Today's Horse Racing
- northbound
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:22 pm
Most probably another horse in the race has been withdrawn and Betfair has amended the odds.
Think about the following example: there’s a race with three runners, each with an equal chance of winning (33.33%), hence the odds of each are 3.00.
One runner is withdrawn and it becomes a two runner race. Now basically each runner has 50% of winning, so it is normal to expect the original bet stroke at 3.00 now gets amended to 2.00.
This is likely due to another horse or horses being withdrawn and Betfair have applied a reduction factor. You can check out their rules regarding non-runners. Its quite normal and it is designed to be fair. You will find yourself more prone to this the earlier you place your bet, particulalry the night before as the trainers tend to withdraw their horses in the morning before setting off for the course as they change their minds about entering due to fitness or conditions
You can imagine how it would be unfair for a layer of the second favorite to discover that the odds on favorite had been withdrawn with no adjustment to the odds.
You can imagine how it would be unfair for a layer of the second favorite to discover that the odds on favorite had been withdrawn with no adjustment to the odds.
Thx...sorry for late reply...so can a trainer can have 2 horses in a race..1 at say 100 on the bet fairground and 1 at say 8..He can then back the horse at 100, and then withdraw the horse at 8..knowing the odds will drop and he can lay his horse at 100 for lower odds??
Does anybody know if all bookies are in on the corruption that goes on in horse racing?
Does anybody know if all bookies are in on the corruption that goes on in horse racing?
Yes but thats, why there is a reduction factor and the same which happened to you, will happen to him/herAllan R wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:47 pmThx...sorry for late reply...so can a trainer can have 2 horses in a race..1 at say 100 on the bet fairground and 1 at say 8..He can then back the horse at 100, and then withdraw the horse at 8..knowing the odds will drop and he can lay his horse at 100 for lower odds??
ie, the horse they backed at 100 will now be repriced at say 70 so it still needs to shorten if they are to lay it for a profit
When a horse is withdrawn the price reductions represent fair prices, given that there are less runners and bets have a better chance of winning.Allan R wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:47 pmThx...sorry for late reply...so can a trainer can have 2 horses in a race..1 at say 100 on the bet fairground and 1 at say 8..He can then back the horse at 100, and then withdraw the horse at 8..knowing the odds will drop and he can lay his horse at 100 for lower odds??
Does anybody know if all bookies are in on the corruption that goes on in horse racing?
In the example you gave, the bet at 100 would be reduced so he could only lay the horse at a similar price to what he backed it at.
Shhhhhhhh, keep this system to yourself please, I have been using this system for quite a long time now and have been making millions on it. I can't believe no one else in the world until you realised how easy it was to make money in horse racing, all you needed to do was know which horses would be withdrawn, it has been a licence to print money for years
Oh i see. thanks.Dallas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:56 pmYes but thats, why there is a reduction factor and the same which happened to you, will happen to him/herAllan R wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:47 pmThx...sorry for late reply...so can a trainer can have 2 horses in a race..1 at say 100 on the bet fairground and 1 at say 8..He can then back the horse at 100, and then withdraw the horse at 8..knowing the odds will drop and he can lay his horse at 100 for lower odds??
ie, the horse they backed at 100 will now be repriced at say 70 so it still needs to shorten if they are to lay it for a profit
I understand now. thankyou..must of had brainfreezeDerek27 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:57 pmWhen a horse is withdrawn the price reductions represent fair prices, given that there are less runners and bets have a better chance of winning.Allan R wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:47 pmThx...sorry for late reply...so can a trainer can have 2 horses in a race..1 at say 100 on the bet fairground and 1 at say 8..He can then back the horse at 100, and then withdraw the horse at 8..knowing the odds will drop and he can lay his horse at 100 for lower odds??
Does anybody know if all bookies are in on the corruption that goes on in horse racing?
In the example you gave, the bet at 100 would be reduced so he could only lay the horse at a similar price to what he backed it at.
The betting was crazy on the stewards. A LOT of money backed at below 1.10 in running on first past the post, quite a lot at 1.01.
The betting on the stewards was heavily favouring the first past the post until a huge chunk of money came for the eventual winner and the first past the post shot out from heavy odds on to 3-1+
All a bit odd plus given how far out the interference took place.
Last edited by PDC on Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If your going to be sarcastic, Keep it short..otherwise it just turns into GibberishPDC wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:01 pmShhhhhhhh, keep this system to yourself please, I have been using this system for quite a long time now and have been making millions on it. I can't believe no one else in the world until you realised how easy it was to make money in horse racing, all you needed to do was know which horses would be withdrawn, it has been a licence to print money for years
Seen all the money been matched at 1.05 and 1.06 then the market closed and thought nothing of it, the result was in on various sites. Then i reopen the market and see the crazy swing in betting. At that stage i couldnt adjust my position.PDC wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:14 pmThe betting was crazy on the stewards. A LOT of money backed at below 1.10 in running on first past the post, quite a lot at 1.01.
The betting on the stewards was heavily favouring the first past the post until a huge chunk of money came for the eventual winner and the first past the post shot out from heavy odds on to 3-1+
All a bit odd plus given how far out the interference took place.
Where is the consistency in the stewards??