Exactly. Some people have run a pot up to £100k and more on Betfair just backing 1.01 and 1.02 shots, but if you find a bad one early on there's no way back.
I’ve followed horse racing for over 40 years & I can assure you there are no upsets. Yes it was 1/25, but I wouldn’t even flinch because I’ve seen every scenario unfold & nothing surprises me.
Its all fixed nobody can tell me different jockeys constantly drop hands especially on favourites owners and jockeys and bookies all in it together making money off honest people
Was it a coincidence the 1/25 shot was named "Doom"? Think it was "professional gambler" Eddie Freemantle who once said to beware of names describing something bad. Because the owner may have seen something in the horse’s temperament before naming the horse. Especially with owner breeders like in this case. Also with two runner-up spots in his form immediately prior to going into this race... alarm bells, alarm bells!
Actually... Now doubt the owner saw anything untoward in the foal Doom. I've just looked up the owner's horses. Three of his four have similar foreboding names Doom, Bleak and Stormy Sea
@@Spectrescup That's possible, but if it was a temperamental problem I'd like to see more evidence than just a row of second places... And - having looked more closely at the form - it's not as if I could've expected Doom to win the other two. Finishing second to the 11/10 fav Whispering Words at Doncaster. Winner hasn't run since so can't frank the form, but the price suggests Doom did as well as could be expected beforehand. Although the "wandering around" is a little disconcerting, it has - so far at least - been a one off. Before that, Doom was herself 3/1 when runner-up to a 6/1 shot, but that 6/1 shot turned out to be subsequent Oaks winner Soul Sister. So again, Doom did as well as I would expect. Someone has to be second. I remember being paddock-side looking at the runners for the 1996 Select Stakes talking to the then Sporting Life value expert Mark "The Couch" Winstanley. We had a difference of opinion. He thought the fav was temperamental because he'd been finishing second too much and was worth taking on. I said he was one of the most genuine horses in training and the vast majority of times had lost to good horses, Pentire (twice) Halling etc. and should be long odds-on. Anyway, Singspeil won the Select Stakes @ 11/10.... And in the course of the next year rattled off victories at Group 1 level in the Canadian International, Japan Cup, Dubai World Cup, Coronation Cup and International Stakes.... I only remember the times I was proved right. LOL Think with Doom I am going to sit on the fence now and say I think it's around 50/50 whether she is temperamental or not. It could've just been the horse equivalent of "time of the month".
If one horse in a two horse race is ridiculously short @ 1/25 then it can only follow the rival must be a bloody good bet @ 9/1. There must have been loads of people on here that backed the winner.
Couldnt agree more mate, Burke is prolific with winning debutants and operates at the highest level with his youngsters.. I got 17.5 the winner and almost feel guilty 🤣
Maiden races have a bigger over-round than any other type of race. Because less is known about the horses, especially with debutants This race is between 106 and 107%. For the odds to be 1/25 and 9/1, the market was probably saying the favourite had a 92% chance plus a 4% bookmaker's mark up and the newcomer around an 8% chance plus just over 2% mark up. ie Although bad enough, 1/25 sounds a lot worse than it "fairly" is. The on-course market was indicating they were fair 1/12 and 12/1 chances.
@@neilbaybutt759 Go ask a "regular punter if that was "excellent knowledge and comment"?!! The first and last word in his reply begins and ends with F.!
@@milolee1725 What is a "regular" punter and what do you mean by "The first and last word in his reply begins and ends with F."! Genuine questions, I'd like to explain myself if you believe there's something wrong with what I said, Milolee.
@@markchapman2933 Hiya Mark No,no there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with your statements/reply etc. In fact,not only have you eloquently put across your points,but you have done it without "malice". I am just merely stating what guys who more or less go into a bookies said to me on that day. I,myself are what you would call a low level punter.apart from placepots,I long ago stopped doing Yankees,patents,doubles or any other horse bets. Out of the 11 clients I have,4 of them bet on the horses at the weekend. Not to win millions,but to have something to watch and a bit of interest when it's on TV. All 4 had a "sitdown" congratulating the guy who got the double up. They all nonchalantly said it wasn't a surprise anymore. Over this coming weekend,I am sure there will be more unexplainable "shock" results,so the point I am trying to get across is,the daily punters now see it as the norm and don't react to it... THAT is the worrying thing.
I hope everyone who thinks Doom was a "joke of a price" got on Karmology @ 9/1. Because the only reason Karmology was 9/1 was Doom being such a "joke" of a price. ie If Doom was a "joke" @ 1/25 then Karmology was exceptional value @ 9/1. Or maybe you got onto the exchanges and laid Doom yourselves.
@archdeacon3907 Gave Denmark (o brien)a stinker yesterday, went off Fav. Horse was hanging but the Doyler had his whip wrong for a period, and Shaquille??? Too bad to be true pal. Went over to France today for O brien and finished last!! Not sure I've the Doyler will get any more rides for Coolmore
I went to Ripon for a day out. Just in the car on the way back. I do need my head testing I had 2k on at 1/20. Then had a grand on the next odds on shot at 8/11 that got stuffed. So as u can imagine I'm not it the best frame of mind and will never goto Ripon again. I paid into members and a lick of paint wouldn't go amis.
What a name, Doom. In naming racehorses, max. Letters and spaces, are 19. I don't know what the Minimum amount of letters are. But in International show jumping (which has very little betting). I seen a showjumping named: K A one letter name. Yes it was useless ( knocked a pole (4 faults) or 2 poles, 8 faults). Does any one know the Minimum amount of letters, a race horse can be called?
The governing body states a maximum allowed but not a minimum. However it states you cannot use initials therefore i presume that the minimum is two. You could call the horse It, Or,As, Ta etc and these as far as I know would be allowed. All names are scrutinized so Or might not be allowed as it sounds similar to Whore. However It would be allowed as far as I can tell
Only in your mind. The 1880 Derby winner was called Bend Or (gold heraldic stripe). Make of the what you will user-mw1tt5mm9q (whatever that alphanumeric string means).@@JackBurton-w7x
I am a carer for older guys in their twilight years and the client i always see 3rd on my rounds asked me to place a £3 quid bet for him. £1 win each,£1 win double...on two races within minutes of each other. I was bored so i decided to watch both races. 1st one came in (something slut?) At 33/1!...then few minutes later came this race at 9/1..i picked up £384! I simply could not believe what i witnessed. I am seeing him today to give him his winnings but not only am i still in shock,i hope he did not do himself an injury jumping around (he is very excitable!). One freak result is unreal,but TWO within minutes of each other is unbelievable 😮
@@markchapman2933 wasn’t there a shorter price one turned over at Kempton by a 100-1 shot about 10 years ago? Can’t remember the price of it or the name
@@fahadbutt1552 Are you thinking of Triple Dip ridden by Fanning at Lingfield in 2015? He was slightly shorter @ 1/20, beaten in a 4 horse race by 16/1 shot Mercy Me
LOL. So 60 years ago bookmakers did not want to make any profit whatsoever? Working to 100%,... And this in a maiden where little was known about one of the two horses who had not yet seen the racecourse. So any bookmaker (nowadays or 60 years ago) needs / needed a larger margin for error than a normal two horse race too. Your memory specs are so rose coloured they must have been bought from a florist on Valentines Day.
These last two days have been legendary for bent ways ,marquand and haggas bookies heros ,theyv been more than at it 100 to 1 s and 14 races today without even a second fav ,never mind a fav and there was some mindboghling not giving a shit ,stopping horses no whip sat across horses back and 50 qds from winning line ,he had to put the brakes on it nearly won ,of course it was fav people stay out of these places as much as you can ,pure robbing bstds .
Nothing to do with "bent ways". The on course market odds suggested Doom had around a 92% chance of winning with Karnology around 8%. Obviously an 8% chance can be expected to win 8 in 100 races. Karmology was simply one of those 8. 92% chances can be expected to win 92 in 100 races. This the first time since Royal Forest in 1948 that a 1/25 shot has got beat. So there's probably been a lot of 1/25 winners in the interim. The winner was 9/1, a single figure price. It really isn't that surprising a result when considering probabilities.
When a bookmaker's odds compiler / market thinks a horse has a 0.25% (fair 400/1) or sometimes in competitive races 0.33% (fair 300/1) chance of winning, he will add a mark up and actually offer not 400/1 or 300/1 but 100/1. Am sure you think a 100/1 shot has next to no chance of winning but please consider how many 100/1 shots there are, all those 0.25 and 0.3% add up... So the occasional 100/1 shot winner can only be expected. ...And just because a bookie / market offers 100/1 (or even more) 0.25% is only their opinion of the horse's chance. - it's not a fact. Sometimes the bookmaker / market will get it wrong. Punters only need to win 1 in 100 (1%) of their 100/1 wagers to make a profit on them. In my betting life I have backed two winners at odds of greater than 100/1, Auroras Encore in the Grand National @ 119/1 and Arabian Queen in the International (beating Karmology's sire Golden Horn) @ 169/1 using the exchanges. Backing them not because they had a good chance of winning, but because imo they had a 96% and 97 % chance of losing! (4% and 3% chance of winning) - ie "value" bets. So again, the number of 100/1 shots (4 and 3% types) the bookies get wrong also add up Fact is an occasional 100/1 winner can be expected without any skulduggery being involved. Indeed, a sign the game is bent would be if there were no 100/1 winners.
Give the guy a break,, Stephen's only giving an opinion.. Yes, small fields under both codes can throw up upsets, but that's usually because of a slow pace. Sectionals show this was solidly run.
1/25 against a horse who’s related to Golden Horn 😳. Feilden Stakes (2015) Dante Stakes (2015) Epsom Derby (2015) Eclipse Stakes (2015) Irish Champion Stakes (2015) Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (2015)
Form on the racecourse is one thing, form in the breeding shed is quite another. Golden Horn has not exactly proved a top flat sire and because of that has now been demoted to a dual purpose (flat and jumps) sire.
@@markjex9035 I certainly didn't back it. But it was a poor ride if he had kicked 2f out the other horse wouldn't have won regardless of either being a 1/25 shot.
If by "big hitters" you mean those with more money than sense, then quite possibly. If you mean big hitting professional gamblers, then no way. Pro' gamblers only get involved when they believe the odds are better than its chance. 1/25 needs to be thought of as better than a 96% chance to be mathematically worth a bet... And then a pro' would need a margin of error on top of that. So no pro' would touch 1/25..
@@markchapman2933 it was avalible at 1/8 in the morning so someone.has clearly hammered it and it wouldn't of been your lucky 15 or round robbin punters that would of shiffted that price
@@rosskeenan9117 You said "plenty of big hitters betting 25 grand to win 1k", not "1/8"... I was only saying nobody who knows what they're doing bets at all @ 1/25, let alone big money. The only people backing big money @ 1/25 were those with more money than sense who don't understand the sport or the mathematics involved.
No horse should be 1/25 on thats ludacris. Fairplay to the winner wish id of checked the betting would of been all over karmology at that price in a 2 runner field.
@@notmanynamesleft awful to have missed it. Yh u must back the odds against in a 2 runner field especially odds of 9/1 jeez. My rule is 2/4 runner fields back the outsider providing it isnt a miles longshot.
@dhdavidholloway has my grammar ruined ur night my friend? Sorry my grammar doesnt live up to your standards i truely am. Ur one sad boring guy holloway.
If a punter believes a horse has a 75% chance of winning (a fair 1/3) why should he not back it @ 4/6? When 4/6 only requires a 60% strike rate to break even.
There is absolutely no evidence "he threw it", Gerard. Albeit Marquand may have thought he was going to win fairly easily around a furlong and a half out so wasn't as hard on the horse at that point. Can't blame him as It did seem as though Karmology was struggling badly. But with debutants, they can sometimes run very green. The horse looking in trouble when not knowing what the game was about, steadily learning until it suddenly clicked. Karmology surging late. Marquand on Doom got going again but not good enough. What possible reason was there to throw the race? Betting coup? Well it couldn't have been much of a coup because Doom started 1/25 - the shortest priced loser ever - and fairly well backed (shortened in to that price during the day).. If Kanmology would have been well backed then her price would have shortened with all the liabilities (coup money). But that didn't happen either. Unless it was very late money just before the off either on the exchanges or in the offices.... But if it was late money hen there'd be a paper trail and we would've heard about it by now. Fact is you can expect 7 or 8% of 1/25 shots to get beaten and this was in all probability just one of them.
Can't find any record of that one either Phil. Several sites mention Royal Forest @ 1/25 as the shortest priced loser before Doom equalled it. Royal Forest was trained by Noel Murless whose daughter Julie married Henry Cecil. Philip is a great name for a horse racing enthusiast.
Could you be thinking of a three year old filly called Starlite Night trained by Henry Cecil who was a very short price that got beat at Nottingham in late July 1985 after breaking a blood vessel? According to Racing history man John Randall no SP was taken on very short priced horses at that time because of the then on-course betting tax. (Presumably the betting tax wiped out any profit had it won). This is no doubt also the reason why the history books have no recordings of any very short priced losers when betting tax existed. Don't know the price of the winner either. Could be when there's an overwhelmingly short priced fav no SP's were returned on the whole race? Don't know.
I do, I backed it in a treble the other 2 won but i got paid out because there where no Starting prices returned.on the Cecil horse. The horse broke down during the race.
That would be true if we were talking about a 100% book, Scott. The two prices of 1/25 and 9/1 together suggest that if this was a 100% book it would have been something like 1/12 Doom and 12/1 Karmology. I'll try to explain why: If Doom had a true 96.15% (fair 1/25) then the other horse has to be 3.85% (a fair 25/1). Because 96.15 + 3.85 = 100%. However, bookmakers work to more than 100% (their "overround") in order to make a profit. Where there are horses whose form is difficult to assess - eg in this particular case a maiden with one horse who hadn't run yet - bookmakers have a bigger margin for error (bigger overround) than you'd get if both horses abilities were exposed / known. Therefore in this two horse maiden with one @ 1/25 (96.15%) and one 9/1 (10.00%) the overround was 106.15% (96.15 + 10.00 = 106.15). Normally the shorter a price generally has a much larger mark up than an outsider, but with Karmology without a run the split was probably a little more equal. So I'd estimate that the market was actually predicting something like: Doom 92.3% (a fair 1/12) before a bookmaker's mark up of just under 4% was added 92.3 + 3.85 = 96.15% = 1/25 offered. Karmology 7.7% (a fair 12/1) before a bookmakers mark up of just over 2% was added 7.7 + 2.3 = 10% = 9/1 offered.
@@Chief_BrodyПотому что жокей принял верное решение, когда увидел, что кобыла не двигается от хлыста и стал толкать её одним поводом, что включило скорость на финише!
That race is what you call bookies paradise , typical stone wall favorite getting mugged considering the pedegree of that horse tom only popped the question three four hundred yards out,you can tell that horse had more too give having tom asked earlier,im a fan of mauqand but left it too late and was too casual thats why i think that race was a bookies paradise race and the fact that punters walk in there local office and i think oh 1/25 shot Marquand onboard wel have a serious lump on that ,price aside that horse should never of been beat ,tom too casual for me he should of stoked him up earlier was a bad ride ,take nothing away from the winning jockey and horse ,jockey just tucked in behind the favorite and ended up winning a shade cosily aswell
Just because Doom was going the better two furlongs out, Jason; does not mean he had more to give than Karmology. This was Karmology's debut and the vast majority of debutante winners look as though they're not going as well as the leader because they're running "green". ie Karmology took time to learn what was required. Also, if you look at the sectional times you'll see Marquand was not setting at all a slow pace. Every 9/1 shot maiden winner has run against a 1/25 shot.
Anyone who thinks a 1/25 loser is proof of skulduggery should remember the mathematics of betting tells us that every individual 9/1 winner has effectively run against a 1/25 shot. ie If making every race there's been a 9/1 winner into a two horse race - one 9/1 shot against The Field - then The Field would've been offered by the bookmakers @ around 1/25.
Beaten fair and square- Ryan is a real shrewd trainer and the second looks a shirker. How good that form is- thats anyone’s guess. Bookies love to play the mugs, though I guess many would have noticed Ryan and had their loot on the horse. Winner should definitely come on and it looked comfortable throughout the race, certainly a better horse than the shirker is.
Thing like this, happen, everyday in horse racing!! Favorites win and lose, Longshots, win and lose!! These kind of races, should be no surprise to anyone!! Congratulations to both horse's!!
Sectional times for the last three individual furlongs were faster than any of the previous five. Even allowing for some of those five being around the turn it strongly suggests the early pace was not too fast but solid. The final furlong was slower than 3 to 2 out and 2 to 1 out, but not by much and in most races that are not slowly run the last furlong is often a little slower. Doom had also run four times at the trip prior to this race, all at a mile. So pretty much proven at a mile Sire Dubawi was best at a mile too while dam Dusk needed further than that - 1m2f. So with stamina being Doom's asset at the trip Tom was always going to make it a solid stamina test because a speed test at a mile would not have played to the horse's supposed strengths. However, the problem with that is his only opponent here was having her first run. Such horses usually take time to learn their job. In a slower run race debutants are only pushed along later in the race so only have a fraction of the race to learn, often "running green". Whereas in this solidly run race Karmology was pushed along earlier and had learnt what was needed by the final furlong.
@@michaeladams9205 It is quite possible Doom was beaten by a better horse, Michael. Although personally I think the most likely reasons are temperament or.... Was the filly in season? Fillies are less consistent than colts. Fillies in season often run some way below their best. Although as I understand it the older a filly is the more likely she is to be affected; three year olds can become in season. Temperament is imo an underestimated and under-reported aspect of "form". Commentators, presenters and journalists don't want to offend connections. I know of one well known commentator who was pinned against a wall by a now retired trainer due to what the commentator said about his horse's temperament.... And once I wrote a report in a racing club's magazine about a stable visit . Before publication it went to the trainer for approval. He said to take out a minor temperament comment about one of his top horses (a St Leger prospect) because the owner is tetchy about such things. As I said in an earlier post, the name may not be a coincidence. Sometimes when an owner sees what maybe a temperamental flaw as a foal it is named after something bad - "Doom". Did the owner think he's doomed? Her two previous runs immediately prior to this both resulted in the runner-up spot. Does she find less in a finish than most horses? Racing Post in-running comments last time out "wandered around" and that despite it being her fourth start. So the wandering is unlikely to still be because of greeness. An experienced horse wandering is recognised as a possible sign of temperament.
Tom Marquand is not corrupt or William Haggas. They are competitive sportsmen at the top of their game who want to win and be the best in their field. They do not need to jeopardise their careers for the sake of a few quid. Think of something original to say or better still examine why you are susceptible to conspiracy theories. Most psychiatrists attribute it to having been persecuted or having suffered a trauma when young forever after fostering an emotional response that the 'world is against them'. I suggest you go see one.
@@globaloffice3214 Some trainers including Karl Burke have been banned in the past, and for good reason, as have various Jockeys, it's a ruthless game, never be fooled.
@@G4RY1159 What are you suggesting? That Karl Burke gave his horse performance enhancing drugs? Karl Burke was banned just for giving information about his horses to a banned person. That's all. Not for performance enhancing or stopping other people's horses... And when horses are well backed they shorten up significantly because bookmakers have taken enough, trying to discourage other punters from backing it in order to make as equal a book as possible... And yet In this race it was Doom who was well backed in from 1/8 in the morning to 1/25 SP. Karmology was only backed on course from 10/1 one price down to 9/1.SP. and available at much bigger than that on exchanges (think someone said 16/1). So where was all this money you believe Burke was betting on this certainty being laid?... And why did the odds not go shorter than 9/1 for this certainty while the loser was well backed?
...How can it be fixed when some of us punters make good profits without any inside information? Solely from studying form and knowing the mathematics of betting. Evaluating form into chance. By the laws of averages in a fair sport even some 1/25 shots get beat from time to time. It has happened before, Royal Forest 1/25 at Ascot in 1948.
@@markchapman2933 so how come 1/25 get beaten. It fixed already. Bookies are are always winners. Punters win one day and loose most of the days cause even studying form and knowing the mathematics of betting doesn’t work 90%.
@@raaz6451 "how come 1/25 get beaten".? If taking the bookies mark up off that 1/25 shot you're left with a fair 1/12. At level stakes a punter must win 92% of his 1/12 bets in order to break even. In other words if backing all 1/25 shots out of one hundred horses offered @ 1/25 you can EXPECT 8 to lose (100 - 92 = 8). This is just one of those 8. Before Doom you've got to go back to 1948 in order to find Royal Forest, the last 1/25 horse to lose. There have been plenty of 1/25 shots who've won between those dates.
@@raaz6451 "It fixed already. Bookies are are always winners". Bookmakers are always winners because of two things:The over-round and the fact that most punters aren't good enough in evaluating form into chance. However, it is possible for individual punters to profit. If we were talking about a 4 horse race where the bookmaker's odds compiler believed all horses stood the same chance of winning then all four would be 25% chances (4 X 25 = 100). If a punter was able to get 3/1 about all four he could back all four and whoever won would break even. Therefore 25% = fair odds 3/1. But there is no profit margin @ 3/1 which is why if the bookies odds compiler believes all four have the same chance of winning he'll be offering 11/4 (2.75/1) all horses. 11/4 being equal to 26.67% and 4 x 26.67 = 106.68. Betting to an over-round of 106.68%. However, if the punter works out the race as: A: 25%, B 30%, C 25%, D 20% Then B is a good bet because a 30% strike rate at level stakes of a punter's 11/4 bets shows a profit and therefore 11/4 is a good bet for this punter. Of course only a minority of gamblers will be better at evaluating form into chance than bookies odds compilers; but you'll be surprised at the number of us that do. Trouble is bookmakers close or severely restrict our accounts I can back a 100/1 shot not because I think it has a good chance of winning but because I think it has a better than 1% chance (or rather 2% because 1% + a margin for error)..
Unfortunately Mark most punters cannot identify value. I devote a minimum of 48 hours to each race i.e. once the decs come out or before if one can work out the likely runners. It takes a while to watch all the replays of each horses racing CV. The Grand National being the easiest race to study and win money on. Securing long odds ante-post on likely runners. One generally gets a good few months to study it and its usually quite easy to eliminate the priced up likely non runners e.g Cheltenham, Scottish National, Uttoxeter National, Midlands National et all and best of all Irish National horses that will not run. or just too much weight@@markchapman2933
Where is the corruption? Both jockeys were trying. The market suggested the winner had around an 8% chance of winning. If there was so much corruption in racing then how come each price (odds) wins the percentage of races the mathematics expects them to?... And if there's so much corruption how is it that I can make a good overall profit solely by studying form - without any inside information whatsoever? If taking the bookies profit margin off the price of 1/25 you're left with a fair 1/12.
People can have a good night out at the pub and yet there is absolutely no chance of making a profit from drinking those pints... Is having a pint a "mugs game"? Whereas people having either a good day out at the races or in the bookies or at home betting - with a chance of making a profit... That's called a "mugs game". ..There's even some of us making an overall profit from backing horses... But because people do not understand the mathematics of betting and the strong anti-gambling lobby - the profit makers are silenced.
Not even 1/5, she was a four race maiden that had already shown an aversion to getting her head in front in her last 3 runs when having every chance...people backing pigs like that at massive odds odd need their heads examining.
Anyone want to get a petition going to ban all horse and greyhound gambling.but never bookies will ever close while there is betting on any corrupt sport
The problem Paul is often the Bookmaker's prices giving the impression of unrealistic chances. Odds are only a reflection of an opinion. Many get that wrong which is why its best to form your own opinion through available information e.g. not every favourite wins or the prices would be right every race. Opinion and weight of money supporting that opinion creates the odds in the market. The Bookmakers being the secondary market, Exchanges the primary where the best value is. Think of it like shopping at the wholesalers (the Exchanges) for your food or shopping at the retailers like Tescos (the bookmakers). The wholesalers will give you more for your money which means you can afford to be wrong more times when getting bigger prices.
Yes I'm with you on that Paul ,,,,reason being far too many beautiful horses are loosing there life's due roo racing ,they deserve too live a free and happy life and should not used as scapegoats linchpins for financial gain , scandalous,it's animal cruelty and happening all around the world ,and as horse racing is fixed I hope betting shops die out too protect vonurble gamblers against all this fraud and slander
@@jasonbruce7953 If racing is so bent then how can I and many others show a good overall profit without any inside information? Simply by evaluating form into chance better than bookies odds compilers. My problem with bookmakers is they either won't allow me to bet with them or restrict the amount I can have on.
@@jasonbruce7953 Have you ever been to a racing stable yard? Swimming pools for horses, equine spa / jacuzzi, massage machines etc. There's been a case recently of an anti-racing activist who because of her actions was even banned from racecourses. She then actually visited trainer Willie Muir's racing stables, saw the care and attention these beautiful animals get and it totally changed her beliefs.Racehorses are the most pampered horse there is, they have the equine life equivalent of a formula 1 driver. Many people believe they should instead be let out into a field and live a wild "happy life". But thoroughbreds can't be left out for long, otherwise they can get back and other trouble. More horses die in fields than Racing, because in fields they get kicked by their equine pals. Should horses that enjoy the company of other horses be kept alone in fields? Maybe we should ban horses being kept in fields full stop?
I'm the one who moans about every corrupt bookies and racing .I make my point and hoping someone from trainers or owners or jockeys see these messages.that YOU ARE ALL CORRUPT AND I WOULD SAY THIS IN COURT IF ANY JOCKEY OR TRAINERS OR BHA ..I HAVE NO PROOF ABOUT PEOPLE BET ON THESE OTHER HORSE .BUT THE PUBLIC WANT TO NO WHY THIS ORGANISATION IS LETTING THIS HAPPEN
You're embarrassing yourself Paul. If in a two horse race a bookie / betting market believes one horse has a 92% chance (92 in 100) of winning he will offer 1/25 . That also means the other horse has an 8% chance (8 in 100) of winning. This was just one of those 8%. Now just imagine if NO 8% chance of winning ever won anything, then that really would be proof of corruption! Yet you believe this particular 8% chance winning is somehow proof of corruption. So of course you "have no proof" because in all probability nobody did anything wrong.
So you want to "go to court" and tell everyone these "trainers, owners and jockeys" "are corrupt"... And yet you yourself say you "have no proof". They wouldn't even allow someone like you anywhere near a court room. Jeez
Best not to bet Paul and watch the horses racing and jumping for enjoyment. Alternatively try the Racing Post's easily accessible breeding database it might give you an insight into a different aspect of racing you might find more enjoyable.
Because there was nothing wrong with the ride. The mathematics of betting tells us that EVERY maiden where there's been a 9/1 WINNER has raced against a 1/25 shot. ie If making each race into a two horse race by grouping "The Field" against the one horse 9/1 winner... "The Field" had a combined chance that would've been OFFERED by the bookmaker @ around 1/25.
