- This topic has 78 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
I totally disagree with this comment. How many punters would know whats going on in Sariska’s head its laughable!!!. The horse has never shown anything like that before for it to be a doubt!!. There are of course some horses that are known for this sort of thing so you generally give em a wide berth or at least wait till they actually leave the stalls. You cannot evaluate whats going on between a horses ears……Impossible.
If I had backed Sariska I’d most probably have been quite upset, but I didn’t. However, the gates opened and like every other horse in the race, she was given the opportunity to run. She didn’t, which I actually found quite amusing ( cue Hamlet cigar ad music
) – every punter knows the rules – and For PP and Boylesports to refund the stakes was rather generous, though merely a marketing ploy on their behalf.Maybe Sariska has had enough of this racing malarky and said to herself, F*** this for a game of soldiers ( as we say in Scotland when the prospects of having to do something which really doesn’t excite us in the least ).
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- Total Posts 17716
You cannot evaluate whats going on between a horses ears……Impossible.
If you’re a professional punter, it is your business to factor this in.
Why, for example, has Goldikova been allowed to start at such lenient odds in many of her races this year? Her mental attitude is something the odds take into account. Spanish Moon has been another obvious case in point.
In the case of Sariska, it wouldn’t have taken much research to read about the way she cow kicked her trainer a couple of months ago (not something a happy horse is going to do); and if you had listened carefully to what Michael Bell said before the race, he indicated that mentally as well as physically she wasn’t quite at her peak – he even expressed the feeling that today was very likely to be Midday’s strike against her, and in the light of this and other statements he made ("she’d prefer it softer") I for one was surprised Sariska was favoured against her rival in the betting. This was plainly her "prep" day.
Or do you feel that those punters who put the research in should not "get an edge"?
A simple rule change would suffice – whereby stakes are refunded and a R4 imposed on winniings when a horse doesn’t leave the stalls/go off when the tapes rise for whatever reason. I wouldn’t imagine it was difficult to implement.
Most of you would at least concede that times have changed.
Digressing for a second, the punter who backed El Muqbil behind Saturday’s Solario candidate Native Khan to the tune of £5000 – £650 must have been spitting fire after the race.
http://horses.sportinglife.com/Video/Ra … 71,00.htmlYeats,
the
example above constitutes a justifiable hard core gambler’s whinge, imo.
This is all about a favourite downing tools in the showpiece race of the day at a meeting packed full of the social racegoers we’re trying to convert. Its just common sense to refund their cash.
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
Maxilon:
There are a lot of punters out there who believe the McCrirrickesque hype. That bookmakers are fleecing them. If it were pointed out to them that in this case a Rule 4 would result in bookies paying out on 2 places and not 3, and a much reduced (almost a third) profit for winning and each way punters. Winning punters paying out for losing punters, nothing to do with bookmakers profits.
Do you really think there’d be 63%?
Trouble with any pole like this is you always get the disgruntled punter voting. Anyone who is happy with the rules is far less likely to vote. I have not voted, have you?
I suggest when the non-voters are taken in to account, a majority will be for no change.
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Personally i think those who got their money back are annointed.
If the vibes were right from John Gosden she was winning nothing anyway.
There’s no BY RIGHT to be answered here…the stalls are part of the race and once they are in you are on to rice if like Sariska your wager decides "I like it in here, think I’ll stick around" Be wanting your money back for first fence fallers next.
Those who got a refund may think that their bookie is all things wonderful. They call it public relations which is the most misused phrase in the gambling industry.
The real reason is, that if Joe Soap has an account with WH and loses a hard earne 500 quid while Joe the Esso Blue man got his money back from PP…there’s a very good chance the losing Joe will close his account with WH and opens one with PP.
In the meantime PP is sitting thinking the biggest majority of punters lose and Joe the Esso Blue man will give me back all the money I gave to Joe Soap and more.
Anyway it’s a 2 sided coin let’s try the shoe on the other foot and change the rules………A punter really, really, really fancies a horse to turn over the favourite so he empties his piggybank and sticks 5k on Horse A at 3/1 and because some jockey messes up, or a trainer sends a horse to the course who has a mental problem the punter he loses what 5,8,10K? in deductions
Ask yourself who would be angrier?…….the guy who lost his stake? or the guy who got robbed because some horse he never fancied in the first place decided not to do it’s job?
As sorry as I feel for those who lost money I would have been fuming if my bookie had reduced my winnings, as in my mind Sariska was never going to win anyway.
I honestly think the rules should not be changed because as it stands it’s the lesser of two evils.
- Total Posts 17716
Wise words from
Himself
and
Apracing
amongst others.
Paradoxically, it’s the marketing ploys of Paddy Power
et. al.
which actually
cause
the trouble, in muddying the water and obscuring what is a very clear line in the sand.
The more I think about it, the more irresponsible their refunding of those bets seems to be. The rule itself is clear as crystal, as fair as anything could be in this naughty world, and perfectly workable –
provided everyone sticks to it
.
( cue Hamlet cigar ad music
It is ironic this happened over the same meeting course and distance of the old "Benson And Hedges" (International).
Value Is EverythingThis is all about a favourite downing tools in the showpiece race of the day at a meeting packed full of the social racegoers we’re trying to convert. Its just common sense to refund their cash.
The circumstances of one horse (Sariska) is irrelevant, the rules have to apply to all horses the same whatever the price and whatever the race.
You still haven’t said why you believe the start shouldn’t be a part of the race. A good start can win a race, a poor one can lose it as was evident in the following Galtres Stakes.
If punters can’t really take the ups with downs of horse racing should they really be betting on the sport?Max,
Just to clarify your position – Sariska stays in the stalls, so punters get a refund and there’s a big Rule 4 deduction for backers of Midday and no payout at all for each way supporters of Eleanora Duse, including anyone that put her in the Placepot.
But if Sariska leaves the stalls after the rest of the field have covered 50 yards (Spencer kept pushing her about that long before he gave up), and trails round in last, then her backers lose and those of Midday and Eeleanora Duse get paid in full.
If the rule is changed to fit your suggestion, who makes the judgement on what is a runner and what is not – the starter? Or the stewards, or the commentator, or the bookies.
AP
Alan Potts and Pinza are spot on.
There has to be a clear rule – and this is as clear as it gets. Sariska had a chance to win, but her temperament got the better of her. End of story.
To start arbitrarily imposing rule 4s/place deductions on punters who have successfully identified the fastest horse (with the right temperament to demonstrate that ability) would be nothing short of scandalous.
I was unaware that Paddy/Boyles had arbitrarily imposed any rule 4s or place deductions.
( cue Hamlet cigar ad music
It is ironic this happened over the same meeting course and distance of the old "Benson And Hedges" (International).
… and it can still be viewed on YouTube. Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
The rule might not be to everyone’s satisfaction, but it’s the easiest to understand and implement.
Once a horse is ‘under starters orders’ then that’s it – you’re in the race. If the horse then fails to start then the rule states that your horse was deemed a runner – it’s a simple as that and no arguments can be had.
If you start messing with the rule and say that a horse that didn’t come out of the stalls, or a horse that planted itself at the start is a non-runner then all hell will break loose.
Eventualy someone will argue that the horse that didn’t come out of the stall for 10 seconds should be a non-runner, then someone will say that the horse that got left 20 lengths should be a non-runner. It’ll come to the point where someone will say, "well my horse got beat a neck, but it lost half a length at the start so can you deem it a non-runner please". Ok, I’m stretching it a little but I’m sure you get my point. As someone has already said, where do you draw the line?
And then there’s the implications of a Rule 4 once a horse is deemed a non-runner. If I’d have studied for six hours yesterday and came to the conclusion that Midday would win the race, I’d be furious at having to give 30p in the £ (or whatever it was) back to the bookie because a horse couldn’t be bothered to come out of the stalls.
The rule will stay as it is – it’s easy to understand and the most sensible option.
Bookies wanting to give money back to punters when such things happen, then I’m all for that. But like the title of this thread, surely no one should expect a refund.
- Total Posts 17716
It was significant that Matt Doyle of Skybet was absolutely adamant when interviewed this afternoon that the Rule was 100% transparent and right, and that (in general) punters should not be "bleating" (that was the word he used) when this kind of rare incident occurs.
He expressed the clear view that Skybet’s decision was a "goodwill gesture" and in no sense to be taken as a precedent.
That surely ought to be the end of the matter. The
vox pop
"vote" on the RP website is about as illuminating as asking turkeys whether they would like to ban Christmas. Typical condescension from the media to the masses. Ugh.
Any punter that would be fuming at getting, say, 7/4 Midday w/out Sariska as opposed to 5/2 all in is either completely infallable or completely innumerate.
Each-way punters, by contrast, would have a genuine grievance under such circumstances.
) – every punter knows the rules – and For PP and Boylesports to refund the stakes was rather generous, though merely a marketing ploy on their behalf.
… and it can still be viewed on YouTube. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.