Ladcrooks trying to rip me off advice needed please

related bet

winning the betfair hurdle reduces the price on him winning the supreme

the bookies are right

Should they have taken the bet though?

Similar as first goalscorer & team to win 2-0 the bets are related, problem lies with the person who took the bet.
1.01 they just rang it up on the till & never looked at the bet, & no they don't have to honour it.

"related contingency" plus "palpable error"

the minion in the shop would not have looked at the bet and probably would  not have understood
how the bet was related, just looked up the 2 prices for the race and wrote the prices on your slip.

one of the many reasons why i hardly go into a betting shop nowadays.

Not this related contingency again please

I do feel sorry for anyone who gets the thick end of this rule. BUT it is not rocket salad is it.  An old fred on here re Usain Bolt for the Olympic 100m / 200m double springs to mind.

Imho
Federer to win 1st round match and outright is related,Chelsea to win 1-0 and Torres to score first is related.

Usian Bolt to win 100m and 200m not related.

A Horse to win a trial and the main event not related.

Just because the price will change AFTER the first event and bookmakers dont let you bet the double doesn't make it related.

A Horse to win a trial and the main event not related.

incorrect as far as the odds offered on the double are concerned.

eg Tiger Cliff to win his opening hurdle and then the Supreme Novice.
Might start at 2/1 for the first run, win by 20 lengths and then price crashes for the Supreme  from 16/1 to 5/1 fav
The odds crash because he has won impressively.... so the odds on the double are 2/1 and 5/1 = 17/1

To offer the original odds for both races before the first is run (2/1 and 16/1) for the double ie 50/1, is ridiculous

so is 17/1 because in offering 5/1 for the supreme you are wrongly assuming it has already won the trial impressively.So before the race you can have 16/1 for the supreme or 17/1 for the trial/supreme double in effect betting it at 1/16 to win the trial.

pedrobob it's not ridiculous when she is trying to do her nails and watch neighbours.

yes you are right, biscar, 17/1 would not be the correct odds as that assumes he has won impressively and other styles of win are possible which would mean being cut to 14/1 or 12/1 for the Supreme, not 5/1

But you get the drift. As a bookie if you allowed a win single on the first race to go forward onto the second race at the pre-first race odds having just seen it win, you wouldn't last long..... unless you weren't impressed with its first win

Without getting into an arguement pedrobob you are using the benefit of hindsight.

I'm not suggesting that the price for the second event wont change AFTER the 1st part of a double,but giving reduced odds on the assumption that the selection has already won the 1st part is wrong.

if they didnt do that though then everyone would back it wherever it ran and in a double for its intended target would they not? meaning you would be getting 3/4/5/times the price you should be getting, if it won before it even runs,

Better bait needed,imo.

I aint no bream pike perch rudd

Indeed,Dickie.

They keep looking for you,grimmy.

I'm not suggesting that the price for the second event wont change AFTER the 1st part of a double,but giving reduced odds on the assumption that the selection has already won the 1st part is wrong.

ok another conundrum, Biscar.

A selling plater off the flat takes on Tiger Cliff in his first maiden / novice hurdle. He is 100/1 to win that race.

Someone asks you for 10,000/1 double for the selling plater to follow up in the Supreme. Would you accommodate him?

Of course not, because if he was good enough to win the first leg, I would never in a month of sundays offer 100/1 for him to win the Supreme as well knowing he had been good enough to beat Tiger Cliff in the first leg

sparrow
10 Jan 14 19:15
Joined:
20 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 6,594 | Blogger: sparrow's blog
They keep looking for you,grimmy



Keep looking pat mac


Racing you know.

Surely the whole point of antepost betting is taking a view well before the event?

You can have 2 horses running in the same race tomorrow. You fancy horse A to win tomorrow's race but think horse B will win the race they're both entered in at Cheltenham so you put them in a double for A to win tomorrow together with B to win at Cheltenham. 

Horse A wins the first race beating horse B by a short head with them miles clear of the rest. Both horses prices for the Cheltenham race are slashed on the back of that race.

That antepost double would be absolutely fine despite the same logic applying.

pat mac, has that anything to do with Mac Fisheries

No   . . . As in laddies b a c's top dog  . . . Clueless clown

ITS called a coincidence bet,they are correct,just like betfair if you want to back chelsea to win champ league and premiership you will not get quoted prices.

brassneck - it is a "related contingency" bet not a coincidence bet. AND your example is not an example of either.

unless our bet is across two seasons of course

Unfortunately the "Imaginary Sign" are quite correct..

I admit it does seem a bit strange in some cases (how many doubles are taken in error when neither win) but on the whole that is what has been accepted.

As regards the person who took the bet how would they know..

Probably had a bad back from emptying the FOBTS and just wanted to go home (India) and get a massage...

40,000 jobs lost if the machines are banned my speckled Celtic A rse...

you can call it what you like the name does not matter, but i assure that both bets Are related,if i back Chelsea to win the premier and they go top of the league it effects to price of them winning the champions league.i dont make to gambling rules but they are there to be obayed by staff of betting offices and are written in rules of gambling.

You can have 2 horses running in the same race tomorrow. You fancy horse A to win tomorrow's race but think horse B will win the race they're both entered in at Cheltenham so you put them in a double for A to win tomorrow together with B to win at Cheltenham. 

Horse A wins the first race beating horse B by a short head with them miles clear of the rest. Both horses prices for the Cheltenham race are slashed on the back of that race.

That antepost double would be absolutely fine despite the same logic applying.

it's not the same logic, Marcce.

If horse A = Tiger Cliff and horse B = 45-flat rated selling plater

And you asked for 3000/1 double Tiger Cliff to win tomorrow (2/1) and the selling plater (currently 1000/1 to win at Cheltenham) to win the Supreme, a bookie would say no problem.

But if you asked a bookie for 100,000/1 double the selling plater to win tomorrow (100/1) and at Cheltenham (current odds 1000/1), he would compute the odds of the second leg to include any dependent outcomes of the first event / leg ie the bet can only be landed if the selling plater lands the first leg.... and if's good enough to have beaten Tiger Cliff on his first start, no way is he a 1000/1 chance for the Supreme

Used to have a bookie who would lay me these but take a 1/4 off the price. .  ie. . if it worked out 20/1 they would lay me 15/1 the double . . .Great dayz.

Please come back Braybrooks from Huntingdon

Yes pedrobob and if he finishes 2nd beaten a short head by Tiger Cliff he's no way a 1000/1 chance for the Supreme either. His price for the Supreme would be amended to reflect that just as Tiger Cliff's would be for winning the race.

agreed Marcce, but the first leg of your bet was Tiger Cliff to win, not the selling plater to come 2nd.
Hence they are unrelated legs of the double

If you had asked for a double the selling plater to come 2nd to Tiger Cliff.... and then to win the supreme, that would be judged a "related contingency" as well, and you would not be given the current antepost odds for Chelt for the second part of the double either

Yes pedrobob I know that as well but the logic applies in that the outcome of the first race has had a major impact on the prices for the second race yet in one case you'll be penalised for that and in the other case you won't. In my scenario you're still getting the original antepost price despite subsequent events showing the horse in question is not a 1000/1 shot.

Don't get me wrong I know the bookies will class the op's bet as related and why they do so. I'm just being a pedant and giving an example where the whole question of related bets can look a bit daft.

its easy to think of a double like this is

say 2/1 for a trial and its 16/1 for main event.

you put your £10 on as a double what your effectivelty doing is £10 win at 2/1 then you are trying to hold the 16/1 after the trial which obv the bookie wont do. The odds will change after the trial, you cannot hold the price.

same as you coudnt say to a bookmaker, ill take the 16/1 after the trial if he wins

Feck me we all know that....

they don't all know that homefotea, as they think they can do it and it should be fine.

so obv they don't understand.

The result of one doesn't actually influence the outcome of another.

This isn't a bet with a price for a horse to win the 2000 Guineas, multiplied by the odds for the same oss to win the triple crown.

That is clearly related; where the result of one obviously influences the outcome of the remainder.

This is just 'influence' upon the resulting price bookmakers are prepared to offer, having seen the oss perform in another race.

You don't know how it will perform, and they certainly don't; and there actually isn't a logical reason for the two prices to be multiplied.

But they still ain't gonna let ya.

..two prices NOT to be multiplied..

Sorry, late.

Some on here need to be seriously educated.

Put the boot on the other foot!  As a LAYER, would you allow these kind of wagers at full multiple odds?

If so, you'll find a queue akin to rationing in 1946.

Get a grasp of elementary PROBABILITY.

Some of the boys i work with do there footy bets with them . . . one of them does union jacks (yes i know they are for horses and greyhounds only and are a mugs bet)

He only stakes £1 £2 max on them. . . . .£8 or £16 max.

Yesterday he got one all right thought he had copped a few quid but of cause laddies have knocked him the 100% bonus (which of cause they are allowed to do in there rules) But they have took this bet of him for years the first time he cops they do this. . .

Great business laddies its all over town now with the young uns and no doubt that twitter thing they all use.

Knocked him a ton for all this bad publicity you going to get.


Like i always say shyte firm run by pat mac and the clueless b a c dept.

PS SAXON IS SPOT ON.

Simonw1981 appears to have the game by the b0llox

It's a bit unfair to blame the cashier for making the error to put the prices on a related double, they are not trained to recognise such matters. I asked yesterday about a price on Seattle to win Superbowl and the girl asked me what time was it running!

Seattle Slew was a decent animal Slipps

ladbrokes totally out of order.
Shouldnt be discussing your bet with your mate.

It is all IF IF IF.The assumption that IF the first leg wins,then the 2nd price should be shorter.But IF the first leg loses ,then the 2nd price will be bigger.That is what ante-post is all about.Forming an early opinion.After all punters don't all back the same horse in RELATED bets,the firms make a book on the events.For small stakes I don't think the RELATED rule should apply.
I can back a horse ante-post for a big race just minutes before it wins it's trial,then see it's price shorten for the big event.There isn't really a difference.
Imagine 6 punters having RELATED doubles on the same events with 6 different horses.They won't all shorten,and that is bookmaking,and another reason why for small stakes the bets should be accepted.Look at the overall view,over the long term.The backers still have to try and find the winners.

Different prices for different stake levels? How the phuck does that work?

To be fair that is how bookmaking works just now. Ask for too much and you are likely to get offered a different price

paris,surprised you asked that.Biscar could see what I meant.You want a £5,or £10 double on the same horse,no prob.,but a £100 double,sorry,no can do.

rancid outfit , went to collect a bet in one of the shops on tuesday a nice little football bet just under £1000 lady behind the counter told me to call back at 2 o clock on wednesday.


went back at 2 o clock on wednesday no money in the till or safe asked if i would hang around and see if there was enough money in the slot machines to pay me out.

went back home phoned customer services to ask wtf was going on , they phoned me back an hour later stating money was now there,went back to the shop and the stupid manageress try's to give me a lecture asking why i phoned head office instead of hanging round to see if the mugs had filled the bandits up.

comical when all they are interested in is running their business around the f00king bandits instead of running a betting shop

Why did you have to call back - is Tuesday a good day to play the FOBTS so they would empty..And yet they magically fill up the next day.Seems like they do not want over the counter business and love to p iss off those punters.

Rancid organisation.Take away their Betting Office Licences and give them the status of an Amusement Arcade.

By the way forward that comment to your MP...