rhodieace wrote: rhodieace wrote:
In HK or Singapore is a trainer allowed more than one horse in a race....I see in SA you can have 4-5 horse in the same race........trying to be objective here and wondering if only having 1 horse in a race would lessen "outside or other influences" and make the game slightly more transparent...I say slightly as whenever there is money involved, there is always deception.....
Years ago they introduced couplings to protect punters from being cheated by inside knowledge &/or manipulation of runners under the same control - our operators decided to remove that protection!
Even if the protection was often just a perception,it certainly took away the complaint about the "wrong ones winning" so was better for the image of the game!
Surely then seeing there are so many calls for more transparency in horse racing and less " deception" coupling should be re introduced..I presume they were removed so that the payouts were better...if that's the case the logical answer is restrict trainers to one horse per race...that would eliminate "other horse winning scenario".....
I disagree. What other industry would survive if the unit cost of their product had not been increased for 20+ years?
They need to up the cost of bets,but reintroduce couplings and first timer rules to be fair to punters.
If the operators had been businesslike,the cost of exotics would be minimum R10 per line ,with fractional betting limited to 10% (ie R1)
Pools would increase after the initial shock!!!!
People forget that single tickets made up more than 50% of the PA and Jpot pools in the 70's!
