Greyhounds
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
It seems the bookies want it all ways again
When a trap is vacant and you've taken an early price the layers want to revert bets to the higher over-round on-course market SP, yet if a reserve comes into a race when you've taken an early price, not only are you on at SP but are presented with a totally different race to the one when a bet was struck.
Is this not the same case the bookies are presenting in arguing against a rule 4 type situation for greyhounds? i.e. the make-up of the race has changed.
It's all well and good Pat Cooney (Bet365 on RPGTV tonight) saying punters can ring up and cancel bets when a NR/SP situation occurs but try this in principle. Okay, Bet365 are in all intents and purposes an online outfit so it may be easier done with them but imagine a normal punter walking into his/her local betting shop asking for a bet to be cancelled as there's a vacant trap in the race since they struck the bet. You'd be a long odds for your request to even be understood in most cases, let alone actioned!!
In my RP Col Monday I wasn't suggesting we apply the horseracing R4 directly, but rather that was a 'lookup' table that most punters are familar with and was a starting point that our sport should adopt. I believe when a non runner leads to a vacant trap alongside other runner(s) they should carry an additional 'penalty' which can be formulated, because it is advantageous whatever its original price, but just to poo-poo the idea as seems to be the case is, to put it mildly, disappointing. After all, why was rule 4 invented in the first place? There's a on-course market in horse racing that all early bets prior to any non-runners could be used for settling purposes, so why not just go with that? Its because early priced greyhound races were few and far between and didn't require any policy to cover such a situation. But, in an era of fierce bookmaker competition when more and more greyhound races are chalked up early encouraging business throughout the day, surely the policy of settling those bets at a market compiled and finalised in minutes before the 'off' where in a significant amount of cases a few hundred quid may have changed hands is unacceptable.
When a trap is vacant and you've taken an early price the layers want to revert bets to the higher over-round on-course market SP, yet if a reserve comes into a race when you've taken an early price, not only are you on at SP but are presented with a totally different race to the one when a bet was struck.
Is this not the same case the bookies are presenting in arguing against a rule 4 type situation for greyhounds? i.e. the make-up of the race has changed.
It's all well and good Pat Cooney (Bet365 on RPGTV tonight) saying punters can ring up and cancel bets when a NR/SP situation occurs but try this in principle. Okay, Bet365 are in all intents and purposes an online outfit so it may be easier done with them but imagine a normal punter walking into his/her local betting shop asking for a bet to be cancelled as there's a vacant trap in the race since they struck the bet. You'd be a long odds for your request to even be understood in most cases, let alone actioned!!
In my RP Col Monday I wasn't suggesting we apply the horseracing R4 directly, but rather that was a 'lookup' table that most punters are familar with and was a starting point that our sport should adopt. I believe when a non runner leads to a vacant trap alongside other runner(s) they should carry an additional 'penalty' which can be formulated, because it is advantageous whatever its original price, but just to poo-poo the idea as seems to be the case is, to put it mildly, disappointing. After all, why was rule 4 invented in the first place? There's a on-course market in horse racing that all early bets prior to any non-runners could be used for settling purposes, so why not just go with that? Its because early priced greyhound races were few and far between and didn't require any policy to cover such a situation. But, in an era of fierce bookmaker competition when more and more greyhound races are chalked up early encouraging business throughout the day, surely the policy of settling those bets at a market compiled and finalised in minutes before the 'off' where in a significant amount of cases a few hundred quid may have changed hands is unacceptable.
Show More
I've been banging on about a rule 4 deduction for ages but met with fierce opposition, saying make-up of races change. Not disputing that but to be on at the ridiculously poor sp is hard to stomach. Dont think a formula for deductions is practical. What i would call for is revised betting as soon as a non runner is announced. It could be too late for non-arrivals, lame in the paddock etc but with sufficent warning the odds compilers should get back to work!
Revised betting is all well and good, but it would rely on all firms being responsive at news of a NR, and wouldn't they have had their cards marked? Their revised market would be based on the liabilities they have, rather than send the whole 'early' market back to the what their original show was as would a R4-type scenario
Across the board. still likely to be about 110%, or less, over-round. Far better than sp, which is a farce in this day and age. It's beyond me how track bookmakers stay in business, but you only have to look at the handful standing at tracks nowadays to realise they're a dying breed
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539