Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 171 comments are related to the topic:
3.30 lingers...weighed in light

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 171
By:
a bitofinterest
When: 10 Nov 15 17:07
nice £120 Excited
By:
Super Hans
When: 10 Nov 15 17:07
Think it was to put us off the scentHappy
By:
Greg_Gory
When: 10 Nov 15 17:20
1.2 lbs under weight Crazy
By:
Greg_Gory
When: 10 Nov 15 17:21
19.2 ounces Laugh
By:
habin67
When: 10 Nov 15 17:22
I have just realised how stupid I have been going to pop into Fred's tonight
By:
a bitofinterest
When: 10 Nov 15 17:25
i wouldnt bother Cool
By:
hulk23
When: 10 Nov 15 17:29
boxing day ?  staff currently down the dog and duck drinking your £120 habin ...
By:
old crumpy
When: 10 Nov 15 17:34
twice now in 3 weeks hd a enough of betfair exchanges them you have lost no won if a horse as lost its lost pay out on both or first pass the post i know its exchang but they have got it up to say 100 pound
By:
elise
When: 10 Nov 15 17:45
this is an exchange you're betting against other people not betfair, bookies not obliged to pay fptp for weighed in light anyway
By:
salmon spray
When: 10 Nov 15 18:12
As elise says it's an exchange. It's not Betfair paying out on two horses but the layers. As an habitual layer I wouldn't mind the payout being on either but not both.
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 19:00
but as a user of said product IR how are they supposed to know a horse will return light under these circumstance?
If you win on the result only to then have the event changed, the question then becomes;
Does the company want people to bet with them or not?
How is it the fault of the person laying the second?
By:
elise
When: 10 Nov 15 19:04
the rules are clear re the weigh in, can't see what the problem is as the risk has always been the same

books won't pay on wrong course or weighed in light so hardly different with them

if betfair waited until weighed in we'd have stacks tied up between races losing turnover for them and the chance to bet for plenty of punters who had cash stuck on the last race

the trade off is they settle on the expected winner and if the clerk objects they reverse the payouts, just one of those things imo
By:
salmon spray
When: 10 Nov 15 19:16
Very true elise. In the USA they don't pay out until the result is official so if there is a stewards it can take 30 mins. There'd be howls if they did that on UK racing.
By:
TRD.Racing
When: 10 Nov 15 19:18
dusty it's the risk you take with laying horses at big prices that are beat,sometimes they are not
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 19:18
the point was specifically regarding exchanges...that cater for IR
If somebody bets on what they see, and see no infringement of rules then get told they lost even though 'they won' because something transpired after the event then anyone can lose on anything at anytime without them doing anything wrong other than use the product.
Hardly instills confidence when nothing else will come of it.
By:
parispike
When: 10 Nov 15 19:20
If somebody bets on what they see, and see no infringement of rules....

Whether or not you saw it is not the point. It happened.
By:
SIR_Bond
When: 10 Nov 15 19:21
don't bet on horses mugs game simple as
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 19:21
You dont mind losing you can take those, but to have the wins taken off you after the race is galling
By:
SIR_Bond
When: 10 Nov 15 19:21
exactly so stick to tennis
By:
salmon spray
When: 10 Nov 15 19:33
Well the answer dustybin is to wait for the result to be official before you get payed out. As I said it could take a long time in cases like that.
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 19:46
that wouldnt help because the race would still be over and the person having bet on the race would still lose a winning position
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 19:51
Id "won" £800 on this race before the stewards intervened. Thing is Ive placed a bet on a horse that cant win! If it doesn't come in first then Ill lose. If it finishes first then I lose. Anyone who had placed a bet on this horse couldnt possibly win! As soon as Id placed the £200 I was always going to lose! Surely a bet of this nature should be declared a non runner and other bets settled accordingly with the relevant Rule 4.
By:
Swardean
When: 10 Nov 15 19:52
It depends notcricket, perhaps a weight fell out during the race?
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 19:53
my question was that if you can lose what at face value is a win based on the events you can determine and lose on events you cant determine then confidence in the product is shot.
it either happens a lot and therefore needs rectifying, or it occurs seldom and in which case the loses of compensation by the exchanges are minimal in comparison to longterm usage.

Its happened twice within the month, and is just further degradation of a product in decline, at what point do they give it mouth to mouth?
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 19:56
it was 1lb 2oz....probably sweat. However my point is that anyone betting on that horse could never win. So if any horse finishes 1st but underweight at the weigh in it shouldn't be disqualified but should be declared a non runner.
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 19:58
Also it was 2ozs over........what f"""ing jobsworth made that decision!!
By:
Swardean
When: 10 Nov 15 19:58
The question is, what else can be implemented that does not open the whole issue to massive possible corruption?
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 20:00
?????? Only do it for "winners"
By:
Swardean
When: 10 Nov 15 20:01
The permitted variance is 1lb.   You have to set it somewhere.    If we moved the variance to 2lb and someone was 2.1 lb we would have the same argument.

Like drink driving the legal limit is 35, they allow 38 as a variance.  But 39 you are screwed.
By:
Swardean
When: 10 Nov 15 20:03
So they still pay out on the 2nd ??
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 20:06
yeah you couldnt just call it a NR because the bets that were placed in good faith thinking it was a runner would be effected

compensation on the seldom cases would be the best way to keep ppl betting with confidence, and if it happens too often then a more robust rule would be required.

Right now its the single worst way to lose
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 20:09
I know ppl will scoff at the suggestion of compensation but thats how business works if you want to remain in operation, its a bit late when your market is floating down river face down.
Its happened twice in quick succession now, at what point do ppl start getting twitchy?
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 20:11
Thing is its a horse that can NEVER win, Has to be a Non Runner with other bets settled accordingly. Again this is only done if its first past the post. And a 1lb is too low for a Two and a half mile chase, how much weight would anyone lose doing such exertion? Surely there should be a scale for different distances!! (is there?)
By:
Swardean
When: 10 Nov 15 20:11
If the bookies and betfair paid out dustybin, what could stop a jockey chucking 5lb of lead after weighing out?
By:
ihal essex
When: 10 Nov 15 20:12
Salmon, your US Official Result timing is way out. Unless Stewards Eqy usually takes less than 5mins after race finish.
By:
dustybin
When: 10 Nov 15 20:20
*had the weight dislodged and come loose then theyd question how well it was secured etc
What do they do if it wasnt a weight cloth issue?
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 20:32
thing is how much weight can you lose race riding over two and a half miles? Sweat alone would be vast.
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 20:32
The Jockey lost 1lb 2ozs ffs.
By:
Swardean
When: 10 Nov 15 20:41
For the general betting public it is not good notccricket.   Imagine first time racing and you took the missus.   She backed a winner and despite it "winning" she not only didn't get paid but lost her money.   How can you justify that to her and would she want to bet again?

It is just a case of trying to come up with a solution that is fair and implementable.

Perhaps one for this punter forum.
By:
notcricket
When: 10 Nov 15 20:46
???????? Swardean I'm saying it should be treated as a non runner! So she would get her money back. Currently she doesn't!
Page 2 of 5  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com