- This topic has 61 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
I was envolved with a horse once called Sarahs Quest who was trained by M Halford.She had a minor wind operation and on her return to action in a hcap hurdle in Cork she opened up at 33/1 in most places and was 40/1 in some. Her price started to come in, much to the surprise of her 20 owners and her trainer. She went off at an SP of 16/1 but most layers had her at 14/1 some even had her marked up at 12s. We were all looking at each other bewildered. Badly in need of the run, not one of us had backed her. A couple of the lads made a beeline for Halford thinking something was afoot. He was as bemused as the rest of us. <br>On form, or lack of form for that matter, she had no chance. This incidence really opened my eyes to what has been refered to here as ‘chalk gambles’. I’m sure some punters that day in Cork and in bookie shops around the country had a bet on her thinking she was fancied.<br>This practice by bookmakers is probably not too uncommon but is there anyway of stoping or preventing it?
Guess it depends on the race but I’ve put £1 on a horse at 100/1 to win in a big handicap hurdle on a Saturday at Haydock and seen it cut to 66/1 immediately. Equally i’ve been involved with a filly in a syndicate at Kempton, our trainer wasn’t known for 2yo winners and she ran over 6f, we all had roughly £5ew at 66’s to 100’s and nothing happened to her price. She started 66’s, was slowly away and finished last – did manage the fastest quarter of the race and multiple winners since where in front of her.
Quote: from ToneLoc on 9:06 pm on April 27, 2007[br]Call me naive if you will but could this gamble have ocurred due to the horse’s ownership (Patrick Veitch and co.)?
A thoughtful post Tone Loc. Whether you are right or not it usually pays to dig a little deeper and add some colour to a seemingly black and white matter.
And I might have known that once a thread like this popped up, Boo Ridley would creep out from behind the stone he calls home and turn a sensible discussion into another sensationalist rant against corruption, cartels, fixed betting and his self-appointment as racing’s saviour.
Pratt.
<br>Riddles can ‘cc’ as many institutions as he likes but he does it for his own self-aggrandisement.  I would suspect that the number of articles this ‘investigative journalist’ has had published is somewhere around zero, and for obvious reasons.
He clearly will justify this as another ‘conspiracy’ of course, rather than questioning the merit of his  deranged ramblings.  However, the internet provides a ready audience for such people so it’s does get rather full of those who think that Princess Diana was murdered whilst riding Shergar into the Twin Towers.
Take it as light entertainment – everone he cc’s ccertainly will do.
Mike
cc. The Times, Panorama, The Pope, Jose Mourinho, The Dangerous Book for Boys, the bloke off Newsnight with the big ears.<br>
LetsGetRacing<br>“And I might have known that once a thread like this popped up, Boo Ridley would creep out from behind the stone he calls home and turn a sensible discussion into another sensationalist rant against corruption, cartels, fixed betting and his self-appointment as racing’s saviour.â€ÂÂ
There’s not ducking the issue of corruption within racing, which unquestionably exists, but it’s quite another to continue your fantasist ramblings whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Throughout your previous comical interlude you claimed to be able to break down any horseracing or football market and show us which competitors the ever mysterious betting code pointed to as the pre-decided victors. Did you, at any stage, grace us with a pre-race/match ringer?
I hear a bellowing no resounding around the virtual TRF boardroom.
And now you turn a sensible thread, started by a much respected and reasoned TRF member (the anti-Ridley, if you like) which highlights some interesting points and brings attention to matters of seemingly great importance. What it isn’t is a platform for you to launch yourself to an even higher pedastal, from which you can overlook all that you think you command.
The sad reality is, of course, that you’re an idiot, an idiot lost in the frustration of being a presumably failed investigative journalist. Instead of backing up the tripe you post time and time again, you just reel off the same old nonsense in the hope somebody might just believe you. And, unsurprisingly, things don’t look to be going your way.
Drawing a parallel between your idealistic, non-sensical and hysterical crusade and my questioning of one or two rides is nothing short of ridiculous and shows you for the menace you are. And maybe even a bookmaking menace at that – they say the best place to hide is in plain sight…..
Maybe I should be grateful to you, Boo Ridley, as no matter how crap I feel reading your posts never fails to bring a smile to my face. It is a pitiful smile it has to be said, but lightening all the same.
As far as Glenn’s original point goes, are the bookmakers’ audits closely scrutinised by the HRA and is there any avenue, legally, by which the HRA could request a visible (printed) audit trail for any and all gambles of this nature?
(Edited by LetsGetRacing at 5:58 pm on April 28, 2007)
I emailed the guts of Glenns post to the HRA, The Times(LH), Racng UK, ATR Get On (both Chapman and Ennis) and the Morning Line so far no response from anyone although I didnt see the Morning Line today. I will keep trying.
LetsGetRacing, no, there is no ducking the issue of corruption, which, “unquestionably existsâ€ÂÂ
Alan – if you really want to abolish corruption you could start with a campaign to abolish the main thing that causes it?
No not bookmakers, exchanges etc. handicaps.
Any race where a horse is rewarded relative to a poor run is surely corrupt.
Quote: from Irish Stamp on 7:17 pm on April 28, 2007[br]Alan – if you really want to abolish corruption you could start with a campaign to abolish the main thing that causes it?
No not bookmakers, exchanges etc. handicaps.
Any race where a horse is rewarded relative to a poor run is surely corrupt.<br>
Then WTF haven’t they stopped rewarding them? Reward horses for being consistent.
<br>
The handicap system rewards the inconsistent horse/trainer/jockey/owner and also some bookmakers, which is what it’s all about.<br>The majority are fleeced, whilst the minority smirk.<br>Unless the authorities truly get a grip, most racing could<br>eventually go to the dogs.<br>As someone said to me yesterday; ‘they’ve allowed it to go on for far too long, they think people are stupid, and those involved haven’t got the message because they don’t think it’s for real’.<br>That’s why I wonder if the Gambling Act is going to make a difference.
Quote: from
maybe you haven’t received a reply because there is nothing new, noteworthy or remotely interesting about this incident – it is simply a case of bookmakers applying their rules.
<br>TDK,
Are you implying that the late reduction in price of the withdrawn horse to increase the rule 4 deduction is actually a ‘rule’ – whereas most of us just thought it was greed.
I don’t bet each way, so this scam is never going to affect me, but fwiw, I agree entirely with the points made by Glenn in his original post. For bookmakers to reduce the number of places paid out and then deduct by means of rule 4 as well is clearly double jeopardy.
It’s unlikely ever to happen, but in my view the bookmaker’s place terms should be fixed, based on the numbers of runners at the time of the first show. Any subsequent non runners are amply covered by rule 4 – and if they aren’t then change that rule.
By far the worst offender here is the Tote, who should pay the full number of places based on declared runners since they cannot lose in the long term. That especially applies to the Placepot – nothing worse than explaining to a £2 bettor that their ‘winning’ line is a loser due to a late non runner.
AP <br>
As an accountant, Boo Ridley, I can safely say that double entry bookkeeping is child’s play and can also state that if you pay someone in my profession enough they’ll find anything, if it indeed it is there to be found.
- Total Posts 17716
<br>TDK
So, Glenn’s a thief, and the bookmakers who shaved an extra 5p in the pound off everything they paid out on the race nationally have only our best interests at heart?<br>Wonderful perspective you have there; and not at all biased?:cool: <br>
TDK
I’ll be honest – I see a thread started by Glenn and I think "here we go – another thread about a 16 runner handicap reduced to 15 purely for bookies benefits" but in fairness to the guy the goings on at Beverly were a little more sinister than that.
The on-course antics since the change in the SP mechanisms last November are nothing short of a disgrace with in-built profit margins that badly run semi-state bodies would kill for.
And Barney Curley, to my knowledge has never been held up as a paragon of horseracing virtue on this forum,or any other forum (even Betfair) for that matter, by those that know there is more to the sport than "beating your local bookie, be they independent or Big3.
TDK,
I’m not sure how the term ‘each-way thief’ could apply, in any meaningful sense of the word, to someone betting into a 130% win book and 100% per place book…who then still has to run the gauntlet of a potential withdrawel turning it into a 135% per place place book. For the record, I won a small amount on the race and didn’t place any bookie bets on it. This isn’t the pocket talking.
You seem a little confused and say it is only a case of bookmakers applying their rules. It is the inequity of these rules that I am posting against. I made no suggestion that they invented rules to specifically shortchange their customers in this instance.
Alan brings up the point of tote terms. They too change the number of places paid out on but, unlike bookmakers, their placepot/place pool customers will invariably get increased dividends as a result of this sort of incidence, never reduced ones.
There are a couple of key questions here:
1) Should bookmakers whose off-course interests vastly outweigh their on-course interests directly feed into the SP mechanism?
2) Should a punter whose place selection now has to come first three of fifteen (rather than first four of sixteeen) have to suffer, in addition, a rule 4 deduction to the place part of their bet. If so, why?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.