; people would not take these crazy prices.
I beg to differ. If the matter were explained to most ‘Saturday punters’ it would go in one ear and out the other. That is why the bookmakers can get away with it.
Rob
Rob,
I think the reasons why saturday punters ignore "the table" are:
That it is not explained in plain english.
It is not explained by the right people. If any of us explained it, we would not believed. Where as if McCrirrick on C4, or Tom Segal in the Racing Post were to do so; AND EMPHASYSE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, then they might just take notice. No doubt not all will listen, but even if a third were to do so, I believe it would make an impact when bookmakers work to poor over-rounds.
It really depends on how it is explained and by who.
I don’t think Bruce Millington has done anything in the Racing Post yet, has he? Only a short piece on the website that few saw.
On our question and answers; he did say it was on his "to do list". How long is it going to take?
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.