- This topic has 61 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 19 years ago by
.
- Posts
If anyone wanted an example of just how far punter abuse has come in the present climate, they need look no further than the last at Beverley today.
This was a rare beast: a handicap carded with 16 runners that had escaped ‘stabling capacity’ rules, 48 hour decs, safety limits that are nothing of the sort and vets certificates that are blatantly bogus ( a particluar problem in Beverley sprints).
However, most punters would realise that something always pops up to save the bookie’s bacon in such circumstances and so it did. Rondo, a horse with mediocre form, repeatedly threw his jockey off and played up on the way to the start. A bizarre horse to be subject to a gamble, you might think, but not really when you know how gambles are orchestrated in this day and age.
Even when the horse was being walked back to the stables the ‘gamble’ continued, on-course at least, with Graham Cunningham expressing surpirse that the horse continued to be punted. Only when the beast had crossed the rubicon from the 15p rule 4 bracket (9/2) to the 20p bracket (4/1) did the gamble cease.
The horse was predictably withdrawn and, despite plenty of time, no new market was formed.
The upshot: each-way backers had the terms of their bet changed from first 4 of 16 to first 3 of 15. Bad enough, you would have thought, but no. They then got a 20p rule 4 on the place part of their bet to compensate the bookies for the now ‘increased chance’ of their place bets.
If anyone could explain to me how a horse is more likely to finish first 3 of 15 than first 4 of 16 I’d really love to hear it. The place chance, in all cases, has surely decreased not increased.
So there you have it: chalk moves on a beast with very little chance that ensures the off-course industry not only pays less places but imposes an outrageous deduction as well. Lord Donoghue must be eating very well, having positively encouraged such manipulation by removing the safety guard on those with off-course interests directly feeding into the SP mechanism.
Will this be mentioned in any media? Will any enquiries be held? Don’t hold you breath. Punters’ sole duty these days is to be fleeced and boy were they fleeced today.
It seems to be very uncool these days to voice an opinion such as that which you have highlighted above, Glenn. I’d imagine the fact that your post has received zero replies is a measure of the scepticism some readers have when they read a post like this.
However, I happen to agree. Punters’ sole duty these days is to be fleeced and one needs to be pretty damn astute to avoid pitfalls such as the above.
It won’t be the last time that a horse’s price comes in, when it is likely to withdrawn, having a direct effect on the R4 deduction.<br>This is a very underhanded act and bookmakers shouldn’t be allowed get away with it. The shoulder shrug response seems to be all punters are getting as regard this disgrace.
A very good post Glenn, I’ll email the guts of it to ATR and RUK tomorrow, hopefully it will get some air time. Making the public aware of whats going on is the only way forward.
Glenn
Won’t do much good, but you should copy and paste that post and send it to the RP letters page imo
A few points:
Yes, I realise it’s uncool to bring these things up. Punter’s are supposed to be above  betting with bookies these days and often look down at those who do as the underclass.
Also, those who do mention these things are often accused of conspiracy theory. For example, there was an article in the Racing Post on 16 runner handicaps last year. Now those who decide what to run in this organ would have been fully aware that the BHB had made a conscious decision to eliminate four place handicaps through the back door, so you might have expected an interesting article, but no. Destroying a paper tiger was the aim. So instead of investigating the real issue, namely the conspiracy by the BHB to stop 16 runner races even being carded, we got the whacko conspiracy of brown envelopes changing hands over already carded 16 runner races being rubbished. Anyone broaching the subject subsequently was deliberately renedered uncool as a result.
The notion of keeping them in the dark and feeding them rubbish certainly isn’t restricted to the RP these days. On reading Happy Jack’s post of reduced maximum fields at Chester this year I phoned Chester/the HRA asking for an explanation. According to Staurt Middleton at the HRA, the Steriline stalls don’t fit across the width of the track. Starnge that they seemed to fit last year. Maybe they expanded due to global warming!
Finally, where are the defenders of the bookmakers? The bookmakers have deducted 20p in the pound on place bets in this race, raising the place overound from 3% per runner to an amazing 7% per runner. What is the justification for this? I have asked many times and never been given a satisfactory answer. How is a horse more likely to be placed first three of fifteen than it was to be placed first four of sixteen. As far as I am concerned the 20p deduction is nothing more than theft. Justify yourselves!
(Edited by Glenn at 11:04 pm on April 26, 2007)<br>
(Edited by Glenn at 11:06 pm on April 26, 2007)
Great Posts Glenn
William Hill’s Betting Rules<br>Here
Where there is evidence of Price, Race, Match or Event rigging, we reserve the right to make bets void.
So should we!<br>
(Edited by Pompete at 11:13 pm on April 26, 2007)
Pompete,<br>Punters declaring a race void, what a lovely image.<br>MAY never happen……lol.
Agreed Glenn .. with all of this talk of ‘cleaning up racing’ and what have you .. you would think that the police would be involved here. A horse that is gambled on-course after throwing it’s jockey is surely subject to some sort of criminal investigation, money laundering, passing on inside information or race fixing.
On-course bookies shortening the price should be made to produce evidence of all of the action on the horse at that time and be able to prove that they weren’t defrauding the public.
Regarding the Racing Post .. it won’t even get a mention and even if it does .. so what. Things will change in a couple of years when turnover starts going through the floor, and it will be too late then.
Glenn for BHB president imo.
(the ‘big three’ would be offshore before his arse hit the chair…!)
Excellent stuff Glenn.
Despite your general ‘Mourinho-esque’ view of racing at times, you don’t half make some valid points.
Quote: from Alderbrook on 12:15 am on April 27, 2007[br](the ‘big three’ would be offshore before his arse hit the chair…!)
<br>.. good .. they can just GTF.
It’s gone on for years, if it is commentented on by the media it’s usually done in a "jokey" fashion for some reason.<br>The racing media have a lot to answer for in this country, look at the lack of investigation and comment regarding the picture delay on ATR and RUK.<br>Has the Beverley "fiddle" even been mentioned in today’s Racing Post? Maybe it didn’t happen and it’s a figment of our imaginations.
Bookmakers are Scum
Glenn<br>I cant dispute the facts of the Beverley race and I watched the whole episode.<br>However this act of shortening up horses when they are looking likely not to start is nothing new it goes on from Ascot to Ayr and from Chester to Chepstow.
What happened on betfair though was the horse took a big drift in the market.
”You can fool some of the people some of the time<br> but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time<br>I think Abraham Lincoln said that.<br>I can be in your dream if you can be in mine I said that”<br>Bob Dylan.<br>
A spectacular example of a ‘chalk gamble’ on a horse likely to be withdrawn, involving not only R4 but EW terms as well, which is a new one to me, and all credit to Glenn for publicising it here.
Those I’ve been party to ‘live’ when on-course have all been on horses who’ve thrown their jocks going to post and, if memory serves, all involving the 5p/10p R4 increments i.e. a rag cut to 14/1 or a mid-market cut to 9/1 which tend to go unnoticed by the majority due to the activity at the front end of the market.
If there’s time to form a new market after a withdrawal is announced it’s all well and good as market forces will adjust the remaining odds to what they ‘should be’ but for those who’ve had a bet prior to withdrawal the cutting of the withdrawal to the next R4 increment means they are – theoretically at least – being shafted by getting under the odds.
Recall McCririck highlighting a case once when on ring duty for C4, as he has the general market shortening of big saturday handicaps discussed on TRF recently; but his would seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness…
…until now. Hope Lydia has read this thread. Go for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Where there is evidence of Price, Race, Match or Event rigging, we reserve the right to make bets void.
So should we! <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That’s a very interesting point, Pompete.
In five months the Gambling Act comes fully into force, and Section 335 will make gambling contracts enforceable.
Normal contracts can’t be declared void just because one party thinks they ought to be, and under the new regime Section 336 would seem implicitly to take that "right" away from the bookies by now giving it to the Gambling Commission.
Section 336 applies to "substantially unfair" bets, a lower threshold to be satisfied than the "cheating" bets addressed by Section 42.
In theory "substantially unfair" can apply equally to layer as to backer, except that Section 336 seems to give legitimacy-by-recognition to something it calls "industry rules" (Section 336(4)(b)).
Although that doesn’t close the door for example to Glenn being able to make a very forceful case to the Commission in Beverley 5.10-type situations, and maybe establish that the industry rules themselves are "substantially unfair", it does seem to imply that the guys who set the industry rules have had a few steps start in the process. ÂÂÂ
On the other hand, Section 337 (7) says:
"… "industry rules" means rules established by an organisation having, by virtue of an agreement, instrument or enactment, responsibility for the conduct of races, competitions or other events or processes."
AFAIK, there is no umbrella organisation relating to bookies which meets that definition – other than maybe the Starting Price Regulatory Commission (what a reason that would be for bookies to retain a single SP !).  ÂÂÂ
By virtue of the OFT, its probably a bit late now for the bookies to establish something new on those lines.  ÂÂÂ
So in the end maybe the only industry rules in relation to betting will be those developed by the Commission itself… ÂÂÂ
Potentially bookies are going to find that a lot of discretions they may have taken for granted to date will be reined in from September…. ÂÂÂ
Gambling Act is here:<br>http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/2005/20050019.html#336
best regards
wit<br>
(Edited by wit at 10:59 am on April 27, 2007)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.