Scracthings - Exotic bets

Sporting post 25 May 2015 - Is this rule fair on the punter

Example of many

This is a brutally tough game on an average day for punters. But getting absolutely no run for your money is the most bitter pill to swallow.

The first race at Fairview on Monday was also the first leg of the popular Bipot bet.

Gavin Smith’s Bollywood Babe looked the right horse in the modest eight horse field and she started a hot order favourite – and a popular Bipot banker.

The problem is she never started.

Hollywood Babe was withdrawn a few moments before the start with a swollen fetlock joint.That is the rub of the green when we are dealing with flesh and blood.

Tote rules mean that exotic punters got the new tote favourite. Which in the end landed up being Grant Paddock’s National Emblem filly, Patent Of Nobility – who ended up confirming her last poor run and finishing a dirty fifth 6,80 lengths behind the winner.

The Bipot minimum dividend after leg 1 was R4-60. Add the takeout, and calculate the amount of unhappy combinations after that!

But should we moan if we play the game where we know the rules in advance?

Probably not. But this brain game should be about creating winners – not customers who feel done in.

With the tote link from Fairview to Joburg failing in those crucial few moments before the off, there were punters who were able to get on and cancel tickets and restructure their bets.There wasn’t a helluva lot of time left to react, to be honest.

And what about the guys who work for a living and loaded or took their bets earlier – and took the option of banking the favourite? They are the good customers – and they got nailed six love.

Maybe it is time for Saftote to revisit the rules – possibly an exotic first leg scratching rule that voids the whole bet may be a better option?

read this 3 times before i noticed it was two years old

Sure Bollywood Babe was notorious for being lame

My point exactly 3 years on the the rule continues unabated
Rule-setting is a dynamic process and few regulations are set in concrete:
rules are not set in a vacuum but are affected by a variety of factors often reflecting the social, economic environment of the time.
Any rule of gambling in any sport is influenced in two ways.
1. Concerned creating equality of opportunity to win.
2. Eliminate cheating and sharp practice.
Is this rule comprehensive enough to cover every anticipated situation when it is applied ? Such as does it cover instances of neglect or fault by the operator?
Times have changed what once might have been assumed to have been generally-accepted common cause no longer holds. I struggle to find where this specific principle in randomly accepted, by the general public, in any other gambling entities in South Africa.
The " Actors"and "Date" of the article quoted is the least of my concerns, it's whether the rule can pass the basic reasonable standard.

So you propose to change the rule such that

If you have a banker in the first leg, and that selection is scratched, then the bet is a refund?

And then also if you played a scratching on purpose and another selection which is subsequently scratched, then that ticket should also be cancelled?

Many complications start to emerge as you look at possible eventualities. Have you thought this through? Do you suggest this for all exotics including the PA, or just the bipod?

In most instances receiving the TF is the appropriate substitute but it is certainly a rule that I have also questioned many times as I have been on the receiving end more often than not when my selection has been withdrawn.

The rule is extremely inappropriate when you have a hot pot favourite being withdrawn and in instances where multiple runners are lost from a leg of a perm and all being replaced with the TF.

It's long been a campaign of mine to give punters a better deal as I believe that punter friendly products will also be great for marketing racing to a new base.

The problem is that most systems used by traditional operators are only fit for purpose, and not adaptable, which means that rules like these are very difficult to change.

With modern technology it would be easy to allow punters x number of substitute runners in order of preference that could replace any scratched runners in a multi leg exotic. To my knowledge this is already being done in Sweden with ATG;s V75 bet, one of racings most successful exotics.

There are many other ways to overcome this problem but certainly the rule as it stands will often cause unhappy outcomes.

Point taken don't think you thought this one threw, if you cancel the bet like you sagest you would probably lose halve the pool.
you sound like you lost your bet and become GRUMPY PUNTER take it on the chin and move on

A punter as currently can not deliberately play a pre running scratched horse in a trifecta, quartet etc the current system rules simply rejects the ticket .
So a current technical solution and rule exists and should be applied across regardless to bet type struck.
However in race time if I placed a wager and selected a specific horse, that is the bet that I have entered period
The law is clear that when that happens there can be no control over the event by either party during the happening of event one way or the other. If it does not have this quality then it lacks one of the basic ingredient of a wager in contract law.
horse racing is a gambling game of skill, despite of the element of chance it is one which success depends principally upon knowledge,resourcefulness of the player in form study
As the article alluded if my horse arrived at the starting stalls and did not ran due to elements beyond either parties control,the fact is simply that that specified Leg of the bet did not execute and should default to the next Leg.
Simply put the ticket is valid and should be carried to the next Leg without introducing of any other variables which did not exist prior to be wager being struck.
This can be applied practically and logically in various ways to ensure the element of fair play and balance.

Sheik, your suggestion has a problem.

Imagine it is the last leg of a massive carry over P6 and you are the lucky holder of a ticket going into the last leg. Your selection is at 10/1 and it wins.

Some other guy backed the favourite which is duly withdrawn and he now shares the pot with you because his runner never ran.

Not a scenario that will go down well and it also opens things up for manipulation if a punter is also a race horse owner with runners in a tough leg.

As stated my suggestion is not exhaustive, however as stated in your example my ticket could still be carried forward regardless to whatever Leg limited with the perspective of getting the full refund of my wager, at the completion of the entire circle of the bet and not winning the pool,which my money is invested anyway.

If your horse gets scratched at the start that horse should automatically go through in your exotic bets.Why get given a horse you never had in your perm in the first place?What I would also like to see is that if your horse gets re-shod at the start that would also apply,this is a long shot I know but the amount of horses loosing shoes going down to the start in SA is unbelievable.In Uk,Singapore and Hong Kong you see that once in a blue Moon.I know our farriers are mostly of high quality so is it cheap nails or screws they are using?It happens way too often and most times the horse doesn't run it's normal race.