|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Only "mugs" bet at SP.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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). |
|
By:
So what's the difference between a "ripper off", and a "mug fleecer" ( your description of yourself Feck)? Please explain.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
The existance of exchanges hav f all to do with Thatcher.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
10 greater than 130%
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Well Starfish, remember this?
Personally I'm absolutely fine with a system whereby mug punters are treated and suffer as such |
|
By:
and this
Then there are those like me who dont care about lazy ignorant foul-mouthed layabout customers of betting shops |
|
By:
Yup, on my list of the worlds sufferers, they rate pretty low
|
|
By:
But they're not all like this, and even these 'unfortunates' deserve fair play
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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!
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
If you have laid the 5/4 and don't cut it, you don't lay the 5/4 next time the same thing happens, sir!
|