# Betting question - is this an issue



## Alan J (8 Jan 2004)

Just backed a horse to win the big race on Saturday at an Ante post price. I also back the same horse in a double to win at Cheltenham (also ante Post). Now someone tells me there might be a conflict here - is that correct?

Al


----------



## Freddie (9 Jan 2004)

I have a vague recollection of this being an issue. Must admit I switched off when it was being explained but there is something niggling me about it.

Ring the Bookie!!!!!


----------



## Ham Slicer (9 Jan 2004)

I do a bit of gambling but horses aren't really my field.  In general terms I can't see a problem with your bet but perhaps your friend and Freddie are right

Go to the Paddy Power and enter as a guest.  Have a look through the help menu and see what you can find.

Let us know the answer when you find out.


----------



## michaelm (9 Jan 2004)

*not a vaild bet*

This is not a valid bet.  The cashier should not have taken it.  If the horse wins the first race it's price will likely shorten for the second race.  The bookie wont payout on this bet.  You should get your money back before it runs on Saturday.


----------



## garrettod (9 Jan 2004)

*More Casinos than Betting but ...*

Hi,

I'm more into playing online casinos, than bookies myself - although I do some of the decent free bet promotions etc.

I suspect that if the bookmaker has taken the bet, then they should need to honour it - given they have in theory "accepted your offer of a contract" ... does this not seem correct to everyone else ?

Might be worth checking it out on one of the online betting discussion forums - check out:

www.rpoints.com/newbie

www.bet2gamble.com

Often you need to register, before you can read / post on these boards but both have a lot of gamblers on them (not to mention loads of decent promotions), so they are worth a visit imho  

Regards

G>
ps - Interest declared, I'm an Admin @ Rpoints although I do not own the site


----------



## Funghy the hamster (9 Jan 2004)

*bets*

No bet is valid just because you have as slip.

They


----------



## Funghythehamster (9 Jan 2004)

*are*

always subject to rules.

Can't see what is wrong with your bet though.


----------



## michaelm (9 Jan 2004)

The bookie can void any bet taken in error.  Also there is no legal requirement on a bookie to payout on any bet, it's more a gentleman's agreement.


----------



## Elcato (9 Jan 2004)

michaelm is correct on both counts. The bet will be void as one is dependant on the other. If the horse wins on Saturday it will shorten the odds for the Cheltenham race therefor the antipost price will change. Its a bit like backing a tennis match for someone to win the match and doubling it with the same person to win by 3 sets to 1. Both bets are connected. The bookie will simply void the bet. If the cashier read every single bet she takes and checks for validity it would be worse than the queue in Aldi on a Saturday - that's why that is a non runner.


----------



## funghythehamster (9 Jan 2004)

*not so*

They are two seperate events and most bookies will be happy to take on a such a bet and will pay out.

as for analagy

you can bet on man utd to win the league and cup

And obvioulsy their odds are affected individually but conected by the form in both.

It is down to the bookie and whether the bet was taken
on as such

It is not like the tennis match as that is the same match.


----------



## Alan J (9 Jan 2004)

*One dependent on the other?*

But Elcato... if my horse is beaten on Saturday then the Cheltenham odds will drift ....  just like say Rhinestone Cowboy.... so the bookie wins in that case.

AJ


----------



## Funghy the hamster (9 Jan 2004)

*Alan*

On the same subject 



I give a lot to sick animal charities


I dont know at the time of the bet!!!

 But never the less I take comfort from knowing how kind I am.


----------



## Alan J (9 Jan 2004)

*Checked with the bookie!*

Just checked with the bookie and they confirmed with the Head Office..... NO PROBLEM!

Now all the shaggin thing has to do is WIN!!!!

AJ


----------



## Elcato (9 Jan 2004)

*Re: Checked with the bookie!*

In that case I stand corrected. Sorry for any misleading info but interesting to hear from you again if the bet comes up.


----------



## michaelm (9 Jan 2004)

*re: not so*

funghythehamster - you can't bet on man utd to win the league and cup using the individual odds in a double however some bookies offer special shorter priced doubles.

Elcato - nothing you said was misleading.  

Alan J - a bet such as for example Best Mate to win at Christmas doubled with Best Mate to win the Gold Cup is not valid unless the bookie offers a 'special' price for the double.  

I too would be interested to hear from you again if the bet comes up as if its for big money there may be a problem.  Most bookie staff don't know anything about betting.


----------



## Christy (9 Jan 2004)

*Confusion?*

I think that there might be some confusion here.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have 2 horses, X & Y.  You can legitamitely bet on horse Y to win a race tomorrow and in a separate bet do a double on horse Y to win next week and horse X to win next week.  You could not do a double on horse Y to win tomorrow and horse Y to win next week.


----------



## Joe Nonety (9 Jan 2004)

*Re: Confusion?*

You're wrong there Christy, Alan J's bookie just confirmed that you can.


----------



## car (10 Jan 2004)

*the boookies*

Firstly,  If the horse wins at the weekend then that horses odds will come down for cheltenham.  But is the horses odds determined by how it does at the weekend? I think not, what if it didnt run at the weekend, would the odds still be the same?  
Secondly,  If you were betting on man utd to win the FA cup and having the bet in a double with them beating  whoever they play in the final or any other round along the way, the  first part of the bet is dependent on the second part coming in so its conflicting and that bet would not be legal as it would have been taken in error.

In this case we have to ask is the horses odds for cheltenham abosultely dependent on how its going to run on saturday and I think not as they arent guaranteed to change, hence IMHO and in the bookies he has a legal bet.


----------



## Alan J (10 Jan 2004)

*MichaelM - response.*

I called the office in question by phone and mentioned that someone had indicated there might be an issue. I agree that in a lot of cases they haven't a clue so they faxed the docket to HQ and rang me back to say "that's fine".

By the way the bookie in question is Hacketts which is a fairly large group.

What more can I do?

AJ


----------



## getoffthepot (10 Jan 2004)

*Re: MichaelM - response.*

Given that this has post has had agood airing any chance of the name of the horse ?


----------



## Homer (10 Jan 2004)

Interesting to see all the conflicting opinions expressed on this issue.

The general principle is that, for full multiplicative odds to apply, the two bets must be completely independent.  The bet described does not satisfy this requirement.  The fact that _on this occasion_ Hacketts chose to honour full multiplicative odds does not alter this general principle.

They may have decided that the degree of dependency was not such as to invalidate the overall odds offered or they may just have decided that it wasn't worth the hassle to dispute the odds offered.

I remember a case within the last few years where Paddy Power refused to pay full odds when a punter had a double on a player scoring first in a particular soccer match and his team winning that match.  There was a bit of pubilicity about it in the papers and on the radio when they initially refused to pay out on the grounds that the bet was invalid.  The eventual outcome was that they used handicap odds (allowing for a one goal handicap) in computing the odds on the second half of the bet.  This struck me as a fair and reasonable compromise.

I'm also aware that bookies can sometimes slip up on this issue.  Many years ago, a friend of mine had a winning double on a particular trainer and his stable jockey being the leading trainer and jockey respectively at Cheltenham, at full multiplicative odds.  I doubt a similar mistake would be made nowadays.

Regards
Homer


----------



## Alan J (10 Jan 2004)

*Name of the horse....*

The name of the horse is Azertyouip, which is currently available at 5/2 for tomorrow and only 11/4 for Cheltenham. I just hope Az does not have access to the WWW because his stress levels from AAM will be responsible for it's downfall.

The info. feedback is interesting. For example if Azy takes a dive tomorrow, will Hacketts ring me to provide me with a better price for Cheltenham ie. say 6 or 7/1 ---- I doubt it.

That's why I do not believe and Hacketts have confirmed it is not mutually dependent.

Go on Ruby!!!

AJ

PS. And if it does win I'll have something else for all AAM members....... even Elcato!


----------



## Homer (10 Jan 2004)

*Re: Name of the horse....*

Hi Alan

That explains a lot. The odds you have quoted are pretty low in the first place, so it's not all that surprising that full multiplicative odds apply.

Best of luck with the bet.

Regards
Homer


----------



## monk (10 Jan 2004)

*Re: Name of the horse....*

If a good bookie takes a bet like that they more than likely will honour it. The same happened to me before the World cup when Paddy's gave me great odd's on a 'connected' double. My mates tried to get in on it just before/after the start of the WC and found that Paddy's copped on and reduced the odd's to eventually not allowing the double, just a special combo bet (I think they ended up with 20/1 prior to a ball being kicked). Myself I was holding @125/1 on the double & swiftly walked away with 2.5k I think most big bookies would nowadays honour bets if they were issued without intent on your part.

PS - My horse contacts are not great(my view, not theirs) but I'm told you haven't a chance of cashing that one in.


----------



## Alan J (11 Jan 2004)

*So much for Monks contact - result below*

Pipped on the line...... but had an each way cover bet so not too bad.... interestingly the price for Cheltenham has had been reduced but only from 11/4 to 5/2 - brilliant ride by Ruby.

Bottom line is all AAM should be on this one for Cheltenham!


Report below
------------------


Isio prevails in battle for VC honours



ISIO (4-1) just prevailed in a thrilling renewal of the £120,000 Victor Chandler Chase at Ascot on Saturday. 

   Nicky Henderson's runner just got the better of gallant top weight Azertyuiop (7-2) in the two-mile feature after the two were in the air together at the last. 

   The pair were neck and neck all the way to the line but the concession of 19lb to the winner just proved too much for Paul Nicholls' charge. 

   "I thought we were beaten going to the last. He's not the biggest but he's got a heart of gold," Henderson said. 

   "It was a great race - a thrill for us, but you feel sorry for the second horse because under that weight he has run an amazing race." 


   Nicholls said of the runner-up: "That was a fantastic run, not least because he will have learnt more today than any other race he has had over fences. 

   Gambled-on Irish raider Native Scoutwas towards the rear, along with Redemption, who made a mistake at the first and parted company with Tom Scudamore not long after. 

   Turning for home Azertyuiop was looming large behind Isio and the race looked to be between the two as Native Scout got serious reminders from Barry Geraghty. 

   There was nothing between Isio and Azertyuiop over the last and the latter looked at one point to have got his head in front. 

   But Isio was nothing if not game and made his weight advantage count close home for a neck victory. 

   Got One Too was a further nine lengths away.


----------



## <A HREF=http://pub145.ezboard.com/baskaboutmoney.s (11 Jan 2004)

*Re: So much for Monks contact - result below*



> Bottom line is all AAM should be on this one for Cheltenham!



Is nag tipping allowed under the posting guidelines? :lol


----------



## monk (11 Jan 2004)

*Re: So much for Monks contact - result below*

Good stuff, I'll tell them tonight. Got a tip for tomorrow, can't remember the name but apparently it has come in from 33-1 to 16-1


----------



## Tall Chapy (11 Jan 2004)

*Go on ya good thing......*

It was permitted last year  !!!!!


----------



## MAC (11 Jan 2004)

*It was permitted last year......*

And a very good thread it was too!

Hopefully it will be as good this year!

MAC


----------



## Alan J (11 Jan 2004)

*Was it this one Monk?*

The only one that seems to be on the way in @ 16/1 is this

Right Job ------- B J Geraghty  ---------  16 - 1  

Does this ring a bell?

AJ


----------



## monk (11 Jan 2004)

*Re: Was it this one Monk?*

That's the one AJ. 2.30 in Leopardstown. Take the early  price I'm told. 

Disclaimer - this comes from 2 stable wisperer's that are wrong as often as right..


----------



## Alan J (11 Jan 2004)

*Thanks Monk.....*

I see Geragthy is booked - that's a good sign....

Fancy Arch Stanton myself @ 9/1

Might do both each way

Cheers.

AJ


----------



## Marion (11 Jan 2004)

*Re: Let's wait for the appropriate thread*

Guys

I think that rather than continue to give tips here and possibly risk not having a future thread that we should wait for Mac to set up the thread for Cheltenham. 

It was a good thread last year and it was a bit of fun!

Marion :hat


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Jan 2004)

Homer 

I remember the Paddy Power incident and you explained it to me at the time as follows:

Bet A  I will give you odds of  1/1 on heads in a coin toss
Bet B  I will give you odds of 3/1 on two heads in a row

But I won't allow you a double of Bet A and Bet B.

After the first head, I would have €2 at 3/1, so you would get back a total of €7. ( or €6 ? - I am not a betting person)

So I am giving you odds of 6/1 where the correct odds are 3/1.

Do I remember this correctly?

Brendan


----------



## MAC (12 Jan 2004)

*Ok Marion..... here we go*



Now where is Tall Chappy?

MAC


----------



## badzae (12 Jan 2004)

*.*

I remember some years back when a bookie was offering odds on who shot Montgomery Burns. It was a double episode of the Simpsons and the second episode was to follow a week later I think, or else with the start of the next series, but the bookie hadn't realized that the episodes had already been shown weeks if not months earlier in the US. Apparently some students in Galway made a packet!


----------



## monk (12 Jan 2004)

*Re: .*

Right Job - some job alright, look at the bright side, he can only get better. One for the future..


----------



## Homer (14 Jan 2004)

Hi Brendan

Your recollection of the example I gave is correct, although you got the odds slightly wrong.  A €1 double at 1/1 and 3/1 would give a total return of €8, or cumulative odds of 7/1.

The example I chose was an extreme case of two dependent events; 100% dependency in this case.  Where problems can arise with bookies is where the interdependency is not so obvious, but still exists to a sufficient extent to distort the cumulative odds.

Regards
Homer


----------

