Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There are currently 2 people viewing this thread.
29 Sep 26
21:29
Joined:
Date Joined:
11 Jan 11
..David Yates (widely known by his tipster pseudonym "Newsboy"), the Chief Racing Correspondent for the Daily Mirror, published a column on Monday, 28 September 2026, addressing highly controversial betting activity at Newmarket over the weekend.
In his article, titled "What happened at Newmarket on Saturday looked very fishy...", Yates strongly criticised the actions of bookmakers during Saturday’s Blandford Bloodstock 25th Anniversary EBF Maiden Fillies' Stakes. He argued that the market behavior in the minutes leading up to the 4:15 pm race "looked very fishy indeed" and cast the racing and betting industry in an incredibly poor light.
La pittura backed from 9/2 into 9/4 after the saddle was taken off. !!! Come racing ...
Is there nobody governing this skullduggery. ??
In his article, titled "What happened at Newmarket on Saturday looked very fishy...", Yates strongly criticised the actions of bookmakers during Saturday’s Blandford Bloodstock 25th Anniversary EBF Maiden Fillies' Stakes. He argued that the market behavior in the minutes leading up to the 4:15 pm race "looked very fishy indeed" and cast the racing and betting industry in an incredibly poor light.
La pittura backed from 9/2 into 9/4 after the saddle was taken off. !!! Come racing ...
Is there nobody governing this skullduggery. ??
Show More
Surely the on-course bookmakers were just following the plunge on Betfair as exchange bettors were trying to manipulate the prices of other horses?
Jamee, don't quite know what you're saying there, but I respect your opinions on here
It's surely a well known practice for bookies to shorten up a non runner just before the off to increase the rule4, when there's clearly no money for said horse?
It's surely a well known practice for bookies to shorten up a non runner just before the off to increase the rule4, when there's clearly no money for said horse?
Sep 29, 2026 -- 11:05PM, Regbutler wrote:
Jamee, don't quite know what you're saying there, but I respect your opinions on hereIt's surely a well known practice for bookies to shorten up a non runner just before the off to increase the rule4, when there's clearly no money for said horse?
It's just my logical conclusion. I have very limited understanding of how on-course bookies operate and I may be totally wrong.
But I would have thought the on-course market primarily follows Betfair exchange these days? And there's certainly manipulation of withdrawn runners on here, both pre-off and in-running. The price of La Pittura crashed on here when the saddle was removed by people trying to manipulate the reduction factor, or to get a better price on another horse. Similar things happen in-running, often a withdrawn horse will get hammered in as far as 1.01 near the finish by someone trying to con the bots into offering a better price on the winner.
If tis is true tben surely Betfair should cancel all bets placed after the official withdrawal announcement on course.
The likes of jim would be the experts, but I'm pretty sure that the sp is no longer determined by on course bookie shows.
The root of the 'controversy' here is that it was palpably obvious the horse had been pulled out of the race, but it wasn't formally taken out for several minutes.
How many racing correspondents does the daily mirror have?
The root of the 'controversy' here is that it was palpably obvious the horse had been pulled out of the race, but it wasn't formally taken out for several minutes.
How many racing correspondents does the daily mirror have?
How ever good or bad Dave Yates is as a newspaper correspondent, he is totally unsuited to being on live TV.
Watched on ITV and they did comment and question the situation, took them long enough tbh. Probably the most blatant rule 4 manipulation I have ever seen and have witnessed plenty. However mostly on bigger priced horse where fewer notice a point or two shortening, this one from 9/2 to as short as 9/4 before finishing at 10/3.
Hard to tell who is ultimately responsible as SPs are an off course median based algorithm using the major bookies and a new market was formed so the rule 4 only applied to the old market and not SP. Whatever caused the move and it is obviously linked to bookmakers should be investigated to pinpoint those who might be responsible e.g on course or otherwise.
A reasonable sample of all ledgers on the day and perhaps from off course bookmakers to see if any bets were actually taken before official withdrawal may give the answer, DY is correct in saying it was fishy. I doubt there were any genuine bets taken.
Hard to tell who is ultimately responsible as SPs are an off course median based algorithm using the major bookies and a new market was formed so the rule 4 only applied to the old market and not SP. Whatever caused the move and it is obviously linked to bookmakers should be investigated to pinpoint those who might be responsible e.g on course or otherwise.
A reasonable sample of all ledgers on the day and perhaps from off course bookmakers to see if any bets were actually taken before official withdrawal may give the answer, DY is correct in saying it was fishy. I doubt there were any genuine bets taken.
Do not get this.
The on-course prices play no part in the returned SP - and have not done so for some time now.
The on-course prices play no part in the returned SP - and have not done so for some time now.
Nothing to do with returned SP, a new market was formed.
BF Backers trying to manipulate the prices on the remaining runners.
It has been going on for years but with the early certainty of a withdrawal being shown on RTV it became more obvious
It has been going on for years but with the early certainty of a withdrawal being shown on RTV it became more obvious
Something different but an on course bookie mentioned on YT this week that off course firms shorten up price on favs on here just before than off. Once again it's nowt to do with the SP's unless the off course bookies use BF prices as part of their own calculations. Only thing I can think of is off course bookies don't want the betfair SP to show how poor their SP is on the fav.
new market irrelevant. if you took a price you suffer a hefty r4 determined by the fav price at time of withdrawal
every time anything at the front is taken out, lay the shortest available. its a handy strategy, or was. reduction factor can be brutal
every time anything at the front is taken out, lay the shortest available. its a handy strategy, or was. reduction factor can be brutal
The rule 4 is determined by the price of the withdrawn horse, not the fav.
One thing is certain here,a Rule4 is infinitely preferable to a BF RF
Isn't it the same data feed that's used to compile the current show and the final SP. Otherwise what's the origin of the opening show and market moves up to the off?
I am pretty sure the BF reduction factor for that one on Saturday was only 10%, considering its price at the time of withdrawal, i think that might have played a factor in the market manipulation that went on.
well spotted glenda. was talking about this fav. numbnut
the sp is final
if it was 10% its a gift compared to some of them
the sp is final
if it was 10% its a gift compared to some of them
What is "This fav" Mitolo? If you are referring to the horse withdrawn in the discussion , it was not fav and nothing to do with SP!! HTH
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539