- This topic has 78 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
I wasn’t surprised to see the marketing-savvy Paddy Power immediately announce refunds of bets on Sariska, but surely no one could have expected it by right?
- Total Posts 17716
I wasn’t surprised to see the marketing-savvy Paddy Power immediately announce refunds of bets on Sariska, but surely no one could have expected it by right?
Paddy Power is just better than most bookies. Sometimes I back a 2nd place and they give you your money back (don’t get that elsewhere).
I actually thought a lot of the bookies especially on course would refund cause it’s a big race and they’re trying to encourage people to come racing. Anyone there for the day who lost money on Sariska will most likely never go racing again.
Place layed her today, had heard from a big player that she’s been playing up at home.
The usual rule is once a horse is in the gate and the race is off, the horse is a starter and no refunds or given. Sariska wasn’t a late scratch, she just refused to come out.
I agree totally cormack15, you have no right to expect a refund, you are relying totally on good will
I don’t think anyone is disputing the rules Miss Woodford, it’s just that over here there are so many bookmakers fighting for business some of them (like Boylesports and Paddy Power did today) will refund your stake when events like today happen.
And because such bookmakers will refund stakes from time to time some folk start to expect it. But like Corm says, surely you can’t expect it, because like you say, if the horses enters the stalls and the race starts then it’s deemed a runner.
Feel sorry for those who backed Sariska, but they had no right to a refund.
Just glad McCrirrick wasn’t on C4 today. Otherwise he’d be banging on about it.
Had punters got their money back, the money comes out of winning punters pockets (R4), not bookmakers. Without Sariska in the race they were working (at SP) to 80.9%. Paddy Power and Boyle Sports must have made a big loss on the race.
Had there been a R4 it would’ve been 7 runners not 8, so only 2 places for each way terms. And the 11/4 SP would’ve been somewhere in the region of 15/8. Hate to think what my each way bet on Snow Fairy (7/2 less the 30p deduction) would’ve paid out. Not worth having.
For McCrirrick to make out it would be in punters interests for a Rule 4 is crazy.
Most horses who plant themselves can be seen to have temperament problems, which is allowed for in their price anyway. Even Sariska had found little in the finish both starts this season and hostpitalised her trainer.
Value Is EverythingGinger, ten years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now I don’t.
I think the rules should be changed.
Sariska went off favourite in the days showpiece event.
Say, 8000 people of the 30,000 present backed the favourite. Assume most of yesterday’s audience were racegoers, horse enthusiasts, drinkers, social attenders, ladies etc rather than hardcore gamblers.
That’s 8,000 customers upset that they didn’t get a run for their hard earned. I’ll bet you plenty asked their bookie for a refund and were shocked they didn’t get one.
That’s potentially 8,000 customers lost to horse racing. That’s bad for business.
I lost money on Emmeebee at Wolverhampton on Monday and I was pretty p***ed off. But then, I knew the rules and I wasn’t paying £25 a ticket for Grandstand admission. In todays day and age, the rule needs to be changed.
No, you’re right Cormack, no one should expect a refund, but I sure expect those dreadful new irritating features that appear on every page to be removed within the next two days.
The horse had a fair start, the opportunity to start, and the fact Sariska never "started" is just one of those things. She might have left the stalls 20 lengths behind and ended up winning. Unlikely, but that is racing. Those who backed Sariska had as much chance when the stalls opened as those who backed Midday. That is all you can expect.
Once in a lifetime racegoers often don’t think they can get their money back for one that doesn’t go in to the stalls. Let alone doesn’t come out of them. Most just accept they’ve lost their money.
There is rarely any anouncement on racecourses "Those who backed XXXX can get their money back".
Most first time racegoers will have had £5 or an insignificant sum on anyway. Can’t see that it would put many off.
Most people know that once a race starts you can not get your money back.
If a punter backs Mr. Bolt over 100 metres, the gun goes and he stands there doing nothing; does the punter get / expect to get his money back?
Value Is EverythingGinger, ten years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now I don’t.
I think the rules should be changed.
Sariska went off favourite in the days showpiece event.
Say, 8000 people of the 30,000 present backed the favourite. Assume most of yesterday’s audience were racegoers, horse enthusiasts, drinkers, social attenders, ladies etc rather than hardcore gamblers.
That’s 8,000 customers upset that they didn’t get a run for their hard earned. I’ll bet you plenty asked their bookie for a refund and were shocked they didn’t get one.
That’s potentially 8,000 customers lost to horse racing. That’s bad for business.
I lost money on Emmeebee at Wolverhampton on Monday and I was pretty p***ed off. But then, I knew the rules and I wasn’t paying £25 a ticket for Grandstand admission. In todays day and age, the rule needs to be changed.
Don’t think it’s an issue even open to debate, like any other part of the race, the start is part of it.
Don’t think it’s an issue even open to debate, like any other part of the race, the start is part of it.
Oh, I think it is. So far, on the RP site poll on the matter, 63% are in favour of changing the rule – which is possibly an anachronism from the days when betting on racehorses was the only outlet available to Joe Public.
Personally speaking, I think the rule will change naturally. No business can have a majority of its customers disgruntled like that.
Most just accept they’ve lost their money.
Disagree. Punters hope for two things when they place a win bet on a 2/1 shot. One is that the horse wins. Two, that they get – in the immortal phrase – a run for their money. Racegoers yesterday got neither.
Most people know that once a race starts you can not get your money back.
Most gamblers do. You do. I do. But what about new racegoers?
How
would they know? And how do you know this? There is a great deal of imperfect knowledge about betting, something which develops over time. I’ve seen arguments between racegoers and bookmakers about R4 deductions at Nottingham races.
Forum member Andrew Mount recounted a tale not long back about an irate punter wanting to know why his bet was subject to deductions. I’ll bet there was fuss yesterday.
I’ve had a few horses down tools on the run in when having the race in the bag, maybe we should also be considered for a refund if our horse does the dirty on us.
I’ve noticed a lot of the whingers wanting refunds, emailing ATR etc have cited what a bad experience it would be for any newcomer to the sport to back such a horse. It appears to me the only ones whinging are the ones with plenty of experience of betting.
If anyone wants an example of how punters don’t actually exist in The Rabble’s eyes, except when it comes to extorting pension pot money, they need look no further than Paul Struthers’ response:
"We’d consider reviewing [the rule]
only if
Racing For Change or The Horsemen’s Group approached us"
Here we have a rule that only concerns betting on the event. We’re not talking about whether the jockey could claim his riding fee or whether the horse would have to pass stalls test. We are talking only about the betting. The views of the bettors themselves, however, don’t count (unless you were an insider betting). Only those of the bookies and connections.
Once again, the bettors themselves are treated like something unpleasant The Pauls have trod in.
I had a big bet on Sariska and didn’t expect a refund, but feel angered I’m not getting one now, as Boylesports and Paddy’s are refunding, why can’t Ladbrokes
- Total Posts 17716
I had a big bet on Sariska and didn’t expect a refund, but feel angered I’m not getting one now, as Boylesports and Paddy’s are refunding, why can’t Ladbrokes?
Surely the moral for the future is "don’t bet with Ladbrokes". The smaller outfits you cite have a much more punter-friendly record overall.
The "money back" argument strikes me as an unusually synthetic one, though; and if the smaller bookie fry didn’t see it as a PR business opportunity nobody would be whining about it in the first place.
If we think that when our horse refuses to race we should get our money back, then logically we should also demand it when our horse refuses to jump a fence.
Evaluating the horse’s psychology is part of the skill, is it not? And there has been a
soupçon
of doubt about what’s been going on in Sariska’s head over the last month or so. She might well have had enough of the game.
Are Paddy Power refunding stakes on Zarebiya from the very next race at York?
If not, why not – horse reared as stalls opened, hit her head on the frame of the stalls and was hoplessly left, never getting out of a remote last place.
So just like Sariska, punters never had a chance of collecting because of what happened at the start.
But somehow, because Zarebiya did eventually leave the stalls and trail round in last, that makes it OK?
This is the problem with changing the rule – where do you draw the line?
AP
Matthew, look on the bright side….at least you earned your Ladbrokes bonus points and will be able to play them up at some future point.
Having had inside info. that Sariska would be rooted to the spot I had a huge lay and made loadsamoney…..aren’t you just a wee bit jealous?
Not true.
K
p.s. Rather than waste that negative energy try to direct your anger toward a positive outcome. Here endeth the lesson.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.