General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Posted this before, but want constructive criticism
To ensure the industry SP is FAIR (GC please note) and to stop 'mavericks' that openly flout this, the following should be relatively simple to implement:
When an overround of more than 115% is returned from the course, the SPRC should intervene. With the help of, primarily this exchange they should reassess all runners to produce an 'industry' book that brings the race back to 115% - then return that back for the rest of the industry to settle to
Course punters will still suffer, but the rest of the gambling public will be protected from these sharks. Its absurd that in this day and age, overrounds are allowed to run upto 150% - the regulator could make an instant win here.
One things for sure - the industry bookmakers wont be wanting any change
To ensure the industry SP is FAIR (GC please note) and to stop 'mavericks' that openly flout this, the following should be relatively simple to implement:
When an overround of more than 115% is returned from the course, the SPRC should intervene. With the help of, primarily this exchange they should reassess all runners to produce an 'industry' book that brings the race back to 115% - then return that back for the rest of the industry to settle to
Course punters will still suffer, but the rest of the gambling public will be protected from these sharks. Its absurd that in this day and age, overrounds are allowed to run upto 150% - the regulator could make an instant win here.
One things for sure - the industry bookmakers wont be wanting any change
Show More
My only criticism is this:
Who exactly do you think is going to step forward and do something about it? Who has an incentive to do so?
You may as well attack the course bookmakers that play along with the practices that go on. How often do you see 4/6 when its evens on here, then 8/13 4/7 8/15 1/2 while on here its trading at 6/5+. Too often to surmise that the course bookies either: rely on the revenue they make here from ripping off punters in betting shops nationwide to make their game pay handsomely enough or b) Don't give a damn - because we all know they are completely aware of what's going on on betfair. They could easily refuse to shorten it up and push it out to a fair SP whilst making plenty on the race (and in fact they should do occasionally, I would think - a lot of volume and a massive arb for them) - but they don't.
Who exactly do you think is going to step forward and do something about it? Who has an incentive to do so?
You may as well attack the course bookmakers that play along with the practices that go on. How often do you see 4/6 when its evens on here, then 8/13 4/7 8/15 1/2 while on here its trading at 6/5+. Too often to surmise that the course bookies either: rely on the revenue they make here from ripping off punters in betting shops nationwide to make their game pay handsomely enough or b) Don't give a damn - because we all know they are completely aware of what's going on on betfair. They could easily refuse to shorten it up and push it out to a fair SP whilst making plenty on the race (and in fact they should do occasionally, I would think - a lot of volume and a massive arb for them) - but they don't.
So 115% on a 2 horse race and 115% on the Grand National?
So if the SP is always to 115% , would you switch from betting on here to betting at SP ?
1.5% a runner is a significant margin and a more fair "guide". The other 2 posters have a point
The answer is simple . bet with the best ..Betfair ... and close your bookies accounts right now ...
If you are serious about punting then SP should be of little consequence to you
joshuag 11 Jan 11:46
If you are serious about punting then SP should be of little consequence to you
Unless you are serious about each-way punting, that is, in which case its quite important.
If you are serious about punting then SP should be of little consequence to you
Unless you are serious about each-way punting, that is, in which case its quite important.
Treble
The GC, and via their legislative option, the SPRC
Maria
OK - a scale between 110-118, dependent on race size/ condition - but why be so pedantic, when the real issue is to right a wrong!
Can anybody see anything wrong with the suggestion? or on it being easily implemented?
The GC, and via their legislative option, the SPRC
Maria
OK - a scale between 110-118, dependent on race size/ condition - but why be so pedantic, when the real issue is to right a wrong!
Can anybody see anything wrong with the suggestion? or on it being easily implemented?
Why only horse racing? it only makes a small percentage of the market bookmakers are operating in
In which case you would have to have a miminimum overround for every market in every sport
And why not apply that to every single item available for purchase in a supermarket
Personally I'm absolutely fine with a system whereby mug punters are treated and suffer as such, and greedy uncompetitive companies lose business from discerning customers
In which case you would have to have a miminimum overround for every market in every sport
And why not apply that to every single item available for purchase in a supermarket
Personally I'm absolutely fine with a system whereby mug punters are treated and suffer as such, and greedy uncompetitive companies lose business from discerning customers
starfish
whats wrong with a 115% overround in every sport?
Theres enough profit there for the bookies, even after their costs - and just because there are mug punters around, does not mean they should be fleeced by the sharks - The GC is there to protect them, supposedly
whats wrong with a 115% overround in every sport?
Theres enough profit there for the bookies, even after their costs - and just because there are mug punters around, does not mean they should be fleeced by the sharks - The GC is there to protect them, supposedly
whats wrong with a 15% overround in every sport?
are you serious? you're starting to lose it now
someone has already pointed out its not looking too great in a 2 horse race, and its 5-7% higher than football match betting
Get a concept of over-rounds and markets before you start proposing some ad-hoc legislation
are you serious? you're starting to lose it now
someone has already pointed out its not looking too great in a 2 horse race, and its 5-7% higher than football match betting
Get a concept of over-rounds and markets before you start proposing some ad-hoc legislation
Ive already pointed out it could be less for the 2 horse race, but should average 15%
I truly do know the concept of overrounds, so stop deflecting the thread into pointless debate and concentrate on the suggested method to correct something that is obviously wrong
I truly do know the concept of overrounds, so stop deflecting the thread into pointless debate and concentrate on the suggested method to correct something that is obviously wrong
The difference with sports betting is that each book can have their 15% overround, but we as selective punters (if we can get on) are faced with an overall best price book that is nearing 100% in the majority of cases.
The same sort of competition just does not apply to horse racing SPs
The same sort of competition just does not apply to horse racing SPs
Sorry birch - I don't see you answering my question about incentives for the GC. I'm approaching the question from a cynical/devil's advocate POV.
Ok, we'll disregrad over-rounds, which I thought was central to your point.
Regarding markets, most seem to operate on the basis that if a customer doesn't like the price he will buy it elsewhere, or not at all.
(unless the purchase decision is not motivated solely by value, or if the customer is lazy/ignorant)
Regarding markets, most seem to operate on the basis that if a customer doesn't like the price he will buy it elsewhere, or not at all.
(unless the purchase decision is not motivated solely by value, or if the customer is lazy/ignorant)
OK Treble
The incentive is to stand by 1 of their 3 objectives (thats suppose to be the meaning for their existence)- to ensure fair play and to protect the vulnerable.
The incentive is to stand by 1 of their 3 objectives (thats suppose to be the meaning for their existence)- to ensure fair play and to protect the vulnerable.
Ok - but why pick on this. Bookmaking is full of (arguably much worse) practices than the abuse of the SP system. Some might even call the abuse of the SP system by the books good business - vs some other practices that go on in shops and elsewhere. So why should the GC start here? In fact, from any dealings I've had with the GC, this subject is far too complex and well outside of their knowledge base for a starting point on "cleaning up gambling" or horseracing in general.
I should say I'm 100% behind someone trying to do something about it - just 100% pessimistic about anyone (especially the GC) doing something about it. As I mentioned course bookies could do something about it - but they don't.
I should say I'm 100% behind someone trying to do something about it - just 100% pessimistic about anyone (especially the GC) doing something about it. As I mentioned course bookies could do something about it - but they don't.
Treble
Because it is totally wrong and could be corrected with little effort or even without legislation - As far as I see it, the GC have the power to instigate the necessary changes now
Other than yourself and a couple of others, I seem to have attracted bookie sympathisers
Because it is totally wrong and could be corrected with little effort or even without legislation - As far as I see it, the GC have the power to instigate the necessary changes now
Other than yourself and a couple of others, I seem to have attracted bookie sympathisers
birch,
How will you decide on which horse the 'correction' is made ?
Only the winner ?
How will you decide on which horse the 'correction' is made ?
Only the winner ?
I seem to have attracted bookie sympathisers
Or bookie couldntcarelessabouters, if that's a word. Guilty as charged
Or bookie couldntcarelessabouters, if that's a word. Guilty as charged
Cargo
Where there is blatant disparity - eg Tiddliwinks the other day - then the SPRC can look at exactly where the major differences are (between the books and here) and for which horses - it may be only 1 or 2 in races such as this.
They can then quickly readdress a situation where a 130+ overround is 'corrected' by (particularly) increasing the odds of the shorter priced horses* to eventually return an overround of near 115%
* on a pro-rata basis
The exact parameters can be determined later - its the concept that needs to be grasped
Where there is blatant disparity - eg Tiddliwinks the other day - then the SPRC can look at exactly where the major differences are (between the books and here) and for which horses - it may be only 1 or 2 in races such as this.
They can then quickly readdress a situation where a 130+ overround is 'corrected' by (particularly) increasing the odds of the shorter priced horses* to eventually return an overround of near 115%
* on a pro-rata basis
The exact parameters can be determined later - its the concept that needs to be grasped
It doesn't happen often, but if Dvinsky had won that race would you want it recalculated to the Betfair SP of 11'2 as opposed to the Industry SP of 6'1?
What would you do with a Comply or Die situation in a Grand National?
What would you do with a Comply or Die situation in a Grand National?
Perhaps Padraig Power could step forward and sponsor someone to look at how the SP system could be fairer.
They've done it once already.
They've done it once already.
I'm sure everyone grasps what you're aiming for but in practise it's not as simple as you think
Then there are those like me who dont care about lazy ignorant foul-mouthed layabout customers of betting shops
But can I remind you that for many decades we have had a Tote operating which also throws up many many discrepancies, not always at high prices as i remember a 2'1 winner returned at 4'1 on the Tote.
Would you also have to make your SP's correlate to the Tote??
Betfair and the SP market are independent entities and will remain so unless they are properly and whole-heartedly merged
Then there are those like me who dont care about lazy ignorant foul-mouthed layabout customers of betting shops
But can I remind you that for many decades we have had a Tote operating which also throws up many many discrepancies, not always at high prices as i remember a 2'1 winner returned at 4'1 on the Tote.
Would you also have to make your SP's correlate to the Tote??
Betfair and the SP market are independent entities and will remain so unless they are properly and whole-heartedly merged
Birch, now you've returned. Answer my question, if these rules that you are after, come into being will you bet at SP rather than on here ?
zipper 11 Jan 10:45
The answer is simple . bet with the best ..Betfair ... and close your bookies accounts right now
But if your a winner pay extra 20percent tax terrific.
The answer is simple . bet with the best ..Betfair ... and close your bookies accounts right now
But if your a winner pay extra 20percent tax terrific.
Ian P
Its not what I bet to thats important here - its whats fair and reasonable to the wider public
Many respondents here are taking a personal view of this - wheres your affiliation to your fellow punter....... or are you all that shallow?
Its not what I bet to thats important here - its whats fair and reasonable to the wider public
Many respondents here are taking a personal view of this - wheres your affiliation to your fellow punter....... or are you all that shallow?
Then there are those like me who dont care about lazy ignorant foul-mouthed layabout customers of betting shops
Sorry if I didn't make my lack of affiliation clear enough, and I don't see what is shallow is about it
Sorry if I didn't make my lack of affiliation clear enough, and I don't see what is shallow is about it
starfish
Yes, you have a point re the tote (although this is far less likely than recent overround cases)
But where do you get off with labeling all bet shop punters like this?
Yes, you have a point re the tote (although this is far less likely than recent overround cases)
But where do you get off with labeling all bet shop punters like this?
Sorry, I didn't mean to single them out in particular, there's a fair enough carry-over of that ilk on to Betfair, judging by the whinging and moaning thats goes on
Look at the number of threads on here complaining about this that and the other, finding someone to blame for every loser, claiming that all racing is fixed anyway.
Do you think that tinkering with over-rounds in anyway going to satisfy them , or indeed make them any more the richer in the long-run?
Look at the number of threads on here complaining about this that and the other, finding someone to blame for every loser, claiming that all racing is fixed anyway.
Do you think that tinkering with over-rounds in anyway going to satisfy them , or indeed make them any more the richer in the long-run?
starfish
they may not be any richer 'in the long run' - but they deserve a fair deal
they may not be any richer 'in the long run' - but they deserve a fair deal
checking out now, good night Birch, apologies i said you dont understand O/R :-)
OK - would still like someone to put a case to show my suggestion is not achievable quickly and legitimately
Well... rightly or wrongly the SP market is tied to the oncourse market .....what would be the incentive for anyone to bet on-course? .....no punter would never know if a couple of minutes later their winner is going to pay out at much bigger odds at SP
It's not a quick and easy**..it needs a total overhaul of the market
Personally I wouldnt have minded a Tote monoply pre-betfair so that you're simply playing against your fellow punter on a level playing field with a guaranteed overround and no suspicion about prices
If that cant be achieved then quite happy with the status quo which in theory would mean greedy bookmakers going to the wall
The fact they havent since Betfair is because they have enough fodder willing to play AWP and cartoon racing..because THEY DONT CARE about ORs and value whatever you do with SPs
It's not a quick and easy**..it needs a total overhaul of the market
Personally I wouldnt have minded a Tote monoply pre-betfair so that you're simply playing against your fellow punter on a level playing field with a guaranteed overround and no suspicion about prices
If that cant be achieved then quite happy with the status quo which in theory would mean greedy bookmakers going to the wall
The fact they havent since Betfair is because they have enough fodder willing to play AWP and cartoon racing..because THEY DONT CARE about ORs and value whatever you do with SPs
And incidentally .... carping about the returned SP is nothing a new .. I remember an investigation many years ago in response which showed that just as many winners were returned at a higher price from the last SIS show than were shortened.... it advised the best time to back the winner at a higher price was 2 minutes before the off...... I suspect little has changed
Morning starfish
In my opening post, I stated that course punters would still suffer, (although I'm sure there would be an SP option on course)
The point I'm trying to make is that for the rest of the betting shop public (which would probably equate to 99%) the SP would be returned to around 115% and settled fairly.
AWP's, virtual racing etc has no relevance to this
In my opening post, I stated that course punters would still suffer, (although I'm sure there would be an SP option on course)
The point I'm trying to make is that for the rest of the betting shop public (which would probably equate to 99%) the SP would be returned to around 115% and settled fairly.
AWP's, virtual racing etc has no relevance to this
Oh well .. good luck to you .. of course it would benefit betting shop customers .. just dont go getting too dewy-eyed over them cos honestly they're not worth it
apart from the obvious(competition laws and such) the problem with sp's is with the system - not the bookies. i mean at kempton, 4pm start, there's none to bet to - literally. it's easy to say they must do this/that - but with no customers the problem is even getting books to the track
Sportsadvisor
Apart from calling them sharks, my gripe is not really with the bookies - as you say the sp system is wrong - what I'm trying to point out is how easily it can be corrected
Apart from calling them sharks, my gripe is not really with the bookies - as you say the sp system is wrong - what I'm trying to point out is how easily it can be corrected
It's conceivable that the industry (to the extent that it's separate from the bookmakers) wd have an interest in publicising a low takeout toat.
Otherwise, I don't see how you can tell companies and traders what prices they shd set.
Otherwise, I don't see how you can tell companies and traders what prices they shd set.
Best price guaranteed players are affected also artie. It's a massive rip-off that could only happen in rip-off Britain. Thatcher would be proud of the big 3.
Well the whole point Of Thatcherism, Friedmanism whichever, is that rip-off companies will not succeed in a competitive market.
And this particular market is massively different from 1999 let alone 1979.
One part of the theories was access to 'perfect information' but they would have had absolutely no concept about the levels of information that consumers would have to make their purchasing decision 30 years later
You have 14 or so early prices to choose from, Betfair, the Tote, and the SP market. You can back or lay. Spread bet. You have reams of information about what to back or lay. You have equality of access to the market and what is available. You can bet on just about anything. No betting tax.
No punter is forced to back at SP, no punter is forced to be on horses.
If they stopped doing so, the rip-off companies should suffer.
Even in this 'perfect market' in competition terms, a perfect market way in excess of anything economists could have envisaged, they dont.
Dont try to tinker ad hoc with individual races if they dont look right : thats the premise of this thread and its unworkable. By all means change the entire SP structure to make it fairer and pay more.
A Betting shop punters will still subsidise the giants with their mindless practises. And dont make out we've drifted from a good market state into a bad one because its the absolute reverse.What didnt change is that punters are stupid
And this particular market is massively different from 1999 let alone 1979.
One part of the theories was access to 'perfect information' but they would have had absolutely no concept about the levels of information that consumers would have to make their purchasing decision 30 years later
You have 14 or so early prices to choose from, Betfair, the Tote, and the SP market. You can back or lay. Spread bet. You have reams of information about what to back or lay. You have equality of access to the market and what is available. You can bet on just about anything. No betting tax.
No punter is forced to back at SP, no punter is forced to be on horses.
If they stopped doing so, the rip-off companies should suffer.
Even in this 'perfect market' in competition terms, a perfect market way in excess of anything economists could have envisaged, they dont.
Dont try to tinker ad hoc with individual races if they dont look right : thats the premise of this thread and its unworkable. By all means change the entire SP structure to make it fairer and pay more.
A Betting shop punters will still subsidise the giants with their mindless practises. And dont make out we've drifted from a good market state into a bad one because its the absolute reverse.What didnt change is that punters are stupid
Well the whole point Of Thatcherism, Friedmanism whichever, is that rip-off companies will not succeed in a competitive market.
And this particular market is massively different from 1999 let alone 1979.
One part of the theories was access to 'perfect information' but they would have had absolutely no concept about the levels of information that consumers would have to make their purchasing decision 30 years later
You have 14 or so early prices to choose from, Betfair, the Tote, and the SP market. You can back or lay. Spread bet. You have reams of information about what to back or lay. You have equality of access to the market and what is available. You can bet on just about anything. No betting tax.
No punter is forced to back at SP, no punter is forced to be on horses.
If they stopped doing so, the rip-off companies should suffer.
Even in this 'perfect market' in competition terms, a perfect market way in excess of anything economists could have envisaged, they dont.
Dont try to tinker ad hoc with individual races if they dont look right : thats the premise of this thread and its unworkable. By all means change the entire SP structure to make it fairer and pay more.
A Betting shop punters will still subsidise the giants with their mindless practises. And dont make out we've drifted from a good market state into a bad one because its the absolute reverse.What didnt change is that punters are stupid
And this particular market is massively different from 1999 let alone 1979.
One part of the theories was access to 'perfect information' but they would have had absolutely no concept about the levels of information that consumers would have to make their purchasing decision 30 years later
You have 14 or so early prices to choose from, Betfair, the Tote, and the SP market. You can back or lay. Spread bet. You have reams of information about what to back or lay. You have equality of access to the market and what is available. You can bet on just about anything. No betting tax.
No punter is forced to back at SP, no punter is forced to be on horses.
If they stopped doing so, the rip-off companies should suffer.
Even in this 'perfect market' in competition terms, a perfect market way in excess of anything economists could have envisaged, they dont.
Dont try to tinker ad hoc with individual races if they dont look right : thats the premise of this thread and its unworkable. By all means change the entire SP structure to make it fairer and pay more.
A Betting shop punters will still subsidise the giants with their mindless practises. And dont make out we've drifted from a good market state into a bad one because its the absolute reverse.What didnt change is that punters are stupid
askari1
Otherwise, I don't see how you can tell companies and traders what prices they shd set
I'm not suggesting someone tells the course bookie what price to set. The SPRC currently tells the industry (off course) what prices to settle to - my suggestion is that the SPRC eradicate the 130+ overrounds by, what to me, seems a very simple method
Yes the big companies wont be too pleased with this, particularly when they're 'manipulating' the market to reduce their liabilities - but the SPRC are not there to serve them
Otherwise, I don't see how you can tell companies and traders what prices they shd set
I'm not suggesting someone tells the course bookie what price to set. The SPRC currently tells the industry (off course) what prices to settle to - my suggestion is that the SPRC eradicate the 130+ overrounds by, what to me, seems a very simple method
Yes the big companies wont be too pleased with this, particularly when they're 'manipulating' the market to reduce their liabilities - but the SPRC are not there to serve them
Well the whole point Of Thatcherism, Friedmanism whichever, is that rip-off companies will not succeed in a competitive market
The Thatcher philosophy is that the unwashed's sole purpose in life is to be ripped off, that they should meekly accept being ripped off and aspire to one day become ripper offs. If she'd been a man she would've worn red braces (NAP).
The Thatcher philosophy is that the unwashed's sole purpose in life is to be ripped off, that they should meekly accept being ripped off and aspire to one day become ripper offs. If she'd been a man she would've worn red braces (NAP).
So what's the difference between a "ripper off", and a "mug fleecer" ( your description of yourself Feck)? Please explain.
I bet my own opinion in 100% books without time or interface advantages over anyone else. If you feel that can be likened to 135% overrounds in 6 horse races artie, you're a ripper offer's dream. I'll tip that Sir Fred is a big hero of years.
Well dont just make up some numbers , are there any English 6 runner horse races returned to 135% SP?
Regarding Thatcherism, fair enough bcos she adopted a economic model for her own ignoble aims. But dont do down Britain just for the sake of it when we've got the most advanced range of choices in the world.
Can you still only bet in coffee shops in France, and only at PMU? I'm not sure but in most countries thats your only choice outside of the internet.
Regarding Thatcherism, fair enough bcos she adopted a economic model for her own ignoble aims. But dont do down Britain just for the sake of it when we've got the most advanced range of choices in the world.
Can you still only bet in coffee shops in France, and only at PMU? I'm not sure but in most countries thats your only choice outside of the internet.
The existance of exchanges hav f all to do with Thatcher.
Well dont just make up some numbers , are there any English 6 runner horse races returned to 135% SP?
I can find 3 (10 130%) 6 horse races since 1995.
I can find 3 (10 130%) 6 horse races since 1995.
Shocking value and you'd hope no idiots touched those races because noone would have made them. If you saw a tin of baked beans on the shelf for £1 you'd leave it where it is
Good database so you will know very well that you can't just take any OR and**with with a lower OR. Thats because most large ORs especially in large fields are because of poor value on outsiders. At odds-on even the SP market is nearly 'perfect'. Its the outsiders from 33'1 up which should really be priced at 100'1
I'm not pro-bookie, (or Thatcher ffs) but it would be pretty unfair and make the market a mess if you start returning evens at 11'8. Back to the point why would anyone on-course or in a bookies bet at a board price if you dont know how the SP is going to be altered
Good database so you will know very well that you can't just take any OR and**with with a lower OR. Thats because most large ORs especially in large fields are because of poor value on outsiders. At odds-on even the SP market is nearly 'perfect'. Its the outsiders from 33'1 up which should really be priced at 100'1
I'm not pro-bookie, (or Thatcher ffs) but it would be pretty unfair and make the market a mess if you start returning evens at 11'8. Back to the point why would anyone on-course or in a bookies bet at a board price if you dont know how the SP is going to be altered
A market that returns 130+ is a mess from a punters viewpoint
Whats been put forward is a way to give the bookies their 15%, (which many would say is still too much) but not allowing them to rip off the total shop betting public.
If you base your arguments against this on 'mug punters deserve what they get' then your outlook on life must be very self centered
Whats been put forward is a way to give the bookies their 15%, (which many would say is still too much) but not allowing them to rip off the total shop betting public.
If you base your arguments against this on 'mug punters deserve what they get' then your outlook on life must be very self centered
On the contrary, it is not at all, and you will not hear me in a bookies shouting for a horse to fall just so i can win a bet, or calling a jockey or a trainer a not very nice word just because i'm a rubbish punter.
I've said repeatedly throughout the thread i'm in favour of a total overhaul to make it fairer. In the current market which is radically different from a few years ago these adults can be treated as such.
If they fancy a drink after leaving the bookies and get a can of lager from the cornershop. if they want to pay less they can get it from a supermarket. If they want to pay more enjoy the convivial surroundings and harrass the barmaid there they'll go to a pub
I've said repeatedly throughout the thread i'm in favour of a total overhaul to make it fairer. In the current market which is radically different from a few years ago these adults can be treated as such.
If they fancy a drink after leaving the bookies and get a can of lager from the cornershop. if they want to pay less they can get it from a supermarket. If they want to pay more enjoy the convivial surroundings and harrass the barmaid there they'll go to a pub
Well Starfish, remember this?
Personally I'm absolutely fine with a system whereby mug punters are treated and suffer as such
Personally I'm absolutely fine with a system whereby mug punters are treated and suffer as such
and this
Then there are those like me who dont care about lazy ignorant foul-mouthed layabout customers of betting shops
Then there are those like me who dont care about lazy ignorant foul-mouthed layabout customers of betting shops
Yup, on my list of the worlds sufferers, they rate pretty low
But they're not all like this, and even these 'unfortunates' deserve fair play
You're absolutely right, they do. Personally for a quick**I would ban cartoon racing and AWPs because they prey on the vulnerable and weak of mind much much more than the SP system. Then I would address the SP system from grass roots because i dont really think it can be treated in isolation by adjusting ORs
Well, after 11 days no-one has put a reasoned argument forward as to why this suggestion should not work in practice
I have put this forward to the GC - and whilst not expecting a change for many months, I will continue until their 'fainess in gambling' objective has been flogged to death
I have put this forward to the GC - and whilst not expecting a change for many months, I will continue until their 'fainess in gambling' objective has been flogged to death
birch, it wdn't work b/c fairer prices wd lead to the off-course books withdrawing from sp and setting industry prices.
This wd have happened had Lord Donoghue's report not tilted things back in favour of off-course layers (or poss. if a full enough sample of course books in certain competitive rings cd even now now fed into the sp).
Only bf liquidity and a certain amount of shenanigans from the big three are saving us from greyhound-style overrounds. The way to keep the small/recreational losing opinion player in the game is to publicise bf and/or lobby for a low takeout toat imo.
This wd have happened had Lord Donoghue's report not tilted things back in favour of off-course layers (or poss. if a full enough sample of course books in certain competitive rings cd even now now fed into the sp).
Only bf liquidity and a certain amount of shenanigans from the big three are saving us from greyhound-style overrounds. The way to keep the small/recreational losing opinion player in the game is to publicise bf and/or lobby for a low takeout toat imo.
askari
birch, it wdn't work b/c fairer prices wd lead to the off-course books withdrawing from sp and setting industry prices.
fairer prices = an average race returning an overround between 112-118% - many horse races are in this range - and the 'industry' is happy to settle to this
When a 130+ overround is returned, its because the course bookies are rigging it (sometimes due to major off course bookie influences)
It is these returns where I am seeking 'fair' prices to be returned. In fact, I'm all for industry prices, as long as they conform to a maximum overround.
In gambling terms, you dont play roulette at 3% bank favour on one spin and then 11% on the next spin! - why should horse racing be allowed to have a 'rip off' event any time the 'riggers' want one?
birch, it wdn't work b/c fairer prices wd lead to the off-course books withdrawing from sp and setting industry prices.
fairer prices = an average race returning an overround between 112-118% - many horse races are in this range - and the 'industry' is happy to settle to this
When a 130+ overround is returned, its because the course bookies are rigging it (sometimes due to major off course bookie influences)
It is these returns where I am seeking 'fair' prices to be returned. In fact, I'm all for industry prices, as long as they conform to a maximum overround.
In gambling terms, you dont play roulette at 3% bank favour on one spin and then 11% on the next spin! - why should horse racing be allowed to have a 'rip off' event any time the 'riggers' want one?
Well I can buy a can of coke for anywhere between 25p and a pound depending where I buy it.
I can also choose NOT to buy it.
I can also choose NOT to buy it.
Why are all us punters moaning and knocking. We have never had it so good. Since the introduction of exchanges we have seen 140% margins both in shops and on course disappear and been replaced with 110% margins and mostly on course, bookies betting overbroke around the front 3 in the markets. (And in most cases, overbroke around the only 3 horses that can win the race)! Anyway good luck. All opinions I know!
starfish
If the 25p cup disappears (due to PC/ tax) and they then raise the same cup to £2 elsewhere - would you be a little aggrieved
If the 25p cup disappears (due to PC/ tax) and they then raise the same cup to £2 elsewhere - would you be a little aggrieved
Start a thread on that if you wish.
In roulette there may be a fixed takeout, but there is also a mathematically guaranteed edge to the bank on every number on every spin.
The horseracing betting market on each race is subjective. But stats over a period of time show the most realistic contenders are priced quite close to their actual chance, and the poor value is on the horses with little chance. Dont get too hung up on the OR
In roulette there may be a fixed takeout, but there is also a mathematically guaranteed edge to the bank on every number on every spin.
The horseracing betting market on each race is subjective. But stats over a period of time show the most realistic contenders are priced quite close to their actual chance, and the poor value is on the horses with little chance. Dont get too hung up on the OR
birch, I don't disagree that the big 3 are rigging 130+ ORs at the gaff tracks and throwing in awful ORs when it suits them on the AW gaffs too.
A 110-112 OR for a seven or eight runner race can be acceptable to the books if they get a spread of money on exposed horses. Equally, bk makers can be as much victims of insiders as the average joe punter in cases where the ring is not robust and some horses look like they're off and others are completely unfancied.
I wd support any bk who said he wanted to be able to vary the OR he bet at between individual races (within reasonable paramaters). My suggestions for making the SP system more representative of money actually bet wd be finding some way of factoring in bf starting prices for courses where the show of on-course bks is small or their WOM pitiful. This cd even have the effect of off-course firms funneling money more evenly through the ring.
I am v. sympathetic to what I take to be yr concern i.e. not to hack off the interested but relatively casual punter. But imv the better way to do this wd be better publicity for bf and a low takeout toat.
A 110-112 OR for a seven or eight runner race can be acceptable to the books if they get a spread of money on exposed horses. Equally, bk makers can be as much victims of insiders as the average joe punter in cases where the ring is not robust and some horses look like they're off and others are completely unfancied.
I wd support any bk who said he wanted to be able to vary the OR he bet at between individual races (within reasonable paramaters). My suggestions for making the SP system more representative of money actually bet wd be finding some way of factoring in bf starting prices for courses where the show of on-course bks is small or their WOM pitiful. This cd even have the effect of off-course firms funneling money more evenly through the ring.
I am v. sympathetic to what I take to be yr concern i.e. not to hack off the interested but relatively casual punter. But imv the better way to do this wd be better publicity for bf and a low takeout toat.
yes askari- I can see a low take out toat as being a solution, but if it did happen, it would be decades away
What I'm persuing is a solution to 'correct' this immediately
What I'm persuing is a solution to 'correct' this immediately
here's what i don't understand. if I as a substantial layer, who bets to opinions lay a horse at 5/4 to proper money, be it from firms, punters whatever, am I not within my rights to cut my odds because of that weight of money? nobody has adequately explained why a price on this machine of say 6/4 should have any bearing on my book whatsoever. presumably the argument goes because a price is occasionally larger on here I should mirror that in my book. but why?
if you are 5/4 and its 6/4 solid on here, and you want to lay it and are happy to lay it at 5/4, what stops you hedging whatever you don't want on here (or purple), and continuing to lay the 5/4?
Are you saying that exchange prices are irrelevant just because a few on course exist who still have an opinion and bet accordingly? Are you happy to lay 5/4 on your opinion when its 1.98 on here? I think we already know the answer to that.
Are you saying that exchange prices are irrelevant just because a few on course exist who still have an opinion and bet accordingly? Are you happy to lay 5/4 on your opinion when its 1.98 on here? I think we already know the answer to that.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539