£60,000 @1.01 and layers cannot win

1.01        £183,377   

1.01        £298,459 waiting     £182,935

looks like theres plenty of mugs on here still , was just watchin this myself, over 200k matched

what would happen if the winner carried the wrong weight.

Hunty exactly the question I asked on the other thread

Would still be void id imagine

£650,000 Bank needed - to Lay the other one.

1000            £1,377

if the winner failed to weigh in,he would be disqualified but the race was still run and could not be void.

the layer will be 98% the same person

brassneck 29 Feb 16 13:53 
if the winner failed to weigh in,he would be disqualified but the race was still run and could not be void.


would be void.

yep doesnt make sense you could see the other horse running loose so even if captain hox fell and did the same there could be no winner v odd

on what grounds could they void the race,and half the bookies in the country would have to pay first past the post.

would high st bookies refund the race if both fell ? maybe people backed the winner with them and were hedging on betfair just in case they didnt get money back in that instance?

Feb 29, 2016 -- 2:04PM, brassneck wrote:

on what grounds could they void the race,and half the bookies in the country would have to pay first past the post.

because if captain hox is DQ'd then there is no winner of the race

cant win = cant lose

hence void

perhaps its time for the BHB to revisit their rule on remounting,because its not a case of if all horses fall in a race but more a case of when.

cant win =cant lose is a myth.
if you back a 4/5 shot and it dead heats you lose.

^ That is because it has ONLY HALF Won - BUT - Half LOST

hes got to be at the wind up

wondersobright - I'm with brassneck - the Gambling Act 2005 makes it clear that bets may be struck on eventualities where one or other party knows the outcome - ie bookies can take bets where you can't win but will lose.

ghostlygunner - what bookies do is irrelevant surely?  we're looking at people buying money on the Exchange.  I think the rules could be clearer but I'm pretty sure if the jockey weighed in light the race would be declared void and the BF markets would be voided in consequence.

brassneck = sdc

the rules are on the weigh in if the jock does not carry the correct weigh the nag is thrown out .... simple

that rule was put in place long before Betfair

zipper have you thort about a career in intelligence?

I am only giving an example of backing a winner and you lose,the bookies do not refund your stake if you are unlucky to back an odds on dead heat.

Longbridge,
When you reference the Gambling act 2005, are you referring to section 9 or is a bet defined somewere else in that act?
I'd argue that that section just defines what betting is - it doesn't state that this is a valid bet or not and would go directly against the principle of if you cannot win, you cannot lose...

Gambling Act 2005 Section 9

Betting: general
(1)    In this Act “betting” means making or accepting a bet on—
(a)    the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process,
(b)    the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring, or
(c)    whether anything is or is not true.
(2)    A transaction that relates to the outcome of a race, competition or other event
or process may be a bet within the meaning of subsection (1) despite the facts
that—
(a)    the race, competition, event or process has already occurred or been
completed, and
(b)    one party to the transaction knows the outcome.
(3)    A transaction that relates to the likelihood of anything occurring or not
occurring may be a bet within the meaning of subsection (1) despite the facts
that—
(a)    the thing has already occurred or failed to occur, and
(b)    one party to the transaction knows that the thing has already occurred
or failed to occur

Exactly that - 2 a/b and 3 a/b tell me I can take bets on (eg) a football match that was played this morning and where I know the result - and you don't.

"the principle of if you cannot win, you cannot lose" is, as far as I can tell, a myth.

Longbridge,
2a/b and 3 a/b just state what a transaction relating to betting is, they don't say whether a bet is valid or not.
In the context of the act, the important part is the very first section 1b.....fair and open...
of course some people feel everything is fair...when they win....


1.   The licensing objectives
In this Act a reference to the licensing objectives is a reference to the objectives
of—
(a)    preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being
associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b)    ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c)    protecting children and other  vulnerable persons from being harmed or
exploited by gambling

connor, we clearly have different readings of the Act and as I'm not a lawyer I'm not going to pretend mine is better; which isn't to say I'm convinced by yours.

Someone will doubtless be along shortly who has professional insight into this area.

Longbridge, I must admit I replied to your posting to see if someone else would join in and clarify the position.Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you see it, I'm not a lawyer either....

I've often wondered about the legal position of the trackside people laying fallers and betfair taking the commission on it and whether it's "fair" or not - I assume it would take a test case to establish law here...and who wants to waste the money on that when you can waste it on here instead!!!

let me confuse the issue a little more,A punter rings his bookmaker and says he wants to win 50 quid on a 1/2 shot in the first race.
the bookie says he is not giving morning prices on that race.
So the punter says ,ok when the race is over I will pay what ever I owe you ,but I want to win 50 quid .
if the 1/2 shot dead heats(no price taken or given during phone call) the punter owes the bookie an infinity of money for ever and ever,in other words the more he puts down the more he loses.

in other words there is no return price on a 1/2 dead heat because you lose every time.

the concept of can't win can't lose is a bookmaker custom but it's not enshrined in law. I could back every horse in the national so that I only get back £65 for my £100 but the bookie won't void my bets, or back two even money shots in a three horse race and the outsider wins. Cards, I've got two aces hidden and can't possibly lose but the table doesn't close at that point.

Mar 1, 2016 -- 1:34PM, connor wrote:

Longbridge, I must admit I replied to your posting to see if someone else would join in and clarify the position.Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you see it, I'm not a lawyer either....I've often wondered about the legal position of the trackside people laying fallers and betfair taking the commission on it and whether it's "fair" or not - I assume it would take a test case to establish law here...and who wants to waste the money on that when you can waste it on here instead!!!

I agree with you connor.  It is merely the definition of a bet ie anyone offering such bets is subject to the relevant law eg bookies cartoon racing. 

I vaguely remember though that the Gambling Commission sides with longbridge, so I suppose that is all that matters.

btw does anyone know the origin of "if you can't win, you can't lose".  It is often quoted, but I can't find any basis for it.

btw does anyone know the origin of "if you can't win, you can't lose". It is often quoted, but I can't find any basis for it.

Bruce Forsyth