punters getting ripped off again by the bookies

[boldie]

from the RP website

Punters will be hit by
‘rule 4' increases



by Graham Green

 

 
PUNTERS are going to be hit in the pocket after Tattersalls Committee, the official body that governs the framework for betting on racing in Britain, decided to increase the ‘rule 4' take-out on non-runners.

The changes, which come at a time when punters are being subjected to higher overrounds, and seem certain to fuel controversy as they favour the layers, have been approved following a campaign mounted by Terry Allen, a former Jockey Club betting intelligence officer who had the backing of most major bookmaking organisations.

The new formula involves a sliding scale of charges, whereas previously prices were positioned in groupings with a 5p differential between categories. In many cases, this has meant rounding up deductions that were already a sore point with many backers.

In the event of an evens chance being withdrawn, punters will face paying 5p more, with the levy rising from 45p to 50p in the pound. Similarly, 5-4 will be 44p, compared to 40p; 6-1 rises to 14p from 10p; and 10-1 is 9p, from 5p.

Tattersalls Committee had betting exchanges in mind when describing the revisions as “a reflection of the more accurate deductions in place with other outside agencies”, although it emerged on Monday that Sunday's planned introduction of the new charges is still under discussion and could be delayed because of technical implications for the Press Association and betting industry. 
Allen, now an SP validator for the Press Association, claimed the previous ‘rule 4' deductions “were totally unfair to bookmakers” because they were operating to a 110 per cent overround. He both proposed and provided the blueprint for the latest approved charges, but is unapologetic to punters, who he benefited earlier in his career when spearheading the abolition of the ‘under starter's orders' rule.

Allen said: “Even though the changes do favour the bookmakers to some degree, they are still not on a level playing field, especially where races have few runners.

“For example, if you've got a field of three runners, priced 2-7, 7-2 and 14-1, and the second- favourite is withdrawn leaving a two-runner race, under the new deductions, bookmakers will still be betting to only a 90 per cent over-broke book.

“The charges are not beneficial to myself, and financially they don't make any difference to me, but I could just see there was an injustice, and it needed correcting, so in that respect I am pleased Tattersalls Committee has revised the deductions. They are now certainly fairer than they were.” 





So in short, he uses a ridiculous 3 runner example to justify something that mainly happens in big field races where you'll get screwed over even harder...and to claim that it doesn't benefit him...when his entire campaign was backed by the bookies...blah.

[Maxriddles]

from the RP website

 
Allen, now an SP validator for the Press Association, claimed the previous ‘rule 4' deductions “were totally unfair to bookmakers” because they were operating to a 110 per cent overround.

Yes those poor poor bookies, what a terrible shame. Still I'm sure they'll offset this by sticking to the original number of places paid when the 16 runner handicap becomes a 15 runner, the 8 runner becoming a 7 runner just before the off, or maybe they'll start to offer five places in handicaps with over 20 runners.

Then again pigs might fly.

[steeveg]

 i think the bookmakers are making a mistake ,its so competative nowadays,they should be trying to attract punters not lose more custom to the exchanges, ok the punter who just puts his yankee bet on every saturday wont be bothered, but more punters who have never bothered with  betfair will start placing there bigger bets on the exchanges once they feel peeved off enough to start checking the exchanges out, i can see the bookies just getting a bigger %s of a smaller turnover.

[bobby1]

lol ive just seen this thread, that would be the rule 4 change that Tatts tried to enforce that the off course bookies saiid they wouldnt adhere to. The on course bookies tried to get the changes made to suit them.

It was laughable really, they just suddenly anounced that they recomended changing the rule 4 deductions and that it should be introduced by the following Sunday, giving the off course firms exactly 6 days to change their entire settling systems. This was without even mentioning to those firms that ther might be a change in the first place.

Good to see racing is run by some on the ball people isnt it

[boldie]

lol ive just seen this thread, that would be the rule 4 change that Tatts tried to enforce that the off course bookies saiid they wouldnt adhere to. The on course bookies tried to get the changes made to suit them.

It was laughable really, they just suddenly anounced that they recomended changing the rule 4 deductions and that it should be introduced by the following Sunday, giving the off course firms exactly 6 days to change their entire settling systems. This was without even mentioning to those firms that ther might be a change in the first place.

Good to see racing is run by some on the ball people isnt it

Yeah it's a disgrace..but most of the people in racing don't care about the public..they really really don't (Big Mac on of the only notable exceptions to that one..and I hate saying that but without him racing would be in a MUCH worse state.)

[bobby1]

The thing is Boldie there is a right old gravy train in the racing media and this is 'colouring' the way that things get reported and commented on. During the Cheltenham festival I was moaning about the clerk of the course calling the ground good to soft every time they race there because that is what he wants the ground to be and this will get more runners to his meeting. When Sublimity won the Champion hurdle the ground was on the firmer side of good but in the record books it was good to soft, this year it was listed as good to soft when it was nearer soft.

Because this has been allowed to happen without anyone questioning it we have now got to the stage where almost every clerk is calling the ground what he wants or is altering the ground to suit, they are watering tracks that are good ffs, no point in having a horse that wants firm ground anymore. Prob is the journos that could write articles about this or press home that it is bang out of order are the ones that get their free lunches and perks when visiting those very racecourses so nobody rocks the boat.

Its got to the stage now where you cannot have a bet at a meeting until you have watched some races there, the times and the eye are the only clue as to what the ground really is.


These days it seems more important to sell more pints and pies and corporate lunches than the actual racing itself.

[bobby1]

Being the saddo that I am ive just checked the times, Subimity ran the champion Hurdle in 3.55 and this years was run in 4.08. The 'official' ground in Sublimity's year was soft and this year it was good to soft. So we are supposed to believe that Sublimity ran a 13 second faster time on soft ground than katchit did on good to soft ground.

the correct ground would have been good if not firmer and soft and the times prove it.Since that race Sublimity has never really proven he stays 2miles in soft ground yet the form book says he won a Champion hurdle on soft when it was good at worst.

This is going to happen with almost every race going forward, there are horses that when checking the form are going to appear to have form on certain ground that dont at all, totally misleading to the punters.

Using Sublimity as an example of how frustrating it is owning horses these days, it appears it needs good ground at least to truly get a stronge 2 miles, beacuase courses are doctoring the ground for no real reason where is it gonna find good/faster ground to win on?