Newsboy speaks out about on course bookmakers manipulating the market on Monday ..

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?

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 And there's certainly manipulation of withdrawn runners on here, both pre-off and in-running.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 Similar things happen in-running, often a withdrawn horse will get hammered in as far as 1.01 near the finish by someone trying to con the bots into offering a better price on the winner.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?

How ever good or bad Dave Yates is as a newspaper correspondent, he is totally unsuited to being on live TV.

sageform
Totally agree!

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.

Do not get this.

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

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.

I blame hulk

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

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

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

yes. my nut is numb. lazy error from me

The first post by jamee will be correct.

I did post a long version of my opinion on the article brought up by the chief racing correspondent of a major daily newspaper explaining that on course bookmakers have absolutely no control over the rule 4 as since the pandemic there not involved in the sp however It failed the bf police which surprised me after the stuff mics was posting for quite some time.

@uptheirons

"One thing is certain here, a Rule4 is infinitely preferable to a BF RF"

Depends what you are doing.  Tatts Rule 4 is if anything, slightly generous to backers - assuming the prices are not manipulated.

Betfair RF - again, if the prices are not manipulated - ought to be equally fair to backers and layers.  So layers ought to prefer RF to R4.

Correct longbridge and I should have said,Backer

Of course this wouldn’t be the first time the racing press went for easy targets of the Monday after camelots derby an article in the racing post was aimed at a bookmaker at Epsom been much shorter than those around him and suggested it was a bad practice preying on  once a year race goers ,the bookmaker wrote into the racing post and to be fair they printed the letter congratulated the journalist for noticing he was shorter than those around him but was surprised an experienced racing journalist hadn’t noticed he was betting without the favourite.

Would there be any other type of journalist in any sport or any other areas that are so careful who they criticise?

How exactly are the shows and SPs compiled now? Is that public? When there is a 'bad' EW race for the bookies, the show/sp does not closely mirror betfair. It doesn't suggest that it's necessarily a strong correlation with bfex win market activity. Or, that the correlation can be, and is adjusted/tweaked. 

Two problems led to the issue on Saturday, one was the delay in declaring a horse that obviously wasn't running a nonner. That delay permitted the price of that nonner to be depressed before it was formally withdrawn. Both elements can be criticised, but the second one requires a deep dive into what variables are used to compile the show.

Unfortunately cider betfair is the show minus what suits the off course /online firms even antipost now there are no competent odds compilers any more as there’s little need for them.

Look back to when there were proper judges working form hills corals Ladbroke etc after say the dewhurst quotes could range from 7/2 to 7/1 as an example for next years 2,000 guineas or say the 4 th 14/1 to 33/1 now the quotes would range from 3/1 to 7/2 and 12/1 to 14/1 just look at the daily races on odds checker maybe 20 plus firms all agreeing the price of a horse.

Jimnast .
Think Wally P Got it  badly wrong with Zaffonic.
Hope you are well.
Ronnie.

There is no need for decent compilers as they will not Lay anybody with a clue

How's your punting going,ronnie?
Even McCririck was on Zafonic

If I remember rightly Corals went 7/4 - 15/8 Zafonic 2000Gs when other firms
were going odds on around 8/11?.

Jimnast.
Ask your pal how many winners i have backed with him this year at York.i will save you the trouble ONE and i dare not think what my expenses have been.Will be back next weekend..Ronnie.

Hello Ronnie hope your well

Wally p would have quoted that price mainly on his opinion sometimes right sometimes wrong as we all are in this game back then you couldn’t have a peep on here

Can’t remember the exact prices Penzance but that my earlier point there was discrepancies some huge like that many given as a horse crosses the line,much more interesting then.

I wish that hot fuss that just won at Ascot had won the Martin pipe I’d layed Ireland to win prestbury cup

Jimnast .The price was 7s Big Mac said it cost Coral 3 mill the figure was close to half a million
Ronnie.

They were the prices offered after his defeat before the Guineas in France, jimnast, pretty sure
that was when they were quoted.He was 2ND with Pat giving him a so called easy I remember.

My memory of zafonics 2000 guineas whilst I remember Big Mac never shutting up about the but it was beforehand was the electrical storm that hit the track almost as the stalls opened therefore no commentary on course but as the horse hit the front there was a huge gasp from the crowd

I see David Jennings has wrote his last piece in the racing post today ,sorry to see that he doesn’t come under my general opinion of the racing press ,his final section very good with some wise words to finish with.