|
I'll just bet (haven't seen it) that they reported that the horse was laid against for that much, not that also it was backed for that much (matched) equally.
|
Quote:
$360.000 Lay is sus on ANY mid-week race. Especialy a race with no depth and only 5 runners. [Read Melb. Age March 20th.]. |
It was matched equally crash by backers as well.
|
Thats not the point. The point is that an odds-on favorite in a 5 horse race was layed for $360,000 to lose. HELLO!
|
True - no one in his right mind would lay the fave under these circumstances for such a large amount in a race where there is not much liquidity unless...(I would probably be censored if I suggested anything untoward, but anyone with a cynical mind would certainly be suspicious).
|
Crash,
apropos your apparently deleted post. All I was trying to say was that layers need backers to consumate the deal. A huge lay happens to correspond to a huge back. Without further information the sharp direction remains undisclosed. |
Fair enough. I cannot confirm how much of the $360,00 was covered.
|
If it was matched $360,000, then $180,000 was laid on the horse and $180,000 was backed on it.
The point is that an odds-on favorite in a 5 horse race was also backed for $180,000 to win a Tuesday Terang race and the maximum Betfair price was only $1.56, which means there was $180,000 available wanting to back the horse already - below that figure. That's what I'm driving at. |
Quote:
|
Reminds me of the case of the trotter that was beaten at around $1.10. This was before BF was licenced in Oz and the media (that don't own part of BF) was outraged that over 90% of the 'pool' was traded on the one horse. Well Duh.........
Every time a horse is odds on the turnover is always higher than usual. Simple mathematics. |
| All times are GMT +10. The time now is 04:29 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.