The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Owner guilty of laying not penalised

Home Forums Horse Racing Owner guilty of laying not penalised

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12648
    rory
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2685

    From the Racing Post:

    "William Hinge placed lay bets on Spoof Master, of which he was joint owner, to lose two races in which the horse finished second last year, but lost money because he staked more substantial sums in bets on the horse to win.

    A disciplinary inquiry last week heard Hinge placed 27 lay bets on Spoof Master to lose a race at Southwell on February 7 last year on Betfair, with a liability of £3,004.70, for a potential profit of £597.

    He also placed nine bets on the horse to win, including £2,000 with Victor Chandler, £1,000 with Totesport and £3,000 with Eden Bookmakers, which resulted in a net loss of £5,657.80.

    When the horse ran again a week later at the same track he staked £19.20 for a potential profit of £6 on Spoof Master to loseand two bets on the horse to win, £800 with William Hill and £8,000 with Victor Chandler."

    Judging by the outraged comments on the Post website, it appears I’m alone in thinking this was an eminently sensible decision. "The law is an ass" is one of the least understood quotes of all time, but is very appropriate here.

    #248782
    Tuffers
    Member
    • Total Posts 1402

    I must admit that there have been occasions when I have backed one of our horses and then got cold feet nearer off time and would have liked to lay some back to reduce my exposure. I have studiously avoided doing so but I agree that there cannot really be anything wrong, in principle, with merely limiting the potential loss on win bets by laying some back later especially if the cause of that is publically available information (ie change in ground, horse sweating up in parade ring, bolting on way to post etc etc).

    #248785
    yeats
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3140

    He’s still been found guilty, fined £1250 and would be liable to disqualification if he repeats the offence so tread carefully Tuffers.

    #248787
    thedarkknight
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1299

    I’m not so sure Rory….

    Why was he laying the horse on Betfair in the first place? If it was to manipulate the market for small stakes so that bookmakers would put up a bigger price about his horse (which he would then pile on) then is that acceptable behaviour for an owner? Maybe people would think this is "fair game" but I’m pretty sure similar behaviour wouldn’t be tolerated in financial markets…

    Maybe the clue is in the name of the horse he was laying – Spoof Master….

    #248788
    Roddy Owen
    Participant
    • Total Posts 441

    I think that what they have in mind is owners should not be allowed to gamble period,as it paints a bad picture. What a joke. We must be able to act as all the other punters do or we are being severely penalised.Everone knows that the going is one of the most important factors in a horses chance. We are not aware of this in advance ,so if we have bet our horse earlier,only to discover the going is going to affect his chance,we should be allowed to protect ourselves. This is not insider knowledge ,its available to all punters.

    #248789
    Tuffers
    Member
    • Total Posts 1402

    I’m not so sure Rory….
    but I’m pretty sure similar behaviour wouldn’t be tolerated in financial markets…

    That sort of behaviour is commonplace in financial markets. In fact it’s the raison d’etre of High Frequency Trading.

    #248790
    Tuffers
    Member
    • Total Posts 1402

    He’s still been found guilty, fined £1250 and would be liable to disqualification if he repeats the offence so tread carefully Tuffers.

    Like I said, I’ve studiously avoided breaking the rules myself for that reason but I can see the logic for making what he was doing not a breach of the rules.

    #248791
    thedarkknight
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1299

    I’m not so sure Rory….
    but I’m pretty sure similar behaviour wouldn’t be tolerated in financial markets…

    That sort of behaviour is commonplace in financial markets. In fact it’s the raison d’etre of High Frequency Trading.

    Ok – I am not familiar with financial markets, but you are telling me that it would be perfectly acceptable for insiders to artificially deflate/(inflate) the price of their stock before buying/(selling) it back in significantly larger volumes?

    #248793
    Glenn
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1988

    Another joke decision from a disciplinary panel clearly not fit for purpose.

    We’ve been through this before with Mickmacmagoogle.

    There is a clear distinction between a member of the public trying to spoof the market and an owner trying to spoof it. The owner can withdraw the horse on a self-cert every time his bluff is called or even change his riding instructions. Thus his spoofs carry almost no risk.

    #248794
    Tuffers
    Member
    • Total Posts 1402

    Ok – I am not familiar with financial markets, but you are telling me that it would be perfectly acceptable for insiders to artificially deflate/(inflate) the price of their stock before buying/(selling) it back in significantly larger volumes?

    Whether it’s morally acceptable is another matter entirely but the fact that it happens is indisputable.

    #248797
    apracing
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3329

    Why was he laying the horse on Betfair in the first place? If it was to manipulate the market for small stakes so that bookmakers would put up a bigger price about his horse (which he would then pile on) then is that acceptable behaviour for an owner?

    Nobody was holding a gun to the bookmaker’s head – if they choose to lay the owner of a horse at a price dictated by the exchanges rather than a price they have managed to work out for themselves, more fool them.

    Why would be it OK for a non owning punter to manipulate the market in this fashion, but not the owner himself?

    I support the rule as anyone that has read my previous posts on this matter knows, but the rule is intended to defeat the sort of corruption practised by Miles Rodgers et al.

    AP

    #248800
    Glenn
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1988

    This is a risky strategy for a non owning punter and it can blow up in his face. He would be laying at well over the true odds in the hope that the screen staring bookies will blindly follow. If they don’t, or he meets resistance, he is left with a really bad bet.

    An owner is not left with a bad bet as he has the ability to void all his bets by declaring the horse a non runner.

    #248802
    apracing
    Participant
    • Total Posts 3329

    Glenn,

    Fair point and one I hadn’t considered – your mastery of the loopholes is unsurpassed. Clearly I’m just not devious enough ……

    AP

    #248805
    thedarkknight
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1299

    I agree with AP regarding bookies prices – they can’t blame anyone but themselves for the odds that they offer, but that isn’t really the point here.

    The "net" backer argument just doesn’t wash – it is blatant, insider, market manipulation with the get-out-of-jail free card thrown in as described by Glenn.

    There have been a number of times I have seen NRs come through from Weatherbys where I’m sure the true reason for withdrawal has been

    Self Cert (Couldn’t get enough on at inflated odds)

    #248813
    Tuffers
    Member
    • Total Posts 1402

    I agree with AP regarding bookies prices – they can’t blame anyone but themselves for the odds that they offer, but that isn’t really the point here.

    The "net" backer argument just doesn’t wash – it is blatant, insider, market manipulation with the get-out-of-jail free card thrown in as described by Glenn.

    There have been a number of times I have seen NRs come through from Weatherbys where I’m sure the true reason for withdrawal has been

    Self Cert (Couldn’t get enough on at inflated odds)

    Bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of the Betfair trading on individual races takes place during the 15 minutes before the start of the race, I’m not sure how anyone engaging in "blatant, insider, market manipulation" would have the opportunity to use their "get-out-of-jail free card".

    There are probably all sorts of reasons for self-certing but not getting enough on at inflated odds probably isn’t one of them.

    #248815
    davidjohnson
    Member
    • Total Posts 4491

    Tuffers

    The manipulation is happening in the early morning where prices are knocked out for the sake of less than a couple of hundred quid, prior to bookmakers pricing up. As TDK says, no bookmaker deserves sympathy for following betfair prices rather than forming their own opinion.

    The practice is commonplace, have a look at the market on Totalitarian in the 4.40 at Redcar today as just one example.

    #248817
    Tuffers
    Member
    • Total Posts 1402

    Tuffers

    The manipulation is happening in the early morning where prices are knocked out for the sake of less than a couple of hundred quid, prior to bookmakers pricing up. As TDK says, no bookmaker deserves sympathy for following betfair prices rather than forming their own opinion.

    The practice is commonplace, have a look at the market on Totalitarian in the 4.40 at Redcar today as just one example.

    DJ

    I think we’re talking at crossed-purposes. I was saying I thought it was unlikely that owners were self-certing horses because they couldn’t get enough on.

    No savvy owner would even think of trying to back his horse on Betfair more than 10 minutes before the off in any case because of the ridiculously low level of liquidity on Betfair early on in the day.

    There may well be manipulation on Betfair but the source isn’t owners…

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.