Help needed with rule 4 deductions
- Thread starter cofo
- Start date
retriever
Stallion
Welcome
C
cofo
What was the price of the withdrawn horse? Depends on the price.
If you look at the racing post results page https://www.racingpost.com/results/2020-06-27 you can see any R4 deductions.
For example, if it was Blowing Wind (15/2) withdrawn it the 12.00 Redcar yesterday there was a 10p deduction.
If the withdrawn horse was over 14/1.........then there would be no deduction.
What was the price of the withdrawn horse? Depends on the price.
If you look at the racing post results page https://www.racingpost.com/results/2020-06-27 you can see any R4 deductions.
For example, if it was Blowing Wind (15/2) withdrawn it the 12.00 Redcar yesterday there was a 10p deduction.
If the withdrawn horse was over 14/1.........then there would be no deduction.
Odds | Price | Deduction | % of winnings |
3/10 or shorter | 75p in £ | 75 | |
Over 3/10 | Up to and including 2/5 | 70p in £ | 70 |
Over 2/5 | Up to and including 8/15 | 65p in £ | 65 |
Over 8/15 | Up to and including 8/13 | 60p in £ | 60 |
Over 8/13 | Up to and including 4/5 | 55p in £ | 55 |
Over 4/5 | Up to and including 20/21 | 50p in £ | 50 |
Over 20/21 | Up to and including 6/5 | 45p in £ | 45 |
Over 6/5 | Up to and including 6/4 | 40p in £ | 40 |
Over 6/4 | Up to and including 7/4 | 35p in £ | 35 |
Over 7/4 | Up to and including 9/4 | 30p in £ | 30 |
Over 9/4 | Up to and including 3/1 | 25p in £ | 25 |
Over 3/1 | Up to and including 4/1 | 20p in £ | 20 |
Over 4/1 | Up to and including 11/2 | 15p in £ | 15 |
Over 11/2 | Up to and including 9/1 | 10p in £ | 10 |
Over 9/1 | Up to and including 14/1 | 5p in £ | 5 |
Over 14/1 | 14/1 and over | No deduction | 0 |
Last edited:
retriever
Stallion
On the Betting Exchange(s)......which is by far a better way to bet (as the bookies are greedy).
Exchange Reduction Factor
Each horse is allocated a reduction factor, based on its likely chance of winning the race. Should a horse be declared a non-runner, the reduction factor will be applied to the prices of all matched bets, for both backers and layers.
This is to ensure that players are not unfairly treated and exposed to large liabilities when the chances of other horses winning have improved. The reduction factors are designed to be fair to both backers and layers.
Exchange Reduction Factor
Each horse is allocated a reduction factor, based on its likely chance of winning the race. Should a horse be declared a non-runner, the reduction factor will be applied to the prices of all matched bets, for both backers and layers.
This is to ensure that players are not unfairly treated and exposed to large liabilities when the chances of other horses winning have improved. The reduction factors are designed to be fair to both backers and layers.
Rodeneal
Yearling
Whilst, this thread is a bit dated, i think rule 4 should be reviewed. I can understand and agree with the level of deductions. I believe, when the deductions should be applied should be looked at in depth! Withdrawing a horse at the stalls, for whatever reason, can be annoying, yet understandable. However, applying rule four to a horse that was on the reserve list is, simply, sharp practice by the certain bookies!
Rodeneal
Yearling
Yesterday, I backed the winner of the 14:00 at Downpatrick, Fancy Foundations.
When I placed the bet the odds were 3/1. There was a Rule 4, 35 pence deduction. The SP was 4/1 so I got paid out in full. I can understand the logic of Rule 4 and can understand if the odds drift to the point where they are longer than the original bet, you should get paid out in full.
A year or so ago, a friend of mine was complaining that he had placed a bet with a high street bookie. Malcolm, took a price and handed over his cash. As you can probably guess, there was a Rule 4 applied, yet, the odds on his horse had drifted. His horse came in, yet the high street bookie still applied the Rule 4 and didn't pay out in full.
Whilst, I am not a fan of high street bookies; should high street bookies be forced to pay out the same way as online bookies?
Or is this just another nail in the high street bookies coffin or just short sighted greed?
PS my friend had a an interesting system, he only placed bets on horses with the word "Dragon" in the name.
When I placed the bet the odds were 3/1. There was a Rule 4, 35 pence deduction. The SP was 4/1 so I got paid out in full. I can understand the logic of Rule 4 and can understand if the odds drift to the point where they are longer than the original bet, you should get paid out in full.
A year or so ago, a friend of mine was complaining that he had placed a bet with a high street bookie. Malcolm, took a price and handed over his cash. As you can probably guess, there was a Rule 4 applied, yet, the odds on his horse had drifted. His horse came in, yet the high street bookie still applied the Rule 4 and didn't pay out in full.
Whilst, I am not a fan of high street bookies; should high street bookies be forced to pay out the same way as online bookies?
Or is this just another nail in the high street bookies coffin or just short sighted greed?
PS my friend had a an interesting system, he only placed bets on horses with the word "Dragon" in the name.