Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post Reply
User avatar
nick
Posts: 4125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 8:08 am

Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by nick » Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:18 pm

If anyone saw the 4.45 Perth (Hunter Chase) this afternoon they will know that Cultram Abbey passed the post 43 lengths ahead of Molten Brown with Fago a further 4 lengths behind in 3rd. There were only 3 runners.

Before the line the saddlecloth and weightcloth of Molten Brown came flying off. There was a Stewards' Enquiry resulting in the disqualification of Molten Brown. The official BHA result is that Cultram Abbey was 1st and Fago 2nd. There was no placing for Molten Brown.

I had bought the unlimited distances and also the distances between 2nd and 3rd horses. As things stand, the unlimited distance has been settled at 43 lengths and the distance between 2nd and 3rd at 4 lengths.

I take the view that the disqualified horse should in effect not count for the purposes of settlement. If there is no 3rd placed horse, the distance between 2nd and 3rd should be settled at the maximum i.e. 30 lengths, not 4 lengths. Furthermore the actual distance between the winner and the official runner up was 47 lengths, not 43 lengths.

I wonder if anyone has any views on this scenario. Needless to say I have e-mailed both Sporting Index and Spreadex.

User avatar
harry_rag
Posts: 13964
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 6:41 pm

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by harry_rag » Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:43 pm

nick wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:18 pm
I wonder if anyone has any views on this scenario. Needless to say I have e-mailed both Sporting Index and Spreadex.
I'm guessing this is too "niche" a spread betting query for most of the horse guys and it's a bit too "horse" for me but it did catch my eye. How did you get on? I found this in SPIN's rules;

"Any subsequent disqualification, stewards’ enquiry or amendment shall affect Bets only if (i) it determines that one or more horses failed to complete the correct course, or (ii) the official distances are amended by the judge. The settlement of Bets will only be affected if such a disqualification or amendment takes place on the day of the race."

SX have something very similar. So I can see the scope for a disqualification not necessarily affecting the distance totals if neither (i) nor (ii) applied, but you'd know better than me whether that was the case! {8

User avatar
nick
Posts: 4125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 8:08 am

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by nick » Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:02 pm

Thanks for replying, Harry.

Strangely the BHA have not actually provided official distances for the result of the race, as they always do with each official result published on their site. As you have suggested, if the official distances have been amended by the judge on the day of the race, then I might have a bit of joy. I have received the following from Spreadex:

Thanks for your email. The answer to your question is broken down into two parts. For the purpose of the spread indices and all card markets excluding distances the disqualified horse is not counted as having finished and all markets are settled accordingly.

With regard to the distances we have to refer to horse racing rule d) (found on pages 10 and 11 of the rulebook). It states the following:

Any subsequent disqualification, stewards’ enquiry or amendment shall affect bets only if:

a) it determines that one or more horses failed to complete the correct course, or

b) the judge amends the official distances.

Consequently we have settled at 30 for distances, 43 for 99s distances and 4 for 2nd to 3rds distances.


I have also e-mailed the BHA to raise the query about any amendment to the official distances and to suggest they have erred in not including them in the official result. I don't really anticipate much joy, but it will be interesting to see their comments (if they bother, that is!).

Will advise if I get any joy.

Janthefish
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:57 pm

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by Janthefish » Thu May 03, 2018 7:13 am

Just seen this, in my opinion the judge was at fault for not changing official distance. The BHA hate admitting their judges have made a mistake, the spread firms wriggling out of paying what they owe. Only two horses finished!

User avatar
nick
Posts: 4125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 8:08 am

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by nick » Thu May 03, 2018 9:07 am

Janthefish wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 7:13 am
Just seen this, in my opinion the judge was at fault for not changing official distance. The BHA hate admitting their judges have made a mistake, the spread firms wriggling out of paying what they owe. Only two horses finished!
I have contacted the BHA a couple of times, Jan, and totally agree with your sentiments (especially as this has cost me 30 points :lol ). This is the last e-mail I received from the BHA:

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your reply. I did as you requested and our judging team principal responded as follows:

The Judge is not asked to amend the Official distance at all as the horse is disqualified. The original distances stand as they crossed the line. However after the event of disqualifying one horse it does not materially alter how far the next horse was beaten by the winner as it crossed the finishing line. Ultimately it will be down to the Bookmakers rules on this matter as far as I am aware.

Kind regards,

Joe


Considering the horse was disqualified for not carrying the correct weight, I would have thought it imperative for handicapping purposes that the distances are properly recorded and the disqualified horse is not treated as a factor in the race. However, as this was a lowly 3-runner hunter chase, I suspect the authorities don't give a toss. Next thing we'll be told that loose horses count for distances purposes! I have given up my remonstrations.

User avatar
harry_rag
Posts: 13964
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 6:41 pm

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by harry_rag » Thu May 03, 2018 11:55 am

Janthefish wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 7:13 am
Just seen this, in my opinion the judge was at fault for not changing official distance. The BHA hate admitting their judges have made a mistake, the spread firms wriggling out of paying what they owe. Only two horses finished!
I'd respectfully have to disagree with the bit about the spread firms "wriggling out of paying what they owe", it sounds like they've settled the bets entirely correctly in accordance with their rules. If they settled this in the way that would favour Nick, it would disadvantage anyone who had sold. Those people would complain and be able to say that the bet had not been settled correctly in accordance with the rules. The bet has to be settled in one way for both buyers and sellers. It's just unfortunate when you end up on the wrong end of something like this.

I'm not sure what Nick thinks but it's clear that the rules treat disqualifications differently for distances markets compared to others, e.g. they're only taken into account if the judges amend the official distances on the day or if they show that a horse failed to complete the correct course. It seems that the intention is that, with those 2 exceptions, distance markets will always be settled based on what actually happens on the track, without regard to subsequent disqualifications.

User avatar
nick
Posts: 4125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 8:08 am

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by nick » Thu May 03, 2018 12:29 pm

I take your point about fairness to sellers, Harry. I was really agreeing with Jan about the "official" position of the Judge whom the BHA have to follow, it seems. Had the distances been amended (as they should have been in my view) to ignore the disqualified horse, then I'd have been OK in accordance with the spread betting rules.

The irony is that anyone who had bought the disqualified horse on a 50, 25, 10 index would have lost out completely, whereas anyone bizarrely selling (in a 3-horse race {8 {8 ) would have picked up well over 10 points profit. In my market the seller wins, not the buyer.

User avatar
harry_rag
Posts: 13964
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 6:41 pm

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by harry_rag » Thu May 03, 2018 12:49 pm

Yeah, I totally agree - the issue is with the offical view of the winning distances, not with how the spread firms have applied their rules.

I don't think they had any choice on how they settled the bets and probably anticipated some queries from buyers. At the end of the day, thanks to the stance of the "judge", sellers dodged a bullet and buyers got slightly shafted.

Janthefish
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:57 pm

Re: Spread Betting Conundrum (Horse Racing)

Post by Janthefish » Thu May 03, 2018 3:13 pm

Yes, I was wrong about the rules but still think judge at fault, surely if a winner is disqualified they have to adjust the distances?

Post Reply