Withdrawn Horses

[74.5]

A while ago,I picked up on this.It was posted in mid-2010 on another forum:

A hot topic of conversation on another web site I visit is that of withdrawn horses. Recently in one day there were 13 instances of horses being withdrawn and affecting the number of places the bookies had to pay out on.
Imagine thousands of punters betting in an 8 runner race (or a 16 runner handicap) expecting to be paid on 3 or 4 places. After the bet is placed, a horse is withdrawn and all those punters whose horse finishes 3rd don't get paid and the bookies pocket the lot.
The suggestion is that the bookies contact the trainer of a nag who has no hope of winning, get him to withdraw his horse and slip a brown envelope with a couple of grand in into his pocket and the trainers is quids in, the bookies are quids in and oncer again it's the poor old punter who is being robbed.
Just think about it, THIRTEEN times in one day. There were obviously lots more non runners but 13 times where it saved the bookie paying out on 3 or 4 places. It stinks, it's corrupt but no-one gives a damm.

The above prompts more than the odd question such as:

1.If the horse is a no-hoper,as the writer suggests, then how do the bookies know?

2. If it is a no-hoper,as the writer suggests,how come the trainer was running it?

I've seen horses withdrawn from races that,according to the odds,had every chance of winning and couldn't be classed as no-hopers.In fact, some were favourites.

Ok,some horses must have been withdrawn for valid reasons.But can this be said of all withdrawn horses?

Moving on from this,there's been more than the odd case of corruption brought before the HRA and the defendants found guilty and punished.Therefore,it seems logical to assume that some races are not what they appear to be.

Moving on still further,isn't it logical to assume that races in which horses have been withdrawn may throw up more than the odd 'unusual result' and may therefore contain mis-priced horses which,by definition,may have value?

Just a though.
74.5

[Marshy10]

This comes under the category of punters who can't bare to face the fact that their judgement is wrong when they pick a loser. They come up with all sorts of excuses 'The jockey jumped off that', 'There is no way that is good ground' and the favourite 'The game is bent' , perish the thought they got it wrong.

I am not naive to think that there is no corruption, recent cases prove that, but to think there is someone going round paying trainers to pull their horses. Surely financially this is flawed. The amount of money the brown envelope contained would not be enough to compensate trainers but also the amount of place money is taken on these races is realively small.

People talking out of their conspiracy theorists a*se.

[74.5]

I am not naive to think that there is no corruption, recent cases prove that, but to think there is someone going round paying trainers to pull their horses. Surely financially this is flawed. The amount of money the brown envelope contained would not be enough to compensate trainers but also the amount of place money is taken on these races is realively small.

People talking out of their conspiracy theorists a*se.

I disagree,it does make financial sense.
If I were a bent trainer and entered a horse in a race which I knew it wouldn't win and wouldn't even place in,I'd take a brown envelope with cash in it and withdraw my horse.Especially as prize money is falling these days.
Also,I don't know how much money is bet in the place market on a race but it has to be far more than a couple of grand. As a bookie,if I know a bent trainer who will pull his horse for a bung, I'll bung him a couple of grand to pull his horse when needed.
Makes perfect financial sense to me.
I'm not saying this happens but the stats that I once saw support that it does.
74.5

[Marshy10]

We sit on different sides of the fence here. For me, it makes no sense a bookmaker approaching a trainer to pull a horse, especially the place odds they now bet to on course. There definitely are underhand tactics operating within the industry but very rarely on the bookmaking side.

[Iron]

I remember hearing once of a study that looked at rule 4s, and it I think discovered evidence that the bookies may engineer 7 horse races. I think it found that there were a significantly higher number of races with 7 runners than 8 runners, or something along those lines.

I can't find a link to the study, however - Can anyone help?

Jeff

[chuck536]

Well just to add to the cooking pot, probably just about a year ago i remember reading on a well known betting forum that someone said they had heard in their local (irish pub) that their were two runners in a race, a short priced fav and a 16/1 shot, they was told to back the 16/1 shot as the fav was to be withdrawn nearer the time and the 16/1 shot would go on to win..... as usual i took it with a pinch of salt as the forum was usually full of crap but it all come true and the 16/1 shot romped home.

[Euler]

I remember hearing once of a study that looked at rule 4s, and it I think discovered evidence that the bookies may engineer 7 horse races. I think it found that there were a significantly higher number of races with 7 runners than 8 runners, or something along those lines.

I can't find a link to the study, however - Can anyone help?

Jeff

We have data that can examine field sizes, should be easy to spot.

[Euler]

Sample of 37,000 odd recent races: -

Runners =2 - Frequency = 0.1%
Runners =3 - Frequency = 0.85%
Runners =4 - Frequency = 2.98%
Runners =5 - Frequency = 5.67%
Runners =6 - Frequency = 8.12%
Runners =7 - Frequency = 10.02%
Runners =8 - Frequency = 10.85%
Runners =9 - Frequency = 10.89%
Runners =10 - Frequency = 10.33%
Runners =11 - Frequency = 10.26%
Runners =12 - Frequency = 9.47%
Runners =13 - Frequency = 6.86%
Runners =14 - Frequency = 5.14%
Runners =15 - Frequency = 3.1%
Runners =16 - Frequency = 2.34%
Runners =17 - Frequency = 1.15%
Runners =18 - Frequency = 0.68%
Runners =19 - Frequency = 0.34%
Runners =20 - Frequency = 0.31%
Runners =21 - Frequency = 0.11%
Runners =22 - Frequency = 0.08%

[Iron]

Interesting that, in percentage terms, there are significantly more 15 horse races than 16 horse races...

Jeff

[Marshy10]

There is no way a bookmaker would payout on a two horse race that turns into a walkover, and nor should anyone expect him to. Maybe the fav was 'pulled up' after the race had started. This would not be classed as withdrawn.

[rubysglory]

Many bookmakers only offer Place & Each Way betting as a marketing tool to attract business. The place component of the bet places, given the way dividends are calculated, negatively impacts them. Mathematically speaking, a late scratching only serve to further impact this. I suggest that this alone should bust this myth or the mindset of conspiracy theorists.

rg

[Iron]

RG - Is it not the case that, mathematically speaking, the bookies do better paying for 3 placers on a 15 horse race than 4 placers on a 16 horse race?

Also, on a 16+ horse race, you often get horses whose implied place odds on Betfair are higher than with the bookies (which can be often be exploited to produce value bets with the bookies, btw!).

Jeff

[rubysglory]

Hi Jeff. The answer to your question lies in the reduced odds most each way bookmakers offer on the win component when offering an each way bet. This is the only way they can mathematically be assured a profit on the place component when offering such bets over the longer term .

rg

[Iron]

RG - But the bookie has a dilemma. If they make the win odds too short, they will not attract much business for those horses (even though they offer plenty of value from a win-only perspective). But if they keep the win odds as they are, then they will be giving away each-way value.

I used to bet on horses which offered an edge from an each way perspective based on the assumption that the Betfair place odds are accurate and that at the off the place odds will be the same with the bookie and Betfair. At least when I was active with that system, there were plenty of opportunities to bet that would lead to a decent long-term ROI...

Jeff