- This topic has 20 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Next year trainers are expected to be banned from using the exchanges as stated by the Jockey Club but this is an empty gesture as how really will they stop this as they can’t even stop TV staff rigging poll voting!
I remember Mark Johnston saying in his Post column that he would be very disturbed to hear of anyone associated with his stable laying one of his runners.<br>And quite right too.<br>
<br>Mark Johnston must pay his stable staff more than anybody else if he thinks they can afford a PC, an Internet link and enough in the bank to fund a Betfair deposit.
And I can’t think of many trainers that would even know how to get in to BF, let alone work out how to use it – and they live on overdrafts as well.
But I agree it should be ruled out and I’d have no problems with the same rule for owners in respect of their own horses.
Alan
I would love to see trainers using befair providing we have a rule saying trainers must give their names.:biggrin:
the one thing that exchanges cannot overcome is the simple fact that while it is easy to ‘stop’ a horse its a damn sight harder to picker a winner – unless of course you can "lay" just your ‘stopped’ horse.
This is a fundemental flaw in the whole integrity of betting exchanges – while there is no doubt that as an account wagering system EVERY transaction in a betting exchange is kept its much harder to ‘data mine’ the records of users to look for correlations between horses layed what trainers, jockeys etc. – particularly if the data is not the governing authorities data but that of independent business that is subject to privacy restrictions in relation to the data of its users.
That said – I will concede up front that a ‘secret’ shared is no longer a secret – but it must be said that that in itslef is a benefit – if you still get laid – as it creates a smoke screen around a dubious punters activities.
The bottom line IMO is that ANYONE – not just trainers – that are associated in any way with a runner should be banned from ‘laying’ that runner – period.
Sure that’s harsh – but its fair (but not betfair LOL)
rouge homme
Redman, I hope you realise that what you are proposing is going to be absolutely impossible to police. If someone decides to make money from laying their own horses, they will surely use accomplices who have no official involvement in racing. The people who run the exchanges may very well be able to pick up patterns, but as long as the account holder has no connection with the owner/trainer that can be traced (i.e. family/business relationship), how the hell is anyone going to prove anything?
Everyone knows that information leaks out of racing yards all the time. If quizzed, all the account holder has to say is that his former next-door-neighbour’s second cousin drinks in the same pub as one of the lads in the offending yard (or some such vague story) and any investigation will promptly reach a dead end.
I would doubt you could stop it. All you would need is a friend of a friend, with a PC. Give him access to a bank account and a ‘nod and a wink’ when one isn’t trying. And a percentage for his trouble. How do you stop that?
The only way I see to stop it is to start handing lifetime bans to anyone implicated in such scams. I’m sure that would be enough incentive to dissuade anyone from even trying it.
Ian,
Thanks to the pointer for the story – and I can understand why you posted the link without comment – but for mine its bloody appalling – and being put down would be too compassionate a punishment on those who knew something about this horse’s condition and layed it.
Even the name – Royal Insult – says it all!
Doesn’t all this ring alarm bells?
mj you make the point "absolutely impossible to police" – but does that mean you don’t try?
Racing Daily is on the right track with life time bans – crikey Robbie Waterhouse et al were warned off for the best part of twenty years for much less.
IMO the integrity of racing demands no less.
Our Aussie regulators are grappling with the betting exchange issue right now – and the vibes I am getting is that they will not be permitted.
As a commented in my post above – being able to back a horse NOT to win – aka "laying it" is a fundamental flaw – and its NOT the same as Arsenal and not-Arsenal instead of Leads or Arsenal – it means you don’t have pick the winner!
There is no doubt that a great many punters are in fact ‘laying’ a horse all above board – but again these provide a smoke screen for nefarious activities – I have no doubt that most of the bets laid on Royal Insult will be by punters backing a trend – but will they be able to pin point who started it?
if mj is right "how the hell is anyone going to prove anything" then perhaps the only ‘layers’ of runners can really only be licensed bookmakers and betting exchanges then become a marketplace for punters to back runners and bookmakers to lay them.
or is this a train that has gathered too much steam and know one knows how to get off it or change the track its on?
rouge homme
Very interesting article Ian. Is it possible for a horse to substain a injury like that in a race ? Does anyone know how much the horse was layed for ?
Not sure wether this is relevant but the owners (Platinum Racing Ltd) did not own the horse last season and this was his first run in there colours.
I wonder ?
For sure any punishment would have to, by far, outweigh the crime. Maybe even rewards for ‘stool pigeons’. It would, in my eyes, be the only way to make people fearful enough of the concequences to not get involved.
Sure, the chances of getting caught would be slim. But if you did get caught, you’re stuffed. Zero tolerance type thing. I’m sure that after weighing up the odds, these people would make the right decision if the penelties were harsh enough.
"all I can tell you, as an ex-owner, is that if a horse is put down on the racecourse (track) rather than when you get it home, the insurance pays out. Call me a cynic, but…………."
This is a quote from another racing forum, in no way do I make any judgement for it or against it. It’s a shocking statement though, in the context of this story.
I think the article was written by someone who has no idea how a betting market works, the reason the horse was 49/1 on the exchange was because no one was betting it
the Master , Oh please , in all fairness lets be honest. 1/49 that cannot lose !!! I remember the most spoken about horse to be layed over the odds. 50% said COULD NOT WIN – NO WAY !. 50% said he would once more grace Cheltenham’s winners encloseure………
No points for the answer – Istabraq. People were flooding in to go a massive 2/1 over the 6/4 offerred by the bookies.  The horse went off fav and lost. However , in my opinion both sides had good value. It was a fair bet for both camps , but to try and tell us that a 49/1 lay without knowing that it was worth doubling with the sun rising the next day is madness.
The jockey club must strike , surely ?
(Edited by Gearoid VI at 4:48 am on Jan. 1, 2003)
… crying over split milk?
In the dairy business it takes only the smallest amount of something off to taint a whole consignment of milk.
Can Racing (and I mean the sport of racing not any indvidual constituency) afford to have the Sword of Damacles hanging over its head like the Grim Reaper?
I think not – and while betting exchanges have faciliated the rise of of a whole new class of punter ( "traders" ) or type of betting ( "trading" ) – is it worth the risk to have something so open to abuse available at all?
IMO Betfair should put all the betting data about that race (excluding any identifying data) in the public domain.
If betting exchanges are to be permitted to continue to allow ordinary punters to lay (or back against) runners or to provide a market for traders – [don’t mistake this Royal Insult tragedy as anything less than a seminal yes or no issue on the whole integrity of "betting" within exchanges] – then EVERYTHING must come out and it must be debated in open forum.
As if Betfair haven’t got enough problems with their systems being up to date.
The thing is we all know that there are a lot of occassions when runners are not expected (by the trainers and connections) to win – which is one of the reasons why we all follow betting trends.
Bookmakers (who traditionally bet against runners) are required to be licensed – at least in Australia – they are required to post prices about ALL runners and MUST accept wagers up to mimimum wager obligation – thier betting sheets are scrutinised by stewards who compare the betting patterns with the objective of protecting the integrity of betting.  Did a bookie keep safe a ‘live one’? Did a bookie excessively lay a heavily backed poorly peformed favourite? – all this is in a peer assessment (comparison) regime – race after race after race….
But in betting exchange you can be better than a bookmaker – you can just quietly have a few quid against your horse safe in the knowledge that it is unlikely to win and that you don’t have to pick the winner!
Where is this regimen in betting exchanges? – Who are the keepers of the trust?  Are they regulated?
Sure the data may be there – but is it being mined? – and if it is, is it being examined by people whose only ‘loyalty’ is to the integrity of racing and betting on racing? ÂÂÂ
I think not :(
Sure there are other issues that affect the whole integrity of betting (not the least being offcourse bookmakers manipulation of the SP) – but betting against a runner goes to the very heart of integrity of racing – and to date betting exchanges are unregulated.
Let’s be honest – betting exchanges arose because of loophole that permitted two individuals who knew each other and were really expected to be physical proximity to each other to have a (social) bet between themselves.  Betting exchanges are far removed from that principle.
For mine – I think for Betfair its a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t – it will be interesting to see how they play the cards they have been dealt but there may be nothing they can do to change the final result.
Lastly, Ian after all your hard work this must be causing you some consternation … you have made a couple of very helpful posts on this topic but to put you on the spot what is your opinion of how a betting exchange operator should handle this? – or how they should be regulated to ensure that the betting they faciliate is not abused?
rouge homme
(Edited by redman at 8:27 pm on Jan. 1, 2003)
a very strange incident all round involving Royal Insult…
judging from other recent (less obvious) betting patterns, i would hazard a guess that there is information leaking from the Burke yard, but from whom to whom is anyone’s guess!
I can’t belive it is actually being put about that Mr Burke would deliberatly run Roary if he thought that he would be injured, never mind break it down, thats just so bloody stupid.  Everyone at Spigot loves their animals and i know they were pretty upset at what happened seen as he’s been in the yard since he was a baby.  Especially as he was such a pretty thing.
Its easy for anyone to see that he wasnt the toughest of horses, very lightly raced, and when you consider the stresses and strains that are put on their legs during a race.
I know a few of the people involved in platinum racing, and yeh they might set up a few gambles, but running a horse to break it down and pocket the insurance, dont be so daft!<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.