Think you know Rule 4? Then answer this

No, there shouldn't. Rule 4s applied by by off course bookmakers should all be at the prices framed in the original market. I think #skybet**** disagree.

I think you'll find most bookies are R4 at time of withdrawal, hence prices are often clipped as in EDDIE's example.

There was a rule in place, even Ibas agreed: all R4s on an early market should be applied at the early prices. It is easy to see why that is the case. If all of those withdrawn are at the same time, then the R4 applies at the prices therein. An already revised market has revised prices. The punter, in this case, did not have a bet in the revised market, but in the original market.

I'd say yes because the rule 4 is applied when the horse is withdrawn not when the bet was struck , the price fluctuation during the time difference can work for or against the backer but will apply whatever the price is at time of withdrawal , in this example horse C.

Should add my response is based on what's applicable by today's rules in place and NOT how i personally think it should be calculated.

They are two different questions requiring two different answers.

Rule 4 applies to all bets struck regardless of the time or revised markets right up until the off as long as they are struck before a withdrawal. Any bets struck after a withdrawal will not be affected by that withdrawal but will be by any subsequent R4s.

The Rule4 will always be better than the BF RF

I would agree with that irons e.g Bookie A might be going 12/1 and Bookie may be going 14/1 the same horse meaning no R4 with A but 5p with B and a reduction factor in both cases with BF.

Apologies for fat fingers, should read 16/1 and 14/1.

Whallop, you are absolutely correct and I append the appropriate paragraph from Tattersalls rules of betting.

"In the case of withdrawals in reformed markets, the total deduction over the two or more horses (i.e. one in the original and one in the reformed market) will be calculated on the prices applicable in the original market" so it is not permissible for any online bookmaker to determine otherwise.

Unfortunately ignorance remains with some bookies, 888 Sport for instance, and what's even worse with their arbitration service ECOGRA.

It is an inescapable fact that you cannot calculate more deductions than if all the withdrawn horses were withdrawn at the same time because the only market which is relevant is that in which the bets ere placed

HILLS: Should a horse be withdrawn without coming under starters orders in an early price race, stakes on that selection will be returned, with bets on other runners in the race subject to a deduction in accordance with Tattersalls’ Rule 4, based on the price at the time of withdrawal. However, if the market has been re-formed because of an earlier non-runner then the deduction for bets placed in the original market will be based on the last price quoted for the non-runner in that market. Bets on horse race events placed after the final declaration stage are not ante post and will be settled in accordance with these rules.

Whallop, You are absolutely correct and I append the relevant paragraph from Tattersalls rules of betting which is available online.

"In the case of withdrawals in reformed markets, the total
deduction over the two or more horses (i.e. one in the original
and one in the reformed market) will be calculated on the prices
applicable in the original market".

Unfortunately ignorance remains with some bookmakers, 888 Sport for instance, and what's even worse with their arbitration service ECOGRA. It seems they cannot appreciate the fact that you cannot calculate more deductions than if all the withdrawn horses were withdrawn at the same time and that the only market which is relevant is that market in which the bets were placed.

The fairest to me is the application at time of withdrawal and once the original market is reformed then each reformed market automatically becomes the " original " for that field of runners.

I'll let you do the math Eddie but say the original horse withdrawn is 50% in £ you would see many runners roughly half in price so jump in the 14/1 and under bracket , so if you've got say 4/1 for the 2nd fav originally then you think/know you'd have a revised 2/1 for the 2nd fav when the 50% is applied so exempting yourself from all the runners that have subsequently dipped inside the 14/1 and in the event of ground changes etc if that consequence was for the field to be decimated it would be both unfair and unacceptable to bookmakers and i for one albeit being an ex-bookmaker would sympathize.

As for the Tattersalls extract i've no idea how long that suggestion has been included but looks totally out of date to me given the example i've given above , i'd say their narrative shouldn't include the word " original " or if so ensure any reformed market becomes the original as it's effectively a new field of runners.

Apologies for the ramble but that's the only thing that makes any true sense in my head , good luck   

I think that you should be happy that a Bookmaker will actually lay you a bet,Eddie

It is interesting that William Hill is a parent company of 888 Sport so why do they differ?

I can understand why bookmakers differ Eddie for reasons given , it's a case of some following Tattersalls vs some doing what they see as the fairest for both sides , expect plenty to disagree with my thinking of course as i'm in disagreement with the Tattersalls narrative.

uptheirons I knew I would get an irrelevant reply sooner or later. I think the following will be too sophisticated for you but try to follow. The correct mathematical way for dealing with withdrawals is to multiply the deductions, which is how Betfair does it.  For instance let's suppose there are 3 Betfair deductions of 6% 5% and 7% but please note that they are not the same as Rule 4 deductions (which are added not multiplied) Returns (not winnings) of £100 would be reduced as follows 100 x .94 x .95 x .93 = 83.049. You can check this out at any time when there is a withdrawal.

Yes the bookmaker rule 4 vs exchange reduction factors are chalky and cheesy.

Easiest way in traditional bookmaker world is to calculate the new price then treat the bet as the revised odds , so if the rule 4 is 25% you multiply the original price by the remainder of 100% ( 75% )

So 4/1 with a 25% rule 4 deduction = 4 x 0.75 = 3/1 or e.g 6/1 with a 30% rule 4 = 6 x 70% = 42/10 or 21/5

That's the way i do it anyway.

Eddie,please don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
I was merely pointing out that Rule4 is infinitely better than the RF.

For the punter that is