Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
2014-Oct-02, 02:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Melbourne Cup Racing Forum Betting Tips Racehorse TALK

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
 
Author Topic: Schedule of Betting Deductions Bias  (Read 4227 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
westie
Editor
Group 1
user 8
Offline Offline
Posts: 11320
Original Post 2009-Feb-19, 05:36 PM

Reply
Recommend Message 1 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430(Original Message) Sent: 22/10/2007 4:43 AM

The Schedule of Betting Deductions which apply after a late scratching are heavily biased towards the Bookmaker. They are 10% higher than if you placed the same bet on a TAB than when a Bookmaker is betting at a market percentage of 117% (equivalent to the TAB with a 14.5% win commission), and it gets progressively worse as their betting market percentage increases.

In saturdays Caulfield Cup where the Bookmakers were betting at 119% on start time the subsequent scratchings and biased deductions basically changed this to a 129% market whereas the TAB stays at 117%.

A 117% market equates to a punter getting $1.71 about either Heads or Tails if the event was a coin toss, compared to $2.00 in a 100% market, or in a tote pool if there was no commission. In a 129% market you are effectively taking $1.55 about a true even money chance. There is a significant difference between $1.71 and $1.55 for an even money chance.

To provide an example of this bias, consider the following race with six runners and the Bookmakers and TAB's betting an identical 117% market;

 No.

Units Invested

Dividend

 1

 4,275

 $2.00

 2

 1,145

 $7.47

 3

 1,145

$7.47

 4

 1,145

$7.47

 5

 1,145

$7.47

 6

 1,145

$7.47

 Total

 10,000

 Commission @ 14.5%

 1,450

 Net Pool

 8,550

Now with the even money favourite scratched and no new investment it becomes;

 No.

Units Invested

Dividend

 1

Scratched

 2

 1,145

$4.28

 3

 1,145

 $4.28

 4

 1,145

$4.28

 5

 1,145

 $4.28

 6

 1,145

 $4.28

 Total

 5,725

 Commission @ 14.5%

 830

Net Pool

 4895

If you had backed the subsequent winner on the TAB you collect $4.28 which is equivalent to a betting deduction of 42.7 cents in the dollar. The official deduction when an even money winner is scratched is 47 cents in the dollar, therefore if you had backed the subsequent winner with a Bookmaker your equivalent dividend is $3.96.

In Saturdays Caulfield Cup the deductions were 39c ($2.40) Maldivian and 9c ($10) Eskimo Queen. The Bookies were betting at 119% (fair dinkum) and  IAS's thursday night market was at 130% (criminal). Master O'Reilly was $9.50 and with subsequent deductions this ends up $4.94 whereas he paid $5.30, $5.60 and $5.20 on the three TAB's.

Punters ripped off to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

(Whilst it is highly unlikely that I am incorrect , you never know, therefore I would appreciate it if someone would check both the logic and calc's)

Logged
 
westie
Editor
Group 1
user 8
Offline Offline
Posts: 11320
2009-Feb-19, 05:38 PM

Reply
Recommend Message 2 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 22/10/2007 4:13 PM
Looks fine to me, Grega.  Whilst it's highly unlikely, there is the possibility that we both could be incorrect.
I think the bookies' response would be something like: "Oh ya can't presume we balance our books these days".
What the deduction scale does, is to increase the betting percentage so that bookies retain some of the "winnings" they were expecting (without a withdrawal).  It's the punters who back the subsequent winner who throw in to help the bookies maintaing their profit ratio.
I think the picture gets progressively worse when there are multiple withdrawals.  At the extreme when all are scratched, every punter - even those who didn't bet - is requested to place a donation in the tins provided at the back of the bookies' stands.

Reply
Recommend Message 3 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameHangman1050 Sent: 22/10/2007 4:40 PM
Hypothetical Question,
What would be the deductions if the $2.4 fav was withdrawn 10 minutes before the race, new betting commenced and the 2nd fav which was $8 before the favs scratching but was the new fav at $3 and it was scratched at the Barrier?
If you backed the winner with both still in, would the deductions be based on the price at time of withdrawal or at time of bet?
I would assume time of bet but is there a rule to follow?
Hangman.

Reply
Recommend Message 4 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameHangman1050 Sent: 22/10/2007 4:47 PM
I remember being at a provincial meeting in NSW when a horse got down in the barrier and was obviously going to be a late scratching, it firmed from about 7 or 8/1 into around 3 or 4/1 while still hooked up in barriers, increasing the deductions substantially,
Is it just my naturally suspicious mind or do you think the bookies were having a lend of the punters?
Hangman.
P.S. I backed the very easy winner, so I am biased!

Reply
Recommend Message 5 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameAntitab Sent: 22/10/2007 4:51 PM
Hangmans observation was a common occurrence at NSW provincial meetings a few years ago.
I dont know if someone said something to the bookies because it seemed to stop as quickly as it started.

Reply
Recommend Message 6 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 22/10/2007 4:56 PM
In situations where betting continues after a withdrawal, there's an expectation that bookies "draw a line" under the pre-withdrawal bets.  Deductions (obviously) apply only to those bets made above the line.
If there's a subsequent withdrawal, there'd be another deduction posted (to apply to the bets below the line).
Messy, but that's the process.

Reply
Recommend Message 7 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 22/10/2007 5:13 PM
Hangman when it gets too messy as per your example the Stewards at their discretion can declare that winning punters be paid out at tote prices.

Reply
Recommend Message 8 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 22/10/2007 5:17 PM
DD, thanks for checking.
Basically the bias exists because the Schedule of Deductions is derived at a market percentage of 101.5%, which is unheard of outside of the rare occasion in Sydney.

Reply
Recommend Message 9 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameColonus4 Sent: 22/10/2007 10:43 PM
Well done Grega! The 48% deduction did change the market in the Caulfield Cup from 119% to 129% after the scratchings and, in order to have retained the 119% market, the deduction should have been only 43.5%.
It wasn't so bad for place bettors who suffered a 33% deduction. The place market (based on one-quarter of the odds) was around 330% and, after the scratchings and the 33% deduction, went to 335.6%. In order to have retained the 330% market, the deduction should have been 32%.

Reply
Recommend Message 10 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 23/10/2007 12:41 AM
Colonus, in addition to this bias issue, the 39c deduction for Maldivian is determined from the Schedule on a price of $2.40.
I would be surprised if any Bookie laid more than 1% of their hold, if any, on Maldivian at the price of $2.40 or lower. Shane Templeton in the betting ring exactly one minute before the advertised start time said that the last of the $2.70 just went and he will probably start at $2.60.
There was a rort enacted here, probably something to do with his official SP. But our stewards were blind to it just as they were to hazards installed in the barriers.

Reply
Recommend Message 11 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 3/11/2007 1:35 PM
Grega
Harking back to earlier discussion on this stuff.... 
In the first at Gosford, heavily-backed favourite Leica King refused to load and was scratched at the barriers.  According to TVN the horse was backed from $8 into $3.40.  Obviously deductions on the winner - who was quite short - would be based on the $3.40.  At $8 the deduction would be around 10c, at $3.40 it would be around 28c.
Imagine the result if you'd backed the winner at the time the LS was $8.

Reply
Recommend Message 12 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 3/11/2007 2:14 PM
DD, yes hard to beat them. If you backed the winner early you probably took the unders as well as it would have drifted after the money for the favourite. Double whammy with the unders and the maximum deduction.

Reply
Recommend Message 13 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameTim_Ryan_ABA Sent: 23/01/2008 3:50 PM
It is a nonsense to compare totalisator dievidends and bookmaker payouts (with deductions) in the event of a late scratching.
A tote pool operates over a single race, that pool is independent of all other races - in the event of a late scrathcing all* (win & place) investments on that runner are returned and the remaining pool, and investments on each runner, is recalculated to give a new payout.
With bookmakers they operate on long run probababilty and the law of large numbers... over time they will win and punters will lose.  Bookmakers don't come remotely close to betting round (on any race) on any one race they could win the lot (no bets on a runner) or lose a motza (overlayed a favourite).
The overround for any given race bears no direct relationship to the bookmaker's profitability for that race... and therefore of little consequence in determining the equitable treatment of returning stakes on scratched runners and deductions from winnings to cover that.
As we have put to others who raisd this issue before the only way to empirically look at this issue is to - over a significant period of time - look at the sum of returned stakes versus the sume of deductions made from winnings.
While some examples have been given of apparent excessive deductions when one considers the weight of turnover it is understood that these are "long tail" aberations and that the Scale of Deductions as universally applied is fair and equitable to punters and bookmakers alike.

Reply
Recommend Message 14 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameRodent™ Sent: 23/01/2008 5:53 PM
The bottom line Tim is that the bookmaker's client is worse off than the TAB punter when there is a late scratching. The bookmaker is uncompetitive on price in such an instance. Just one of the reasons I rarely bet with bookies but then again, I look for value.

Reply
Recommend Message 15 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 23/01/2008 5:54 PM
Tim, you have got to be kidding if you think that it is fair that a punters bet can go from being made in a market of 117% to a market of 129% because of a late scratching. Effectively you are telling a punter that he has got $1.50 about the toss of a coin after he had already taken $1.71.
Why don't we use the long run rate of return of punters to calculate deductions that convert a 117% market to a 105% market in the event of a significant late scratching. That is the arguement that you are putting to us.

Reply
Recommend Message 16 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameTim_Ryan_ABA Sent: 23/01/2008 10:18 PM
Grega, youy miss my point a 117% "point in time" market (or whatever) results in a long run 105% market - deductions should be based on that.
Mostof the bookmakers' s/ware automatically recalculates a book to maintain the same overround when a runner is removed (and bets are at the new prices), how quick that is reported by the APN is another matter (affected also by how quick they jump if a late scrtching is the only one not in the barriers).
The test, over the long run, is does the sum of returned stakes approximate the sum of deductions retained - doing the deductions at the 105.5% mark means that it should - the bookies (collective) long run win is equivalent to (collective) punters long run loss.
The returned stakes (to PUNTERS) are funded by the deductions from PUNTERS.
Logged
westie
Editor
Group 1
user 8
Offline Offline
Posts: 11320
2009-Feb-19, 05:39 PM

Reply
Recommend Message 17 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 24/01/2008 7:19 AM
Tim if you had a bet on something in a 117% market before the late scratching of a short priced runner you have effectively bet into a 130% market. If, as you say the Bookies automatically readjust prices to 117% after the scratching then why does the early punter have to get a 13% market penalty.
Also if bookmakers yield a long run rate of return of 105.5% based on an average point in time market of 117% then the deductions should be based on the average point in time market percentage.
Further taken to the extreme with the present arrangement if a short priced runner was a late scratching in every race then the long run rate of return for Bookmakers would increase by 12% to 117.5%. Just because it happens occasionally is no reason to significantly favour bookmakers.

Reply
Recommend Message 18 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameMuggins136 Sent: 24/01/2008 7:52 AM
Instead of talking in Double Dutch, Tim could try Plain English and while attempting that, explain  why UK bookies operating under Tattersalls Rules don't take any deductions from the punters stake and there is no deduction on scratched runners over 12/1 and why Aussie bookies should get it so much  better than the Poms

Reply
Recommend Message 19 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 1/02/2008 9:27 PM
Grega, you'll like this one...
At EF on Wednesday, Race 5, two horses bolted as they were going onto the track - less than 10 minutes to the race.
I immediately looked at the odds monitor at the time, and the official bookies' market on show totalled 204%. 
The eventual winner, Billys Omen, was 4.5 (odds of 7/2), and the two horses (who were subsequently scratched) were 6.00 and 4.20.
The official deductions post-race were 38 cents for the win, and 31 cents for the place.
So, if you backed Billys Omen just prior to the scratchings, you finished with 2.79. or odds around 7/4.
Yet the returned SP (NOT subject to deductions) for the winner was 4.0

Reply
Recommend Message 20 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 2/02/2008 10:06 AM
DD, that is the issue in a nutshell, impossible to see how Tim (ABA) can justify the current arrangement.

Reply
Recommend Message 21 of 49 in Discussion
From: vorogue Sent: 4/02/2008 1:58 PM
Hey Tim,
How come in the year 2008 your mob can't get austext to work on a daily basis (Neil Armstrong was able to walk on the moon in 1969)...sometimes it's not functioning for the whole betting day (pages 504 and 505), sometimes a couple of hours, the bottom line is IT IS NOT WORKING PROPERLY, and as i understand it you lot are BEING PAID by TABCORP for a non-functioning service. I could count on one hand the number of days it has worked 100% in the last 3-4 months, barring a 2 week period where all seemed well, onlt to completely crap out again about a month ago. Even when the so called odds have been there today, the pools displayed have been a fraction of reality. NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Reply
Recommend Message 22 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 5/02/2008 10:32 AM
Grega
You've got your mind around this stuff....would you be able to construct a table showing FAIR deductions (at some of the common odds) for market percentages of 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200 per-cent.  We won't waste time going down to 100, although it might be instructive to see the comparison.
Would be interesting to see what is fair at 200 - given the episode at EF last week.

Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations Message 23 of 49 in Discussion
Sent: 5/02/2008 6:39 PM
This message has been deleted by the author.

Reply
Recommend Message 24 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 5/02/2008 6:40 PM

DD, nothing fair about gullible people having a bet into a market of 200%. They are betting them 2/1 about a 5/1 chance. Very few of them would take 2/1 about throwing a six with a dice, bemusing that they do so on horses.

I would love a committee to make it a condition on bookies that they cannot take a bet unless they are beneath a certain market percentage, which would vary depending on the race eg 140% for a 3yo Maiden race 125% for a Group One race etc. IMO not difficult to monitor and enforce. No committee would let the bloke selling icecreams charge $20 and ripoff their patrons and I can't see the difference.

As Tim has advised when there is a late scratching but still time to bet, the computerised boards nowadays automatically readjust all prices to the same market percentage at the time of the scratching. Therefore the fairest method of calculating deductions is one where there is no disadvantage to someone who has backed a horse before the late scratching compared to someone backing the same horse after the late scratching. Therefore deductions should be calculated on the basis of whatever the market percentage was at the time of the scratching with an allowance in the bookmakers favour of say 5% for the "layed market".

Tim's point on the long run test, of whether the sum of returned stakes approximates the sum of deductions retained is a red herring designed to confuse administrators. It would never be measured and is totally dependent on the book each bookie makes - what if every bookie had never layed the late scratching. Refunds to punters who backed a late scratching is only returning their money. All that needs to be done with them is to give them their money back and leave them out of the arguement.

I will run some numbers as you suggest and see what comes up but what should be in place is a schedule of deductions for various increments of market percentage and a law to prevent bookmakers taking bets above set market percentages.<o:p></o:p>


Reply
Recommend Message 25 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameAntitab Sent: 5/02/2008 7:16 PM
Tim
You have posted more rubbish on this site than other,  but  message 16 is a new level of stupidity  even for you.
The amount refunded  has no relevance to the  deduction .
You are an embarressment to your profession which has really blossomed under your stewardship.

Reply
Recommend Message 26 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 5/02/2008 8:29 PM
Grega
Yes, see what you mean.  It's like trying to turn wilful murder into death by misadventure.  But I look forward to seeing your "fair" scale of deductions.
Re race clubs and bookies... in Qld at least, bookmakers are regulated by Queensland Racing, rather than the race clubs.

Reply
Recommend Message 27 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 6/02/2008 11:35 AM
DD, it has taken me 30 minutes to calculate a fair set of deductions for an incremental range of market percentages in a spreadsheet, that I am good at, but working out how to post it on here legibly will take me a while, and I do have to do some form for today. So some quick discussion first on your Eagle Farm 200% market situation from last week.
Consider the following - me and you have left our brains at home and are standing in the Bookies ring contemplating backing a horse at $6.00 in that 200% market race at Eagle Farm last week.
We both decide to have a $100 on it and proceed to different bookies, you have your bet, but before I can get on the siren goes advising that the $2.00 favourite is a late scratching.
The bookies take it out of the market and their boards automatically readjust all prices whilst maintaining the 200% market. Our horse is now $4.50 and I have my $100 on. It wins and I go and collect my $450 and you go to collect your $600 less 47c in the dollar on the face value of the ticket, you collect $318. Tim thinks that is fair!

Reply
Recommend Message 28 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 6/02/2008 11:56 AM
DD, as you can see from the above example the fair deduction for an even money chance ($2.00) in a 200% market is 25c in the dollar, not the 47c in the dollar that the current deduction schedule stipulates.

Reply
Recommend Message 29 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 6/02/2008 12:50 PM
Grega
Thanks for the replies.  Apologies that my query is diverting your attention from things that are far more important.
Your example is irrefutable proof of the degree to which punters are shafted when horses are withdrawn "in betting" - particularly early in the betting, and at mid-weeks.  It's a disgrace, and there's no other word for it.
I think we can use a rule-of-thumb that the "fair" deduction in a 200% market would be around half that in the current deduction tables.  If it's 180%, then around 3/5ths and so on.
I guess there's no way bookies would accept a stepwise scale based on the market percentage at the time of the scratching.  The "official" market could well be 204% - as was the case at EF - but we'd have a bookie say "Oh, I was betting 120%".
It certainly is an issue that needs addressing - and quickly - while there are still punters at the racecourse.  I doubt the off-course corporate guys would pull such a stunt.

Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations Message 30 of 49 in Discussion
Sent: 7/02/2008 12:35 PM
This message has been deleted by the author.

Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations Message 31 of 49 in Discussion
Sent: 7/02/2008 12:35 PM
This message has been deleted by the author.
Logged
westie
Editor
Group 1
user 8
Offline Offline
Posts: 11320
2009-Feb-19, 05:40 PM

Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations Message 32 of 49 in Discussion
Sent: 7/02/2008 12:37 PM
This message has been deleted by the author.

Reply
Recommend Message 33 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 7/02/2008 1:23 PM
In this and the next message is a Betting Deduction Schedule for various market percentages. The 105% market is the closest to the current deduction schedule.
DD, I don't see any problem in determining what the market percentage is. It is readily available as you noted from Eagle Farm last week and I also doubt that any bookmaker would ever be betting at a significantly different market percentage than their colleagues.
Stewards do have the option to declare tote prices be paid (117%) and this should have been invoked at EF last week and on many other occasions.
Odds Decimal Odds   Betting Market Percentage
100% 105% 110% 115% 120%
1/2 $1.50 0.67 0.63 0.60 0.57 0.55
4/6 $1.65 0.61 0.57 0.55 0.52 0.50
1/1 $2.00 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.41
6/4 $2.50 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.33
2/1 $3.00 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.27
3/1 $4.00 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20
5/1 $6.00 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.13
8/1 $9.00 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09
12/1 $13.00 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06
16/1 $17.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04
20/1 $21.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03

Reply
Recommend Message 34 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 7/02/2008 1:23 PM
Odds Decimal Odds   Betting Market Percentage
125% 130% 135% 140% 160% 200%
1/2 $1.50 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.47 0.41 0.33
4/6 $1.65 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.37 0.30
1/1 $2.00 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.35 0.31 0.25
6/4 $2.50 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.25 0.20
2/1 $3.00 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.16
3/1 $4.00 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.12
5/1 $6.00 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08
8/1 $9.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05
12/1 $13.00 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03
16/1 $17.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02
20/1 $21.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02

Reply
Recommend Message 35 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 7/02/2008 7:49 PM
Grega
Many thanks for constructing those tables.  They tell the story in 3D.
As for the proposal to apply deductions based on the bookies' percentage at the time of the scratchings, I realise we can easily access the bookies' percentage.  The trick is to have bookies ACCEPT that approach.
As for use of tote odds, I can foresee some arguments against it, and again, I doubt it would be accepted by bookies.  I think it's best use would be when there are more than one scratching at different times during the betting.  At EF they both came out at the same time, hence it was acceptable to ADD the deductions.  Just a shame the deductions weren't fair.
I'm in regular contact with the local bookies' rep and will see what his response is to the proposal that a sliding scale be applied, dependent on percentage at the time..

Reply
Recommend Message 36 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameMuggins136 Sent: 8/02/2008 12:05 AM
Throw these in while you're at it dd and remember the punters stake is not affected

Tattersalls' rules - Bets on horseracing are governed by 'Tattersalls' Rules of Betting', and form the basis for these rules. These rules or an official announcement by the Tattersalls' Committee will govern the settlement of bets should a situation occur not covered by these rules.

Late Withdrawals - Where a horse is withdrawn before coming under starter's orders, or is officially deemed by the starter to have taken no part in the race and the market has not been reformed, stakes on the withdrawn horse will be returned and winning bets will be subject to deductions in accordance with Tattersalls' rule 4c.

The rate of deduction will be based on the following scale.

Price At Time Of Withdrawal/Deduction in the pound; <o:p></o:p>

1.  1/9 or shorter (1.11 or shorter) 90p <o:p></o:p>

2.  2/11 to 2/17 (1.18 to 1.12) 85p <o:p></o:p>

3.  1/4 to 1/5 (1.25 to 1.20) 80p <o:p></o:p>

4.  3/10 to 2/7 (1.30 to 1.29) 75p <o:p></o:p>

5.  2/5 to 1/3 (1.40 to 1.33) 70p <o:p></o:p>

6.  8/15 to 4/9 (1.53 to 1.44) 65p <o:p></o:p>

7.  8/13 to 4/7 (1.61 to 1.57) 60p <o:p></o:p>

8.  4/5 to 4/6 (1.80 to 1.66) 55p <o:p></o:p>

9.  20/21 to 5/6 (1.95 to 1.83) 50p <o:p></o:p>

10.  Evs to 6/5 (2.00 to 2.20) 45p <o:p></o:p>

11.  5/4 to 6/4 (2.25 to 2.50) 40p <o:p></o:p>

12.  13/8 to 7/4 (2.62 to 2.75) 35p <o:p></o:p>

13.  15/8 to 9/4 (2.87 to 3.25) 30p <o:p></o:p>

14.  5/2 to 3/1 (3.50 to 4.00) 25p <o:p></o:p>

15.  10/3 to 4/1 (4.33 to 5.00) 20p <o:p></o:p>

16.  9/2 to 11/2 (5.50 to 6.50) 15p <o:p></o:p>

17.  6/1 to 9/1 (7.00 to 10.00) 10p <o:p></o:p>

18.  10/1 to 14/1 (11.00 to 15.00) 5p <o:p></o:p>

19.  over 14/1 over 15.00 no deductions <o:p></o:p>


In the event of two or more horses being withdrawn from the same race before coming under Starter's orders, the total deductions shall not exceed 90p in £.

Should a horse be withdrawn and a new market formed, then any bets laid at a price prior to the new show will be subject to the above deductions.

The above scale will also apply to non runners in early price races. The deduction in such cases will be determined by the price of the withdrawn horse at the time the bet was struck. Any other event where deductions in line with Tattersalls rule 4c apply will also be subject to the above scale.

Place Terms - The place part of each way bets will be settled in accordance with the number of runners taking part in that race as follows:



Reply
Recommend Message 37 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 8/02/2008 9:00 AM
Cheers Muggins.
Australian deductions range from 30% to 55% higher than those applied in the UK.
In the above tables they equate approximately to a betting market percentage of 160%.
DD, the Betting Schedule of Deductions comes under the authority of the relevant racing authorities in each state - RWWA, QRL, RacingNSW, RacingVic etc. To have this changed the best strategy would be to put it to the ARB. Jake could get his boss Andrew Harding to read this thread and tell us how to proceed. No bookmakers rep nor bookmaker will ever want the current schedule changed.

Reply
Recommend Message 38 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 8/02/2008 9:06 AM
Grega
According to Muggins, the UK deductions don't include the stake.  That would reduce the notional percentage somewhat?

Reply
Recommend Message 39 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 8/02/2008 9:09 AM
DD, accounted for that.

Reply
Recommend Message 40 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 8/02/2008 9:26 AM
DD, just in case we misunderstand each other - the UK deductions are on paper similar to ours but as they are applied to winnings only then the Australian deductions work out to be +30% higher and equate to a betting market percentage of 160%.
eg a 45c UK deduction for an 1/1 money scratching equates to a 30c deduction on the face value if you backed a horse at 2/1, our deduction is 47c on the face value.
If you backed a horse in the same race at 4/1 then it is 30c UK winnings, 24c UK on face value versus 31c Aus on face value. It varies depending on the price of the horse that you backed.

Reply
Recommend Message 41 of 49 in Discussion
From: dubbledee Sent: 8/02/2008 11:28 AM
No probs, Grega.  Was checking in case you hadn't seen the comment.  I hadn't looked at the net result.
What do you think about a scale of deductions with stake excluded.  I'd think it's more sensible to be based on ticket value (provided the punter always gets back stake at least).  Not sure about the mathematical logic.

Reply
Recommend Message 42 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameMuggins136 Sent: 8/02/2008 2:20 PM

Betting deductions

  1. The Advisory Group reviewed a new scale of deductions which mathematically restored the market to its position prior to the late scratching occurring.

Mr Sanders said the discussed matters would be referred to the Australian Racing Board for their consideration

Extract from Chief Stewards Conference Report QRL website 5Feb

Be good if they invite punters to  see and comment on proposal before implementing it.Wouldn't hold my breath tho.It would be a first


Reply
Recommend Message 43 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 9/02/2008 9:31 AM
Go Muggins, as I said on the other thread I wonder where the initiaitive originated from for the stewards advisory group to be considering this?
DD, when the deduction is on winnings, then, depending on the price of the horse you backed this equates to a varying market percentage - which would indicate that  face value is the more mathematically logical approach.

Reply
Recommend Message 44 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 12/02/2008 10:44 AM
The submission from the NSW Betting Steward to the Stewards Advisory Group is to undergo review by a mathematical/punting whizz prior to submission to the ARB for ratification. At the earliest June before any change.

Reply
Recommend Message 45 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameMuggins136 Sent: 12/02/2008 9:55 PM
Grega,You would think that after at least 4 years in getting to this stage they would have run it under race conditions before this.You might have the inside running here?
Or could it be Eddie? Don't answer that.Answer in code only.Farsi preferred.

Reply
Recommend Message 46 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 12/02/2008 10:09 PM
Muggins, I am as thick as two bricks when it comes to cryptic clues - you have lost me there. Eddie Hayson, McGuire? and who or what is Farsi.
Logged
westie
Editor
Group 1
user 8
Offline Offline
Posts: 11320
2009-Feb-19, 05:41 PM

Reply
Recommend Message 47 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameMuggins136 Sent: 12/02/2008 10:34 PM
Grega, the first Eddie,farsi is a foreign language.Bit like Tim's post on bookies percentages.

Reply
Recommend Message 48 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameGrega9430 Sent: 13/02/2008 10:54 AM
 Tim is multilingual eh!

Reply
Recommend Message 49 of 49 in Discussion
From: NineMSN NicknameMuggins136 Sent: 14/02/2008 8:23 PM
grega,pidgin maybe ,shouldn't be critical of him.Very hard job defending the indefensible
Logged
Arsenal
VIP Club
Group 1
user 194
Offline Offline
Posts: 9182
2009-Feb-19, 05:47 PM

Punters don't  stand a chance while the deductions apply to thier own stake .
UK bookies under Tattersalls rules exclude the punters stake from the deductions . If the ARB was any use it would have followed suit well before this.Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the (turf)
Logged
dubbledee
VIP Club
Group 1
user 285
Offline Offline
Posts: 31798
2009-Feb-19, 05:49 PM

Thanks for copying that across, westie. Thumb Up
Logged
Arsenal
VIP Club
Group 1
user 194
Offline Offline
Posts: 9182
2009-Mar-20, 12:07 PM



The ARB Chairman, Mr Bob Bentley, announced these changes.
“These changes send a clear message that Australian Racing is fully attuned to
contemporary community expectations. The need for change is clear and there
was no point fiddling around at the edges. There is no point procrastinating
where there is industry and public expectations that practices of the past are no
longer condoned. Once we opened up the subject we were determined to do it
properly.” - RG Bentley, Chairman, Australian Racing Board
[/b]

This is a ready made statement for when/if the ARB finally comes to terms with the fact that the punting community is tired of waiting for the long awaited review of statutory  betting deductions that favour  bookmakers to the detriment of punters.

So come on Bob and brethren no more procrastination Hop to It Thumb Up
Logged
Grega9430
Listed
user 267
Offline Offline
Posts: 490
2009-Mar-20, 12:11 PM

Tricked me Arsenal, I thought that they must have done it!

Nearly time to ring the NSW Steward running with this again.
Logged
Arsenal
VIP Club
Group 1
user 194
Offline Offline
Posts: 9182
2009-Mar-20, 12:15 PM

Tricked me Arsenal, I thought that they must have done it!

Nearly time to ring the NSW Steward running with this again.


Sorry Grega just getting it back on the Agenda Thumb Up
Logged
Arsenal
VIP Club
Group 1
user 194
Offline Offline
Posts: 9182
2009-May-06, 08:13 AM

This is an extract from www.justracing.com.au yesterday on the effect multiple scratchings had on the betting market in a Gold Coast race on Anzac Day .It would have slipped under the radar only for Phil's reader and Wade Birch's reply. Thumb Up

"This interesting email came in after Race 1 at the Gold Coast on 25/4/09. It stated:

    "Stewards on Saturday at the Gold Coast races created a precedent
following the running of the first race, when they directed bookies to
pay all winning bets at Unitab prices after there had been three late
scratchings at the barrier. The horses scratched in order at the
barriers were $1.90, $4.60 and $8.00 with the bookies, all up deductions
would have amounted to 81c win and 52c place on the face value of the
tickets prior to the first late withdrawal. I've been attending races
and punting since I was 12 and have never witnessed a decision such as
this. (Racecaller) Steve Hawkins announced over the PA that stewards were checking
the rules. Some 10-15 minutes later they came up with this incredible
decision.

By invoking what I can only describe as the "mercy rule" for successful
punters LR 147, their (stewards) report stated "Acting under the provisions of
LR147(1)(c)(1)(b), taking into account the effect the large deductions
would have on betting returns, Stewards ordered the bookmakers' payout
on tote prices for successful ticket holders".

Some punters have been paid massive overs while favourite backers got
the short straw - money back for the place $1.00.

Punters are entitled to a full explanation and so are bookies, as they
are not permitted when fielding to offer tote prices except for the place.
"

The response from Acting Queensland Racing Chief Steward Wade Birch reads:

I can provide the following information in response to the email you received regarding the decision of stewards to declare totalisator odds on race 1 at The Gold Coast Turf Club on Saturday 25 April 2009.

Race 1 consisted of 11 runners at the time of an Opening Market.

At 12.41.18pm Miss Teapot was declared a Late Scratching. At the time of it’s scratching Miss Teapot was marked at $3

At 12.42.33pm Her Pic was declared a Late Scratching. At the time of it’s scratching Her Pic was marked at $2.10

At 12.44.00pm Russe Princess was declared a Late Scratching. At the time of it’s scratching Russe Princess was marked at $6.50

The Market Percentage at the time of all three scratching was 141%.

Had the Stewards acted in accordance with LR147(5) the following deductions would have applied.

All Win and Place bets made prior to the scratching of Miss Teapot are to be paid : Win Bets less 90 cents in the dollar on the face value of the ticket. Place Bets less 58 cents in the dollar on the face value of the ticket.

All Win and Place bets made following the scratching of Miss Teapot and prior to the scratching of Her Pic are to be paid : Win Bets less 59 cents in the dollar on the face value of the ticket. Place Bets less 37 cents in the dollar on the face value of the ticket.

All Win and Place bets made subsequent to the withdrawals of Miss Teapot and Her Pic and prior to the scratching of Russe Princess are to be paid : Win Bets less 14 cents in the dollar on the face value of the ticket. Place Bets less 13 cents in the dollar on the face value of the ticket.

This order would have, in the opinion of stewards, resulted in the vast majority of punters being severely disadvantaged. For example, a bet of $10 each way on the winner of the race prior to the scratching of Miss Teapot would have netted a returned of $13 for the Win portion of the bet and $16.80 for the Place portion of the bet. Odds of $1.30 the Win and $1.68 the Place. Bearing in mind the winners starting price was $4.80 at a market percentage of 153%.

Therefore in the interests of those involved, the stewards acted in accordance with LR147(1)(c)(1)(b) which reads:

147 (1) If in any race the stewards at the meeting where the race is to be conducted permit or order a runner to be withdrawn from the race or if they declare a runner to be a non-starter in the race, the stewards at a meeting where betting is conducted on that race on that race shall prior to the declaration of correct weight being given declare that (a) all bets made on that runner on the day of the race be refunded; and

(c) If in their opinion such late withdrawal has had a material effect on the odds already bet on the remaining horses, they may also make such further order, in accordance with this rule as is considered necessary as to the settlement of successful bets on the race.

(1) Provided however, in the circumstances they deem appropriate, and where there is sufficient time

(b) They may order all bets be paid at totalisator odds.
I trust that this provides interested parties with an understanding of the reasons behind the steward’s decision.

Regards,
Wade Birch
Acting Chief Stipendiary Steward"


This highlights the unfairness of the current scale of betting deductions and while this is an extreme example it should act as a wake up call to the ARB which has been sitting on their hands for far too long.  rant

If Bob reads this he'll make them get a move on.
« Last Edit: 2009-May-06, 08:40 AM by Arsenal » Logged
dubbledee
VIP Club
Group 1
user 285
Offline Offline
Posts: 31798
2009-May-06, 08:48 AM

There's nothing new in this.  Stewards have been making such rulings in cases of multiple scractching for donkeys.  The provision has been in the Qld Racing and Betting Act for as long as I know.

It's not about the unfairness of the deductions scale - that's a totally different issue.

The problem is the MULTIPLE deductioons.  Of course if the scales are unfair, the unfairness is compounded when the deductions are added.  Or maybe that's not true.

If we had a FAIR deductions scale on a FAIR market, the deduction rates for the 2nd (and 3rd, etc) scratching should INCREASE, rather than stay as they are (for a single scratching).

The "pay TAB" option is probably the best for all as things stand.

We've discussed it numerous times but - for the sake of this point - the problems with current deductions scales are:

1.  They're fine for a market of say 110%, but way out of kilter when it's 140+%.

2.  They don't take into account the timing of your bet vs the time of the SCR (when the markets could have been quite different).
Logged
Grega9430
Listed
user 267
Offline Offline
Posts: 490
2009-May-06, 10:04 AM

I can't ever recall Stewards invoking this option, but I am not saying that they haven't. Well done to the Qld Stewards for doing so in this case.
Logged
Authorized
Steward
Group 1
user 18
Online Online
Alias: djebel
Posts: 24595
2009-May-06, 10:28 AM

Quote
2.  They don't take into account the timing of your bet vs the time of the SCR (when the markets could have been quite different).


Tabcorp do don't they? they may not come to the right conclusion but they do take into account the timing of the bet.
Logged
Arsenal
VIP Club
Group 1
user 194
Offline Offline
Posts: 9182
2010-Dec-13, 07:57 PM

New national schedule of betting deductions

The Board's Integrity and Welfare subcommittee today received a presentation from specialist wagering consultant Dominic Beirne on a new scheme for betting deductions he has developed on behalf of the Australian Racing Board and Australian Bookmakers Association (ABA). ABA representatives Mick Rolfe and Bill Murphy also addressed the meeting.

The current schedule was adopted effective 1st August 2000 on the recommendation of an ARB working party made up of representatives of State racing officials, bookmakers and Stewards. The ARB endorsed the current schedule in early 2000 and it was then adopted in each State and Territory by the body responsible for the rules of betting

A number of submissions have been made to the ARB in recent years proposing that the schedule could be improved. The Australian Bookmakers Association and the National Stewards group have worked with Dominic Beirne to develop a new scheme that addresses these issues.

The Board's subcommittee has recommended that after appropriate punter consultation and the development of an implementation plan the Australian Racing Board should make a decision on adoption of the new scheme.


Shouldn't be too much longer before we find out what's in store for us.

This excerpt is from the ARB meeting in March 2010..... 9months pregnancy .............next step was to consult with "punters" ..........maybe the consulted didn't like the proposal from Dominic and the bookies? chin
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 
 
Jump to:  

 - Race Horse Trainers - Links - Luxbet Horse Racing Betting - Noms and Acc - QTAB - TAB Horse Racing Betting - Melbourne Cup 2013 Discussion & Tips
Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
server load : 0.3
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 31 queries.