DEDUCTIONS ON DOUBLES

I cant see why bookies should give me a deduction when i take the same horse double....after all i am the 1 taking the chance.If the first leg of the double did lose that particular horse is gonna drift.so why am i not given a reward in getting the double as it would be for every other doubles taken on a daily basis.

its the same as taking a big mike de kock double on the same card.....we all know that the second leg of that double is gonna shortenif the first one won..the bookies are quite prepared to lay me that sought of bet..

am i alone in this thinking?

Why 2 different rules?? a double is a double....:S

Not sure why.
But has been the rule for as long as I can remember.

eg. 3/1 and 5/1 = 43/1 * 0.67 = 29/1 ( same horse)

Because they can. And do.

The way I see it,

If you take an unrelated double ( Tarry onto a Zaki horse for example), in theory the the first bet connecting should not influence the price of the second leg. The events are independent.
Obviously same big stable doubles are gonna shorten the odds but that's not the norm. and not sure if it's fair to use it as a rule of thumb.

When you take a related double ( Jackson X Jackson) the price will always shorten if you connect the first leg, if the horse loses its not a fact that it will drift nor is it a fact that the bookie will be able to lay it at a higher price, even if he wants to.

Think about a sports double, Spain to progress from their group onto Spain to win the tournament. Not a fair bet , the events are related. Is it fair to assume the same logic with horse bets ?

A horses price for the July is factored on current form not on future form and performance , the odds on the two events are interrelated, they aren't independent .

Why should a bookie effectively lay you the old price on a horse when he could now the lay the horse at the new price ?

i took a bet the other day on a 20/1 the day befor the race,in the morning there was a scratching and a 15% deduction on my horse,when they priced up again my horse was 25/1, so i got the deduction and a #$&#$ as allways.

A rule that has been in place since I backed???? Flaming Rock and does make sense, if a horse wins a major race leading up to the July it's logical the horse will shorten and the rule has some merit although not popular with the punters.

i fully understand this but i do pose a question:

If you take the double

Jackson /Jackson i can understand (accordiing to the bookies) that the 2nd part shortens

BUT then why if you take the following does it not lengthen


Jackson/Pierre J

easy Wrote:

---

> i fully understand this but i do pose a question:
>
> If you take the double
>
> Jackson /Jackson i can understand (accordiing to
> the bookies) that the 2nd part shortens
>
> BUT then why if you take the following does it not
> lengthen
>
>
> Jackson/Pierre J


presicely.....in saturdays instance...pj runs 6 lengths off variety club...or lets take the pomodoro run....in the daily news....not a good run ...horse drifts for the july...from 16/1 to 23/1....but some sttill believe it can win the july...if u took the pomodoro double..u would have to endure a deduction....but in this case u've lost the bet and the horse has drifted....in this case the bookies has it both ways.....

look i have been in racing a long time..and i do know about these deductions been in place ever since....but my point is...wheres my reward for backing the double...i have none...in that case...rather back them individually at least u have a chance to reevaluate its chances after the first leg...even if has won the first leg...u may not have liked its performance...etc..etc....i just think its totally in the bookies favour.....these deductions...and remember...we are still taking these bets under ante post rules...so we the punter is guaranteed nothing if the horse in question gets scratched from the july...now PARTY LINE WAS TRYING TO EQUATE IT to sports betting....this case has to be a little differerent compared to horses....cos for example i back spain to win the group stage and the tournament....this has to be construed as related because after qualifying the group stage....their odds of winning the tournament has to shorten...but they will be there in the knockout stages...even if 1/2 their team have injuries and they cannot be "scratched"

I never really seen the merit in taking doubles anyway, all that's happening is your stake and profit from the first bet is being dumped onto to your second pick ( with a minor tax saving)

You are betting into ante-post percentage markets , which already counts against you and of course to deductions could come into play. Now that's where you get handled.

Agra, 3/1 x 5/1 = 23/1, or am i missing something.

IMO the deduction rule with reserve runners is crazy. For example, I back Horse A at 5/1 for 500/100. Horse B gets scratched at 10/1 I now have a 10% deduction so have 450/100 for my bet on horse A. Now Horse X comes into the race at 7/1. I now have a bet on a horse for less than my original bet against a field that has now been made stronger. I feel my bet should now be 500 * 0.9 * 1.15 (deduction given to punter for addition of 7/1 shot) = 517,50/100.

IMO the deductions here is robbery.

Party Line Wrote:

---

> I never really seen the merit in taking doubles
> anyway, all that's happening is your stake and
> profit from the first bet is being dumped onto to
> your second pick ( with a minor tax saving)
>
> You are betting into ante-post percentage markets
> , which already counts against you and of course
> to deductions could come into play. Now that's
> where you get handled.
>
> Agra, 3/1 x 5/1 = 23/1, or am i missing something.


offcourse i am being handled....i would never have taken the JACKSON/JACKSON DOUBLE....in this case i would put R20 000 on jackson in the daily news.@4/10....AND PUT R28000 ON JACKSON @ 5/2 in the july as a seperate bet...but only in this case where i knew that Jackson was impossible to lose