Non-runner

[davidbrady]

Yes Chloed, but is the deduction at the same percentage as would be applied to the Win part?
E.G., say Rule4 dictates a 40 pence-in-the-pound deduction for a particular non-runner — then does the Place element of an E/W bet suffer that 40% deduction also (or is it less for the Place)?

The place element is settled based on the new rule-4 adjusted win price so, assuming that place terms have not been altered by the non-runner, then the 40% reduction effectively applies to the place element as well.

So a 10/1 each-way winner (1/5 odds) would give a profit of 12pts (10 for the win and 2 for the place)

A 40% Rule4 would result in an adjusted price of 6/1 which would then give a profit of 7.20pts (6 for the win and 1.2pts for the place)

Obviously if the non-runner results in a reduction of the number of runners from say 8 to 7 then the place terms would be changed from 1/5 the odds to 1/4 the new odds but only 2 places will be paid out as opposed to the original 3 (Glenn LOVES this rule!)

[hoofhearted]

Cheers David, ………….. thank you for that.

Such being the case ( as you have outlined it), then, my reaction would be that the Place backer is quite harshly treated — even more so than the Win only backer in such a scenario.
Not only is the Place element subject to an equivalent Rule4 percentage as the Win part, but the deduction is applied to a much smaller odds/price. And to compound injury, to think that the same deduction is applied AS WELL even when the number of runners isreduced from 8 to 7 is off-putting. The bettor has already seen the chance of his selection being placed from a strictly numerical chance of 37% ( 3 places from eight runners) to 28% ( 2 from 7) …………. and on top of that has to tolerate the same deduction as the Win backer.

This is patently unfair, surely.

[rory]

This is patently unfair, surely.

It’s not at all unfair; it is, however, occasionally unfortunate. The fact that the place price is shorter than the win price doesn’t mean that a similar deduction in terms of percentage is harsher ~ it’s exactly comparable. The only occasion where the each-way backer is punished is when the place terms change. That’s only the bookmaker’s fault if you happen to be a non-runner conspiracy theorist.

[% MAN]

That’s only the bookmaker’s fault if you happen to be a non-runner conspiracy theorist.

Cue Glenn

[Author]

Posts