New Strategy - the gypsy lay strategy!!!!

[thehawk009]

from BHA press release on a number of people being warned off for stopping and laying a horse.

ps://www.britishhorseracing.presscentre.com/ ... E-1ae.aspx

The explanation for the lay betting given by the “connected layers” was essentially this. On 17 December Root met a gypsy who called at his café on the morning of the race and told him that SABRE LIGHT and another horse (OLD ROMNEY) would not win that day. Root did not know his name, though he had seen him a few times previously, but had not had lay bet tips from him before. Root told investigators he was so impressed by the gypsy, who drove a 4 x 4, that he was persuaded to abandon the idea of backing SABRE LIGHT that day and decided to place the biggest lay bet he had ever taken. Root told Banham of this view that SABRE LIGHT would not win, and this persuaded Banham too to take his large lay position. Benton got his information from Banham. There was evidence that Conrad and Radford knew Benton, and Loftus too knew and had dealings with Benton and Radford.

The four so called “connected layers” – Banham, Root, Williams and Benton each took substantial positions on 17 December. Banham risked £39,724 to win £10,500, his second largest lay bet after SABRE LIGHT on 5 December. Root placed his biggest lay bet (£1,877 risked to win £596) – a bet 7 ½ times larger than his next biggest lay. Williams (who was Banham’s sister) was only an occasional gambler, at least with Betfair, and her lay bet on 17 December was one of just 5 bets on the account, with 2 of the others (including 5 December) being about SABRE LIGHT. Benton’s lay bet risked £5,483 to win £1,585, the second largest lay risk and the largest lay bet profit on the account.
The so-called “commission layers” – Conrad, Wrixon, Radford and Loftus – also took sizeable positions. They had all taken positions of similar size on 5 December and lost. But for the 17 December race, Wrixon risked £11,862 to win £3,545; Conrad layed £7,348 to win £1,675; Loftus took £38,631 to win £10,204 and Radford (the Betdaq account holder) risked £40,349 to win £10,605. All these risks were above the normal amounts risked by lay betting on these accounts. As commission layers, it is believed that they were placing these bets for others, or allowing others access to sub accounts to place them. The identity of those who actually profited from the bets is unknown because Conrad, Wrixon and Radford refused to respond to all requests for interview by the BHA and Loftus (who did give an interview) refused to identify who was behind the lay betting in question. The Panel does not know what contracts underlie the relationships between the betting exchanges, the commission layers and those for whom the commission layers place or permit betting, so it cannot be decided whether refusals to reveal the identity of those who are really behind the betting are legitimate. But as (for some reason) the BHA sought no order against Loftus, this is not the time to examine this issue further. Commission betting through the exchanges does, however, present a particular danger to the integrity of racing.

SABRE LIGHT ran four times for Pearce prior to 17 December. The first was at Great Yarmouth on 21 October, an engagement for which its previous trainer, Alan Bailey, had entered it. It finished 5th of 13 in an 11 furlong claimer ridden for the first time by O’Dwyer. On this occasion, 3 of the 8 exchange accounts layed it for substantial sums. Banham risked nearly £25,000 to win £5,975; Conrad risked £3,220 to win £700; and Loftus won £5,342 for a risk of £26,779. Interestingly, Huffer produced copies of betting slips showing that he backed it at 4/1 to win £440 with Ladbrokes. Thus he was doing the opposite to the layers, which indicated to the Panel that he was not the source who motivated the lay betting on this occasion.
The gelding then won its next 3 races on 9 November, 30 November and 5 December. For the first and third of these races, it was again ridden by O’Dwyer. For the second, it was ridden by J. Quinn. All were claiming races over 11 or 10 furlongs on all-weather surfaces, with the November races being at Kempton and the 5 December race at Lingfield.

The most significant of these was the 5 December race at Lingfield, over the same distance and against many of the same opponents as were engaged in the 17 December race. O’Dwyer rode in accordance with his instructions to get the gelding into a mid-division position early on. When the field reached the first bend, which begins about 150 yards after the start, he was lying 5th of 12. He rode vigorously to get that position as the gelding, which had been drawn in stall 4, was slower away than most of its rivals (a recurring feature in its races). He rode strongly and professionally throughout, producing the gelding through a tight gap on the turn approaching the final straight so as to keep in touch with the leaders. It eventually won with the aid of firm driving which earned him a day’s suspension for careless riding that caused interference in the last furlong.
For this race, the gelding was the subject of lay betting by 6 of the 8 accounts which participated in the 17 December laying. Only Benton and Root (relatively small players) did not bet. Those who did place lay bets did so in a size similar to or even larger than their lay bets on 17 December. The 5 Betfair layers on 5 December comprised 47% of Betfair’s total market volume; on 17 December when all 7 layers who used Betfair accounts were in action, they comprised 45% of the total Betfair volume.
The suspicious accounts for 17 December were primarily identified on the basis that they were taking larger than normal lay risks, indicating an exceptional degree of confidence. But they did the same on 5 December, which must be taken to indicate a similar degree of confidence on that day. For instance, Banham risked (and lost) £43,799 on 5 December; he risked £39,724 on 17 December, producing a win of £10,500.