- This topic has 14 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
How is this settled on the high street:
Backed 2 horses in a reverse forecast and 1 was a NR.
Bet was settled as a loser.
I would have thought money back or fav substituted for the NR.
I would guess it would go as a win single.
Who did you place the bet with?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
- Total Posts 17716
Reverse forecast is
the
bet of mugs.
God forbid !I don’t think that’s fair. Any losing bet can be a mugs bet.
Whether the returns on F/C’s are reasonable is another matter – and I wouldn’t know.
I actually like F/C’s and R/FC’s…not with every bet, but if I have a strong opinion on a race or I’m trying to cover myself.
Deffo settled as a single if a non-runner.
Zip
- Total Posts 17716
I explained this in American forum not long ago.
It’s a trick bet.
Wait for me a little to make a few sums.- Total Posts 17716
I say.
I checked cards.
This time [AB]-dual forecact
It normally does n’t happen.
I think it all depends how the other horse runs-if he wins you might get your money back or win single on it but if it doesn’t you’re on a loser!
The rules regarding forecasts changed not that long ago
In the case of a non-runner:it all depends on whether the other horse won or not.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Reverse forecast is
the
bet of mugs.
God forbid !What is a mugs game is do a straight forecast then it comes in the other way round.
Each bookmakers have their own rules which should be displayed somewhere in the shop. Generally a straight forecast is either settled as a single or void bet depending on the shops rules. A reverse forecast is settled as an each way single or again a void bet. The manager can verify the rules if you’re unsure.
William Hill treat a forecast with non runner as a single, while Ladbrokes I think its a void bet. Are the two biggest bookmakers for examples of my case.
- Total Posts 17716
I dug out this from American forum paceadvantage – it’s my writing – something like six months old:
I worked out some exacta-quinella stats, using a sample of 100 races & their declared results.
– The favourite among the two horses won 58% of the time.
– The ratio of exacta price to quinella price increases with the ratio (win price 1st horse / win price 2nd horse) as expected. When the win price ratio is 1 the exacta / quinella ratio is about 2.
– The ratio of exacta price to quinella price exhibits a tendency to increase a little as the winner’s price increases.
The somewhat surprising result is this:
If I assume all the outcomes were backed correctly then I am paid much less with the exacta box compared to the quinella !
My quinella play was 1 unit on every occasion.
My exacta box play was 1/2 unit on a-b and 1/2 unit on b-a.
The result is that exacta box play fares horribly in comparison !Yesterday I looked at another 100 race results, but this time reverse forecast paid 10% more than quinella, the rule of play being as described above in italics.
It’s strange.
Maybe the markets show erratic behaviour.Cheers for all the replys
The bet was with Stan James and their rules clearly state that in the case of a NR then the bet is settled as a win single on the remaining horse which is all fair enough – just wanted to see if this is standard rules or if it differs from bookie to bookie.
It’s a mug’s bet for sure but the only time I ever do this bet is if I have backed 2 in the same race so I like to do a little €1 reverse forecast in case I have called the race spot on. I picked Stan James because I backed both horses with them cos they were best price so I was already on their site.
- Total Posts 17716
Cheers for all the replys
It’s a mug’s bet for sure but the only time I ever do this bet is if I have backed 2 in the same race so I like to do a little €1 reverse forecast in case I have called the race spot on. I picked Stan James because I backed both horses with them cos they were best price so I was already on their site.I was asking the Americans why in many of their racetracks the quinella is not available. In the course of the discussion, my calculations showed the RF as an alternative to quinella was producing much lower ROI. But may be it’s a highly fluctuating statistic. In both cases I made accurate summations. In the second sample I was the mug it appears.
How is this settled on the high street:
Backed 2 horses in a reverse forecast and 1 was a NR.
Bet was settled as a loser.
I would have thought money back or fav substituted for the NR.
The only time you’re get a fav subtituting a non runner is on a Tote Placepot, Tote Quadpot, Tote Jackpot, Tote Scoop six, or anything similar.
These bets are pool bets and require a runner for each bet. If the is a non runner in these bets then the lowest price runner is selected, (usually fav, except where fav doesn’t run and the is no time to form a new market. Where 2 or more are same price you go by the lowest saddlecoth number so if 1 and 2 are joint fav then the selection is 1.)
This in theory should give you the best chance.
However in normal bets like singles, yankees and whatever a non runner is simply void.
A forecast or reverse forecast is the bet of mugs?? Really??
I suppose it all depends on the race, take for example Big Bucks and Grand Crus at Cheltenham and Aintree, I did a forecast both times, as I was certain of the result before both races started.
Won both times, so I must be a mug. It is after all a mugs game.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.