There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
8 still in A/P.Books only going 1/4 2 Plcs.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 19
|
By:
Gambling commission far to busy to deal with that penzance
|
|
By:
as ive said before, (ok not many will back on those terms ), but the ones that do, what happens then if all 8 ran and youre horse is 3rd
|
|
By:
It’s not the first time they’ve done this…usually means they know someone will drop out so they ain’t giving you the extra place.
If we do get 8 then you just got effed over and they don’t care. |
|
By:
I think Mostahdaf has a great e/w chance even though I fancy him to beat Paddington.
|
|
By:
Guaranteed only 7 max as only one of the Shadwell horses runs. Burrows stated earlier today that they have only entered in case something happens to Mostahdaf.
|
|
By:
Yes but it's a slippery slope, any excuse in future, there will be other situations going forward where trainer A says this and that giving the books an excuse to revise the terms
|
|
By:
Who is going to defend bookmakers! Me here, I guess, there is no alternative option imho when you have absolutely reliable connections stating at least of of theirs will be a no go, and it's already a dead 8 entry.
|
|
By:
7 entered fair enough but there's not,theres 8.
They should be going 3 Plcs.Take the mkt down otherwise. Race is next week,A/P. |
|
By:
Why isn't the Burrows horse priced up (with a run) ?
|
|
By:
Everyone put their bookmaker hat on for a second........
I'd go 1/4 1,2 |
|
By:
Alflaila should ideally be priced up with the realistic chance it runs, ie close to nil. But how much do we think they are taking on that one? Their issue would be insider knowledge and people knowing the first choice wasn't running and piling into the unlikely runner at huge odds.
It's obvious why they do it, but I would blame the insurance entries and not the bookies here. Personally. |
|
By:
So do you think the books will return stakes on the Burrows rnr?
I personally don't think they should as it's A/P but they should be going 3 plcs. |
|
By:
At the minute they are having it both ways, hoovering up unsuspecting punters money on a likely N/R, regardless of how little that might be plus having reduced place terms, got it both ways.
|
|
By:
simple in this scenario, just show on the market, if all 8 run 123 , if less 1/4 odds 12
|
|
By:
Complete non story. Clearly going to be less than 8 runners so of course they're only paying 2 places. That may be the 1st time I've defended a bookie.
|
|
By:
but agree with penzance post 06.48
|
|
By:
penzance 18 Aug 23 18:48
So do you think the books will return stakes on the Burrows rnr? I personally don't think they should as it's A/P but they should be going 3 plcs. Of course they should in this instance because by going 2 places they are themselves acknowledging the Burrows horse as a non runner. Why not price it up at 40's reflecting the fact that it highly unlikely to run, but they won't do that in case it runs, so to that end they are considering it a runner, so it comes back to the place terms issue. |
|
By:
The 1/4 1,2 looking generous now.
 |
|
By:
arnt place terms because of inside knowledge the only reason for ante post punting these days, 90% of time,90% of horses are bigger/same price on raceday when pun ter is armed with more information,
on a race like this 5 days out how many unsuspecting punters need protecting must be between nil and one and it isnt one |