Horse Antepost
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hi,
This is probably a daft question, but can i back the same horse to win 2 ante-post races in a double? For instance Hurricane Fly is 4/9 to win the Irish Champion and 100/30 to win at the Festival. So the double pays c. 11/2. But if he wins next weekend i assume he'd shorten (a bit) for March. Would my double be ok or is it a related contingency? Do i need to ask for a Special Double price?
Thanks in advance for any help.
This is probably a daft question, but can i back the same horse to win 2 ante-post races in a double? For instance Hurricane Fly is 4/9 to win the Irish Champion and 100/30 to win at the Festival. So the double pays c. 11/2. But if he wins next weekend i assume he'd shorten (a bit) for March. Would my double be ok or is it a related contingency? Do i need to ask for a Special Double price?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Show More
No,that can't be done as it's a related bet.
365 (if you can get on with them or would want to)offer an ante-post special on that double
HF-9/2
OC-16/1
JET-22/1
9/2 is short in my opinion.
365 (if you can get on with them or would want to)offer an ante-post special on that double
HF-9/2
OC-16/1
JET-22/1
9/2 is short in my opinion.
thanks dj - much appreciated. Agree that 9/2 is short. Think he'll be not far off 4/1 in March barring big name withdrawals. Will leave it.
Thanks
Thanks
Yeah agree HF and TNO might be the one's to be enhanced come the festival and 9/2 might become available as a single. There are some other related contingency doubles available with other bookmakers.
Best prices at the moment are 8/15 for the weekend and 100/30 for the Champion Hurdle. No doubt winning on weekend he shortens, if he lost he would be pushed out a point or two.
The double if it was possible is just over 11/2.
If you are confident enough for the weekend chuck £40 on to win £21. At the same time chuck £30 on at 100/30 to win £100.
If he wins on the weekend then in theory you have £9 of your own cash out to win £100. Obviously if he loses on weekend you are £70 down but have a chance of recouping it all with a £30 profit in March.
Or as others have said, he will be bigger on the day. Every year the likes of Quevega, Big Bucks have been huge prices on the day compared to their Ante Post prices.
The double if it was possible is just over 11/2.
If you are confident enough for the weekend chuck £40 on to win £21. At the same time chuck £30 on at 100/30 to win £100.
If he wins on the weekend then in theory you have £9 of your own cash out to win £100. Obviously if he loses on weekend you are £70 down but have a chance of recouping it all with a £30 profit in March.
Or as others have said, he will be bigger on the day. Every year the likes of Quevega, Big Bucks have been huge prices on the day compared to their Ante Post prices.
there are doubles that can be done that are even more related.....but these arsewipes of bookies don't even realise it.....
How do you mean Paulie Walnuts??
Like Felix Yonger to win the Arkle and Champagne Fever to win the Jewson (now JLT I think)?
I have probably missed the point there completely so do inform me if worthwhile.
Like Felix Yonger to win the Arkle and Champagne Fever to win the Jewson (now JLT I think)?
I have probably missed the point there completely so do inform me if worthwhile.
DJ876.....Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier.....went off to bed......the one you gave an example of is an excellent one....faugheen/briar hill is another......
Probably stirring up a hornet's nest with the age-old debate surrounding related contingencies. Safe to say, as a punter and a statistician (a Masters in the subject), I think it's absolute nonsense and that the bookies have been getting away with murder enforcing this rule for donkey's years.
How can two separate events possibly be related in horse racing?
The point is this: by putting your double on before the first race in that double, the events are not related. Bookies of course argue that they shouldn't have to pay out on a double in which Hurricane Fly was offered at 100-30 for the Champion if he wins the Irish equivalent and then moves to 5-2. But put it this way, why doesn't it also apply to singles? If I put a bet on Hurricane Fly at 100-30 for the Champion now, and he loses at the weekend and drifts out to 6-1, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be offered that bigger price on my bet.
The whole point is that odds are layed before an event happens, and for that reason, it is not acceptable to offer a reduced-priced double in case the first leg comes up trumps.
I of course understand that my whining is not going to help matters, but would advise people not to fall into the trap of taking these bets on. To be honest, whatever Hurricane does this weekend, I bet with almost certainty that you'd get a better price than 9-2 by backing him to win at the weekend and then before the Champion with your winnings (assuming he does win in Ireland first). At least one of the bookies will have an offer that you can avail yourself of to make sure you'd be getting better than 9-2.
How can two separate events possibly be related in horse racing?
The point is this: by putting your double on before the first race in that double, the events are not related. Bookies of course argue that they shouldn't have to pay out on a double in which Hurricane Fly was offered at 100-30 for the Champion if he wins the Irish equivalent and then moves to 5-2. But put it this way, why doesn't it also apply to singles? If I put a bet on Hurricane Fly at 100-30 for the Champion now, and he loses at the weekend and drifts out to 6-1, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be offered that bigger price on my bet.
The whole point is that odds are layed before an event happens, and for that reason, it is not acceptable to offer a reduced-priced double in case the first leg comes up trumps.
I of course understand that my whining is not going to help matters, but would advise people not to fall into the trap of taking these bets on. To be honest, whatever Hurricane does this weekend, I bet with almost certainty that you'd get a better price than 9-2 by backing him to win at the weekend and then before the Champion with your winnings (assuming he does win in Ireland first). At least one of the bookies will have an offer that you can avail yourself of to make sure you'd be getting better than 9-2.
The simpler version of the above is that there is as big a risk that a horse will lengthen in odds for the second leg of a double based on the first part than there is that it will shorten. But you won't get the bigger price if it wins unimpressively. Bookies having their cake and eating it, basically...
Although the effect of a victory in the first part of a double is usually overestimated (probably deliberately), it generally is the case that a horse will shorten for the later race after it has won the first race. What I am saying is that related contingencies in antepost betting do exist but the prices offered are generally poor value.
I'd say with the Irish - Champion Hurdle double all of those prices are below what they should be. An example of a good value bet, would be when SJ offered 150/1 for Cue Card to do the Betfair Chase - Gold Cup double. He was 9/1 on the day and about 25/1 for the Gold Cup I believe, making him 259/1 for the double, if the bet would have been allowed.
If he won the Betfair, it would prove that he stays the trip (or possibly not as the King George appears to have suggested), meaning that 259/1 would be far too big. The reduced price of 150/1 would suggest that Cue Card would be around 14/1 for the Gold Cup after winning the Betfair, which again seems overpriced based on the knowledge that he could win over a staying trip.
Therefore I conclude that bookies are in the right to offer special double prices under the guise of related contingency, but, more often than not, the prices they offer are poor value.
I'd say with the Irish - Champion Hurdle double all of those prices are below what they should be. An example of a good value bet, would be when SJ offered 150/1 for Cue Card to do the Betfair Chase - Gold Cup double. He was 9/1 on the day and about 25/1 for the Gold Cup I believe, making him 259/1 for the double, if the bet would have been allowed.
If he won the Betfair, it would prove that he stays the trip (or possibly not as the King George appears to have suggested), meaning that 259/1 would be far too big. The reduced price of 150/1 would suggest that Cue Card would be around 14/1 for the Gold Cup after winning the Betfair, which again seems overpriced based on the knowledge that he could win over a staying trip.
Therefore I conclude that bookies are in the right to offer special double prices under the guise of related contingency, but, more often than not, the prices they offer are poor value.
I take your points but the mathematical logic is wrong.
This con preys on the fact that for a double or acca to land, the first leg(s) also have to land. Therefore, as you say, a horse will generally shorten after winning the first leg. But if it loses, its price typically drifts for the second leg. Because your first leg has gone down, people tend not to care that the odds they took for the second are now poorer.
The fact is, a horse is priced up for the second leg based on what bookies know before it has run in the first race. If I back Hurricane Fly at 100-30 for the Champion, I do so before he has proved how good he is in the Irish version. My single doesn't get affected, win, lose or draw, so why should the double be affected? I am taking the risk of him getting beaten in doing my double, so I shouldn't be charged if I get it right...
This con preys on the fact that for a double or acca to land, the first leg(s) also have to land. Therefore, as you say, a horse will generally shorten after winning the first leg. But if it loses, its price typically drifts for the second leg. Because your first leg has gone down, people tend not to care that the odds they took for the second are now poorer.
The fact is, a horse is priced up for the second leg based on what bookies know before it has run in the first race. If I back Hurricane Fly at 100-30 for the Champion, I do so before he has proved how good he is in the Irish version. My single doesn't get affected, win, lose or draw, so why should the double be affected? I am taking the risk of him getting beaten in doing my double, so I shouldn't be charged if I get it right...
To be honest, the Hurricane Fly example is even more galling.
This is a horse that has won 18 Grade 1s and two Champion Hurdles. What can he do on Sunday that justifies his price coming down any more for the Champion? The only way his price should be able to move is if the bookies are currently underestimating him for the Champion (which they have no right to be given the horse he is and the career we low he has had, which is about as black and white as an odds compiler could wish to access) or if he gets beaten, in which case he should drift.
Taking 9/2 is a complete con, and poor value for him to do the double.
This is a horse that has won 18 Grade 1s and two Champion Hurdles. What can he do on Sunday that justifies his price coming down any more for the Champion? The only way his price should be able to move is if the bookies are currently underestimating him for the Champion (which they have no right to be given the horse he is and the career we low he has had, which is about as black and white as an odds compiler could wish to access) or if he gets beaten, in which case he should drift.
Taking 9/2 is a complete con, and poor value for him to do the double.
The price will likely drift if the horse is beaten, but that is completely irrelevant, as the bet is no longer active anyway. The only way the bet stands is if the horse wins his/her first target. Are you saying that you would go around laying doubles for the same horse at current odds if you were a bookie?
But you're missing the point (and this is why the con continues unchecked)!
The price drift if the horse loses the first leg is not irrelevant! It's irrelevant in the sense that your bet is a loser, but the point is my hypothetical single for leg two (placed before the defeat in leg one) is not now offered at better odds to me. And nor is it offered at shorter odds if the horse wins the first leg/race. This is the risk in ante-post betting when you bet on a horse prior to gaining all the information you will have about its chance at a later date.
Why is it only in a double that this is considered a related contingency? What exactly is related about it that applies solely to a double/acca? More simply, why is my single win bet on Hurricane Fly for the Champion not reduced in odds if he wins the Irish Champion at the weekend? Surely if the two races are related in terms of a double, they're just plain related in any terms...
The price drift if the horse loses the first leg is not irrelevant! It's irrelevant in the sense that your bet is a loser, but the point is my hypothetical single for leg two (placed before the defeat in leg one) is not now offered at better odds to me. And nor is it offered at shorter odds if the horse wins the first leg/race. This is the risk in ante-post betting when you bet on a horse prior to gaining all the information you will have about its chance at a later date.
Why is it only in a double that this is considered a related contingency? What exactly is related about it that applies solely to a double/acca? More simply, why is my single win bet on Hurricane Fly for the Champion not reduced in odds if he wins the Irish Champion at the weekend? Surely if the two races are related in terms of a double, they're just plain related in any terms...
tomdeane 21 Jan 14 15:43
The simpler version of the above is that there is as big a risk that a horse will lengthen in odds for the second leg of a double based on the first part than there is that it will shorten. But you won't get the bigger price if it wins unimpressively. Bookies having their cake and eating it, basically...
That's a good point and it is a good reason why you're just as well to back the horse in a single and if you're happy with it after it wins the first race then stick it all on the next race at the reduced price, if it's won well you'll probably end up with a rolled up bet about 1/2 the price at worse, of the special price....but if it's won unimpressively you've got the option of pocketing the winnings and walking away or rolling it up at odds that are practically the same as the special price for the two races.
That HF one above at 9/2 is really poor, if he wins well on sunday he wouldn't be below 2's I wouldn't have thought and if he wins at 4/7 you're going to be nicking less than a point on that, he could just as easily be a 5/2 shot where you'd be getting the full 9/2.It's not worth doing a related double with the shorter priced ones.
There has to be related doubles though because the chances of the horse are directly affected from the running of it in the first race, like stafford says, if it loses it doesn't matter anyway, the point is though, when they give you a related double, you don't get the full odds of the seperate races but you don't get the price of the double on the new prices either should it have won....you do get an in between price which is generally fair on both sides.....not so much on the short price ones though.
The simpler version of the above is that there is as big a risk that a horse will lengthen in odds for the second leg of a double based on the first part than there is that it will shorten. But you won't get the bigger price if it wins unimpressively. Bookies having their cake and eating it, basically...
That's a good point and it is a good reason why you're just as well to back the horse in a single and if you're happy with it after it wins the first race then stick it all on the next race at the reduced price, if it's won well you'll probably end up with a rolled up bet about 1/2 the price at worse, of the special price....but if it's won unimpressively you've got the option of pocketing the winnings and walking away or rolling it up at odds that are practically the same as the special price for the two races.
That HF one above at 9/2 is really poor, if he wins well on sunday he wouldn't be below 2's I wouldn't have thought and if he wins at 4/7 you're going to be nicking less than a point on that, he could just as easily be a 5/2 shot where you'd be getting the full 9/2.It's not worth doing a related double with the shorter priced ones.
There has to be related doubles though because the chances of the horse are directly affected from the running of it in the first race, like stafford says, if it loses it doesn't matter anyway, the point is though, when they give you a related double, you don't get the full odds of the seperate races but you don't get the price of the double on the new prices either should it have won....you do get an in between price which is generally fair on both sides.....not so much on the short price ones though.
More simply, why is my single win bet on Hurricane Fly for the Champion not reduced in odds if he wins the Irish Champion at the weekend? Surely if the two races are related in terms of a double, they're just plain related in any terms...
Tom, if what you are saying happened then ante post betting wouldn't exist....there is no related contingency from someone betting a single on the fly to win the champion because that's all they are asking for and anything else that happens although affecting his price, doesn't affect the person who wasn't dependant on any other outcome.
Where related contingencies ARE a more of a nonsense is when bookies apply them in terms of football teams winning trophies....you try and get a price for city to win the double or treble or the 4 timer and you'll get a related contingency....yes there are tenuous reasons that they'll tell you why this is so....but you tell me how city doing well in the league makes them all the more likely to beat a side from another nations league?
Tom, if what you are saying happened then ante post betting wouldn't exist....there is no related contingency from someone betting a single on the fly to win the champion because that's all they are asking for and anything else that happens although affecting his price, doesn't affect the person who wasn't dependant on any other outcome.
Where related contingencies ARE a more of a nonsense is when bookies apply them in terms of football teams winning trophies....you try and get a price for city to win the double or treble or the 4 timer and you'll get a related contingency....yes there are tenuous reasons that they'll tell you why this is so....but you tell me how city doing well in the league makes them all the more likely to beat a side from another nations league?
^ I appreciate what you and ACStafford are saying, but believe me, the mathematical logic is not correct.
I'm being tongue-in-cheek when I say my single should be offered at bigger odds if he is to lose in the Irish Champion, of course.
The logic holds though. Hurricane Fly winning on Sunday does not affect his chance of winning the Champion at Cheltenham when my theoretical double is placed, because he hasn't already won Sunday's race when that double is placed. It is my risk in backing him to do both because the information we have (as punters and bookmakers) is the same at the time the bet is placed. Right now the bookies say he has a 100-30 chance of winning at Cheltenham, and a 4/7 chance of winning on Sunday. I should still get the 100/30 as the price for the second leg of the double because my bet is placed before he has run in the first leg.
Have just been looking for a better way of explaining this online, as I know I'm making a hash of it. I did find this on steeplechasing's blog from a while back:
http://steeplechasing.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/why-related-contingency-in-horseracing-bets-is-a-rip-off/
I'm being tongue-in-cheek when I say my single should be offered at bigger odds if he is to lose in the Irish Champion, of course.
The logic holds though. Hurricane Fly winning on Sunday does not affect his chance of winning the Champion at Cheltenham when my theoretical double is placed, because he hasn't already won Sunday's race when that double is placed. It is my risk in backing him to do both because the information we have (as punters and bookmakers) is the same at the time the bet is placed. Right now the bookies say he has a 100-30 chance of winning at Cheltenham, and a 4/7 chance of winning on Sunday. I should still get the 100/30 as the price for the second leg of the double because my bet is placed before he has run in the first leg.
Have just been looking for a better way of explaining this online, as I know I'm making a hash of it. I did find this on steeplechasing's blog from a while back:
http://steeplechasing.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/why-related-contingency-in-horseracing-bets-is-a-rip-off/
Tom,
The thing is this isn't a mathematical equation, it's an information based calculation. The price for Hurricane Fly to win the Champion Hurdle is given with all available information at the time the bet is placed, to bookmaker and punter. If you are asking for a price for him to win the Irish then English Champion Hurdles then by taking the odds on the Irish Champion Hurdle you would not only be getting the full payout on him winning the first race but but would also be getting the information that he was capable of winning said race before placing the bet given that it is absolutely necessary for your bet to be successful. The difference is really not appreciable in this case as you say given the information already available about Hurricane Fly and his adversaries in this race.
Consider an example such as Bob's Worth winning the Hennessey last year and then going onto win the Gold Cup. He went off 4/1 for the Hennessey and let's say for arguments sake he was 10/1 for the Gold Cup before the race (I don't remember his exact price). At this stage he is a second season novice who noone can really be sure of his potential. What is clear is that he is going to have to win or go very close in a handicap off 160 if he is going to win a Gold Cup. The 10/1 quote is factoring the question marks into his price but by landing the 4/1 first leg you are eliminating those same question marks with no penalty to the payout of your bet. Put yourself in a layer's shoes and you might think 4/1 would be a fair price to lay he wins the Hennessey and 10/1 a fair price he wins the Gold Cup but would you really want to lay 54/1 he wins both? If you try to think about it mathematically you can't account for the information factor, but if you think about it logically it makes sense, to me at least.
That's not to say the 'special' prices offered now by bookmakers are worth taking. They are a dreadful con and you would almost always be better rolling over your winnings to the new price after the race. Equally I wouldn't expect to be able to bet the straight double either.
The thing is this isn't a mathematical equation, it's an information based calculation. The price for Hurricane Fly to win the Champion Hurdle is given with all available information at the time the bet is placed, to bookmaker and punter. If you are asking for a price for him to win the Irish then English Champion Hurdles then by taking the odds on the Irish Champion Hurdle you would not only be getting the full payout on him winning the first race but but would also be getting the information that he was capable of winning said race before placing the bet given that it is absolutely necessary for your bet to be successful. The difference is really not appreciable in this case as you say given the information already available about Hurricane Fly and his adversaries in this race.
Consider an example such as Bob's Worth winning the Hennessey last year and then going onto win the Gold Cup. He went off 4/1 for the Hennessey and let's say for arguments sake he was 10/1 for the Gold Cup before the race (I don't remember his exact price). At this stage he is a second season novice who noone can really be sure of his potential. What is clear is that he is going to have to win or go very close in a handicap off 160 if he is going to win a Gold Cup. The 10/1 quote is factoring the question marks into his price but by landing the 4/1 first leg you are eliminating those same question marks with no penalty to the payout of your bet. Put yourself in a layer's shoes and you might think 4/1 would be a fair price to lay he wins the Hennessey and 10/1 a fair price he wins the Gold Cup but would you really want to lay 54/1 he wins both? If you try to think about it mathematically you can't account for the information factor, but if you think about it logically it makes sense, to me at least.
That's not to say the 'special' prices offered now by bookmakers are worth taking. They are a dreadful con and you would almost always be better rolling over your winnings to the new price after the race. Equally I wouldn't expect to be able to bet the straight double either.
There are some great examples coming up this weekend of why you would not want to lay these 'related' bets:
Rocky Creek 5/2 to win the Argento and will most likely need to win to line up in the Gold Cup. The price for him winning the Gold Cup is completely 'related' to his performance this weekend.
Big Bucks 8/11 to win Cleeve and if he proves his well being here it eliminates some huge question marks regarding his participation and chances in the World Hurdle.
Felix Yonger 5/2 to win Irish Arkle and is practically auditioning for the English version. Again his performace this weekend directly relates to not only his Arkle chance but his participation as well.
To use the football example from the blog you posted, although these horses do not gain any tangible points or such for winning these races, you can surely agree that winning these races would 'enhance their claims' for the Cheltenham targets.
Rocky Creek 5/2 to win the Argento and will most likely need to win to line up in the Gold Cup. The price for him winning the Gold Cup is completely 'related' to his performance this weekend.
Big Bucks 8/11 to win Cleeve and if he proves his well being here it eliminates some huge question marks regarding his participation and chances in the World Hurdle.
Felix Yonger 5/2 to win Irish Arkle and is practically auditioning for the English version. Again his performace this weekend directly relates to not only his Arkle chance but his participation as well.
To use the football example from the blog you posted, although these horses do not gain any tangible points or such for winning these races, you can surely agree that winning these races would 'enhance their claims' for the Cheltenham targets.
^
barnesy, agree with all of that. You've hit the nail on the head, fella!
barnesy, agree with all of that. You've hit the nail on the head, fella!
Barnesy, and co:
To use the football example from the blog you posted, although these horses do not gain any tangible points or such for winning these races, you can surely agree that winning these races would 'enhance their claims' for the Cheltenham targets.
Yes I completely agree, and understand why bookies don't want to lay a straight double. But that isn't the point. As that blog rightly says, the bookie is factoring in an insurance policy in case they are wrong, but you are the one paying the premium (not them).
Call it what you will, 'mathematical', 'logical', 'function', whatever... Two different horse races are not related. The football example is a good one because it provides a clear-cut example: you can't back Chelsea to win 2-0 and win the match, because if one is correct the other is necessarily correct. That is a related contingency. The fact that a horse winning a key trial likely enhances its chances for the main event does not mean those two are statistically related.
It's interesting you bring up the Felix Yonger example. He is owned by Graham Wylie while Champagne Fever belongs to Rich Ricci. There has been much debate about whether or not running plans for these two is resulting in a war behind the scenes. Given that it is unlikely that both will run in the Arkle, would it in your view be fair for bookies to lay a cut-priced double on Felix younger to win that race and Champagne Fever to win the JLT?
I use this as an example to try to highlight the logical flaw in your argument. Clearly where one of these ends up at Cheltenham greatly influences where the other one runs. But this cannot be a related contingency in and of itself because we are talking about two different races and two different horses. It would of course be unfair for a punter to risk getting their final destinations incorrect when placing a double, and have to pay insurance because the bookies are worried they'll get it wrong.
It all harps back to my original message that we all have the same information when the bet is placed and that is what counts. Ignore the fact that it is a 'double' and treat the two components as two individual races, for which a horse is priced up on its perceived chance at that time. It is not fair, nor mathematically logical, to reduce the chance of a horse winning both legs in case it wins the first one (and before it has won the first one).
To use the football example from the blog you posted, although these horses do not gain any tangible points or such for winning these races, you can surely agree that winning these races would 'enhance their claims' for the Cheltenham targets.
Yes I completely agree, and understand why bookies don't want to lay a straight double. But that isn't the point. As that blog rightly says, the bookie is factoring in an insurance policy in case they are wrong, but you are the one paying the premium (not them).
Call it what you will, 'mathematical', 'logical', 'function', whatever... Two different horse races are not related. The football example is a good one because it provides a clear-cut example: you can't back Chelsea to win 2-0 and win the match, because if one is correct the other is necessarily correct. That is a related contingency. The fact that a horse winning a key trial likely enhances its chances for the main event does not mean those two are statistically related.
It's interesting you bring up the Felix Yonger example. He is owned by Graham Wylie while Champagne Fever belongs to Rich Ricci. There has been much debate about whether or not running plans for these two is resulting in a war behind the scenes. Given that it is unlikely that both will run in the Arkle, would it in your view be fair for bookies to lay a cut-priced double on Felix younger to win that race and Champagne Fever to win the JLT?
I use this as an example to try to highlight the logical flaw in your argument. Clearly where one of these ends up at Cheltenham greatly influences where the other one runs. But this cannot be a related contingency in and of itself because we are talking about two different races and two different horses. It would of course be unfair for a punter to risk getting their final destinations incorrect when placing a double, and have to pay insurance because the bookies are worried they'll get it wrong.
It all harps back to my original message that we all have the same information when the bet is placed and that is what counts. Ignore the fact that it is a 'double' and treat the two components as two individual races, for which a horse is priced up on its perceived chance at that time. It is not fair, nor mathematically logical, to reduce the chance of a horse winning both legs in case it wins the first one (and before it has won the first one).
Tom,
How a horse runs in one race is related to how it will run in another. This is the foundation that the concept of form is based on. With the football example when you place the bet you don't know if Chelsea will get three points and you don't know if they will win the league but you know for sure that one directly impacts the other. Just as you know if Hurricane Fly makes it two from two over Jezki and Our Conor it directly impacts the chances he will beat them third time round. I could definitely make a case that Big Bucks winning the Cleeve this weekend will have a larger impact on his chances of winning the World Hurdle than say Chelsea's home victory last weekend over Man Utd on their chances of winning the league despite that you can see the actual three points that they put on the board in that case.
I agree that the Felix Yonger/Champagne Fever double is related but don't see how this being overlooked is relevant to this particular argument.
Again, I'm not endorsing the special prices available from bookmakers. The prices are a joke and a rip off but they are simply an offer in a shop window, noone is being forced to pay that premium.
If you're still not convinced I'm sure we can ask Betfair to put up a market and you can test how long putting 5/1 Big Bucks to win the Cleeve and World Hurdle would last ;)
How a horse runs in one race is related to how it will run in another. This is the foundation that the concept of form is based on. With the football example when you place the bet you don't know if Chelsea will get three points and you don't know if they will win the league but you know for sure that one directly impacts the other. Just as you know if Hurricane Fly makes it two from two over Jezki and Our Conor it directly impacts the chances he will beat them third time round. I could definitely make a case that Big Bucks winning the Cleeve this weekend will have a larger impact on his chances of winning the World Hurdle than say Chelsea's home victory last weekend over Man Utd on their chances of winning the league despite that you can see the actual three points that they put on the board in that case.
I agree that the Felix Yonger/Champagne Fever double is related but don't see how this being overlooked is relevant to this particular argument.
Again, I'm not endorsing the special prices available from bookmakers. The prices are a joke and a rip off but they are simply an offer in a shop window, noone is being forced to pay that premium.
If you're still not convinced I'm sure we can ask Betfair to put up a market and you can test how long putting 5/1 Big Bucks to win the Cleeve and World Hurdle would last ;)
the bookie is factoring in an insurance policy in case they are wrong, but you are the one paying the premium (not them).
nuff said
nuff said
incase they are wrong about the 1st result which will then impact on the second result.
They offer a price about the first result and a price about the second result. They don't offer a straight double as the first result impacts the second as you correctly state.
Nuff said
Nuff said
Clearly we're not going to agree here.
I realize I'm banging my head against a wall, but They offer a price about the first result and a price about the second result. They don't offer a straight double as the first result impacts the second as you correctly state.
Yes. But the first result doesn't impact the second result until we have that first result. Since you are putting your bet on before the first leg, there is no justification for offering a different price other than the straight double. It really is as simple as the bookie taking your cash and offering you a shorter price about the second leg than they are offering to anyone that wants the better one and wants to place a single. They are giving you **** odds in case they are wrong about a horse.
Good luck all.
I realize I'm banging my head against a wall, but They offer a price about the first result and a price about the second result. They don't offer a straight double as the first result impacts the second as you correctly state.
Yes. But the first result doesn't impact the second result until we have that first result. Since you are putting your bet on before the first leg, there is no justification for offering a different price other than the straight double. It really is as simple as the bookie taking your cash and offering you a shorter price about the second leg than they are offering to anyone that wants the better one and wants to place a single. They are giving you **** odds in case they are wrong about a horse.
Good luck all.
I can see both sides of the coin here, I can see how it is related but can also see toms point of view, heres another example lets say a Feltham rsa double, if horse A wins Feltham yes he will shorten for the rsa, it will kind of prove it stays the trip, but his chances of winning the rsa are ?????? stats say no but the punter will still pay the bookies insurance, kinda wrong if you ask me
bookies will always win....
bookies will always win....
Wasn't there a thread like this a few years ago that ran for pages and pages on this exact subject. Was it a poster called "Steeplechasing" who made the same case as tomdeane is making now?
For what it's worth, I agree with barnesy. The related contingency in the Hurricane Fly example is obvious to me.
For what it's worth, I agree with barnesy. The related contingency in the Hurricane Fly example is obvious to me.
A football match doesn't impact the league table until the result is known either. I don't see what the difference is?
If you back a horse for a given race and it wins and then you take your winnings up to the counter and back it again for the next race, you don't moan that the price has shortened, because this is the books right to alter the price and have the chance to do so....you can't deny him this right by trying to cut that corner, that's why he has to factor this in to the price he gives you....if it loses you'd lose either way so that is the point.
^ But duffy your reasoning is exactly why this is a corrupt practice!
if it loses you'd lose either way so that is the point...
No it's not!!!! This is why they get away with it, but it doesn't make the true chance of the horse winning both legs correct. You place your bet before you know the outcome of the first leg, so at that point the horse is priced up correctly for both legs and is why you should be getting the straight double!
if it loses you'd lose either way so that is the point...
No it's not!!!! This is why they get away with it, but it doesn't make the true chance of the horse winning both legs correct. You place your bet before you know the outcome of the first leg, so at that point the horse is priced up correctly for both legs and is why you should be getting the straight double!
Tom,
You seem a smart guy but it strikes me that in this case you seem to be ignoring the points I am making and seeing only what you want to see. I'm not going to beat a dead horse but I would finally ask you to consider these other examples where your argument holds true, that both prices are correct for singles and the result of each is yet to be determined, but it is a bit more palpable as to why you would not lay a multiple:
a) Arsenal to finish in the top 4 doubled with Liverpool not to finish in the top 4
b) Denver Broncos to win the AFC West doubled with Denver Broncos to win the Superbowl (if you are unfamiliar with the NFL you don't necessarily have to win your division to make the playoffs)
c) Novak Djokovic to win Wimbledon doubled with Rafael Nadal not to reach the Final of Wimbledon
Then ask yourself was the true price for Bob's Worth to win the Hennessey and the Gold Cup 54/1? Is the true price 5/1 for Big Bucks to win the Cleeve and the World Hurdle? Is the true price for Felix Yonger to win the Irish and English Arkle 27/1? (I would say near enough to the last one, but that's another argument haha)
You seem a smart guy but it strikes me that in this case you seem to be ignoring the points I am making and seeing only what you want to see. I'm not going to beat a dead horse but I would finally ask you to consider these other examples where your argument holds true, that both prices are correct for singles and the result of each is yet to be determined, but it is a bit more palpable as to why you would not lay a multiple:
a) Arsenal to finish in the top 4 doubled with Liverpool not to finish in the top 4
b) Denver Broncos to win the AFC West doubled with Denver Broncos to win the Superbowl (if you are unfamiliar with the NFL you don't necessarily have to win your division to make the playoffs)
c) Novak Djokovic to win Wimbledon doubled with Rafael Nadal not to reach the Final of Wimbledon
Then ask yourself was the true price for Bob's Worth to win the Hennessey and the Gold Cup 54/1? Is the true price 5/1 for Big Bucks to win the Cleeve and the World Hurdle? Is the true price for Felix Yonger to win the Irish and English Arkle 27/1? (I would say near enough to the last one, but that's another argument haha)
I do understand where you're coming from, and where the bookies are coming from. My angle really is one of pure maths and probability, which may have an uneasy crossover with a lot of punting practices...
I certainly see why the bookies don't want to lay those doubles, but they shouldn't be laying reduced-price doubles based on the laws of probability. The thing is, with all those examples you've listed above, one outcome directly impacts the likelihood of the other outcome being true (save perhaps for the NFL one). With horse racing, Hurricane Fly running in the Irish Champion does not have a direct effect on his chance of winning the Champion Hurdle at Cheltenham because they are different events.
Out of interest, can you place a straight-priced double on say, Federer to win the Australian Open and Wimbledon this year? I think you should be able to because they're different events. That's a better example than those you listed because they are all components that fit one whole (division and Superbowl, two teams winning points in the same league, two players playing in the same tournament).
I certainly see why the bookies don't want to lay those doubles, but they shouldn't be laying reduced-price doubles based on the laws of probability. The thing is, with all those examples you've listed above, one outcome directly impacts the likelihood of the other outcome being true (save perhaps for the NFL one). With horse racing, Hurricane Fly running in the Irish Champion does not have a direct effect on his chance of winning the Champion Hurdle at Cheltenham because they are different events.
Out of interest, can you place a straight-priced double on say, Federer to win the Australian Open and Wimbledon this year? I think you should be able to because they're different events. That's a better example than those you listed because they are all components that fit one whole (division and Superbowl, two teams winning points in the same league, two players playing in the same tournament).
Maybe to try to explain a bit better what my argument is, I'll use the Bobs Worth argument.
Do I believe his true odds of winning the Hennessy and Gold Cup were 54-1? for the sake of argument, assuming the bookies were right in their single odds for those two races before he ran in the Hennessy, then yes I do - before he had run in and won it, which is when you put your bet on. After he had won, no I don't, because then we knew how good he was and his price for the Gold Cup shortened as you'd expect. But it only did that after we knew how good he was, and you shouldn't have had to pay that premium before anyone knew it!
Do I believe his true odds of winning the Hennessy and Gold Cup were 54-1? for the sake of argument, assuming the bookies were right in their single odds for those two races before he ran in the Hennessy, then yes I do - before he had run in and won it, which is when you put your bet on. After he had won, no I don't, because then we knew how good he was and his price for the Gold Cup shortened as you'd expect. But it only did that after we knew how good he was, and you shouldn't have had to pay that premium before anyone knew it!
I guess where we disagree then is how Hurricane Fly confirming superiority over Jezki and Our Conor a second time relates to him confirming superiority a third time. I chose the examples carefully as Rafael Nadal getting knocked out of one half of the draw does not 'directly' affect Novak Djokovic but it certainly improves his chances of winning.
With the Bob's Worth bet the 10/1 for the Gold Cup includes the doubt of simply is he good enough? But you are already getting paid the 4/1 on him being good enough to win a Hennessey off 160.
I think most bookmakers would class the tennis example as a related bet, yes. I would imagine it is a lot less stringently enforced due to the nature and differences between tennis and horse racing.
With the Bob's Worth bet the 10/1 for the Gold Cup includes the doubt of simply is he good enough? But you are already getting paid the 4/1 on him being good enough to win a Hennessey off 160.
I think most bookmakers would class the tennis example as a related bet, yes. I would imagine it is a lot less stringently enforced due to the nature and differences between tennis and horse racing.
But it only did that after we knew how good he was, and you shouldn't have had to pay that premium before anyone knew it!
Yes you should because you haven't earned the right to get paid the full whack simply by putting the bet on before the first race, you haven't risked anything more than the guy who wants to bet the single and then goes back to stick his winnings on at the reduced price afterwards.
Yes you should because you haven't earned the right to get paid the full whack simply by putting the bet on before the first race, you haven't risked anything more than the guy who wants to bet the single and then goes back to stick his winnings on at the reduced price afterwards.
In the second leg of double, the punter is safe in the knowledge that he horse is good enough to have won the first race, therefore enhancing his chances in the second. The first event will directly impact the market for the second race, which means they are related. If they weren't the markets would remain unaltered. The information gained from the first race is valuable and this is paid for with the reduced price. It's irrelevant what the price for the second leg is when the bet is placed; the double price needs to be calculated at the estimated price that the horse will be should it win, as that is the only scenario with which the bet still stands.
Having said that, more often than not, the special double prices are very stingy, but that's up to the punter to calculate the value.
Having said that, more often than not, the special double prices are very stingy, but that's up to the punter to calculate the value.
It would be good if Betfair put up some AP doubles markets on the exchange. It'd be interesting to see what the betting would be like.
I wonder what the special price was for KB to win today and the WH itself
On the Hurricane Fly example the stranger thing was that he was priced up longer than Jezki and Our Conor for the Champion Hurdle before they met last month but was shorter for the race at Leonardtown.
So the bookmakers before the race had both markets priced up as if they were unrelated.
So the bookmakers before the race had both markets priced up as if they were unrelated.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539