- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
I have felt for a long time that there is a statistically improbably high percentage of races that have seven runners; if this is so, and a study would be an interesting thesis, it does of course benefit the betting industry with only 2 places and rule 4 deductions.
The art was almost perfected at Chester, which resembles the largest wedding party in the world rather than the race meeting it purports to be, this afternoon:
Race 1: 7 runners from 10; 2 non-runners and 1 withdrawal.
Race 2: 8 runners from 8; fair.
Race 3: 8 runners from 10; tantalisingly close to 7 however I accept this was in favour of betters.
Race 4: 7 runners from 9; 2 non-runners.
Race 5: 7 runners from 9; 2 non-runners.
Race 6: 7 runners from 9; 2 non-runners.
If I am not being unreasonably suspicious, how does the betting industry liaise with, and presumably reward, connections of non-runners?
“8 runners from 10; tantalisingly close to 7”
I have to admit this did make me smile – the “dead eight” is indeed close to seven, but that’s what makes it perfect for each-way punters.
That said, I’m not an each-way punter myself.
Anyway, if you’re suspicious by nature, why not simply bet win only?
Plus, who invented and developed each-way terms, bookmakers or punters?
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Why do you think there is some underworld connection with owners and non runners surely it is what it is.
The more I know the less I understand.
Thank you for your response; supply creates its own demand and it must surely have been bookmakers who instigated the each way market. I do bet win only, admittedly mainly because the each way market generally has too wide a spread on the platform that I use, however I can’t help noticing perceived possible injustices.
I recognise of course that nothing whatsoever can be concluded from Chester’s runners this afternoon, being such a small sample, but a long-term study might be revealing.
On a separate note regarding Chester this afternoon, the Group 2 Arab race at the end of the card, or maybe not on the card?, doesn’t appear to have been under the jurisdiction of the BHA insofar as it is not covered in the Stewards Report. I am still feeling billious after watching o’shea’s ride on the favourite; all he had to do was hold the rail position as he approached the cutaway on clearly the best horse in the race.
I’ve not done any research into it, but there was a period a few years ago where it looked like every televised 16-runner handicap had one come out.
It was a John McCririck hobby horse for years.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"For once I don’t think there’s any foul play here.
I don’t believe that anyone is going to all the bother and expense of entering horses and even transporting them to the track for the sake of playing silly buggers with the places. It would require quite some co-ordination all round. So few owners/trainers would be prepared to do so that they’d soon be found out. There’s no shortage of bookies offering more places than standard these days anyway.
I think one reason is that there are simply more races with 8 or 9 declared than there are, say, 12 or 13. You’re starting with a bigger sample size.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.