- This topic has 47 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Like the example and appreciate it is deliberately extreme.
Usually wholesale withdrawals are because of the ground (and a large number of non runners is where this potentially creates issues) will be evenly spread throughout the market, indeed it is often the better horses that are withdrawn as they are felt too precious to risk.
The fact remains that at the time a punter places a bet there are four places available and if the deduction mechanism is correct it will only be in very very unusual circumstances that this creates a scenario that hinders bookmakers compared to the more regular scenario of punters backing a horse in a sixteen runner race that due to a non runner is reduced to 15 and it finishes fourth and they lose.
Any deduction mechanism that ignores the fact that reduced number of places is going to favour the bookmaker against the punter. Again I take the point but unlike the last one which showed a flaw in the maths I still think on balance it would be a good idea as the punter suffers in many more instances than the bookmaker as well as good PR over an issue which has long led to conspiracy theories etc. about reasons for non runners.
On a separate note not yet fully convinced the above calculation works correctly in races where there is an odds on shot and another in the race is withdrawn leading to a deduction. Had a rough try with 4-6,6-4 and 9-1 with the 6-4 shot being withdrawn and don’t think gave correct answer. Again need time to digest and also play parent to my teething son so will mull it over but any views appreciated.
Richard…
I totally agree the current situation isn’t ideal – with non runners reducing places, conspiracy theoriers etc etc
The basic fact is that the place part being determined by dividing the win odds by a 1/4 or a 1/5 means it ends up as nothing more than a rough and ugly estimation at the chance of a horse placing. Any system that relies on the win part to detemine the place part in such a simple way will be fundamentally flawed,
To get a "correct" solution we would need a totally separate place book (not based directly on the win price) to which a different reduction (based on price and overround) could be applied. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the industry adopting this though – it would mean a fundamental change to horse race betting (effectively the death of e/w betting with it being replaced by win and place betting)
"16 runner handicap hurdle on a Sunday and we have 4 "contenders" each at 3-1 and 12 Milton Bradley sprinters turning up for appearance money priced at 100-1."
I object to that blatant slur on a grand old man of racing (with the emphasis on the old)!!!!
Withdraw now sir, or it will be pistols at dawn.
Colin
I’ll accept what as I see as a withdrawal, TDK………………..don’t bother about the morning!
Colin
The place example given by TDK is no different to a walkover, in which case all bets are void. As is the case on Betfair’s place market currently.
Ok – say there were just 5 runners left – no bookie can seriously be expected to pay four places in such circumstances.
Why not?
Show me an example where the bookmaker loses out?
As each place bet must be accompanied by a win bet, then any punter staking each-way on 3 or 4 of the 5 would still do well to come out on top due to losing at least 2 portions of their win bets.
Well – in the above example if you had backed all 16 runners ew and the 11 non runners came out, you would be guaranteed a profit whatever the outcome.
Fair enough – if only 11 of the 12 100/1 shots were NRs then a punter would make a killing of £22 per £1,000 staked (assuming the 100/1 rag wasn’t placed) by backing all the runners each-way at 1/4 the odds and paying 4 places.
However, if the place fraction was reduced to 1/5 instead of the original 1/4 then the punter would make a loss of £30 per £1,000 staked (again assuming the 100/1 rag isn’t placed) by backing all the runners each-way.
In making the o/r immutable, as you increase the nrs you increase the per runner o/r which in the limit you are eating 120% in a match bet. Unlikely, but easy with a couple of nrs to go from 2% to 2.5% o/r per runner. Not great for your pocket.
To deal with a few of the points raised.
Firstly indocine I am only making the overround constant at this stage in order to prove the maths. It would be possible to reduce the overround by a fixed per runner amount but believe me in comparison to the amount of error within the current rules for that to be the only issue would be a real result.
tdk – I understand that any place market based on win prices is flawed but that is just some being longer and some being shorter and not the overall percentages. I still can’t see this issue with paying out on places as if there such a massive number of withdrawals there would be a similarly high deduction based on any new deduction mechanism.
It just seems to me morally wrong to keep the stake of punters whose horses are placed 4th when runners are reduced from 16 to 15. The terms when they placed the bet were four places – indeed that is what the computer prints on the on course tickets.
Also bear in mind that 4 places would only be paid for bets struck before the first withdrawal that reduced from 16 to 15. After that bets struck with 15 runners would only be eligible for three places anyway.Again my point is such extreme examples would only happed once in a blue moon whereas the retention of stake for 4th placed horses where runners are redcued to below 16 is virtually an everyday occurence.
This is an attempt to solve the one remaining piece of the jigsaw which is the fact that the formula described earleir does not seem to work for odds on shots that win when there has been the withdrawal in the race for which there would be a deduction.
The example quoted to me was 4-6,6-4 and 9-1 when the 6-4 shot is the one withdrawn.
Using our formula – the % of the horse coming out is 40%
Market Overround at time of withdrawal is 110%
The deduction percentage is therefore 40/110 = 0.3636It works fine if the 9-1 shot wins – applying to £10 total return would reduce by £3.64 to leave a return of £6.36.
This should mean that the return if the odds on shot won should be between 1-5 and 2-11 (the inverse of the above).However using the same percentage deduction of .3636 to the £1.67 return gives 60.7p which would leave only £1.06 which is of course 1-16.
It is my belief that this is because it is incorrect in caclulating the deduction amount to base it on the whole return once it exceeds double the profit. Therefore the dedection amount for odds on chances should be calculated as follows :Profit X 2 X Deduction percentage. This amount is then deducted from total returns.
So in this instance 4-6 gives 66.6p profit. Double it gives £1.33.
Apply deduction percentage to this amount £1.33 x 0.3636 = 48.5pThis 48.5p is then taken from the £1.67 total return to give £1.18 which looks correct.
I appreciate this is hardly riveting reading but I do think that this completes the jigsaw in making the maths correct though it is irritating that a separate set of tables would be needed solely for winning odds on favourites in races where there is a Rule 4 deduction.
The vast majority of cases would be able to be dealt with by the much simpler formula stated earlier.It just seems to me morally wrong to keep the stake of punters whose horses are placed 4th when runners are reduced from 16 to 15.
It happens in multiple races on an almost daily basis. Betting eachway in these events the evening or morning before, as many punters have to is a complete rip off these days and turns people away from the sport. The very people the sport needs if it is to grow and thrive in the future.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.