a very enterprising young man at haydock yesterday bet without the rag in the bad ew race therefore was allowed to go 1st two 1/4.

whilst not really in the spirt of things I have to take my hat of to him for thinking about it.

probably is starshaped but as a one of It brought a smile to my face.

No point in standard terms if this is allowed to go unchecked.

good morning ribero

is it legal ? I have no idea but like shortcuts to racecourses bookmakers find loopholes.

I've now been told by a reliable source that in the event of a race being reduced to less than 5 runners by w/d horses it defaults to a 'win only' settlement unless you have a sign displayed that you will settle ew bets at 1/5 1-2

This is the opposite of what we were originally told and is clearly not what it states on the AGT website for any of the changes

Apparently, defaulting to anything other than 'win only' would be against Tatts Rules of Racing and that's not the route the racecourse groups wanted to go down

Can anyone confirm this is correct even though the AGT website statements say otherwise?

Morning Ian, the EW details attached to the contracts in SC E show the terms you must bet to if you wish to offer ew betting. If you choose to bet ew on 3 or 4 runner races then you must bet to 1/5, 1-2 (not 1/4 1-2). The grey area is if a race is reduced to less than 5 by withdrawn horses in respect of what are the default terms. JCR issued a clarification statement on the AGT website saying the default is 1/5 1-2 unless you have a sign saying you will settle as 'all on to win'. However, now I'm told that the opposite applies, i.e. the default is 'all on to win' but you may settle as 1/5 1-2 if you display a sign saying so.

I'm trying to get this clarified but it did come from someone who would surely know and it wasn't another bookmaker

no & it wasn't his brother Peter either