dawn approach punters lose out

William doesn't pay the bills!

you would not of heard anything of this story if he had got beat in the 2000?(bookmakers taking libertys)

how much are they in it for?

sounds a bit suspicious

the related contingency rule is really meant to rule out bets that have a linked relationship within the bet that distorts the odds e.g. back win single, any back shift £x on horse A in A v B market where horse A is the horse in the win single.

correct, as they would certainly have know prior, tw@ts

WH are a disgrace. They should honour such longstanding wagers. Dont they realise that the deserved bad publicity will cost them far more dearly!

Maybe Hills should train their staff better.

ITS A RELATED BET .....THEYVE NO CHANCE I WOULDNT TAKE A MILLION .....THE THING IS THEY SHOULDNT HAVE TAKEN THE BET ,MAYBE A ROOKIE MANAGER TOOK IT ........ITS IN THE RULES ,THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT I WOULDNT TAKE 20,000,000-1.....IBAS WILL TELL EM TO FK OFF

The buffoonary of punters who insist on betting with h1lls or l@ds is beyond me

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS BAD PUBLICITY FROM ...............IF U HAVE A RACE AGST SOMEBODY BEST OF THREE ...YA EVENS IN THE FIRST LEG SO YUOU HAVE A TREBLE AT 7-1 ............WHICH IS WHAT EVENS EACH OF THREE IS ......YOU BEAT HIM 20 YARDS IN THE FIRST LEG ...WHAT PRICE IS HE FOR THE 2ND LEG ....EVENS ???? FOR FKS SAKE GET ALIFE YOU TZ****S YOU NEVER LEARN DO YA ....THERES A OLD SAYING ...THERS ONE BORN EVERY MINUTE AND MOST OF THEM LIVE ....YA ALL MUGS AND YOULL STAY MUGS

YA THINK HILLS IS WORRIED ABOUT BAD PUBLICITY THEYLL DECLARE RECORD PROFITS YEAR AFTER YEAR BECAUSE OF ****S LIKE SOME OF U ...YA DREAMING

APOLOGYS FOR THE LANGUAGE

Of course its a related bet but so what its a pants rule.Your taking the chance months in advance that DA would win both races you deserve to be paid at full odds when you place the bet.If DA was a non runner in the derby(non stayer) they wouldnt pay you out on the 2000gs so imo no differance.PAY THE DOUBLE AT FULL ODDS.

MUG

but WH offered the bet

and punters are mugs for taking it?

MUG

Caps lock button is on the left of your keyboard, and you should probably lay off the cheap whisky for breakfast. hth

This sounds like a perfectly legitimate and likely antepost bet (to me a MUG ) except for the 102/1 bit and I'm surprised no other crookmakers wouldn't have been quoting, albeit less generously, if requested at the time.

IBAS when did Sillybillies actually know this situation existed and inform the customerS[u][b] ![/b][/u] ?

Have all checks been made to see if any gg's were subject to any similar bets, in any markets, and if so what's been revealed ?

S!

( test )

In the rules it is a related bet,but in my opinion it isn't .
The horse winning the Guineas over a mile doesn't really have a connection with it winning the Derby over a mile and a half.It hasn't yet showed it is a mile and a half horse,although I think it is.
Backing a team to win its group,and then go on to win the final is clearly related,but,in truth,there is NOTHING related about the same horse winning the Guineas and Derby,although the rules say there is,simply because after winning the first leg the horses odds will contract,like winning the King George and the Arc,although they are over the same distance.
Don't expect staff to know about related bets,it isn't their fault.

It's related if it looks like winning, it's not if it doesn't, hth.

It's a case of hills thinking if it gets beat in the guineas then we have nothing to worry about.Now seeing as it has won the guineas, hills are now dragging out the related contingency argument.

Of course it's related but not as much as hills are making out imho.
A horse to win a trial for a big race and then to win the big race is a direct relation.

How direct a relation the guineas is to the derby open to debate.

Where does it all end? Tidal Bay to win the Stayers Hurdle and Grand National is that a related double?

Overturn Chester Cup and Arkle is that related ?

Just another bookmaker trying to cover their arris after they have screwed up.

Thats all our thinking Biscar.

unbiased
24 May 13 11:45

Don't expect staff to know about related bets,

Really ? especially when everything is referred on anyway?

there have been a number of times when i have asked for odds about a horse winning two of the clasics, odds quoted can be form 125-1 to 350-1, depending on my selection.
never do i ask for the seperate prices to be multiplied on each race to give me my odds,and never does the bookie offer in this way. they always say that they have to phone up for a price or if placing on the phone, they would refer bet to a trader.
102-1 does not seem to high an odds for dawn approach to win the 2000gns and derby, depending on when the bet was struck.
dont forget he has to run over two different distances, make the gig twice. how many horses have won the 2000gns / derby double. 102-1 is a fair price, just. Certainly, back in september of 2012, this price wouldnt be considered a gift.
This is just the bookies crying and trying to get out of paying a few people should he win.
go back over the years, see what price the 2000 gns winners were quoted for the derby straight after their gns win. see how many actually run, then see how many won.
102-1, a gift, i dont think so.

At first glance,it seems to be unfair to offer a lower price for a related bet but it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

If you have 2 different horses in a bet at say 9/1 each for 2 different races then the odds are clearly 10 x 10 -1 i.e 99/1 because there is no connection between the 2 bets.

But if you back a horse to win  a race at 9/1 and then to go on and win a second race, then it is obvious that if the horse wins the first price then he will be a significantly different price for the second race because of winning. In which case, his price would be less for the second race.Whether it would be as short as say 2.3 (at the time immediately following the first win) if the first price taken is say 9/1 is a mute point. The lowest actual general price for the Derby immediately following the 2000Gns was 3.0 so I would guess that assuming the first price was 10.0 then the combined odds would be 29/1.

If, however the first price taken was say 7/1 then the combined price would be 23/1. I guess that is close the truth here and IBAS will have no choice but to find on WH's behalf as the rules cover this and the revised price would seem to be fair.

Sandown,all these assumptions concern the horse winning the first leg,many don't,many don't make the second leg too.As stated it is a very different situation from a footie team qualifying from its group,and going on to win the final.
Connecting the Guineas and Derby is a strange scenario.

On reflection, his price after the dewhurt was 5-1 for the 2000gns and 12-1 for the derby. so given that, i would look at odds of 40-1 the double to be a fair bet. if i was a bookie i would have offered odds of between 25 and 30-1.

unbiased the guineas and derby have been connected for as long as I remember! Depending on pedigree the Derby price for the guineas winner would change dramatically!

Unbiased


Sandown,all these assumptions concern the horse winning the first leg,many don't,many don't make the second leg too.As stated it is a very different situation from a footie team qualifying from its group,and going on to win the final.
Connecting the Guineas and Derby is a strange scenario.


The price given is FOR the horse winning (not losing) the first race and then going on to win the second race. The 2000 Gns is a well accepted route for Derby runners and the winner is invariably given a short price. If you asked for Dawn Appoach to win the 2000Gns and then the Cheltenham Gold Cup next year I'm pretty sure that you would have been offered 100/1 at least.Wn that instance, winning the 2000 Gns would make the horse even less TO RUN IN AND WIN THE cgc. 1000/1 MIGHT BE THE ODDS ON OFFER IN THAT CASE!

If you ask for a price for  a horse to win both the 2000gns and the derby, you are asking for one price. how the bookmaker get at their price is for them to decide.As they do not offer set prices for a horse to do the double they always have to refer to traders.
what price would i be offered for right of passage to win the ascot gold cup and the july cup?
do you think that because he won the ascot gold cup his chances of winning the july cup would be greater than prior to running in the ascot gold cup?

yes but the point is that WH offered 102/1
is there no honour any more?

theres a good case over on the irish forum.guy had a bet on aussie racing one morning in lads.live prices up in shop.horse won.refused to pay.it was in tooombawomba or something similar.question is wud they have contacted him if it lost?

Haha The seldom times they do take bets they wont honour them,

swift-tuttle

Palpable error rule covers it.

pay up Will hill, you clowns!

these matters should be tested in court

Price asked for, price given, first leg wins, bookie cries foul

It's the deviousness(waiting until the first leg wins for it to become an issue) that stinks.

I'm no supporter of bookmakers but this is not a conspiracy, its a co*k-up, but a perfectly understandable one. Doubles are invariably put to one side until such time that the first race is run and then the manager or whoever checks to see what bets are still running. At that point he/she picks up the mistake. No deviousnness. No dishonesty. Mistake given on the price given. Happens everyday.

What about the prices for the doubles given for other horses to win both races? If they were wrong too, then the punters may not have placed the bets if they had been given the 'right' prices.

What about the prices for the doubles given for other horses to win both races? If they were wrong too, then the punters may not have placed the bets if they had been given the 'right' prices.

sandown - Can you explain why they have waited until after the 1st leg please ?

Biscar

There are thousands of bets per day to attend to. Just like those no-one checks the slips/computer other than to manage liabilities until such time that they become live.I am surprised that the bet wasn't flagged up on the computer though suggesting that there wasn't a filter in place.

wait until after the derby, if it wins kick up a fuss and get a reduced price, if it loses go and collect as its effectively a single on the guineas.

It's really is bad by bookmakers to do this, they always want it both ways, they were laughing when Frankel didn't take the derby route and now they crying dawn approach has!

It's really is bad by bookmakers to do this, they always want it both ways, they were laughing when Frankel didn't take the derby route and now they crying dawn approach has!

He was 33/1 BEFORE the National Stakes in September. I know, I had to phone up for the price. It's clearly a palpable error.

And God created the heaven and earth. On the 7th day he rested on the 8th he created the palpable error rule.

I was always under the impression that a related bet was a double (or more) where different bets could potentially be decided either on the same day and/or at the end of the same event.

So for example having a double on a team to win a football match with a correct score of say 1-0 with them also winning the match itself, meaning that if the first happens then the second had to have, or doubling a golfer to make the cut and also to make the top 10 when by doing the first it gives him the chance to do the second.

The 2000gns and Derby are clearly two different events on two different days and you may as well give bookies free rein to have cancelled a bet of Istabraq to have won three Champion Hurdles on the spin because once he won the first and second then the third became more probable.

A few years ago I fancied a horse named HELLO might win the PORTLAND HANDICAP
and then go on to win the AYR GOLD CUP, so I asked laddies what price the double
knowing that 16s for first race and 20s for second race they offered 80/1,
I declined the double but backed the horse to win the first race intending to double up
from the first race, he won but did not run in the AYR because the going was soft.
He had picked up a 5 lbs penalty along the way.

MUGS

MUGS

MUGS

MUGS

MUGS

MUGS

As Dawn Approach hadn't even been entered for the Derby they thought they were stealing money(Had the Derby entries been published when they accepted bet?-can they be linked)

so hang on there ,i backed just the judge for the guineas and oaks in a ew double , 5/1 guineas 25/1 oaks are you now telling me i can get my money back because this bet should have never been taken .as surely this bet is related .put it on in spoils sports by the way walked up handed over the counter and was given my docket no ? asked .

neville chamberlain came back from nazi germany in 1939 waving a piece of paper ( your docket) saying peace in our time

lingbleed,   there is no way you would have been paid out if it was a winning bet at those odds, the bet should not been accepted .   as for getting your money back  I really don't know , of course you should by rights

The curious thing is that 103 is a prime number and also no fractional odds fit the bill to make a 102/1 double. On the other hand I also cannot believe that Hills would offer such a price as a headliner. 100/1 maybe but 102/1 no chance.

Anyway as for the outcome if it is a combined price using the odds on the two different markets then the punters haven't got a leg to stand on - however if it was a publicity seeking wraparound quote from Hills then the odds will stand.

just shows the value of singles I suppose

interesting point about how the 102/1 was arrived at PBT

say the odds for the Guineas were 5/1 and for the Derby 20/1

and an inexperienced trader got his sums wrong

should be (6*21) - 1 = 125/1 for the double

perhaps he did (5*20)+1+1


just guesswork I know but if someyhing like that did happen then a reduction has already taken place

we really need to know what the 2 antepost prices were at the time of the bet

No way will they get 102/1 for the 2000/Derby double.

My guess is punters wrote a slip for the 2000/Derby double and were given the odds for each event.
Did Hills advertise 102/1 for a Dawn Approach 2000 Guineas/Epsom Derby double?  No.

No way will they get 102/1 for the 2000/Derby double.

My guess is punters wrote a slip for the 2000/Derby double and were given the odds for each event.
Did Hills advertise 102/1 for a Dawn Approach 2000 Guineas/Epsom Derby double?  No.

Kincsem,

I've just said exactly the same above, but the alternative ie combined odds making 102/1 is impossible also because of the mathematics.

A very easy verdict would be arrived at should somebody furnish us with the true facts of the case.

Why should the palpable error rule be allowed where the only reason for it is that they do not employ enough or adequately qualified staff?

Operator error is a large reason why palp exists. 102-1 is an obvious mistake, or a palpable error. Unless it was deliberately offered as a 'special' one-off bet.

Why should the palpable error rule be allowed where the only reason for it is that they do not employ enough or adequately qualified staff?

The main reson for it is to stop fraud.

If it didn't exist everyone would go and get a job as a betting shop cashier and offer their mates 1,000,000/1 on every bet.

Why do these rules always favour the bookie.It's like the deadheat rule punters lose out.

Wasn't fraud in these cases, bets placed in good faith (same type of good faith that one would hope that "sleepers" were not pocketed by bookies, price changes did not always result in odds shortening without an equal lengthening etc)

It's like the deadheat rule punters lose out.

No they don't.

i will see monday if they will refund the bet ,only 30euro 15 ew so it will hardly break them ,il will be use n this related bet excuse as my ace card ,it will be good to see if it works the other way round

any update on this? have IBAS ruled on it yet? Surely they would have to before the Derby