Betting question - is this an issue

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
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Re: So much for Monks contact - result below

Bottom line is all AAM should be on this one for Cheltenham!
Click to expand...

Is nag tipping allowed under the posting guidelines? :lol
 
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
 
Go on ya good thing......

It was permitted last year !!!!!
 
It was permitted last year......

And a very good thread it was too!

Hopefully it will be as good this year!

MAC
 
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
 
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..
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
.

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!
 
Re: .

Right Job - some job alright, look at the bright side, he can only get better. One for the future..
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top