Todays All Weather Meetings (Stephen Arnold)

J

Jim Bowen

At the Start
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
64
Just had a fews texts off a mate who says Paddy Power have limited betting on a few of the Lingfield races today to a fiver, also only SP for 3 races at Kempton tonight. My mate also says they've had a security warning in the shops in regard to these races and to be on the lookout for big bets.

Now the only thing I can notice about the races he mentioned is that Stephen Arnold has runners in each of them, and there's be significant money for at least two of them (Daniel Thomas and Decent Fella). PP are SP on both those races and a couple more online, they're currently at 3/1 and 4/1 with 365 though, have come in from 10's and 8's.

Anyone know anything about this, other than my utter speculation and a bit of movement in the markets?
 
@THTRacing: Arnold L31:

Daniel Thomas 11/1 >> 2/1
Profile Star 7/1 >> 5/2
Decent Fella 16/1 >> 3/1
We Have A Dream 9/1 >> 3/1
Brown Pete 6/1 >> 6/4
 
the owners a clown, hes posted his bet on twitter (no reference to the ammount) no doubt the lemmings have followed suit, the bookmakers have shortened up & now reports of a coup. get a grip. this does pose a good lay opportunity tho.
 
Is it the business of the BHA to thwart attempted gambles-the all weather stinks which is only to be expected when you have horses racing for a couple of thousand.I have to say I place laid the first horse in the coup-a 12yo racing on the all weather-couldn't understand why some major bookies refused to offer prices-the2/1 sp was scandalous.
I heard Lydia reading out a BHA press release about an alleged abuse of rule 4 at Southwell yesterday-she was so sincere reading it that I'm sure it never occured to her who are the mainanipulators of rule 4 deductions.
 
Last edited:
LUKE said:
Is it the business of the BHA to thwart attempted gambles-the all weather stinks which is only to be expected when you have horses racing for a couple of thousand.I have to say I place laid the first horse in the coup-a 12yo racing on the all weather-couldn't understand why some major bookies refused to offer prices-the2/1 sp was scandalous.
I heard Lydia reading out a BHA press release about an alleged abuse of rule 4 at Southwell yesterday-she was so sincere reading it that I'm sure it never occured to her who are the mainanipulators of rule 4 deductions.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you mention the rule 4 deductions Luke as no one seems interested in dealing with it. Bookies are shortening non runners after they are declared non runners to move the rule 4 in their favour but try getting anyone to address it. Seems to be a 15 minute window or so to lower the price and then take the horse out of the betting. I've mentioned it to Bruce Millington and a few bookies and someone mentioned it on the RP comments section yesterday but they got deleted.
 
Not to mention the pricing of putative overnight non-runners within the R4 scale, to ensure clawback from every early bet placed.
 
Last edited:
It is turning from the sport of kings to the sport of mongs with **** like this going on. The Barney coups are a bit different, as you have to respect the planning and effort that goes into them over a many months or even years, but there seems to be another attempt to emulate him every other week on the all weather now, it is becoming a joke. This Arnold guy needs looking into as well, based on his Twitter feed and so on. He was banned but was still posting up info about the horses he owned and clearly still owned them in someone else's name.

It is kind of ironic though that the bookmakers wanted all this dross racing because they saw it as easy money but then start crying when coups happen. I suppose owners who're racing for £1500 a time will always be tempted to try and make it pay in other ways.
 
Last edited:
Steve Arnold certainly has questions to answer.
For as long as I've been punting rule 4 has nearly always worked in the bookies favour-the only time I was badly caught by was after backing a 33/1 winner on a weekend away.Only last week Ladbrokes were trying to enforce a rule 4 deduction on nrnb Cheltenham bets.
 
LUKE said:
Steve Arnold certainly has questions to answer.
For as long as I've been punting rule 4 has nearly always worked in the bookies favour-the only time I was badly caught by was after backing a 33/1 winner on a weekend away.Only last week Ladbrokes were trying to enforce a rule 4 deduction on nrnb Cheltenham bets.
Click to expand...

Which Ladbrokes?
 
Plenty of shops in England from what I read on a couple of different forums last week.I have no doubt your favourite shop in Ardkeen tried the same stunt.As far as I am aware rule 4 can only be applied after the overnight declaration stage.
 
Is it the business of the BHA to thwart attempted gambles?
Click to expand...

This is the BHA statement, but I don't think it answers your question:

The BHA’s media manager Robin Mounsey said the governing body’s priority was to protect the integrity and reputation of racing and the interests of punters. “The BHA alerted the Gambling Commission yesterday to the possibility of a complex betting-related issue involving races at Lingfield and Kempton,” he said.

“The BHA’s internal monitoring and intelligence networks gathered the information and acted positively once verified and these actions alerted the betting industry in order that bookmakers were able to act in a manner they felt appropriate. The action taken reflects our immediate priority in these situations which is to protect both the integrity and reputation of the sport and the interests of the betting public.

“We will continue to monitor the situation, both in terms of the betting markets but also in relation to the actions of those who may be involved in the matter. Any actions which we deem as either contrary to the rules or as a manipulation of our processes and systems will be acted upon, and subsequently we will ensure that the full circumstances surrounding the case will be examined.”
Click to expand...
 
Arnold trains the horses himself. Stokell (and Violet Jordan before her) have very little involvement.

Apparently his unconventional methods involve feeding them tons and tons of carrots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just thinking about the attempted coup-I wonder was it more about ego then anything else-it sounds like he didn't get that much down -the bookies found out very easily -and he didn't seem that bothered about trying to get on after 11 in the morning.
Will we see him advertising himself as the man the bookies fear at some stage over the next year.
 
Last edited:
The rule 4 system is completely outdated and completely in the punters favour. If you know a horse will be a N/R you can get a massive edge having a bet in the market.
 
Betfair are worse offenders than any of the bookies regarding Rule 4 ( though maybe not intentionally).

The Betfair Reduction Factor is calculated on a horse's market odds 30 minutes before the Off; no re-adjustment is made by Betfair if that subsequently withdrawn horse has drifted markedly in the period before its withdrawal -- say 2 minutes before the Off.
A 4/1 horse at 14:01 pm due to run in the 14:30 race could have drifted to 9/1 by the time of it's withdrawal at 14:28, yet you are hit with the Reduction Factor on your selection appropriate to the 4/1 price.
 
Can't agree with that, Slim. OK, if you know and you want to play like that, then maybe.

It nearly always works against me and for periods I'm plagued by NR's and R4's. A couple of NR's causing 10/15p R4's is a big chunk off a return, and they're usually horses I was more than happy to take on. Then, as has been mentioned, you see some shortening them up before declaring them a NR. It's rare to see a drifter taking itself out of the R4 zone before becoming NR.
 
Last edited:
CPGagie said:
Can't agree with that, Slim. OK, if you know and you want to play like that, then maybe.

It nearly always works against me and for periods I'm plagued by NR's and R4's. A couple of NR's causing 10/15p R4's is a big chunk off a return, and they're usually horses I was more than happy to take on. Then, as has been mentioned, you see some shortening them up before declaring them a NR. It's rare to see a drifter taking itself out of the R4 zone before becoming NR.
Click to expand...

But if the SP is bigger than the price you took minus the rule 4 you get the SP.. Bookmakers get ripped off more by the rule 4 then punters. Look at the incident lately where Stand Guard was a N/R and people got 4/9 about a 1/80 SP.
 
Last edited:
"But if the SP is bigger than the price you took minus the rule 4 you get the SP"

Thats great, if you're allowed BOG, and I guess helps offset it somewhat. Personally I think Bookies just like to moan. I don't see an edge when I'm subjected to NR's and R4's. Now and again I feel a little more confident if a certain horse becomes a NR (my main danger), but that is offset due to the R4 and without the NR, I'd probably have not bothered with the bet anyway, as there'd be no value. The value was originally with taking the NR on.

As I said, if you know something isn't going to run, then maybe there is an angle, for myself (and I suspect the majority), NR's and R4's are a pain in the ass, but thats the way it is. It's also uncanny how many firms shorten a runner up a minute or so before it's declared a NR.

Everyone is different, but for me, I never benefit for R4's, ever.
 
not sure what arnold was pulling, but it sure wasn't a coup in the sense that was reported, most of the horses trailed in miles behind, and surely the majority would have gone close. how about if he wanted 5/1 about a 7/2 shot in a couple of the races involved ? some fancied horses would have drifted a fair bit as a consequence of his comments regarding his own runners....
 
istabraqfromneigh said:
not sure what arnold was pulling, but it sure wasn't a coup in the sense that was reported, most of the horses trailed in miles behind, and surely the majority would have gone close. how about if he wanted 5/1 about a 7/2 shot in a couple of the races involved ? some fancied horses would have drifted a fair bit as a consequence of his comments regarding his own runners....
Click to expand...

Upto his old tricks?
 
im not saying he laid his own horses, it's too obvious and he's got previous. im saying he could possibly have minipulated the markets in order for him to obtain a better price about horse(s) he was actually backing. i have thought this possible a number of times in the past and i think the power some individuals can have on the betting markets could at time be classed as unhealthy. for example if pricewise was an unscrupulous person ( which he probably isn't ) he could easily lead punters and bookies up the garden path in order to obtain a good price about a horse in opposition to one of his selections. any number of people with a reputation for good knowledge could have this affect
 
Back
Top