High Sparrow

Jockeys Challenges and why they should be banned or boycotted

28 posts in this topic

This is why punters need to wise up and boycott these forms of exotics.

The results of The Otaki races Jockeys' Challenge today was  a quadruple dead-heat. The TAB again laughs all the way to the bank by paying sub-$1 dividends. What a joke - no wonder they coined the term "mug punters". That they are still offfering this form of betting, despite knowing that it often does not give punters even their money back, is a perfect example that their greed knows no bounds. Boycott this form of betting folks so we get rid of it once and for all. 

 

M4 Otaki (21st Jun)
Fri, 21 Jun 2019, 3.46pm
OPTIONS
RESULT
Jockey Challenge Winner
Bridie Ansell (5 points), Samantha Collett (5), Madan Singh (5), Hazel Schofer (5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know how to find the results of such bets as I never take them. Sounds like anyone who backed those four jockeys got most of their money back. Surely they didn't all pay the same divi? They should have all paid 25% of the respective odds they were at. In any dead heat situation your return is always halved, or in this case quartered with four dead heating. I take it you backed one of the four? What odds were they at, what return did you get, and what return did you expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, High Sparrow said:

This is why punters need to wise up and boycott these forms of exotics.

The results of The Otaki races Jockeys' Challenge today was  a quadruple dead-heat. The TAB again laughs all the way to the bank by paying sub-$1 dividends. What a joke - no wonder they coined the term "mug punters". That they are still offfering this form of betting, despite knowing that it often does not give punters even their money back, is a perfect example that their greed knows no bounds. Boycott this form of betting folks so we get rid of it once and for all. 

 

M4 Otaki (21st Jun)
Fri, 21 Jun 2019, 3.46pm
 
OPTIONS
RESULT
Jockey Challenge Winner
Bridie Ansell (5 points), Samantha Collett (5), Madan Singh (5), Hazel Schofer (5)

Seriously, give up punting if you can't understand simple logic. Don't embarrass yourself by posting this rubbish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi H S  Jockey challenge is part of fixed odds  betting and the deadheat rules apply the same as any other sports bet .There is nothing wrong with it .Jockey Challenge is an excellent way to follow your favorite jockey and make money although the way Parkes is ridng ,losing money.Even with dead heat rules the TAB seems to pay out higher on J Challenge Cheers D H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Idolmite said:

It's called gambling. It's the risk you run in that type of bet. At least you got a return. 

I didn't get a return cobber because I'm not into betting on things with a less-than-your-money back potential result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SMD is rife said:

Seriously, give up punting if you can't understand simple logic. Don't embarrass yourself by posting this rubbish. 

SMD: I can understand the logic and the odds but I thought it might be worth noting for those who perhaps don't realise that you quite regularly risk getting less than your money back on these types of exotics. You probably realise this but new punters may not - until they get stung by the greedies at the TAB still offering these rubbish bets. They're the ones who should be embarrassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

I don't even know how to find the results of such bets as I never take them. Sounds like anyone who backed those four jockeys got most of their money back. Surely they didn't all pay the same divi? They should have all paid 25% of the respective odds they were at. In any dead heat situation your return is always halved, or in this case quartered with four dead heating. I take it you backed one of the four? What odds were they at, what return did you get, and what return did you expect?

No I didn't back any of them WD - I avoid them completely. There's no value in them at all and my recommendation is to avoid them like the plague. As as an example, say you'd backed a favoured jockey at the start of the challenge at say $2 and this had been the result (4 winners), you're correct in that the dividends would be quartered - so 50 cents for your $1. Sure, it's the risk you take, as others have pointed out. I saw a situation last year where the return on one's dollar was just 25 cents. That was the point I was trying to make but it seems to have been lost on  others who replied who are more inclined to abuse and blame the messenger than perhaps look to educate new bettors to avoid these rubbish bets.

16 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

I

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Idolmite said:

It's not greed, it's maths you clown. 

And because you personally don't like this bet type, you expect everybody else should boycott it? You have issues.....

Yes I know the Maths Idolmite and I suspect I've been around this game a lot longer than you (that would be back when most people  had manners and didn't resort to name calling or trying to belittle people with opinions that differed from their own). I posted that result about the quadruple deadheat because I ran into a new bettor recently who did not know you could still get less than your money back on a racing bet.  Obviously you don't share my opinion that these bets are a rubbish offering and that's fine too.  Knowledge is power for bettors - especially new bettors. So Yes I'll be boycotting it and I hope others do too. It's the only way the TAB is going to get the message that they need to treat their customers a damn sight better than offering this nonsense. If you're still punting - I wish you well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, High Sparrow said:

Yes I know the Maths Idolmite and I suspect I've been around this game a lot longer than you (that would be back when most people  had manners and didn't resort to name calling or trying to belittle people with opinions that differed from their own). I posted that result about the quadruple deadheat because I ran into a new bettor recently who did not know you could still get less than your money back on a racing bet.  Obviously you don't share my opinion that these bets are a rubbish offering and that's fine too.  Knowledge is power for bettors - especially new bettors. So Yes I'll be boycotting it and I hope others do too. It's the only way the TAB is going to get the message that they need to treat their customers a damn sight better than offering this nonsense. If you're still punting - I wish you well.

But for your reasoning you state rubbish like "The TAB again laughs all the way to the bank by paying sub-$1 dividends" and "a perfect example that their greed knows no bounds". They pay out the same total amount whether one jockey wins the challenge, or four. Do you expect them to pay out the full amount on each of the 4 winners in the case of a quadruple dead heat? They don't in any other dead heat, triple dead heat or quadruple dead heat. Just trying to understand your logic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go again with the abusive tones. It's not "rubbish" so in the hope of answering your query let's examine the facts.  They are offering a bet with a decent chance of getting a deadheat because of the way in which the points are designed  and the limited number of jockeys/drivers who have a realistic chance of winning. Then they often frame the market so that in the event of a deadheat then the return to the bettor is less than a dollar should the favourite jockey be involved in that deadheat. Things get worse of course if its a triple or quadruple deadheat and so really there isn't any logic in supporting these forms of betting if you are punting. Remember here we're not talking about sports betting we're betting on racing, so the chances of actually getting a deadheat in a horse race is minimal because of all the variables involved (size of the field, track conditions etc) and even then you're still likely to get more than your money back or at least your money back because of the 60% rule.  So you can't compare a jockeys' challenge with a normal race bet in the sense of the likelihood of a dead-heat occurring or your money being lost. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Two years ago I kept a record of Jockeys' Challenges for a year and I was really shocked at how many ended in a deadheat, a triple deadheat or a quadruple deadheat. We get rare dead heats in racing but triple dead-heats happen once in a blue moon and I can't recall any quadruple dead-heats in my long lifetime in racing. As you so rightly said yourself - it's all about Maths and in this case the Maths is seriously fixed against the punters who still elect to take these types of exotics. But that's their choice of course. I was simply trying to alert people to the risks as they're all a bit one-sided in terms of this particular type of bet. The fact that they "pay out the same total amount  whether one jockey wins the challenge, or four" is correct but its that irrelevant because it's the sub-$1 dividends I'm highlighting as the greatest risk and that happens in this bet more than any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Boss Hogg said:

Hi H S  Jockey challenge is part of fixed odds  betting and the deadheat rules apply the same as any other sports bet .There is nothing wrong with it .Jockey Challenge is an excellent way to follow your favorite jockey and make money although the way Parkes is ridng ,losing money.Even with dead heat rules the TAB seems to pay out higher on J Challenge Cheers D H

Agree as above. I enjoy the Jockey and Driver Challenge bet types as an entertainment bet type. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose and sometimes it's a deatheat. But that's OK because I understand the deadheat rules, I am also struggling to see Sparrow's logic. Given the example above, I don't know the odds but I'm assuming someone like Sam Collett came up short of expectations so you get a tiny payout, someone like Hazel probably exceeded expectations so followers were grateful for their payout. In other words, just punting. Punting is punting is punting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lowdown said:

Agree as above. I enjoy the Jockey and Driver Challenge bet types as an entertainment bet type. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose and sometimes it's a deatheat. But that's OK because I understand the deadheat rules, I am also struggling to see Sparrow's logic. Given the example above, I don't know the odds but I'm assuming someone like Sam Collett came up short of expectations so you get a tiny payout, someone like Hazel probably exceeded expectations so followers were grateful for their payout. In other words, just punting. Punting is punting is punting... 

Thanks Lowdown. You are correct of course in relation to the punting aspect and the risk and the entertainment value for some people. It's entirely their choice what they bet on but I see much better value elsewhere.  I just see this bet as being heavily weighted in the TAB's favour and I've explained the logic to that in my reply to Idolmite above. I came from an era when there was a huge public campaign to ban the TAB from paying less than your money back (which resulted in the 60% rule) and such dividends are now fairly rare (well except for dividends in the Jockeys/Drivers' Challenges that is) so perhaps you can get why this might grate with an old timer who now sees the TAB again taking people as mugs by offering this type of exotic but punting, like life is full of choocies - and sometimes you are on the winning side of that and sometimes the losing side. Good luck with your punting whatever you choose to put it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, High Sparrow said:

Thanks Lowdown. You are correct of course in relation to the punting aspect and the risk and the entertainment value for some people. It's entirely their choice what they bet on but I see much better value elsewhere.  I just see this bet as being heavily weighted in the TAB's favour and I've explained the logic to that in my reply to Idolmite above. I came from an era when there was a huge public campaign to ban the TAB from paying less than your money back (which resulted in the 60% rule) and such dividends are now fairly rare (well except for dividends in the Jockeys/Drivers' Challenges that is) so perhaps you can get why this might grate with an old timer who now sees the TAB again taking people as mugs by offering this type of exotic but punting, like life is full of choocies - and sometimes you are on the winning side of that and sometimes the losing side. Good luck with your punting whatever you choose to put it on.

It's not "heavily weighted in the TAB's favour" as they pay out basically the same % of the pool whatever the outcome. 

I feel a far bigger ripoff to punters is the dead heat for 3rd rule. You back an animal to "win" and it has to "win", first or first equal. You back it for a "place" and to get a collect the selection has to finish first, second OR third. In other words "PLACE".

Your dividend is not larger if your "place" bet finishes first compared to if your "place" bet finishes third. Unless there's a dead heat for third; effectively there's four horses in the top three across the line, but only the punters on the dead heaters lose some of their payout. A place is a place is a place, and and the total "place pool" should be split 4 ways, not 1st "place" and second "place" paid out as is, and the remaining one third of the pool split in half. A place is a place is a place......there used to be a "win pool" and a "place pool". Now there's a win pool, a first place pool, a second place pool and a third place pool. THAT is something that should be banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Idolmite said:

It's not "heavily weighted in the TAB's favour" as they pay out basically the same % of the pool whatever the outcome. 

I feel a far bigger ripoff to punters is the dead heat for 3rd rule. You back an animal to "win" and it has to "win", first or first equal. You back it for a "place" and to get a collect the selection has to finish first, second OR third. In other words "PLACE".

Your dividend is not larger if your "place" bet finishes first compared to if your "place" bet finishes third. Unless there's a dead heat for third; effectively there's four horses in the top three across the line, but only the punters on the dead heaters lose some of their payout. A place is a place is a place, and and the total "place pool" should be split 4 ways, not 1st "place" and second "place" paid out as is, and the remaining one third of the pool split in half. A place is a place is a place......there used to be a "win pool" and a "place pool". Now there's a win pool, a first place pool, a second place pool and a third place pool. THAT is something that should be banned. 

So how about if you have a bet on a player to finish in the top 3 in a golf tournament?  Your player wins, another finishes runner-up and there is a three way tie for 3rd.  Would you be happy for the dead heaters for third to get the same share as you?  ie despite your player winning you only get 60% of your payout?

Used to annoy me when my horse finished first or second yet my place dividend was reduced because there was a dead heat for third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you all regarding the deadheat for 3rd rule. It's a rip-off. I still won't be betting on a Jockeys' Challenge anytime soon though.

10 hours ago, SMD is rife said:

Tote betting v fixed odds betting. Pity you can't understand the difference. 

I get the difference but I don't think you can compare the two when talking about dead-heats in a FOB option and in a tote odds situation, as was being discussed earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you back a horse say at $1.60 for a place and it dead-heats (and isn't carrying more than 60% of the pool) then you are guaranteed to get $1 back for every $1 invested. Now if you take a Jockeys' Challenge bet at the same odds and there is a deadheat you get 80 cents your money back. Triple deadheat then you might get 55 cents back.  What would you prefer then SMD - the tote risk or the Jockeys Challenge risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HS We understand the rules and a lot of us love Jockey Challenge we know all the rules and are happy to play by them .Thats punting,  like all books they have to balance so in a deadheat we know our bet is going to be a percentage of that bet .But if you are following Parkes at the moment it is easy to calculate nil return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SMD is rife said:

When you take a tote win bet on a horse paying $15 and it dead heats for first how much do you think is fair to receive as a dividend?

The discussion, if you will recall, was about  FOB as it pertains to Jockeys' Challenges and the reasonably good chance that you'd get less than your money back and if people understand that going in then that's a fine - that's their business and their risk. Some new bettors don't and you could say that's a "buyer beware" thing of course.  Comparisons with tote betting are a distraction and that's the point I was trying to make - because its a stone cold certainty that you'll get more dead-heats in the confined options of the Jockeys' Challenge than any tote bet. $7.50 is of course the answer to your question SMD. So now answer my question. What would you as a punter rather have - a deadheat on the tote giving you $1 back or a deadheat on the JC FOB option giving you potentially 55 cents?  And in the context of this discussion, that was actually my original point.  I realise people have different opinions and I totally get that but unfortunately on this site we sometimes seem to get a 'pack' mentality that seeks to deride, belittle and abuse others who hold a different opinion rather than having a civil discussion. Maybe its a reflection of the Trumpian new world order or something - where respect and courtesy for each other go out the window in favour of social media type rants and angry abuse -  and if that's what it's coming too and that's your mode of operation in the world then I really do feel sorry for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, High Sparrow said:

and the reasonably good chance that you'd get less than your money back and if people understand that going in then that's a fine 

Every bet you place there's a reasonably good chance you'll get less than your money back - that's how the TAB can afford to be in business.  Do you think they should stop all betting because new bettors might not realise that they can lose money when they gamble!?

I love that Dueling Banjos scene from Deliverance - watched it on Youtube just now - one of the all time great movie scenes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, High Sparrow said:

The discussion, if you will recall, was about  FOB as it pertains to Jockeys' Challenges and the reasonably good chance that you'd get less than your money back and if people understand that going in then that's a fine - that's their business and their risk. Some new bettors don't and you could say that's a "buyer beware" thing of course.  Comparisons with tote betting are a distraction and that's the point I was trying to make - because its a stone cold certainty that you'll get more dead-heats in the confined options of the Jockeys' Challenge than any tote bet. $7.50 is of course the answer to your question SMD. So now answer my question. What would you as a punter rather have - a deadheat on the tote giving you $1 back or a deadheat on the JC FOB option giving you potentially 55 cents?  And in the context of this discussion, that was actually my original point.  I realise people have different opinions and I totally get that but unfortunately on this site we sometimes seem to get a 'pack' mentality that seeks to deride, belittle and abuse others who hold a different opinion rather than having a civil discussion. Maybe its a reflection of the Trumpian new world order or something - where respect and courtesy for each other go out the window in favour of social media type rants and angry abuse -  and if that's what it's coming too and that's your mode of operation in the world then I really do feel sorry for you.

I think the reason you've got the reaction you have, is because of your completely over the top thread header calling for a bet type that YOU personally don't like, to be boycotted or banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right on that score of the header Idolmite and I shall reflect on that. One's feelings about certain things (like the relative value of Jockeys' Challenges) aren't right or wrong - they just are - so there's no excuse under the sun for anyone directing abuse and anger because they have a different point of view.  That doesn't help us share ideas in a constructive or civil manner does it?  It's schoolyard stuff, nothing more. Getting angry may make the individuals concerned feel a bit more "right" in their own minds for a wee while or whatever but it's never been known to sway many people's opinions in my experience. So while I'm reflecting on my headline writing maybe some others here could reflect on the tone and indignation with which they post when there's a contentious issue raised - in the hope that we can all enjoy our racing experience here - even while agreeing to disagree.  Best of Luck with your punting wherever you decide to put your hard-earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now