- This topic has 9 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Too many of these instances of horses being backed into favouritism from fair to large prices now.
Johnny Levins is the latest trainer to have been pinpointed with his runners at Dundalk mainly now short in the betting.
Just like Tim Vaughan a few weeks ago, he has come out and expressed his confusion at the situation and that people are on “cloud cuckoo land” if they think he’ll come out with winners across the board.
I understand that bookies will try and reel punters in now and again with these tactics but it’s all becoming a bit too frequent and too obvious for my liking.
Thoughts on this?
My thoughts are that any bookmaker going with his books over 125% should be banned from taking bets for at least a year. It’s an complete insult to go 6/4 about a 20/1 or 25/1 shot and leave the other runners original prices (put up prior to the gamble) unchanged.
it is a tottal disgrace. and doing it more and more. nothing seems to go out in the betting nowadays
His first runner finished 3rd at 6/4 and was beaten 7 lengths in a claimer. The first three home returned 2/1, 15/8 and 6/4. Even in a 3 runners race the prices were and insult.
I’ve mentioned before a solution to over-round abuse.
SPs should be corrected to reflect the number of runners to produce a standard over-round dependent on the number of runners. If I bet on a fruit machine there is a standard % payout (from memory this needs to be displayed, maybe I’m wrong on that). If I bet at SP I’ve no idea when I place the bet what % that market will payout. Correct the sps to a standard % over-round per runner then that problem goes away.
Simple.
The first three home returned 2/1, 15/8 and 6/4. Even in a 3 runners race the prices were and insult.
What an absolute mockery of the system, the people in the bookies’ offices must be rubbing their hands and laughing to themselves how easy it is for them to run their corrupt business’ all in plain view while no one does anything about it.
Sickening and pathetic that these sorts of companies are allowed to get away with daylight robbery, yet if I robbed a bit of munch from Sainsburys I’d probably get put in prison!
One rule for them, another set of rules for us commoners.
I’ve mentioned before a solution to over-round abuse.
SPs should be corrected to reflect the number of runners to produce a standard over-round dependent on the number of runners. If I bet on a fruit machine there is a standard % payout (from memory this needs to be displayed, maybe I’m wrong on that). If I bet at SP I’ve no idea when I place the bet what % that market will payout. Correct the sps to a standard % over-round per runner then that problem goes away.
Simple.
Although that sounds perfectly fair, the licensed thieves would fight tooth and nail for it not too happen.
It would allow them no leeway to fleece and cheat the betting public on that particular issue, something that frequently occurs.I’ve mentioned before a solution to over-round abuse.
SPs should be corrected to reflect the number of runners to produce a standard over-round dependent on the number of runners. If I bet on a fruit machine there is a standard % payout (from memory this needs to be displayed, maybe I’m wrong on that). If I bet at SP I’ve no idea when I place the bet what % that market will payout. Correct the sps to a standard % over-round per runner then that problem goes away.
Simple.
Not so simple.
Firstly, it is important to realise there are some fair reasons for larger over-rounds:
Maidens, Claimers and any other races where it’s difficult to work out the chances of horses obviously need larger over-rounds.Any race where there’s been a gamble in a lesser quality race is going to have a higher over-round, because… Difference between performance ratings of what the horse may be capable of – is much wider than it would normally be. ie The individual over-round of a gamble horse will naturally be bigger than other horses and in particular far bigger than say a consistent, thoroughly exposed rival. Therefore, it is not exactly true that just because one horse significantly shortens does not mean the others should lengthen to the original overall over-round figure. Over-rounds grow further if there’s more than one gamble in a race – for the same reason.
Then there’s the fact that in a lesser quality race the percentage of book taken out by a gamble (or even potential gamble) is far greater, because the overall money staked on the whole field is a lot smaller – which makes bookmakers more circumspect. This is made even worse if it’s at a meeting with a very poor punter and/or on-course bookmaker turnout. What is a Dundalk poor quality evening meeting like? If not many punters turn out at a meeting then on-course bookmakers need a greater over-round to make enough money… And the fewer number of bookies that turn up the less competition and the higher over-round they can get away with.
However, I agree David. An over-round maximum based on number of runners could and should be introduced to protect SP punters from extortionate over-rounds… As long as that “over-round maximum” takes account of the above.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.