General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Apr 11
12:08
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Sep 02
the well planned betting coup is considered a good thing in horse racing. in other sports it's called a fix! 
why is one considered part of the game, and actually admired, but the other is outlawed and reviled?
why is one considered part of the game, and actually admired, but the other is outlawed and reviled?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 50
|
By:
A betting coup doesnt necesarily have to be a fix....For starters it can only be a fix if perpetrated by those participating in the event
|
|
By:
Horse racing and greyhound racing is intrinsically linked with betting. Whereas other sport is sport for sport's sake. Take betting away from horse racing and you have a sport that's less appealling than show jumping or 3 day eventing.
Fixing is reviled and rightfully so. It undermines the whole ethos in sport. Horse racing is undermined by the handicapping system. It's the only sport that I can think of off the top of my head where your chances of winning are regularly increased by deliberately performing below your best. Its the rules of the game that lead to the grey area between downright cheating and acceptable cheating. |
|
By:
Some trainers have 2 or more runners in race. The punters may make 1 of them favourite or 2nd fav, just because the "at a glance" race record might have some placed results there.......compared to the trainer's other horse/s in race that may show very little in race record.
However, the GOING is still the biggest factor for a race, and a substantially change in going ...eg GTF(FIP0 like at SEDGEFIELD yesterday....and it may well be that the trainer's other horse/s outperform the punters' favoured horses. OK the trainer is likely to know which of his horses are likely to run "a big race", and a "knowledgeable " punter can get big odds by selecting the "right" horse or 2/3...... It is the puzzle of each race that makes horse racing such a great sport to bet on........if the "obvious" one always won, then there would not be much fun in landing a coup! Punters should always be wary when a trainer has more than 1 horse in race, or when an owner has more than 1 in a race , as the "obvious" one may not have factors in favour that day, and the other one or ones maybe where winner comes from.....or from the other trainers' horses in race....as coups don't always come off  |
|
By:
CLYDEBANK29 22 Apr 11 12:42
Horse racing and greyhound racing is intrinsically linked with betting. Whereas other sport is sport for sport's sake. a very good point |
|
By:
There is a perception among the general population of bettors that on the horses the bookie ultimately always wins. Punters can win the battle but not the war. Thus when someone puts it over on the bookie, most bettors think, 'good on him'.
The more of a consistent winner a horse bettor is, the more he will dislike coups. They eat into his profit, they induce bm s to offer worse prices across the board and they justify tighter and tighter restrictions on winning accounts. Personally I hate the name of Barney Curley. A fix is a fix. As regards handicaps, the American system of racing is much less kind to the horses at the bottom that have to run in claimers. The observant winning bettor will also (vis-a-vis losing punters) have found a way to factor in likely forms of corruption into his tissue for handicaps (to a degree that he can come out on top). I have a much, much better lifetime p&l (per race) on handicaps than conditions events. So imv there is no so much corruption in racing that we shd get rid of hcaps just yet. |
|
By:
Where you run a horse dead for a couple of starts and then leap over tall buildings to back it when it is on, and it wins, that is a sting.
When you pay 3/4 of a cricket team to play like drunks so their team loses, that is a fix. I suppose you could argue that the running dead in leadup races is a fix of part of the race, but it still doesn't tell you the placegetters. When you buy off cricketers, you know the result, or at least the result of sessions/phases of matches. |
|
By:
Goliath taking a dive when being hit by David's stone would be a fix.
David concealing the fact that he was ace at slinging stones was a planned coup. Whether betting is involved or not is immaterial - cunning is part of humankind's makeup. And eliminating handicaps has nothing to do with anything. Do you think there is less corruption in the States because they have so few handicaps? Is there less use of drugs? Come on! |
|
By:
People are incentivised to try their hand at some sort of corruption when the financial gains they can make from betting (less the costs of the risk of detection and punishment) are significantly greater than the prize-money they can get from winning races.
In this respect you will always get more 'coups' at lower levels. Ajurisdiction like Hong Kong is rational in using a lot of tote betting turnover to improve prize-money. To some degree the handicap issue imv is a red herring. |
|
By:
Deadly Earnest and Sandown have just emphasized the inate hurdles that have to be overcome to clean up racing.
There's nothing wrong for David to conceal he is an ace sling shot unless he did it in a sling shot contest in which case it would be a fix on the same level as deliberately throwing a match. To say handicapping doesn't induce skulduggery or cunning is like saying matches can't light a fire. |
|
By:
Clydebank
Not having handicaps doesn't lead to no or less corruption, at least it doesn't in the States. So why should it do so in the UK? You ban h/caps and you will still find corruption. It's a red herring. |
|
By:
a good sports analogy is next manager betting, where "coups" tend to elicit a similar amused/admiring response from anyone not on the receiving end.
it comes down to whether sport's seen to have been compromised and who the perceived victim is. |
|
By:
The next manager market is not a sporting event.
I agree it comes down to whether the sport has been compromised but why do some people think that cheating in racing doesn't compromise the sport? Times are changing though. Sandown you can light a fire without matches but you don't give someone matches if you don't want them to light a fire. Besides I believe handicapping has developped a culture where it's fair game to run a horse below it's best because it increases it's chances of winning in the future. It's therefore justifiable in the minds of players or at least some of the players. |
|
By:
askari1 22 Apr 11 16:14
I have a much, much better lifetime p&l (per race) on handicaps than conditions events. You have my utmost respect and admiration for this statement - I used to be similar but am now completely the opposite, to the extent that I no longer even look at most handicaps. I believe I could still make them pay but about 5 years ago I concluded that the (massive) amount of time and effort required (for me to make them pay) was not worth the return - I now take great pleasure in putting a line through most handicaps every morning and concentrating only on conditions races. imo there is way too much low class racing, mostly bookmaker sponsored handicaps (with prize money that would not deter any chicanery), and I would need to work 24/7 to stay on top of it all in the way that I used to. It is nice to have the time back, especially at this time of year as we approach wall to wall (afternoon and evening) flat racing - mostly handicaps sponsored (for good reason) almost exclusively by bookmakers. I don't have an issue with (decent) handicaps - i think the plots, the coups and the chicanery are an important part of the overall "chess game" but I just don't have the time required (imo) to keep up - using my time hungry methods that are probably antiquated now anyway. |
|
By:
Clydebank
There is a false assumption about which is that horses should always run on their merits and therefore anything which runs below form is immediately suspect, whereas in reality it is not always possible to run to a PB because of the training and the form cycle which which are recognizable facts of life with any athlete. The top human athletes train to peak every 4 years for the Olympics; their training and competing schedule is geared to that month and that day when they want to be at their best. Horses cannot be at their best every race. Even with no handicaps the best trainers would target races because they can't peak their best horses more than perhaps twice a year. Less than the top animals run when a race is suitable, whether they are at their best or not. So you will still get trainers running horses over shorter trips than what the horse's best form might be at, merely to sharpen it for the future. Young horses develop strength and stamina as they get older. Horses run on going which might not suit them. Some of this would still be deliberate concealment but I do not believe that this is tantamount to corruption. |
|
By:
A handicap system that penalises consistency and rewards inconsistency is crazy.
|
|
By:
"Some of this would still be deliberate concealment but I do not believe that this is tantamount to corruption."
That's what I mean when I think cheating is inate in horse racing. You accept it. When an athlete runs a race he performs at his best on the day, he doesn't race at all if he is not fit or near peak. He probably would if he was to get a 10 metre start for perfoming badly. The great Kenenisa Bekele doesn't spend all his life running 400 metres to conceal the fact he is an ace 10,000m runner, then turp up in the 10,000 metres handicapped on his 400 metres form, pockets all the prize money and tries to fleece punters and bookies into the bargain. He never runs if he isn't near peak physical fitness and he's near peak physical fitness throughout most of the season. His reputation and desire for great sporting achievement is everything to him. |
|
By:
Hypothetically when one of last years champion (multiple G1 winning 3YO's) returns to the course as a 4YO for the first time this year (unlikely it returns at all - I know! - but bare with me!) - it returns in a mere listed event against some typical listed class rivals. Is the race being run over its optimum trip? Is this race it's intended target?, is it 100% fighting fit and ready?, is the jockey going to give it a hard race?
When it finishes 3rd (despite having had 2 stone in hand of the field) - was this corrupt? If you visit any betting shop 48 old men (and if they can be bothered to look up from their FOBT'S - 25 chinamen that had it in all their multiples) will be screaming that it was! It's a bit like betting on Man Utd away to Macclesfield in the FA Cup and then complaining (after the 1-1 draw) that they would have won (Man Utd!) if they hadn't fielded their 3rd reserves. Neither is corrupt (imo). The smarter player will likely have anticipated (and priced accordingly) the likelihood of these outcomes from the signs and the clues. |
|
By:
^ Apologies to any Macclesfield fans - no offence intended!
|
|
By:
The management if the horse wasn't fit it would be schooling in public.
"is the jockey going to give it a hard race?" another example of inate acceptance .....the jockey should give his best to ensure the horse should finish in it's best possible position. In this very unlikely scenario, if the horse was fit there would be nothing wrong as there would be no hint of concealment although it would not benefit the sport in any shape or form. ..................... A lot of your reasons are those often those thrown up to create grey areas, and smokescreens, that enable trainers and owners to run horses deliberately below their best. Just because a horse isn't at his absolute peak, isn't carte blanche for a trainer to run it when it palpably isn't fit. |
|
By:
Handicaps are make horse racing the great puzzle it should be.
What you have in USA is IMO more "corrupt" ........you just have to watch some USA races and very very few horses are trying CLAIMERS are boring! Corruption exists in most aspects of life....unfortunately.....and whether it is a HANDICAP race or other type of race, you will get regular , what the shop punter believes , is "odd" results. However, the shop punter just ain't got much idea re the "patterns"etc etc etc , or numerous other factors, it takes for horse with winning chances that can , and do, beating favourites TIME AFTER TIME! I suspect the recent Derby Trial had punters screaming "fix" when BH horse won at 7-1 SP. It was not a "fix" ......just all the factors in that race gave that horse a good chance to win against the opposition on the day. IT WAS NOT A HANDICAP .....JUST ANOTHER RACE WHERE THE PUNTERS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO IDEA ON THE RACE BACKING THE FAVOURITE! |
|
By:
CLYDEBANK - You are reading too much into my post if you think that I accept it (chicanery) but I do not view the example that I have given as corruption.
With regard to actual corruption/cheating - I don't accept it - but I do expect it. Anyone that accepts it naive but anyone that does not expect it - is even more naive. Take 2 year old maiden races? - I bet on them, but I don't expect all of the participants to be 100% wound up and I don't expect any of the jockeys to be excessively hard on their mounts. The clue (and there are always clues) in this case is in the race type, so I am expectant - that is quite different from being acceptant! |
|
By:
1st race at SANDOWN ......can hear the punters in bookies crying "FIX".....and it was not a H/C.........NOR A FIX ! IMO
|
|
By:
In every walk of life there is corruption racing is no different
|
|
By:
I don't have an issue with (decent) handicaps - i think the plots, the coups and the chicanery are an important part of the overall "chess game" but I just don't have the time required (imo) to keep up - using my time hungry methods that are probably antiquated now anyway.
The Management, the races on which I do best are class 2 and 3 (esp. heritage hcaps) w/ more than 16 runners. Morning bookie prices also help my return. I typically have positions on 65%+ of the field and am primarily a layer. My worse losses, for what it's worth, have come in Gp1 races (being too stubborn on single horses). |
|
By:
DFC, as for the first race at Sandown, I can accept that Nicholls' horse was not fit or not off. The real blame lay w/ the starter for the heavy losses that I and others wd have sustained on the event.
Clydebank, it makes it a lot easier on punters that racing involves horses not humans, and that trainers have historical records that you can look up. It is poss. rationally to estimate chances by assessing how likely a horse is to be off (indeed, I find it hard to believe that many win just by reading form in the book). As long as the students of racing can do this in such a way as to increase or sustain his edge over the general market, racing's grey areas aren't problematic. Flagrant cheating is unacceptable and a drain on winners and the broader market. |
|
By:
I agree that fragrant cheeeettttingggggg is totally not acceptable in any sphere of sport or life....
The 1st race at Sandown did have an odd mix of horses...all with some form....and looked an open race. The winner lead from start ...set strong pace ...as going suited it....and the other horses were not up for race on the going or the way race was run. At the odds , the winner was worth a punt to win.......and to be 2nd in a SFC with the top 2 in market. Not sure what you mean re starter etc ......I know the Nicholl's horse ran almost off course at start , but was not paying full attention to all that happened at start... I was "happy" with result ......the comments made by TV people re winner helped the odds I suspect ..... GL with bets.....and starters !!! |
|
By:
I was at Sandown - as you might expect me to be - and imo Sanctuaire lost his race in the paddock and on the way to the start by being very much on his toes and going down too fresh. He then lost several lengths at the start and later he made a couple of jumping errors. No conspiracy. The horse had an off day. Clerks Choice should have won probably but the winner enjoyed an easy lead and McCoy may have misjudged how much CC had left. These things happen to the best of jockeys and trainers.
Those on here who think every should work outr the way the form book and the ratings suggest are ignoring two of the most important parts of the equation - the horses and tactics. There is far less corruption inthe sport than is claimed - although the insiders can make a nice living out of having information not available to the general public.But that is not corruption. |
|
By:
"although the insiders can make a nice living out of having information not available to the general public"
This is what I mean whereby cheating is inate in horse racing and many of the prople who follow the sport. It's insider trading and is a criminal offence in financial markets. Footballers face a lengthy ban if found guilty of betting on a match they are playing even if it's a totally harmless £5 wager and by the same token trainers, jockeys and stable staff shouldn't be able to bet in races in which they are participating and if found guilty they should be suspended. |
|
By:
This is what I mean whereby cheating is inate in horse racing and acceptable to many of the prople who follow the sport.
|
|
By:
Clydebank
You seem to be rather naive although that may be unfair. There is no reason why connections should be unable to back their own horses although laying is now rearded as unacceptable. There is no obligation to impart every bit of information to the rest of the world about the well-being of their animals. If they lie in respponse to a direct question, that's different. There was a massive gamble on a patrick veitc`h horse where the horse ran once- nowhere- then came out a second time and the owner and stable had it off on all rates from 100/1 down. Not a handicap you will notice as it was only the second race of its life. I really don't understand why we should outlaw this kind of thing.It's not the same thing as insider trading on financial markets where there is a legal requirement to publish market sensitive information to everyone at the same time and abusing trust is a criminal act.Trainers and owners are breaking no laws by keeping key info quiet. |
|
By:
How condescending of you. I'm not naive in the slightest.
In reply I'd say you've been brainwashed but that may be a little unfair |
|
By:
Handicapping makes racing "interesting" ........CLAIMERS are boring!
|
|
By:
What handicap race today did you find unfathomable C29?
|
|
By:
DFC the last bet I had on a horse was Kings Fountain to finish in the top 10 in the Grand National and before that I had a couple of ew bets on the first 2 races at Aintree...Grandouet and Grand Crus.
I have an informed causal betting interest in the sport and have bet both as a better informed casual and as a serious gambler in the past on horse racing. I shifted away from gambling "professionally" on the horses the year Haafhd? won the 2,000 Guineas and North Light won the Derby in 2004. I did quite well backing both ante post and they both coincided directly with me losing bookie accounts. This was the catalyst for me to move almost entirely into sports and specials betting which was a good decision. |
|
By:
Clydebank
My apologies for suggesting that you sounded naive..it's just that I am tired of the general criticism of the sport coming from the overly concerned press re. handicaps, whip abuse, corruption, fatalities whatever combined with the sport's attitude towards its customers in terms of quality of racing, prices, food & drink, and its seemingly inability to move away from prize money levels as the main concern. Getting to be a bit of a grumpy old man I guess |
|
By:
fair play Sandown
|
|
By:
I see it finished 11th C29
 After spending years weighing up HANDICAP races and key factors in them , I probably would be "quite angry" IF they did away with present set up ......especially if racing was reduced to USA type races.....just extremely boring to watch.... GL with next year's punt on GN ( this year with going being fairly fast ....it suited the older horses to finish in top 10.....next year if going slower, then younger ones have better chance) |
|
By:
Sandown, had Sanctuaire gone off at bf SP of 3.3, it wd still have been a marginally losing race for me, but I wd not have had any complaints. He went off at 6.3, engulfing my out-of-the-money trading backs and forcing me to lock in a nasty loss. The pattern of opposition after first show was quite consistent w/ the horse being too fresh in the paddock, but given that Nicholls has a habit of running horses returning from injury / an operation during the regular season maybe for the sake of the owners, I wd guess that a lot of the lays were well-informed. It was a race where you cd have formed an accurate view of Clerks Choice (not a natural at going past horses, may do best on a tighter, undulating track) and still lost badly.
Clydebank, I don't believe that racing returns less per hour of intelligent study than other events (in fact, I believe that it offers more scope for intelligence, creativity and system-building, esp. for both punters w/ an analytical rather than technical edge). If a punter loses to what seem inconceivable outcomes on hcaps, the effect is imv due to his not having understood deeply or studied enough. |
|
By:
askari there are several reasons why I choose to bet elsewhere but prominent among them is that I'd rather stick to what I consider clean sports and level playing fields.
my image of racing is blighted by things like.. bleating wealthy owners moaning about prize money. the amount of nepotism. Miles Rodgers, Kieren fallon, barney curley etc. Dave Nevison getting severely threatened after buying a claimer Patrick Veitch going into hiding for a year |