Claims on horses, what are they?

Remember the days before the Internet with the bookies rings on track "cash" some of the big bookies would meet the big punters head on, many stories, I remember the one where Ferguson took an even 50 grand did not lift his head and as the punter walked away he went 11/10 lol

Is bookies working as some sort of cartel no a bit wrong? wonder if the claim rule was passed by the gambling board

These claims are a joke Guy claims horse at 25/1 shortens to 16/1 then claims again into 10/1 in effect he's only wagered R2500 and everyone thinks there's big money for the horse (25000/1000 and 25000/1500)

Do we still have claiming races locally? Can't remember any recentley.

JTL Wrote:

---

> These claims are a joke Guy claims horse at 25/1
> shortens to 16/1 then claims again into 10/1 in
> effect he's only wagered R2500 and everyone thinks
> there's big money for the horse (25000/1000 and
> 25000/1500)

Bookmakers don't necessarily only lay 25 000, some bookies strike much bigger bets and still don't choose to claim.

As usual many of the posters seem to take a view that it's the horse they liked that gets claimed from under them, or as if it's always the winner.

Yesterday 21 horses were claimed - 26 times - in 7 different races. Of them winners were Joanie Gee (single claim 8/1 to 13/2 [2 others in that race]) and Coastal Cabaret (12/1 to 8/1, 1 of 3 other claims) and Sugar And Shake F (7/2 to 28/10, 1 of 2).
3 were claimed more than once, none won.

I used to get upset by the claims till the following occured to me: 1.they don't just win, 2.once they are claimed the value is gone so I leave them and they don't just win, and 3. the big claim adjustment normally forces the winners'price to go out a bit to fix the percentages because the claimed horses don't just win.

As it happened yesterday, my main play was in race 5 were 9 horses ran, 2 were claimed (1 twice) and 6 of the 9 started at longer odds than the opening price. If you take the price straight after the claim, or the price offered once a horse has drifted out and then shortens to the next price down, or the sp if it doesn't move, the betting was 111.75% for the average Joe anywhere, including the claims!

@ James Blond..thanks for that however I have to say that surely then "claims" are what we call "price collusion" ?..for which many companies have been fined huge amounts of money for doing. When I was a bookies runner during Varsity there was no such thing and my job was exactly that..ie to run laying off bets on course with other bookies..personally I wonder how the Competitions Commission would view bookie claims.

oscar Wrote:

---

> @ James Blond..thanks for that however I have to
> say that surely then "claims" are what we call
> "price collusion" ?..for which many companies have
> been fined huge amounts of money for doing.

Without being for or against, clearly collusion can't be the argument.

It's a formal price change trigger, and other prices go out in response. On the tote a move of money makes other horses prices change.

Or another way of looking at this from a bookmakers point of view, is that claims are a mechanism to stop other bookmakers from playing on the table (so to speak) at the price on the dessemination. For example, if claims closed on a non race day at 3pm....the main players after 3pm will end up being bookmakers playing against other bookmakers because the price change can't be triggered till the next day. Not sure if I made my point well.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> oscar Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > @ James Blond..thanks for that however I have
> to
> > say that surely then "claims" are what we call
> > "price collusion" ?..for which many companies
> have
> > been fined huge amounts of money for doing.
>
> Without being for or against, clearly collusion
> can't be the argument.
>
> It's a formal price change trigger, and other
> prices go out in response. On the tote a move of
> money makes other horses prices change.
>
> Or another way of looking at this from a
> bookmakers point of view, is that claims are a
> mechanism to stop other bookmakers from playing on
> the table (so to speak) at the price on the
> dessemination. For example, if claims closed on a
> non race day at 3pm....the main players after 3pm
> will end up being bookmakers playing against other
> bookmakers because the price change can't be
> triggered till the next day. Not sure if I made
> my point well.


on the flip side of what u say JD...when bookies meet to price up...they take the price between them even before they disseminate out to the public..thats wrong..i the old days...horses were claimed 3 and 4 times between the committee members even before the public got a chance.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> As usual many of the posters seem to take a view
> that it's the horse they liked that gets claimed
> from under them, or as if it's always the winner.
>
> Yesterday 21 horses were claimed - 26 times - in
> 7 different races. Of them winners were Joanie
> Gee (single claim 8/1 to 13/2 [2 others in that
> race]) and Coastal Cabaret (12/1 to 8/1, 1 of 3
> other claims) and Sugar And Shake F (7/2 to 28/10,
> 1 of 2).
> 3 were claimed more than once, none won.
>
> I used to get upset by the claims till the
> following occured to me: 1.they don't just win,
> 2.once they are claimed the value is gone so I
> leave them and they don't just win, and 3. the big
> claim adjustment normally forces the winners'price
> to go out a bit to fix the percentages because the
> claimed horses don't just win.
>
> As it happened yesterday, my main play was in race
> 5 were 9 horses ran, 2 were claimed (1 twice) and
> 6 of the 9 started at longer odds than the opening
> price. If you take the price straight after the
> claim, or the price offered once a horse has
> drifted out and then shortens to the next price
> down, or the sp if it doesn't move, the betting
> was 111.75% for the average Joe anywhere,
> including the claims!

On the basis off what you said and my own experience if I were a bookmaker if horses do get claimed i would not shorten the oddst even stretch them because 66% and, sometimes more, of the times they do not win, can make a living with out taking one cent from the public.

Would like to hear a bookmaker view on this, wonder why they are not posting on this topic?

It's turf accounting, not bookmaking.