Just over halfway through reading Harry Findlay: Gambling For Life, written by Neil Harman published Sport Media in 2017.

I’m surprised Mr. Findlay didn’t crack from the stress of gambling. There’s living on the edge and then comes the man himself. He doesn’t do things by halves and a few chapter of his tome have revealed bets that would terrify even a hardened gamblers. Here’s one day Harry would rather forget and it’s a killer of a day when gambling for all the wrong reasons hits him hard in the pocket.

In October 1989 he would have a day he would rather forget.

The day started off badly when the hotel he was staying didn’t give him his early-morning call. This led him to not only missing a flight to Newcastle to go to the dogs at Brough Park. It put him in a mood. After going to reception and almost scaring the life out of two receptionists who were apologetic about the missed call he went back to his room.

He said in his own words: ‘Picking up the Sporting Life was the worst thing I did in my life.’

Bored with the thought of not getting to the dog meeting with four sound chances he looked through the Sporting Life and noticed race meeting at Hexham. At that time, he was betting golf and snooker. In fact, he hadn’t even heard of Hexham. However, he decided he would go to the races to kill some time.

Harry said: ‘It almost killed me!’

In the first race he lumped on the 1/4f betting £1,600 to win £400. Ben Ledi cleared the water and its legs splayed and went down.

He started chasing his losses and backed the next four odds-on shots which all went by the way. With each loss he had lumped on more cash and by the final loser he detailed the bad news.

A major loss.

Reading the book I wasn’t sure how much a big loss.

It was £100,000.

In fact, he seemed to make some of these bets on credit and had to pay back the said bookmaker over a period of time.

It’s truly remarkable how chasing losses can lead to something quite terrifying.

In truth, this style of betting is par for the course for Findlay. It makes for a great read but, in ways, a truly tragic approach to gambling. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if someone is winning money their approach cannot be viewed as wrong. He had both good and bad days so make of it what you will.

The moral of this story is to bet on what you know and never chase losses. By its very nature, it can’t end well and it never does. I think we have all been there. Even the best of gamblers have lost their discipline and got sucked into an emotional roller coaster which gnaws at their soul.

Imagine losing £100,000.

I know most people wouldn’t have the funds to lose that type of money but how Findlay could cope with such losses must take its toll on both body and mind. I guess it helped him cope with the £1M+ loss when betting on New Zealand to win the World Cup in 2007.

What a killer.

I take my hat off to Harry Findlay because he has lived life on the edge and pushed gambling to a point I wouldn’t want to imagine.

Good luck to him.

To put it succinctly, yes, he was. Not to be confused with compatriot and contemporary Robert Arthur Davies, the ‘other’ Bob Davies, Robert Bertram Davies, won the National Hunt Jockeys’ Championship three times, in 1968/69, when he shared the title with Terry Biddlecombe, 1969/70 and 1971/72. Since then, the jockeys’ title has been won exclusively by Irish and English-born jockeys, just ten of them, of whom all bar one – Harry Skelton in 2020/21 – were multiple winners.

In chronological order, the Irish winners were Ron Barry, Tommy Stack, Jonjo O’Neill, Richard Dunwoody, Tony McCoy and, most recently, Brian Hughes. Of course, far and away the most successful of that sextet was McCoy, who won 20 consecutive titles between 1995/1996 and his retirement, at the end of the 2014/15 season. In a similar order, the English winners since 1971/1972 were John Francome, Peter Scudamore, Richard Johnson and the aforementioned Harry Skelton. Scudamore was the most successful of that quartet, with eight titles to his name, including seven in a row between 1985/86 and 1991/92. His first title, in 1981/82, though, owed much to the magnanimousness of reigning champion John Francome, who gave up riding when he drew level with Scudamore in the title race, allowing his injured rival to share the spoils.

 

As a footnote, we would like to thank esteemed author and journalist Brian Lee, Wales’ most respected horse and experienced horse racing writer, for submitting this question. In fact, we often refer to his previous work when researching questions relating to horse racing in The Principality because, quite frankly, he knows a lot more than we do! Nevertheless, if would like to put us to the test, please do submit your question, however obscure, and we’ll do our level best to provide you with a comprehensive, well-researched answer.

Photo by Mike Kotsch on Unsplash

Understanding all the rules and regulations of betting operators would be a challenging task. However, it is in the bettors’ best interests to have a basic understanding of the most common rulings that could affect them.

A Rule 4 deduction is a common ruling that most typically affects horse and greyhound racing in the UK. It is a deduction that occurs from any winnings if a race takes place with one or more non-runners. Essentially, it is used because a race without one of the runners is easier to win for the remaining competitors.

Rule 4 is an industry-wide ruling that is typically expressed as pence in the pound rather than as a percentage.

How a Rule 4 Affects a Bet

When Rule 4 is applied, the amount declared is taken off the winnings and the stake that is returned remains intact. An example of this could be a £1 single on a 10/1 winner with a 10p Rule 4 applied. The customer would receive their original £1 stake back and the winnings would have a 10 pence deduction per pound. This means they would receive £9 in winnings (instead of the £10 if there was no Rule 4), for a total return of £10.

Rule 4 will also be applied against the each-way part of a bet and any accumulators that include that selection. Of course, Rule 4 is only applied to that specific selection in the bet.

Rule 4 Deductions

The deduction amount of Rule 4 is directly related to the odds of the selection that does not run. If the non-runner is a long shot that was not expected to place, Rule 4 deductions will be lower or may not be applied.

Alternatively, if the non-runner had short odds or was the favourite, it will be deemed to have had a far greater impact on the final result and Rule 4 deductions will be much greater. Punters should always consult a guide for the safest sites to find a reputable bookmaker that will apply Rule 4 deductions fairly and in line with industry standards.

Here are the deductions relative to the odds of potential non-runners to give you a better idea of how a race could be affected:

 

– 5p for odds from 10/1 to 14/1

– 10p for odds from 6/1 to 9/1

– 15p for odds from 9/2 to 11/2

– 20p for odds from 10/3 to 4/1

– 25p for odds from 5/2 to 3/1

– 30p for odds from 15/8 to 9/4

– 35p for odds from 13/8 to 7/4

– 40p for odds from 5/4 to 6/4

– 45p for odds from evens to 6/5

– 50p for odds from 20/21 to 5/6

– 55p for odds from 4/5 to 4/6

– 60p for odds from 8/13 to 4/7

– 65p for odds from 8/15 to 4/9

– 70p for odds from 2/5 to 1/3

– 75p for odds from 3/10 to 2/7

– 80p for odds from 1/4 to 1/5

– 85p for odds from 2/11 to 2/17

– 90p for odds from 1/9 and below

 

If there is more than one non-runner in a race, multiple Rule 4s can be applied up to a maximum of 90p.

Reformed Markets

If there is time for a market to be reformed before the race, Rule 4 will only be applied to bets that have taken an early price prior to the announcement of the non-runner. Bettors who explore the ante-post market can enjoy early prices for races and events and can offer great value for money, but it’s worth noting the possible greater impact of Rule 4.

The Markets Rule 4 Can Affect

Rule 4 is most typically found in horse or greyhound racing, but it can be applied to other markets that are affected by a competitor not participating.