Exactas, Trifectas, Quartets - Scratchings

This post concerns the "pay-outs" for these types of bets when there is a scratching involved in your selections. Apologies if it is something that has been "discussed" before but I know not of it if so!

I stand to be corrected but it seems to me that SA bookies refund monies on any bet where there was a possibility the bet may have been a winner had the scratched horse run. They keep any money where the bet loses irrespective of where the scratched horse might have run.

Fair enough you might say on those losing bets as, given the end result, your bet would have lost anyway. But, to me this is fundamentally and ethically wrong as it is impossible for the punter to win. It is a win/no lose situation for the bookies and thus quite clearly scratched horses benefits the bookmaker. It must also increase "speculation" that, heaven forbid it were to ever happen, bookmakers can influence "people" to get horses scratched.

In the UK, I do not know about other countries, where there is a scratched horse, any bet involving that horse is effectively reduced in size to take account of the scratching... ie an exacta becomes a win bet, a trifecta an exacta and, if they had them, I assume a quartet would become a trifecta involving the remaining selections you made. Thus the punter still has an opportunity of winning rather than, at best, simply having their stake returned.

There is also always the possibility that you would not have done these bets if that particular horse had been a known scratching, ie, you might think 1.2.3 will finish first past the post in that order. If say the 3 becomes a non-runner before you place your bet then you may decide not to do a trifecta but to do the exacta instead. In which case you would have won but of course you get nothing but your money back with a scratching.

It is also wrong to simply assume that the result would have been the same if the scratched horse had run. Every horse can have an influence on a race... even at the start as demonstrated with the heavily backed favourite in the first at Bingo yesterday. They can baulk, lead at a different pace to that which the race is run without him, block off a run etc etc etc. Therefore, it is more than possible that a race that finishes 1.2.3 would have finished 3.1.2 for example if the scratched horse had been involved.

It therefore seems wrong to me that the bookies can simply say, you wouldn't have won so we are keeping your money when they are giving you no opportunity to actually win. To me, you either reduce the size of the bet, as they do in the UK as mentioned above, to create a winning opportunity or you refund all bets where a scratched horse was involved.

I hope that all makes sense! lol I would be interested to hear if Hwood wish to comment?

Firstly, all bets are refunded for the proportion that the scratched horse had increased the cost of the bet. If the bet is unable to be valid after the scratching example a str line exacta, then you get a full refund.

Secondly, the only possible explanation for your question is you are somehow taking these bets on fixed odds, to which is currently impossible on all bookies barring betting world.

Thirdly, calling hollywood to comment, as seems to be the norm with regard to any query remotely linked to a general bookmaker, will be fruitless. This given the fact that they only offer these bets on the open bet, and as such mimic the rules of the tote. They have no say. For these rules, refer to point one.

Thanks Thor. Your references to the Tote/Open bets appear very valid. They are not something I consider much as, in the UK I rarely use the tote, and exacta/trifecta dividends in the UK are not determined by the Tote.

That said, does the point not remain the same? You have effectively placed a bet with no chance of winning and that just seems wrong. I don't know if this is the same in the UK etc as, like I say, I don't use the Tote.

Do Bettingworld give you the exacta then on the 1st and 2nd if they finish in those positions and your other horse is scratched?

english do you mean do they give you an exacta if you have taken a trifecta?

Tote wise, yes Bob... ie

As I am sure you know, if you bet on a UK race and, for example, do 3 x 4 x 1 as a trifecta but the 4 is then scratched and it finishes 3 x 1, a UK bookie will pay you out at the exacta dividend based on the csf, I have no idea what the UK Tote do

Englander,

thats not correct, i get full refunds with chandlers

easy Wrote:

---

> Englander,
>
> thats not correct, i get full refunds with
> chandlers

Seriously? I don't do them with VC... actually, thinking about it, lol, I haven't done them with many UK bookies for ages so maybe I am, not unusually talking utter rubbish! Do you know if VC are alone in that or is that the case with the vast majority of UK bookies Easy?

most do a straight refund, what you saying was correct but with so much competition for ones money they had to fall in line with reality.....so if i take a combo fc 1 x 2 x 3 x £10 (60)and 1 gets scratched i get a £40 refund

easy Wrote:

---

> most do a straight refund, what you saying was
> correct but with so much competition for ones
> money they had to fall in line with reality.....so
> if i take a combo fc 1 x 2 x 3 x £10 (60)and 1
> gets scratched i get a £40 refund

?
How do you get 40 easy? I understand 10 stays on 2 x 3 and 10 on 3 x 2 but you get automatically refunded on the bets involving 1 irrespective of where 2 and 3 finish?

absolutely, 1 a non runner so full refund has happened many times and refunds are there.

i know it used to be like you are saying but things change

when i got here if you took a rfc 1x2 and 1 was a non runner then "they" stuck your stake onto the 2 as a win!!! well anyone that accepted that needed their medication upped.

UK bookies have different rules with rfc and tricasts