- This topic has 31 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
These shenanigans are becoming the bane of many punters lives, with scores of races being randomly decimated for no apparent reason and on a regular basis. It’s bad for racing, bad for courses and bad for the paying public.
However, owners and trainers are merely exploiting the laxity of the existing laws.
I would propose that once final declarations have been made, the only reasons a horse may be withdrawn are:
1) Due to a sudden going change of two or more stages (e.g. from Good to Soft, Good to Firm, but not from Good to Gd/Firm, Gd/Soft to Good etc) from the time of declaration to the time of the race.
2) Obviously, that the horse is unwell or not properly fit to race. This to be confirmed either by the racecourse vet or by an independent vet if the horse is yet to travel to the course.
3) Any other random situation that can reasonably given credence e.g. the late arrival of a runner, lack of a suitable jockey etc caused by (for example) severe traffic problems. This to be enquired into by the local stewards.
Outside of this, the removal of any runner from a race would instigate an immediate 12-month racing ban on that horse.
Mike
These shenanigans are becoming the bane of many punters lives, with scores of races being randomly decimated for no apparent reason and on a regular basis. It’s bad for racing, bad for courses and bad for the paying public.
However, owners and trainers are merely exploiting the laxity of the existing laws.
I would propose that once final declarations have been made, the only reasons a horse may be withdrawn are:
1) Due to a sudden going change of two or more stages (e.g. from Good to Soft, Good to Firm, but not from Good to Gd/Firm, Gd/Soft to Good etc) from the time of declaration to the time of the race.
I would be all for this but we know it isn’t going to happen because the interests of punters is pretty bottom of the pile. It is just much too easy to pull horses out. As I speak the Exeter card is being decimated. Three of the first four in the market (probably more to come) have now been taken out of the bumper leaving a massive Rule 4 for anyone like myself who played early. What were these trainers actually expecting given a relatively dry forecast?
Were there actually that many more injuries when horses used to run on hard ground? Back in the 70’s many very good horses didn’t cry off when the going was firm. Good to firm might have been considered a luxury back in those days. Or is just a case that we are breeding a weaker and weaker animal?
The standard dose of widedrawitis seems to have affected runners at Chester this week. Of 15 non-runners in fields of 10 or more only one of them was drawn less than 9. Amazing how a variety of problems and ailments don’t seem to affect those drawn closer to the rail.
Wholesale withdrawals again on Friday despite the generally settled weather but what are Nick Rust & the BHA going to do about it?
Any advance on sweet FA?
As well as usual vets, self certs and ground we had doubly declared, transport and even an “other” whatever that is.
In the case of Oriental Fox he was withdrawn from Chester due to unsuitable ground despite it quickening from when he was declared, only to run the day after at Ascot on even faster ground. If that’s not an abuse then what is?
To be fair to Mark Johnston though he has previously said the system is seriously flawed and he will use it for his own ends like nearly everyone else and who can blame him?The silence from the BHA is deafening on the subject, maybe they’re just happy collecting the multiple entry fees.
All records must have been broken at Aintree tonight surely something MUST be done about this situation next there will wailing people losing interest in racing hardly surprising trainers are just withdrawing horses will nilly
And while I’m at it, what about all these late non runners??? I wouldn’t be 100 per cent on this, but were there drastic changes to the going at either Aintree or Hamilton between this morning and this evening? It looked sunny enough at both venues during racing.
Why are connections allowed to declare non runners so close to the off time, particularly when the weather looks stable??
Do these connections go to the expense of taking the horse for a drive to the racecourse and back, or just phone in after the creature’s had its tea, snoozing in its box?
Very frustrating when your punting (and paying levy) off a tissue and you get these late price swings and reduction factors.
Examples this evening…
Hamilton Park / Fri 13 May Non-Runners
6:15pm – Lopes Dancer (IRE)
Declared: Fri 13 May 5:20pm
Reason: Going
6:15pm – Sophie P (GB)
Declared: Fri 13 May 4:46pm
Reason: Going
Hamilton Park / Fri 13 May Non-Runners
6:15pm – Lopes Dancer (IRE)
Declared: Fri 13 May 5:20pm
Reason: Going
6:15pm – Sophie P (GB)
Declared: Fri 13 May 4:46pm
Reason: Goingetc.
Here we go again Worcester devastated 13 runner race going to 5. Plenty on the flat as well and if you look at Oddschecker they give the withdrawal times any many of these are after 13.00 hours a touch late to be pleading going changes and sudden disability
A non runner on the all weather the other day had the reason down as the going, despite it being standard. Nothing of course to do with the trainer having 2 runners in the race. Not that I would blame the trainer at all.
The BHA couldn’t care less.
Has there ever been an excuse “going report was fiction”?
If not, should be.
Would stewards accept that excuse?Am sure sometimes when connections pull out of a race because of the “going” it is because they disagree with the Clerk’s going report; yet think they’d get in to trouble if 100% truthful. Or maybe they do explain and we do not get to hear the full story because it’s thought controversial? ie we only hear one word, “going”. Then, when running again on officially the “same” going… it does not look good, where as in fact it might e totally different going.
Timeform going assessments can be quite a bit different to the official.
Punters need to realise that just because the official going was the same as when the horse was taken out, doesn’t mean the going was actually the same.
Value Is EverythingI know it would be difficult to administer but really there should be an option to cancel a bet if a non runner is declared after you place it
I mean of course a non runner that isn’t your selection
A non runner can drastically alter the shape of the race in ‘place’ terms for EW punts but also the way the race might be run if for example a front runner pulls out. You might argue that this is now a different event to the one that you placed a bet in and you should have the option to cancel the bet
Also a non runner might cause your selection to collapse in price with a huge rule 4 to the extant that you wouldn’t have backed it at all at those odds.
I suffered a bit today by backing the favourite in a 3 runner race at 11/10…….the second favourite pulled out and I was left with a massive odds on shot that I would never have backed in a race which was now a different event
Damn thing lost anyway but that’s not the point. I would never have backed it at odds on
I know it would be difficult to administer but really there should be an option to cancel a bet if a non runner is declared after you place it
I mean of course a non runner that isn’t your selection
A non runner can drastically alter the shape of the race in ‘place’ terms for EW punts but also the way the race might be run if for example a front runner pulls out. You might argue that this is now a different event to the one that you placed a bet in and you should have the option to cancel the bet
Also a non runner might cause your selection to collapse in price with a huge rule 4 to the extant that you wouldn’t have backed it at all at those odds.
I suffered a bit today by backing the favourite in a 3 runner race at 11/10…….the second favourite pulled out and I was left with a massive odds on shot that I would never have backed in a race which was now a different event
Damn thing lost anyway but that’s not the point. I would never have backed it at odds on
I think we’ve all done that before SA, and it can be frustrating. But we do know all of those things are possible when striking the bet…
…And tbh you were betting on firm ground so non-runners are even more likely.I agree that a non-runner can alter the shape of a race, but we’ve just got to accept it. Bookmakers made the odds for a certain set of circumstances which may have changed too. Could be to the detriment of bookmakers and to the advantage of punters.
If thinking a horse probably won’t go on the ground I’ll also consider how it’ll affect the race if coming out. Sometimes there are two front runners in the field and only one is likely to run. GET ON the likely runner before the other one comes out!
Or… Make a note of it and act if (as soon as) the non-runner is declared. When there’s a non-runner, in my experience quite a lot of bookmakers/exchange markets tend to reduce odds relative to their original market. ie They should look at the type of horse that’s come out and if it’s going to affect pace. Front runners can be advantaged and stamina horses (at the trip) disadvantaged.Punters willing to put a little work in can take advantage of non-runners.
“option to cancel a bet if a non runner is declared after you place it”… NO!
If we have an option then bookmakers must also have an option… and we don’t want that.Value Is EverythingLets say there’s a reasonably big field.
If three 20/1 shots all come out, if the bookies have prices accurate to their chance then (taking away the bookies mark up) we’re roughly talking about three 4% chances. 4 X 3 = 12.So the three non-runners take out around 12% of the book…
And yet because of Rule 4, if you had a bet in the morning at Early Prices bookmakers can’t reduce payouts at all.Non-runner rules often work in the punter’s favour.
Value Is EverythingLets say there’s a reasonably big field.
If three 20/1 shots all come out, if the bookies have prices accurate to their chance then (taking away the bookies mark up) we’re roughly talking about three 4% chances. 4 X 3 = 12.So the three non-runners take out around 12% of the book…
And yet because of Rule 4, if you had a bet in the morning at Early Prices bookmakers can’t reduce payouts at all.Non-runner rules often work in the punter’s favour.
Why give an example that rarely if ever happens?
In fact rule 4 often works against punters because horses withdrawn to change in ground etc will obviously be underpriced in the early prices market, it stands to reason. Punters who have done their homework are often scuppered by this, while of course they have probably got a better price in the first place for their horse it is often more than negated by bigger than justified deductions for the withdrawn horses.
Gingertipster some months ago you stated that it was fairly easy for punters to predict most non runners on most days in advance but when given the opportunity then failed to give an example, no surprise there.
So any chance of you backing up your claim and letting us all know in advance, today’s or tomorrows non runners before they happen?
Gingertipster some months ago you stated that it was fairly easy for punters to predict most non runners on most days in advance but when given the opportunity then failed to give an example, no surprise there.
So any chance of you backing up your claim and letting us all know in advance, today’s or tomorrows non runners before they happen?Not for the first time Yeats, you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said.
Non-runners can make it difficult, but it is usually fairly easy to predict a lot of probable non-runners. So if a punter can predict the make up of a race he can profit.
“Fairly easy to predict a lot of probable non-runners”.
A) “a lot” – definition: a large number or amount.
100 out of 300 is still a large amount (a lot) without being “most” (more than 50%).B) Identifying “probable non runners” means those which are difficult or impossible to predict don’t come in to my statement atall. ie Non-runners who have not run on the ground before are difficult or impossile to predict and therefore NOT “probable non runners” when assessing them.
C) “Predicting a lot of probable non runners” does not mean the same as predicting definite non-runners. ie A horse may have run badly five times on the ground and been a non-runner three occasions on the ground – yet connections decide this time to run. Despite it actually running, I was correct in identify it as a “probable non-runner” because more often than not I’d be right… It’s all about acting on probabilities.
The reason why I am looking at “probable non runners” and not definite non-runners, is you can never be sure. Even at the post when knowing the starters we can never be absolutely sure what horse will go on. Another horse could do something it’s never done before.
If there are two horses that need to lead in the race and one is a “probable non-runner”, then that means the other one has a better chance of winning – Because I am considering the probability of pace being advantageous to a horse by using all information at my disposal. If there’s a probability of the front running rival coming out then (even before the declaration) its chance is considerably enhanced.
eg If there are two runners in the race where both need to lead then (allowing for everything else) I might make one a 10% chance (fair 9/1) and 7/1 odds are available – NO bet… And the other a 3% chance (fair 33/1) available @ 20/1 – NO bet. However, if the 20/1 shot is a probable non-runner then (even before it’s actually declared) I might make the other one an 18% chance (fair 9/2) so 7/1 is a GOOD bet. If I wait until the other horse comes out (a definite non-runner) it’s likely other good judges will have identified the value, taken it and the odds have shortened – I’ve missed the price.
If you’ve got a good form book it’s fairly easy to identify those with poor records on the ground. Therefore, put yourself in the position of connections and ask yourself would you run it given conditions and forecast? Predict “probable non-runners”.
Hope that’s cleared things up Yeats.
Value Is Everything
Or… Make a note of it and act if (as soon as) the non-runner is declared. When there’s a non-runner, in my experience quite a lot of bookmakers/exchange markets tend to reduce odds relative to their original market. ie They should look at the type of horse that’s come out and if it’s going to affect pace. Front runners can be advantaged and stamina horses (at the trip) disadvantaged.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.