In the 3.55 at Chepstow,many would have looked for the each way steal(not for me),which got reduced to 7 runners from the declared 8,yet he just bypasses it,as if it is of no importance.Yet he prattles on and on about things that are of no consequence whatsoever.Considering that this is one of 2 dedicated racing channels,things like that shouldn't be overlooked ,or just casually noted that there are now 7 runners. He should be making the point that the many small punters that play e.w. luckys up and down the country ,can't always be sure that the declared 8 will actually line up,as more often than not 8 becomes 7.
His pretense is very annoying,and I know they all read the forum,so I deliberately put his name on the thread title,so that it would come to his notice. An analysis of the % of 8 and 9 runner races that saw only 7 or less go to post would be relevant,rather than the load of tosh that constantly gets spouted.
His pretense is very annoying,and I know they all read the forum,so I deliberately put his name on the thread title,so that it would come to his notice. An analysis of the % of 8 and 9 runner races that saw only 7 or less go to post would be relevan
Four races at Beverley yesterday dropped to under 8 runners,yet ,as usual this goes unchecked.There may have been other races yesterday that dropped to under 8 runners,but 4 at one meeting is evidence enough that 48 decs. with our variations in weather just doesn't work. Perhaps the BHA don't think it an important enough issue to warrant a serious check of the stats.when it is painfully obvious that it is.
Four races at Beverley yesterday dropped to under 8 runners,yet ,as usual this goes unchecked.There may have been other races yesterday that dropped to under 8 runners,but 4 at one meeting is evidence enough that 48 decs. with our variations in weath
It's in the BHAs interests for fields to drop below 8 as bookmakers profits are enhanced and thus more goes to them.
In the short run of course.
In the long run of course such practices will deter punters from betting on racing even more than they already are.
Of course by then the present BHA incumbents will have long moved on to pastures new.....
It's in the BHAs interests for fields to drop below 8 as bookmakers profits are enhanced and thus more goes to them. In the short run of course. In the long run of course such practices will deter punters from betting on racing even more than they al
And so it goes on.Another four races in a day that should have had 3 places for each way betting dropped down to less than 8 runners,so only 2 places,with many early betting punters dismayed once again. The amount of races that drop below the 8 runners in the course of the season must be growing at a big rate.
And so it goes on.Another four races in a day that should have had 3 places for each way betting dropped down to less than 8 runners,so only 2 places,with many early betting punters dismayed once again. The amount of races that drop below the 8 ru
Would rather waffle on about things that are of no account,and as has been said many times over,nobody wants to rock the boat,apart from MC,who at least gets angry about this sort of thing,and expresses an opinion,as would McCririck. The racing game relies on Levy support,the Levy comes from punters betting,disgruntled punters means lower wagering,which in turn means lower Levy. They will probably set up another useless committee to discover this widely known fact.
Would rather waffle on about things that are of no account,and as has been said many times over,nobody wants to rock the boat,apart from MC,who at least gets angry about this sort of thing,and expresses an opinion,as would McCririck. The racing game
I was sure that a few years ago on CH4 , they showed statistics which showed that it is not true that there are more non runners in 8/16 horse races than other races , to reduce the eachway place terms
I was sure that a few years ago on CH4 , they showed statistics which showed that it is not true that there are more non runners in 8/16 horse races than other races , to reduce the eachway place terms
Nonchalant mention that this is the second race on the W'hmptn card dropping to 7 runners. Boyce ,it is important,not just something to be casually glossed over.
Nonchalant mention that this is the second race on the W'hmptn card dropping to 7 runners. Boyce ,it is important,not just something to be casually glossed over.
People on here have short memories. I remember a Sean Boyce who used to ask the right questions, he was (if rumours are to be believed) told to shut up or close his door on the way out.
People on here have short memories. I remember a Sean Boyce who used to ask the right questions, he was (if rumours are to be believed) told to shut up or close his door on the way out.
I was sure that a few years ago on CH4 , they showed statistics which showed that it is not true that there are more non runners in 8/16 horse races than other races , to reduce the eachway place terms
I've got stats on the number of runners, on more than 50,000 races ( a good sample). Unfortunately I have no breakdown of which were handicaps.
The number of 15 runners is 1,936, and the number of 16 runners is 1,554. That's a difference of 19.73%
11/12 stats are 4874 and 4561, a difference of 6.42%
So, you would expect the same with 7/8 stats, wouldn't you ?
However there were 5204 7 runner races, and 5516 8 runner races. A difference of MINUS 6%.
As I said these are just raw figures taking no account of race type or race conditions, but interesting nevertheless.
I was sure that a few years ago on CH4 , they showed statistics which showed that it is not true that there are more non runners in 8/16 horse races than other races , to reduce the eachway place termsI've got stats on the number of runners, on more
WFT , are these stats based on 16 runner races being reduced to 15 runners due to a non-runner ?
No mate, just on the actual number of horses that ran.
However the "15" number does stand out like a sore thumb, and 15 is very unlikely to be a declared number of runners.
WFT , are these stats based on 16 runner races being reduced to 15 runners due to a non-runner ?No mate, just on the actual number of horses that ran.However the "15" number does stand out like a sore thumb, and 15 is very unlikely to be a declared n
However the "15" number does stand out like a sore thumb, and 15 is very unlikely to be a declared number of runners.
I thought I'd better test my statement, and as Sod's Law would predict, there are two 15 declared races tomorrow !
However the "15" number does stand out like a sore thumb, and 15 is very unlikely to be a declared number of runners.I thought I'd better test my statement, and as Sod's Law would predict, there are two 15 declared races tomorrow !
I was sure that a few years ago on CH4 , they showed statistics which showed that it is not true that there are more non runners in 8/16 horse races than other races , to reduce the eachway place terms
from what I remember , there were just as many non runners in 17/18 races reducing to 16 , as there were 16 reducing to 15 , and 10/11 reducing to 8/9 as there were 8 reducing to 7
I was sure that a few years ago on CH4 , they showed statistics which showed that it is not true that there are more non runners in 8/16 horse races than other races , to reduce the eachway place termsfrom what I remember , there were just as many no
16 or more down to 15 or less,and 8 or more down to 7 or less is very important,and I stand by what I said.Namely there are far far too many 8 runner races dropping to 7 or less. Look in the Racing Post how many of these non runners are "self certificate".
16 or more down to 15 or less,and 8 or more down to 7 or less is very important,and I stand by what I said.Namely there are far far too many 8 runner races dropping to 7 or less. Look in the Racing Post how many of these non runners are "self certifi