Author: admin

Flat horse racing whether on the turf or all-weather surface uses Steriline starting stalls. These are used to help position horses in a standardised, positioned in their allotted stall, and start on equal terms.

Horses have to be educated at home so they are confident about being stalled which can seem claustrophobic and noisy. Also, horses are in close proximity to each other and if becoming unsettled can set off horses in adjoining stalls. Horse handlers lead the horses to their stall, odds numbers first, while some trainers may ask for their horse to be entered last because they may be nervous or had problems in the past. If a horse fails to enter the stalls on three occasions it will need a stalls test which has to be passed to continue its racing career. Some horses are so nervous of the stalls, perhaps from a bad experience, they simply never feel confident entering the stalls. It may lead to some horses being banished from racing.

In general, starting stalls are used. However, on turf or if the stalls malfunction on the all-weather they may not be used especially if conditions are testing such as heavy going where it may be impossible to manoeuvre the starting stalls to different points on the racecourse with regard to the race distance. Also, there may be a fear the stalls get stuck in the mud or damage the course and bring about further concerns.

If the starting stalls cannot be used then a flag start is the only option. By all accounts it is a standing start. This is far from ideal especially over a short distance such as five furlongs and particularly with younger horses as they are difficult to control. In essence, the horses are positioned by their jockey with regard to their allotted draw, however, this seems less regimented simply because it is difficult if not an impossible task. The jockeys are called into position and the starter will lower the flag for the race to begin. If a horse or horses start too fast it my be deemed a false start and the horses are called back. This is unlikely to happen because there is no such thing as a perfect start when using the flag. However, false starts do happen on occasions.

If betting, it is imperative you know it will be a flag start rather than using conventional stalls. I have seen many flag starts and some jockeys position their horses a good few metres behind the others (there seems no logic to this but it happens) and it is a huge disadvantage. I have seen horses facing in the wrong direction and the flag is still lowered to start the race and it wasn’t deemed a false start. For this reason you may be wise not to bet if a flag start is taken as you are gambling on the fact of your horse starting on level terms.

I’ve had a few bad experiences of betting on horses when a flag start is used. Last season, I bet on a two-year-old horse over five furlongs at Windsor when using a flag start. The jockey positioned his horse some ten metres behind the others. Then after a false start he did exactly the same thing again. The horse ran an excellent race but had little chance of winning. The stewards didn’t enquire to the running and it was considered satisfactory. I thought it was scandalous.

It should be noted that national hunt horses, which take part in bumper races, hurdles or steeplechases do not use stalls. This is because the horses run over much further distances so the advantage or disadvantage is minimal. Also, the horses being older are more educated are more compliant. In addition, as horses are much bigger and stronger they would need specially made stalls. The main reason for a flag start on the national hunt is that the going is more likely to be testing over the winter period.

Traditionally, all horse races were flag start. In fact, starting stalls were first trialled at Newmarket on the 8^th July 1965. The race was won by a horse named Track Spare ridden by Lester Piggott. They were approved after first being successfully used at Chantilly, France.

The flag start for Flat racing can prove problematic but it is the lesser of two evils when you consider the other option is no racing.

In an effort to register, regulate and, above all, tax street bookmakers, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Winston Churchill, originally imposed betting tax in his Spring Budget in 1926. Beforehand, Churchill had, by his own admission, entertained the ‘gravest doubts’ about the proposal and those doubts proved to be well founded.

Betting tax proved difficult to implement, estimated revenue failed to materialise and the racing community reacted, almost unanimously, with disgruntlement. On-course bookmakers went on strike, Newmarket trainers collectively signed a petition objecting to the tax and its detrimental effect on racecourse attendances and, when two subsequent cuts to the tax rate failed to quell the outcry, Churchill was forced to scrap the scheme the scheme altogether in 1930.

Fast forward three decades and another Conservative government, under Harold Macmillan, enacted the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, which, in turn, led to the legalisation of cash betting in licensed bettings shops on May 1, 1961. Five years later, the Labour Government, under Harold Wilson, reintroduced betting tax on horse racing, at a rate of 2%, on all bets placed with bookmakers.

Betting tax remained in place, in one form or another, until January 1, 2002. The previous March, Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown had announced a major overhaul of the betting duty system; out went the previous betting duty of 6.75%, based on turnover, and in came a new tax, of 15%, based on gross profits. Unlike the previous system, bookmakers could absorb the cost of the new tax, in its entirety, rather than passing it on to off-course punters as a 9% tax, payable on stake money or winnings. Notwithstanding a potential increase in general betting duty to bring it into line with remote gaming duty, set at 21%, on which the government is currently consulting, gambling winnings remain tax-free, even in eyes of HM Revenue & Customs. This of course extends to wins on best casino bonus in usa casinous and other casino and betting sites, which is good news if you find yourself experiencing a bit of good fortune!

Typically associated with horse and greyhound racing, the Computer Straight Forecast (CSF) and the Exacta are fundamentally similar, insofar as they are bets that involve predicting the first- and second-place finishers in an event in the correct order. However, the main difference between them is the way in which winning returns are calculated, which is worthy of further explanation.

Of course, some bookmakers, on the High Street and online, offer fixed odds for straight forecasts before the start of a horse or greyhound race. Those that don’t rely on CSF dividends, which are declared, to a £1 stake, after the race has finished. The CSF dividend is based on the number of starters and the starting prices of the horses involved in the finish; it stands to reason that if, say, two outsiders finish first and second in a ‘cavalry charge’ handicap, such as the Royal Hunt Cup or the Stewards’ Cup, the dividend will be vastly higher than if, say, the market leaders fill the first two places in a single-figure field.

In Britain, the Exacta is effectively the Tote equivalent of the CSF but, by contrast to the latter, is a pool bet, as are all Tote bets. As such, Exacta dividends are calculated by dividing the total amount of money bet into the Exacta pool – subject to a 25% deduction for races governed by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) – by the number of winning tickets. Like the CSF, the Exacta can be reversed, or permed, to include three, four or more selections, to increase the chances of winning; the Reverse Exacta costs double the stake of the simple Straight Exacta, while the Combined Exacta costs proportionately more, because of the number of permutations involved. Naturally enough, the Exacta, like the CSF, is typically only available on fields of three or more runners, unless otherwise stated.

Any racecard, whether it be in printed form, as a self-contained booklet or in a daily newspaper, or online, typically includes a brief synopsis of the recent performances of each horse in each race, displayed as a series of ‘form figures’ immediately to the left of its name. Read from left to right, from the earliest to the latest, the figures indicate the finishing position of the horse in its last half a dozen, or possibly fewer, races; if the horse failed to finish, the figures include an abbreviation indicating the reason why.

Unremarkably, the numbers 1-9 indicate a finishing position between first and ninth, while the number 0 indicates a finishing position of tenth or worse. Beyond ninth place, the figures do not differentiate between lower-placed finishers so, if this information is important to you, for whatever reason, you will need to delve in the detailed formbook. It is also worth noting that the symbols ‘-‘ and ‘/’ are used as separators; the former indicates that figures to its left are from the previous season, while the latter indicates that figures to its left are from the season before last, or earlier.

As far a non-completions are concerned, these are obviously far more common in National Hunt racing than Flat racing. Probably the most common abbreviations in this sphere are ‘F’ for ‘Fell’, ‘U’ for ‘Unseated rider’ and ‘P’ for ‘Pulled up’. The first two are fairly self-explanatory, but a horse may be pulled up for a variety of reasons, usually because it is so far behind its rivals that it has no earthly chance of collecting any prize money. However, a horse may also be pulled up because something is physically amiss, or because of a tack problem, such as a slipping saddle, so further investigation may be necessary.

If a horse bypasses an obstacle, of its own volition, or because it was forced to do so by a rival, it is said to have ‘run out’ or been ‘carried out’, indicated by a letter ‘O’ or letter ‘C’ in its form figures. Other letters you may come across are ‘L’ for ‘Left at start’, ‘R’ for ‘Refused’ and ‘S’ for ‘Slipped up’, ‘D’ for ‘Disqualified’ and ‘V’ for ‘Void race’.