Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold  (Read 12866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bascoe

  • Open
  • User 2568
  • Posts: 123
« 2018-Dec-18, 10:17 PM Reply #150 »


Working back from 'lotto like' dividends is a clue to a race that was unfair.
If we could ‘work back’ from the dividends wouldn’t we also have a clue about the results? Just shows how out of touch you are...

Try draughts or tic tac toe - punting seems beyond you


Sent from my iPhone using Racehorse Talk

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4401
« 2019-Jan-05, 08:15 PM Reply #151 »

RVL has much to answer for -- not least Caulfield today.

The early quadrella paid $70k.

There were two grossly inflated  F4s -- one paying $83k and another $25k.

The two races over the notoriously unfair 1400m, saw F4 dividends of $4.7k and $4.6k.

............ these outcomes are consistent with determination to take the bucks over delivering a fair product ....... they are especially pleasing to corporate bookmakers.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4401
« 2019-Jan-17, 06:09 PM Reply #152 »

Nothing funny about this farm fiasco

On Wednesday, the average starting price of the winning quadrella runners was 33/1 +.

The quadrella dividend 'should pay' was in the range $600,000 to $1,000,000+  -- some two-thirds of the Quadrella pool was 'jackpotted'.

Perusal of the newspaper tipping polls suggested these 4 winners were 'a complete surprise' to everyone.

No one would have any confidence that RNSW will spend any time reviewing 'what happened' and 'why' -- or if they did that any policy changes would be made.

Imagine the joy at  Tabcorp and other fixed-odds 'booktakers'.


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4401
« 2019-Jan-19, 08:48 PM Reply #153 »

A tale of two cities -- a disgraceful tale of one city

.......... as mature observers of what passes for racing gambling in Melbourne ...............you will be able to compare the outcome of Melbourne racing today with  that in Sydney.

The comparison could hardly be more starkly damming of the quality of the racing presented in Melbourne.,

Use your own benchmarks: mine are the 'tips' published in the SMH as 'Monty's Top 5' -- an analyst without peer in the media.

Today , in Sydney, Monty's only 'miss' was the overcrowded 16 starter low-grade 'HWY' for rural runners -- races that have no place on a Saturday metropolitan program.

Otherwise Monty included every winner in his 5 -- in 7 races he had 3 of the first 4 and in 2 races he had the first4.

In Melbourne there was the usual shambles.

.......... 6k and 12k quadrellas - F4 dividends of 50k, 30k, 13k, 7k, 5k and 4k  -- an absolute indictment of the 'rubbish' quality of the racing presented by RVL.

Monty included the winner in his 'top-5' in 5 of the 9 races but otherwise fell well short of a comparable performance with his Sydney selections.

This characteristic outcome is disgraceful --the fixed-odds corporates revel in the absence of any semblance of product quality control in the racing presented by RVL.

...... talk about a field-day .............. the corporates would be overjoyed ..... will probably sponsor more rubbish racing.

The TAB pools on the MN quadrella  ran to some 'went-west' $2 million+ and the corporates would have lapped up more.

The Victorian government should put a full stop to this rorting of TAB punters.



 

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 10331
« 2019-Jan-19, 09:07 PM Reply #154 »
Doesn't matter which horse wins the take is the same

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4401
« 2019-Jan-20, 07:37 PM Reply #155 »


au contraire = rats!

              doesn't matter ............ the take is the same

The take is not the same at all -- and is that not just the problem.

The TAB take from the parimutuel pools is 'the same'  -- but these days the action at TAB -- and at the corporates -- is much more about fixed-odds betting.

With fixed-odds betting the 'take' is unlimited -- it Melbourne on many races the 'take', with inflated fields usually meaning an outsider winning, is closer to 100% than 15%.

This spills over into 'exotics' bets placed with corporates 'matching' TAB payouts but not kicking the funding  tin with a 25% takeouts from F4  and B6 pools.

Even TAB 'takes' are eroded by 'rebates' to syndicates plundering exotic pools.

......allowing and faciltating this rorting of TAB punters is a disgraceful reflection on administrators taking their cut and TAB's not standing up for their customers.


Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 10331
« 2019-Jan-20, 08:09 PM Reply #156 »
A tale of two cities -- a disgraceful tale of one city

.......... as mature observers of what passes for racing gambling in Melbourne ...............you will be able to compare the outcome of Melbourne racing today with  that in Sydney.

The comparison could hardly be more starkly damming of the quality of the racing presented in Melbourne.,

Use your own benchmarks: mine are the 'tips' published in the SMH as 'Monty's Top 5' -- an analyst without peer in the media.

Today , in Sydney, Monty's only 'miss' was the overcrowded 16 starter low-grade 'HWY' for rural runners -- races that have no place on a Saturday metropolitan program.

Otherwise Monty included every winner in his 5 -- in 7 races he had 3 of the first 4 and in 2 races he had the first4.

In Melbourne there was the usual shambles.

.......... 6k and 12k quadrellas - F4 dividends of 50k, 30k, 13k, 7k, 5k and 4k  -- an absolute indictment of the 'rubbish' quality of the racing presented by RVL.

Monty included the winner in his 'top-5' in 5 of the 9 races but otherwise fell well short of a comparable performance with his Sydney selections.

This characteristic outcome is disgraceful --the fixed-odds corporates revel in the absence of any semblance of product quality control in the racing presented by RVL.

...... talk about a field-day .............. the corporates would be overjoyed ..... will probably sponsor more rubbish racing.

The TAB pools on the MN quadrella  ran to some 'went-west' $2 million+ and the corporates would have lapped up more.

The Victorian government should put a full stop to this rorting of TAB punters.

if that's the case , what was the pools on fixed odds
just because a quaddie in the tote pays x doesn't mean the corporates won .
what was their hold , you don't know
stop posting your waffle and lies

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4401
« 2019-Jan-20, 09:28 PM Reply #157 »


..........rats again!

If the corporates pay the same dividends on exotic bets -- but do not pay the same 'take' as TABs -- then rough results mean they 'cop the lot'.

More importantly, with 'fixed odds' betting neither TABs nor corporates pay much in the way of take-out -- and rough results mean they may well be 'copping' close to 100% of the bets placed on losing favoured horses.

Think about it -- everyone else, besides most punters, has a keen commercial interest in 'rough results'.

........in Victoria that seems to be reflected in administrative policies that benefit the 'fixed odds' operators.

This is not a good look -- and the regularity of the bad look begs the questions of why the administrators do not put quality controls in place -- and why TAB do not demand it on  behalf of most customers.



Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5467
« 2019-Jan-20, 10:19 PM Reply #158 »
Peter,

The idea of a handicap race is to ........

1) leave the best horse winning by 30 lengths  or

2) make for a close finish or at the very least a more evenly matched field to enhance betting activity AND retain interest in the challenge of picking the winner?

Peter.... you more than most should be careful of what you wish for.    If you actually got what you wanted racing would be finished.

Fours


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4401
« 2019-Jan-21, 09:24 AM Reply #159 »


True enough


............ you could have gone on to say that it is unfair to those horses 'there to win' to be cluttered and impeded by runners happy to run 10th with no expectation of winning but sometimes being a 'bradbury'.

The inflated dividends declared on Saturday, and too often on other Saturdays, suggests the RVL policy is deliberately intended to deliver results at odds with the SP market.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5467
« 2019-Jan-21, 10:47 AM Reply #160 »
Peter,

Had a friend text me saying he liked a real roughy Wenner to be in the finish. I said I like the favourite and Amadeus.

Those are 3 of the 4 placings in the 31grand first four - somewhat better than your alleged champion tipster and the very reason why people like such results.

Such results are what is possible once you do your own form and abandon public tipsters.

Note that the favourite won.

Fours


Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25768
« 2019-Jan-21, 11:13 AM Reply #161 »
I dont know anyone who even read the tipsters selections aside from our donkey minded Mair

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4401
« 2019-Jan-22, 11:57 AM Reply #162 »


I can well understand that -- it fits the profile you present.

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 25768
« 2019-Jan-22, 08:28 PM Reply #163 »
Have you looked at the sales figures for newspapers?


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap