Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Hardly a shocking story, I know, and I usually stay out of the ongoing bookmaker bashing debates that crop up on and off all the time, but somehting about this just really put the wind up me.
Been to Newmarket today and was incredibly impressed to see Elusive Pimpernel win so well. Having returned home I've re-watched the recordings and read all the reports.
It always angers me when journalists top their stories on changes to prices in the ante-post betting for future races (1: who cares? 2: the price won't be available to anyone wanting to back the horse for more than a tenner. 3: should the focus not be on the present, rather than immediately looking to the future?). This, however, is particularly bad, even for the Racing Post, who are well known as bookie friends:
"Although the progeny of Elusive Quality, the sire of Elusive Pimpernel, are yet to win a Stakes race at the Derby distance of a mile and a half,the Craven winner was also cut for the Epsom Classic, into 10-1 from 20-1 with Coral and Boylesports and 7-1 from 16-1 with Totesport and Stan James.
He is best-priced for Derby glory with William Hill, who went 12-1 from 16-1."
John Dunlop came out after the Craven and publicly said that Elusive Pimpernel will not get more than 10 furlongs. So why are we reading a story promoting bookmakers (yet again), who are offering ludicrous prices (again) about a horse that will not be in the race?
Ok, rant over. For the time being.
Been to Newmarket today and was incredibly impressed to see Elusive Pimpernel win so well. Having returned home I've re-watched the recordings and read all the reports.
It always angers me when journalists top their stories on changes to prices in the ante-post betting for future races (1: who cares? 2: the price won't be available to anyone wanting to back the horse for more than a tenner. 3: should the focus not be on the present, rather than immediately looking to the future?). This, however, is particularly bad, even for the Racing Post, who are well known as bookie friends:
"Although the progeny of Elusive Quality, the sire of Elusive Pimpernel, are yet to win a Stakes race at the Derby distance of a mile and a half,the Craven winner was also cut for the Epsom Classic, into 10-1 from 20-1 with Coral and Boylesports and 7-1 from 16-1 with Totesport and Stan James.
He is best-priced for Derby glory with William Hill, who went 12-1 from 16-1."
John Dunlop came out after the Craven and publicly said that Elusive Pimpernel will not get more than 10 furlongs. So why are we reading a story promoting bookmakers (yet again), who are offering ludicrous prices (again) about a horse that will not be in the race?
Ok, rant over. For the time being.
Show More
If you think it's so certain not to run never mind win the Epsom Derby then there's a few hundred quid available for you if you so wish.
I'm not a layer HAYDEN. More importantly, I am just making the point that filling papers and websites with this sort of garbage is utterly ridiculous. Who reads a news story to find out what price a horse will be for a future race?
If you are interested you have a look on here or in your local bookies'. My frustration lies with the fact that the Racing Post is becoming more and more like a bookmakers' advertising publication - not a trade paper that produces news stories for the racing public. Hearing that a number of the major firms have cut the horse in price for the Derby - as a standalone story, by the way - despite his trainer saying he won't stay beyond 10 furlongs is not only misleading, it's just irrelevant.
If you are interested you have a look on here or in your local bookies'. My frustration lies with the fact that the Racing Post is becoming more and more like a bookmakers' advertising publication - not a trade paper that produces news stories for the racing public. Hearing that a number of the major firms have cut the horse in price for the Derby - as a standalone story, by the way - despite his trainer saying he won't stay beyond 10 furlongs is not only misleading, it's just irrelevant.
Wouldn't disagree with anything you say Tom tbh but the expectation is always there to quote a price whether a doubtful runner or not and that's what the ante-post market is all about.
2 arguments they would use against the above are....
1) Why is the horse even entered in that case.
2) Perceived optimum 10f horses have ran in 12f classics before and ran very well , so owners would be entitled to keep their options open 7 weeks before the race however likely or unlikely to take part , therefore it would look odd not to quote the horse in all honesty.
No disagreement here regarding the principle but trying to view the situation from both sides.
Have a good evening.
2 arguments they would use against the above are....
1) Why is the horse even entered in that case.
2) Perceived optimum 10f horses have ran in 12f classics before and ran very well , so owners would be entitled to keep their options open 7 weeks before the race however likely or unlikely to take part , therefore it would look odd not to quote the horse in all honesty.
No disagreement here regarding the principle but trying to view the situation from both sides.
Have a good evening.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539