ALL IN RUN OR NOT, ENTER OR NOT.

Sounds O.K. to me

Yes, wonderful rule. 'Tis the very essence of what ante-post punting is all about.

If you can't stand it when your horse gets injured and you do your money, or the horse isn't entered and you do your money, or the horse is entered but runs in another race and you do your money...........keep your money in your pocket imo.

In spite of being incepted when gambling on horses through illegal bookmakers and therefore open to ANYONE taking part in this illegal act, was liable to a fine and worse for habitual criminals?

The principle goes back (at least) to Victorian times. One of Trollope's Palliser novels, The Duke's Children, features a character losing £70,000 when his horse, which he has backed heavily ante-post, is injured and fails to run in the St Leger. He feels a bit aggrieved....... (like some posters on here!)

I wouldn't change it - it makes it much more fun.

It's perfectly reasonable as long as you know that is the rule. Though it can be frustrating

It  does encourage criminality,  I remember lads laying a horse a fortnight after it's death had been reported in the RP.
A race meeting along with made up racing results was perpetrated several years ago and bookmakers brought action against the perpetrators and they were duly imprisoned, surely that rule encourages criminality by bookmakers, they can't have it both ways.

You're in the NRNB and half the odds camp, are you?  Don't think that particular camp really 'get' ante-post punting myself. 

To paraphrase you, bazz, some punters seem to want to get the juicy ante-post odds but get the day of race concession....they can't have it both ways.

I do object to the rule that balloted horses result in a void bet. Apart from the fact that
the high street bookies have been collecting the money from this little-known rule for ages,
it also makes ante-post bookmaking very perilous on here (though I don't expect anyone to cry
for the layers... as I've said here many times).

Did everyone see that thread about the footie on moneysavingexpert a few years ago?
Hair-raising stuff!

It's hard to justify that a backer should lose their bet when the horse they back is declared at the final stage but doesn't get a run because of the safety limit of the race!

The balotted out rule was a fair rule, fairness should be extended to non entry of competitor, in law judges have ruled that if a person cannot win then a person cannot lose by that same rule.
A bad rule no matter what, we just see greed lauded by the headmaster and joybouy, both layers .

The firm that I have my argument with is doing the same thing again, they quote SO YOU THINK as a 7/2 favourite for the Dubai World Cup, on the strength of a tweet by the trainers wife, the horse has not been entered as I write.
We have had a totally dishonest government allowing CARTOON RACES to be shown in betting shops up and down Britain, for the purpose of generating more tax to continue warring with other nations, I am sure that those who agree with this heinous rule, do not give one jot as to whether there is a moral clause or not.
That very same government tried to fool some of us into believing that they were socialist, some Tories were fooled and still are, but that should not surprise anyone.

You couldn't be more wrong, bazz.  I am an ante-post backer through and through - and pretty good at it, tbh, which is why I don't wish to see your NRNB and half the odds kick in.  As eric said, I can only assume those that wish for this aren't much goood at ante-post betting?

I don't really see what the problem is?  You take a chance on a horse getting there and get inflated odds about him winning.  You can't get the inflated odds and the safeguard of money back....so if all you want is reduced odds and money back wait another month or two and have a bet then

You miss the point, totally, the horse (in this case) should have been entered or an intended entry, otherwise any cartoon name can be put forward, I have been winning from ante post since 1957 Grand National, but at least I had some sort of chance if I knew the intention was there, strangely my ante post for the ARC was not entered until 30th Sept 2011 and the race was run 3rd Oct, but I did back the horse in the belief that she would be entered, which is what I would have done if she were mine,
broke the course record though, somebody will complain of aftertiming but
I don't care.
Sundew had fallen at 26th fence in 1956 and I believed that if standing would win the following years National, in actual fact the horse returned a bigger price on the day than I got 12 months before when I placed my bet.
I too, have an excellent record ante post so you are wrong in that assertion you make.

First bet placed on her 7th Sept and regular small bets at intervals with never more than £12 staked, big odds on here, so well satisfied.
Still am not a fan of a horse being a loser and it was not entered, it is CHEATING!!!!!!!!

I must admit you've lost me, bazz.  You'd better explain exactly what race, what horse and what firm have got your goat up.  Help!

I would say though that under your rules, Danedream would never have been 1000 and I still don't get why you want the 1000 to become 100

Dubai World Cup, ORFEVRE.

To the best of my knowledge was never 1,000, I am not a big gambler and do not bet out of my pocket, with a pension of less than 7,500 per year
I can,t be.

Headmaster, some people don,t seem able to answer perfectly straightforward questions, I refer you to meat loafs thread as regards top weight for the Grand National.

You played in an ante-post race and the horse didn't get on the plane.....same situation as would have been the case if Danedream wasn't supplemnented.  Except she was.  And you copped.

Apart from a degree of irritation at Yasutoshi and the gang, what's the problem, bazz?  And how are you thinking this borders on criminality from the layers?  If the race had collapsed around your 5/1 shot would you have knocked on the bookie's door and said you really think this is a triffle unfair as the horse is now 7/4 and you feel like you've pulled their pants down? I bloody hope not, bazza

(btw, it is my pleasure to inform you that Dandream traded at 1000)

(Danedream)

I must admit I never saw 1000 and it was only after she had won her second group 1 on the trot that I asked for an address on this forum to
view her last  group 1 win, someone kindly gave both of the addresses for the 2 races, I knew the second horse was good trial tackle, but when I saw
how small she was against older horses in very heavy conditions and how easily she coped, I was hooked.
In the earlier race she had coped with good to firm in a similar fashion to the last group 1, so I was willing to take the chance, so was obviously prepared to be disappointed if she was not supplemented.

My anger is not directed at the Japanese connections but at WH for putting the horse up when entries or intentions were not known, you seem to miss the whole point.

It's hard to justify that a backer should lose their bet when the horse they back is declared at the final stage but doesn't get a run because of the safety limit of the race!

When you put it like that.....

Bazz

It's simple: they give you a price, you know the risks and you decide whether to play.

This particular rule was made when gambling was illegal, anybody daft enough to make a fuss and claim their money back was admitting to a criminal act, now that gambling is legal then the rule should be changed, or at least that part which says enter or not.

But Bazzar, what's the problem? You make the bets with your eyes open. No one forces you to
place a bet. No one can force a bookie to accept a bet either.

I lost a fair amount when BEAUTIFUL SOUND was withdrawn from the Paddy Power 'chase at Leopardstown, but then the horse was entered and withdrawn by connections, part of the game, but NOT ENTERED IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

NO IT'S NOT!!!!

Headmaster, you say you are an ante-post backer, but the fact is you are a turkey voting for Christmas, if you are telling the truth!!!!!

You don't seem to get it, bazz

Let's take the Champion Hurdle, for which entries are out today.  Under your rules, every bet struck before midday today on a horse that doesn't feature in the entries would then be refunded.  So every other bet on a horse that does make the initial list would either be subject to Rule 4 (unlikley) or suffer reduced odds from the outset (probably), as layers are aware their book will be totally lopsided once the refunds have been dished out. 

I don't understand, if you've got a bee in your bonnet about backing a horse that subsequently isn't enetered, why you play in races that haven't closed yet?  Forgive me for saying this, but I rather suspect, as your Grand National thread would indicate, that you don't bother to read race conditions or look to see when races shut/scratch/confirm etc.

For a start I do not deal in (probably), I need facts as far as I can get them, I am in the belief that I am one of the VERY few who does read the conditions, some races are framed in such a way that if a penalty clause is in the conditions of a big handicap, to the effect that any race won over a certain figure will incur a penalty, by the amount of winning prize could be just below the required figure, therefore the winner would NOT pick up a penalty for the big handicap, these are VERY few and far between now, I must admit.

Antepost betting would be pointless without this rule.

Stafford, my objection is to the part of the rule which says enter or not, but I don't expect closed minds to understand.
Because a rule has stood without challenge for many, many years does NOT mean it is a good or acceptable rule.

Simple solution for you.

Post on the horse racing forum and take day of race prices every day of the week instead (plenty of choice for you) where there is no value built into the price as there is no challenge in getting there on the day and also winning, you know like the current NRNB Antepost books (in other words DAY OF RACE PRICES except you dont know how well your horse is when you take the DAY OF RACE PRICE so far in advance of the race as it wont be reported accurately or at all by connections until very near to the race which might influence you to not back it, hence it is a disadvantage taking NRNB antepost compared to taking your DAY OF RACE PRICE on the day).

The bookies are hoping punters will take to these tightening of antepost margins, shooting themselves in the foot as the bookies will then have you by the short and curlies and will rip every shred of value from antepost with NRNB markets(er I mean DAY OF RACE PRICES markets when you dont know the well-being/form of your horse come the day as you would with normal day of race prices, it may get beat twice in the run up and you will be left with a dire DAY OF RACE PRICE for it when if you had instead waited to back it on the day at DAY OF RACE PRICES and seen it lose you would have not backed it at all).

Agree with Eric(must be a first)

Its not if these rules have currently sprung up from nowhere, you have a choice to make, do you trust your judgement or not?, do you in most walks of life need to be lead by the todger to go to the karsie?

If so , Camelot offer some nice prizes for hopeful people

FFS

"I don't expect closed minds to understand."

The HEADBANGER and friends join up to use the pack of dogs mentality, if only ZILZAL had 1/10 of the class of the horses name from which he uses as a nom de plume, life would be so much better.
It is noticeable that THE HEADBANGER, dodged my truth question, perhaps there is a reason, I would have complained at such a suggestion, if made by someone else.

Realise you're fighting a very lone battle here (rightly as no-one who understands the mechanics of ante-posting could possibly agree with you) but no need for the nasties mate.
I have to admit to finding some of your posts unintelligible, which is the only reason you haven't had a response to a question I wasn't aware had been posed.  Feel free to have another go.....

It does not surprise that YOU find some of my posts "unintellible"
, perhaps this will simplify matters, to enter a horse for a competition signifies intent, if the horse is not entered then the connections do not intend to compete for a particular prize.

"if the horse is not entered then the connections do not intend to compete for a particular prize"
Correct. So why do you bet in races that haven't closed yet?

My advice is for YOU to wait for entries to come out....if you think that signifies intent you wil be adding a lot of W.Mullins horses to your Cheltenham portfolio imo

If you are not a layer, why did you go into PETE THE BLOKE thread on 'phone call from BETFAIR.

Crikey, bazza.  It should be bleedin' obvious that anything that negatively impacts layers - LIKE PETE - will also be a blow to backers - LIKE ME.

GEDDIT?

Headmaster, your patience amazes me. I only looked back in here because I was astonished the
thread was still alive. I was even more astonished to get a mention (rather gratified actually).

TBH, layers like me are not much use to you simply because my stakes are very small. Mind you,
if the GN was allowed to continue without a rule change, I'd probably be taking some biggish
stakes by April.

Headmaster, could you PLEASE tell me where I advocated NRNB
ANYWHERE in ANY of my posts, you seem to have a belief that your ASSUMPTIONS are correct, you ASSUME that I am not very good at ante-post betting, just because the the thought entered YOUR mind,
this NRNB is the FIRST time in a post by me that I have mentioned it.
Now get out of that mind which leads you to WRONG THINKING and try to maintain an equilibrium, IF this is possible.

TUG this is the original thread as posted by me and you will see that the headbanger posted on 16 Jan at 13:59 that I advocated NRNB, which I did not in the other thread where you joined in he posts that he never mentioned NRNB, as you can see this is a LIE.