General Chat

[Wayward Lad]

After hearing that Paul Nichols backed Kandoo Kid ante post for the Hennessy @25/1, somehow it doesn’t sit well with me knowing it after the race and not before

It has got me thinking about whether there should be more transparency around trainers betting, particularly ante post and more importantly, what info the bookmakers get from accepting bets from trainers and in turn how their ante post books change as a result

I have a vague recollection that there was a hoo haa a few years back where bookmakers were highlighted as letting some trainers ‘get on’ in order to technically be buying information. As a result they could hedge the bet and then lengthen other horses within the race market.

The Gambling Commission state that gambling has to be ‘open and fair’……how is letting a trainer back one of his horses and not letting the public know, transparent, open and fair?

In financial markets, then if a key shareholder, stakeholder or/and senior management were to buy shares in the Company they worked for then this would have to be shared publicly, as otherwise it would be deemed as inside trading.

What’s the difference with insider trading and what Nichols and the bookmaker who accepted his ante post bet on Kandoo Kid have done ?

[HoldenTheReins]

After hearing that Paul Nichols backed Kandoo Kid ante post for the Hennessy @25/1, somehow it doesn’t sit well with me knowing it after the race and not before

It has got me thinking about whether there should be more transparency around trainers betting, particularly ante post and more importantly, what info the bookmakers get from accepting bets from trainers and in turn how their ante post books change as a result

I have a vague recollection that there was a hoo haa a few years back where bookmakers were highlighted as letting some trainers ‘get on’ in order to technically be buying information. As a result they could hedge the bet and then lengthen other horses within the race market.

The Gambling Commission state that gambling has to be ‘open and fair’……how is letting a trainer back one of his horses and not letting the public know, transparent, open and fair?

In financial markets, then if a key shareholder, stakeholder or/and senior management were to buy shares in the Company they worked for then this would have to be shared publicly, as otherwise it would be deemed as inside trading.

What’s the difference with insider trading and what Nichols and the bookmaker who accepted his ante post bet on Kandoo Kid have done ?

Agreed. What is the difference between a bookie sponsoring the yard and getting information before the public and insider trading also?

[Istabraq]

Wayward Lad
Gambling Commission are rotten to the core, I wouldn’t be looking at them to protect you/punters.
Bookmakers have been paying trainers for info since the year dot and the GC permit it extensively by the way of yard sponsorship.
Take a look at the record of Bet365s boosts/super boosts and tell me that’s by coincidence…

[ComplyOrDie]

I have zero issue with connections backing a horse for a race, as long as they are not laying it.

Also, I'm pretty sure in one of the interviews Paul done he does state that Kandoo Kid was 'ready to go' and should run a big race. It's then down to whether you trust or believe said trainer.

We don't know for sure the bookmaker knew it was Pauls money that was being placed, I can't imagine he strolled up to his local bookmakers and chucked down a bag on Kandoo Kid, however, him after timing the shit out is something completely different!

[Black Dog]

I wonder if he was asked for proof of income and bank statements

[Wayward Lad]

I have zero issue with connections backing a horse for a race, as long as they are not laying it.

Also, I'm pretty sure in one of the interviews Paul done he does state that Kandoo Kid was 'ready to go' and should run a big race. It's then down to whether you trust or believe said trainer.

We don't know for sure the bookmaker knew it was Pauls money that was being placed, I can't imagine he strolled up to his local bookmakers and chucked down a bag on Kandoo Kid, however, him after timing the shit out is something completely different!

I agree connections should be able to back their horse and not publicly announce it

However a trainer is different in my opinion, as they are regularly quoted on their horses chances in the press etc and I would suggest that if a trainer backs a horse for a race ante post then this indicates that the horse is intended bar injury to run in that race…….that is key information that the bookmakers are technically buying if they lay the bet to the trainer. They can then hedge the bet, go short about the selection and maybe lengthen others in the book. This bet could well have been placed a fair few weeks before the race being 25/1?…..well before he said anything about ‘ready to go’ and ‘will run a big race’…..it’s the ‘intention to run’ and the confidence behind the horse at the ante post stage that is key here IMO

As to whether the bookmaker who laid Nichols the bet knows it was Nichols, then the bookmaker would not necessarily need to, as they would get trends from the potential pseudonym the bet was placed under, that most/all bets were on Nichols horses etc. However you would hope that with the tight financial transparency around betting to ensure ‘crime free’ and betting within acceptable levels to income, that they would know.

Putting the Nichols bet to one side and looking at the principle, then under existing ‘fair and open’ Gambling Act rules, we as the public should not be at a disadvantage around information that could effect markets that we bet on. If a bookmaker pushes out the ante post price on a horse because they have information that they trust that the horse is injured and will not run and shortens others in that race as a result, then this is either insider trading or fraud IMO. How is it ‘fair’ to the customer? When have the GC prosecuted a bookmaker from doing this?

It just doesn’t sit well with me Nichols telling us after the race that he had £100 EW @ 25/1, as this information may or may not have influenced decisions around betting in the market for the public and should IMO been know at the same time between bookmakers and the public

The Gambling Act says ‘fair and open’…..thems the rules !

[ComplyOrDie]

I agree connections should be able to back their horse and not publicly announce it

However a trainer is different in my opinion, as they are regularly quoted on their horses chances in the press etc and I would suggest that if a trainer backs a horse for a race ante post then this indicates that the horse is intended bar injury to run in that race…….that is key information that the bookmakers are technically buying if they lay the bet to the trainer. They can then hedge the bet, go short about the selection and maybe lengthen others in the book. This bet could well have been placed a fair few weeks before the race being 25/1?…..well before he said anything about ‘ready to go’ and ‘will run a big race’…..it’s the ‘intention to run’ and the confidence behind the horse at the ante post stage that is key here IMO

If they struck the bet a couple of weeks earlier then they risk the horse picking up an injury anyway, as the bet would likely be ante post. If they are to be found laying the horse after the bet is struck then of course I do think they need investigating and action taken, but that's not what we are talking about here.

At what point does Paul Nicholls owe any member of the public, information about a horse for betting purposes? Imagine if it had lost (and I imagine a fair few trainers have backed losers over the years).

As to whether the bookmaker who laid Nichols the bet knows it was Nichols, then the bookmaker would not necessarily need to, as they would get trends from the potential pseudonym the bet was placed under, that most/all bets were on Nichols horses etc. However you would hope that with the tight financial transparency around betting to ensure ‘crime free’ and betting within acceptable levels to income, that they would know.

Putting the Nichols bet to one side and looking at the principle, then under existing ‘fair and open’ Gambling Act rules, we as the public should not be at a disadvantage around information that could effect markets that we bet on. If a bookmaker pushes out the ante post price on a horse because they have information that they trust that the horse is injured and will not run and shortens others in that race as a result, then this is either insider trading or fraud IMO. How is it ‘fair’ to the customer? When have the GC prosecuted a bookmaker from doing this?

I do have an issue IF the bookmaker knew the bet was for Paul himself, but we have zero proof of this and it will just be conjecture, nothing more.

[Eggs]

….looks like 365 have taken down their Festival markets.

[ComplyOrDie]

….looks like 365 have taken down their Festival markets.

Must be an error, surely not NRNB?

[EnvoiAlien]

Wait till you find out jockeys can bet as long as they're not riding in the race.

[Eggs]

Must be an error, surely not NRNB?

….not seeing any cash-outs available on Festival bets, I suppose it could be technical although they appear to have other ante-post lists up, inc GN.

[ComplyOrDie]

….not seeing any cash-outs available on Festival bets, I suppose it could be technical although they appear to have other ante-post lists up, inc GN.

Cash outs disappear when they take markets down or remove a selection from the specific race.

Could be technical, like you say, but seems strange that all the others are OK.

[Wayward Lad]

If they struck the bet a couple of weeks earlier then they risk the horse picking up an injury anyway, as the bet would likely be ante post. If they are to be found laying the horse after the bet is struck then of course I do think they need investigating and action taken, but that's not what we are talking about here.

At what point does Paul Nicholls owe any member of the public, information about a horse for betting purposes? Imagine if it had lost (and I imagine a fair few trainers have backed losers over the years).



I do have an issue IF the bookmaker knew the bet was for Paul himself, but we have zero proof of this and it will just be conjecture, nothing more.

Thanks for the push back and debate COD

The issue of the bet being placed a few weeks back and not being known to the public, is not that it won, but how that information may or may not have affected others betting on that race.

Firstly the bookmakers who i believe 99% would have known where the money came from. If Nichols likes a bet then as a busy man he will most likely have followed similar mediums with placing his bets. This will show trends and those trends will probably by and large mainly show Nichols horses being backed. This is all the bookmakers need to once accepting the bet make changes to their book. The bets laid will not always win, but the information will be profitable to them over time.

Then there’s the public who should not be at a disadvantage to the bookmakers IMO on Trainers betting when it’s on one of their horses…. not stakes but whether they have a backed a horse. An example could be where a trainer has two entered two a race four weeks out and they back the outsider of the two in the market …how important is that information to the public/punter when considering an ante post bet at the four week stage?…….id suggest pretty important. Doesn’t mean it will win, it just changes the margins around the race, especially if other similar kind of information is obtained about other horses in the race from other trainers ?

This point isn’t about NIchols, as I am sure it is happening all the time with other trainers, it’s just he opened his mouth during his jubilation post race interview

Where we agree to disagree COD is whether any race horse trainer ‘owes’ the public information for betting purposes about their horses and whether they should disclose where they have had a bet on one of their horses ante post (stakes not req) prior to the race…….then I believe they should, as this information isn’t third party tipster information, it’s someone whose decision on whether the horse runs in the race or not, can easily affect the betting market and some can and do profit from this at the detriment of the public/punter.

Bookmakers should not be technically ‘buying’ information from connections that they in turn profit from

[ComplyOrDie]

Firstly the bookmakers who i believe 99% would have known where the money came from. If Nichols likes a bet then as a busy man he will most likely have followed similar mediums with placing his bets. This will show trends and those trends will probably by and large mainly show Nichols horses being backed. This is all the bookmakers need to once accepting the bet make changes to their book. The bets laid will not always win, but the information will be profitable to them over time.

I think this is the issue.

No one knows for sure. He may have backed it through others, for all we know, we don't even know which bookmaker it was with, i.e. may not be the one he's 'connected' with, who have no idea of his connections either.

Barney Curley used to do it, he was one of the more famous ones, but they're all at it, it happens daily, yes, they don't go public about it like PN did, nor should they, but it happens.

They'll get on whether it's regulated or not. How far down the line do you go in connection with said trainer to stop them having a bet. A partner, a child, parent, nephew/niece, friend....

[Wayward Lad]

I think this is the issue.

No one knows for sure. He may have backed it through others, for all we know, we don't even know which bookmaker it was with, i.e. may not be the one he's 'connected' with, who have no idea of his connections either.

Barney Curley used to do it, he was one of the more famous ones, but they're all at it, it happens daily, yes, they don't go public about it like PN did, nor should they, but it happens.

They'll get on whether it's regulated or not. How far down the line do you go in connection with said trainer to stop them having a bet. A partner, a child, parent, nephew/niece, friend....

We are not talking about a coup here, just where a Trainer has had a a few quid on one of theirs ante post

Trends is all that a bookmaker needs, however much the Trainer tried to disguise their bet with friends/family etc, It doesnt need to win either in order to flag a connection, it’s normally whether it beat the SP, which most ante post bets would do

With regard to Nichols then my guess would be that he placed the bet with a regular bookmaker, fully transparently, having placed many losing and a few winning bets over the years with this particular bookmaker, building a relationship and not having any issues getting on or getting best price etc…….nothing wrong with this

The issue is whether this bet/info should be in the public domain at the time of the bet placement and whether the bookmaker who lays the bet can profit from this information……..I suggest that they can and at the public detriment……some bookmakers may run losing accounts for such customers, which may surprise some

Will anything happen in regard to this, probably not at the moment, but it sticks in my craw hearing the info after the race on Saturday !