Hiow would YOU bet on his race?

[admarlow]

all odds on all 6 horses are 2/1, you can bet each way and you have 10 pounds to spend. - Answers on a postcard lol

[factor-fiction]

Ok chakka- you understand the terminology better than I do, but I suspect it was just sloppy wording. I can't imagine odds of 2-1 on being set in these circumstances. They might as well just say no winnings are payable- just bet for fun and your £10 goes to charity

[Quizmonster]

Odds represent a percentage chance of any occurrence actually happening. 2/1 AGAINST = 33.33%, so six runners at those odds = 199.98%...virtually 200%. I know bookies invariably create an over-round book...ie one that totals over 100%, which is how they manage to survive happily...but 200% is absurd.
If they're all at 2/1 ON, that = 66.67% and with six runners we are looking at 400%.
Given that there can be only a 100% chance of SOME horse(s) winning, no sane punter would look at a bet of ANY sort in either race.

[Mick-Talbot]

not sloppy wording factor, if admarlow had meant odds on he would have put 1-2 not 2-1.

[R1Geezer]

he said 2-1 chakka not 2-1 on or even 1-2. the word "ON" earlier in the sentence does not apply to the odds

[Mick-Talbot]

there is only one way to bet on the race, £10 on the nose, and hope your luck is in.

[sandyRoe]

^^^ Agree. Treat the £10 as a charitable donation ans stick it on the one whose name takes your fancy

[chakka35]

Oh dear, I didn't mean to get bogged down in semantics; I merely wanted admarlow (now strangely silent) to clear up an ambiguity. I cannot agree, R1G, that the word 'on' earlier in the sentence does not imply odds-on. What else can it mean when he actually says 'odds on'? If I were to say that the odds against a horse were 2-1 would you say that 'against' does not apply because it comes earlier in the sentence?

Anyway, let's not quibble, let's assume odds against while reminding admarlow that if he wants this to be a mathematical question then he should be more precise with his terms.

6 horses at 2-1 against goes against all the rules of racing and book-making. There is no way one can make a sensible bet one way or the other. If they are meant to be mathematical probabilities then they are impossible. A boringly silly question.

[R1Geezer]

accepted termonlogy for odds on bets has always been by adding the word "on" after the odds or by reversing the 2 figures, eg 2-1on or 1-2 are equally valid. On planet chakka perhaps you can extract a random word from a sentence and apply it to a later word but to the rest of us that's not the case.

When he says odd on he measns odds on the event, not odds on in the betting sense. Often the odds of an even are quoted using the word on but they don;t mean odd on. eg the odds on white xmas are 5-1, that does not mean 5-1on or indeed 1-5.

[chakka35]

Certainly, when words are not involved (as in a newspaper race-card) the 'on' or 'against' situation is denoted by the order of the digits: 2-1 means two-to-one against, 1-2 means one-to-two against, i.e two-to-one on. But when words are involved, then it's the words that count.

"The odds on a white Christmas are 5-1 against" makes no sense, I'm pleased to say, on our highly literate planet chakka. I'm surprised it makes sense on anyone's planet. But there we are; it takes all sorts...

[johne1892]

£10 to win on 1 horse would give you a 50% chance of winning (finishing in places 1,2 or 3 out of 6)

The value of the win would either be £20 (if oyur horse won) plus your stake back OR the odds of 2-1 divided by the each-way split. We would need to know if this was by 2,3 or 4 to work out the winnings. If it was 3 way then you would win £6.66 plus your original stake.

[R1Geezer]

you mean £5 each way john, and only the first 2 are placed for a 6 horse race

[squarebear]

You might as well just put £1.50 on each horse then at least you will get some money coming in.

[johne1892]

Thanks Geezer, I know I shouldn't have tried answering that question late on a Saturday night.