- This topic has 135 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Clivex<br>A bent top class race can occur especially when just a few runners are involved. <br>But lets face it. Owners and trainers further down the scale, struggling with paying their bills, find it very tempting to rely on the gambling side of the industry to fund their activities.
- Total Posts 17716
To paraphrase President Truman:<br>"If you can’t stand the heat, wtf are you doing in the kitchen in the first place?"
Quote: from dave jay on 10:10 pm on Mar. 29, 2007[br]I voted for 4 myself, because we all know that races are run over the incorrect distances everyday.<br>
Dave
I think you are confusing incompetence with dishonesty!
Rob
Empty
Why don’t you give us a list of today’s bent runners and races so we may analyse them.  Or tomorrow’s.
You’ll have plenty to choose from as such skulduggery apparently occurs ‘on a daily basis at least’.
Mike
<br>
Why don’t you give me answers to my question instead of replying with another question?
<br>Because the burden of ‘proof’ has to be with you.  How can I prove racing is what it says it is?  Answering your question is impossible other than me saying I believe racing is generally pretty straight.
You can easily prove that the game is bent by telling us about yesterday’s or today’s fixed races or ‘bent’ runners.  Option 4 insists that there are clearly plenty to choose from…
"Because the burden of ‘proof’ has to be with you"
<br>No it don’t, the burden of proof would lie with me if i accused someone directly of cheating, being corrupt or whatever
Thinking they are corrupt, i don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else
It’s silly to expect someone to risk libelling themselves by posting an accusation against particular connections in relation to a named race on this site and everyone knows that. Allegations should be passed to the HRA.<br>Suffice to say that we could list many of the "operators" of the game (or "shrewdies" to their sycophantic admirers). What damages the image of racing is that the presence of one of such connections’s horses in a race makes potential punters avoid it in totality.<br>Likewise it is silly to nominate a particular race in advance as potentially "fixed" but in many races with the benefit of hindsight you will see suspected non triers, horses not put in the race, slow breaks and failures to get a run etc.<br>As a generalisation this is less likely to occur in top class races but a common occurrence in maidens, novice hurdles and h’caps. <br>Some information is in the public domain e.g. some stables’s juveniles improve for the run whilst others’s h’cappers improve for a step up in trip but there is a pretty clear distinction between this and unacceptable cheating/ corruption.
Quote: from empty wallet on 11:12 am on Mar. 30, 2007[br]"Because the burden of ‘proof’ has to be with you"
<br>No it don’t, the burden of proof would lie with me if i accused someone directly of cheating, being corrupt or whatever
Thinking they are corrupt, i don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else
EW
But then by their very nature such thoughts remain a nebulous concept.
Rob
Quote: from robnorth on 11:45 am on Mar. 30, 2007[br][
EW
But then by their very nature such thoughts remain a nebulous concept.
Rob
Had to look up the meaning of nebulous
<br>Couldn’t the same be said of peoples idea that racing is on the whole straight too
Empty<br>
No it don’t, the burden of proof would lie with me if i accused someone directly of cheating, being corrupt or whatever
Thinking they are corrupt, i don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else
How can we possibly debate this then?
I cannot prove that racing is straight, whereas you clearly can prove it is bent as the recent corruption enquiries regarding races in 2003/4 show.
If you are unwilling/unable to give out your evidence that racing is bent ‘on a daily basis at least’ then it seems your argument is something like:
"I think racing is bent"<br>"Really? What evidence do you have?"<br>"Oh, none. I just think it."
Tricky for me to argue with really!
Mike
I’m not debating nothing, i’m not arguing nothing, it is you who are asking me to prove what i think
I think it, i don’t have to prove it
<br>Direct accusations, charges need proof, not thoughts
<br>(Edited by empty wallet at 12:39 pm on Mar. 30, 2007)<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 12:43 pm on Mar. 30, 2007)
I wont name the race yesterday a obvious fav is easy to back on course according to ATR i didn’t follow events that closely as the earlier leg of my short priced double had lost. The usual pre race excuses are uttered and then it runs on my ratings its worst time ever for CD, slightly strange or not? i am not saying there was anything unsavoury going on, but it gets me wondering and so i would be a 4 too.
In other forms of gambling the expected loss over a period of time is a fixed percentage. Blackjack and roulette are the classic examples.
If you play 100,000 hands of Blackjack – without a counting strategy, you will lose approximately 5.75% of your bankroll. This is the house percentage. If you lose 50% of your bankroll, and you play basic strategy, then you are either incredibly unlucky or you’re running against a hot deck.
In horse racing, the expected percentages are variable season by season, sometimes day by day. It is difficult to argue one way or another using objective evidence, because there is no equivalent in Blackjack for the phrase "Horses Are Not Machines".
Dandan asked for an impressionistic, subjective, opinion. I answered Option 4 and so did Empty and others. Sorry if everyone thought that was a depressing conclusion. I was unaware I was sharing a forum with the Wise Monkeys.
Voting Option 4 doesn’t stop Empty betting and it doesnt make me cancel my memberships to Nottingham and Southwell. Sharp practice is just a part of it all – worldwide. Imo, of course.
Quote: from Maxilon 5 on 1:03 pm on Mar. 30, 2007[br] Sharp practice is just a part of it all – worldwide. Imo, of course.
It may be but is this acceptable?
It probably isn’t, UN.
I would go as far to say that the probability of sharp practice is higher wherever it is convenient, easy, legal and acceptable to take a fixed odds proposition on the outcome of a race. That would occur in systems with bookmakers and exchanges, rather than under a pari-mutuel mechanism.
For example, the percentage of favourites winning horse races in California is extremely high and consistent across time. Big pools and worthwhile prize money down the grades might be the reason.
I’m not debating nothing, i’m not arguing nothing, it is you who are asking me to prove what i think
I think it, i don’t have to prove it
Direct accusations, charges need proof, not thoughts
<br>Fair enough Empty, I just find it strange that people can believe in such wild things without the remotest evidence.
Maybe I’m just over-logical. No big deal.
Mike<br>
Quote: from Maxilon 5 on 2:22 pm on Mar. 30, 2007[br]For example, the percentage of favourites winning horse races in California is extremely high and consistent across time. Big pools and worthwhile prize money down the grades might be the reason.<br>
<br>….and the fact that the races are all run on one mile oval left-handed dirt tracks?
Rob
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from Maxilon 5 on 2:22 pm on Mar. 30, 2007[br]It probably isn’t, UN. ÂÂÂ
I would go as far to say that the probability of sharp practice is higher wherever it is convenient, easy, legal and acceptable to take a fixed odds proposition on the outcome of a race. That would occur in systems with bookmakers and exchanges, rather than under a pari-mutuel mechanism.
For example, the percentage of favourites winning horse races in California is extremely high and consistent across time. Big pools and worthwhile prize money down the grades might be the reason.<br>
….and how many underground hypodermic darts have they found in the UK?:o ÂÂÂ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.