Price reductions/deductions

I see the subject being debated again today and it is an interesting subject.
In the last debate I pointed out the relationship between % chance and price and the fact that an increased chance leads to a theoretically reduced price -that is fairly clear , however it is another situation where racing punters are on the hind tit as opposed to other sport betting.
Let's assume that 2 of Chelsea key players are ruled out the morning of the match ......the chances of the result change without an adjustment of already struck bets!!!! The same goes for Grand Prix racing -if the championship leader is out before the race starts there is no adjustment of past bets........ The examples are endless so why is racing different ......it is a fair question in this context........add that to the fact that only racing punters pay tax, perhaps the swing to sports betting is no surprise at all!
Should people in the industry not be taking their heads out their bums and taking steps to try and level the playing fields a little???

(had to edit, as first post was from I-phone with pre-emptive text.......goodness knows how it pre-empts some words......lol)

...............and on the subject of tax,interesting that racing betting pools that have to provide the stakes for racing, are taxed ,however sports bets,which have no responsibility to fund the sport ,are tax free.
Is there anybody who can shed some light on the logic that brought that about ,or why,it is allowed to remain unchallenged, by the custodians of racing.
If sports bets and pools were taxed @ 3% ,racing tax could be halved and the SARS coffers would still be better off!
3% points would go some way to improving the value of tote bets(would apply to bookmakers too) but an overall improvement for horse race betting!

If there are no refunds on non-participants, there are no deductions on the rest of the field.
What is wrong with the horse-racing deductions is that is framed as if they are betting to 100% - it should be framed to the real % they are betting to (120%).
Eg, that would make the deduction on an even money shot 40% and not 50%.

fingers wrote: If there are no refunds on non-participants, there are no deductions on the rest of the field.
What is wrong with the horse-racing deductions is that is framed as if they are betting to 100% - it should be framed to the real % they are betting to (120%).
Eg, that would make the deduction on an even money shot 40% and not 50%.

Fair observation on refunds!!
Would be impossible to administer, but deductions would be more correctly linked to the "hold" on scratched runners.....................
As you say, if a book is not subject to any refunds on the scratched runner/s, deduction is unwarranted!! (and unfair :silly: )