Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
to avoid the affordability checks?
Not according to this bookie who stood at Musselburgh last week and gives a detailed account of what bets he took
https://andystallard1967.wixsite.com/cairnbet/post/musselburgh-5-5-23-what-s-the-frequency-lucy
As more and more nonsense swills around social media about on course/land based betting "getting away with it" and the "place to be for lumping on" I thought it might be useful to give you a pretty forensic break down of our day on course. This will include figures, which we don't usually do, to dispel the myths and rubbish that is being spouted by people who know little about what is actually happening.
I appreciate that it appears that I am on a crusade at the moment and, in truth, to some extent I am. This is a pivotal time for the gambling industry with new gambling regulation and, therefore, by extension to the horse racing world. I have a business that I, along with Steve, have worked hard on and invested into for 10 years. I am damned if I am going to allow misconceptions and falsehoods to potentially affect future regulatory policy which will affect me, my family, my hard work and my future and I'm sure the other 400 or so small bookmaking firms who ply their trade on course feel exactly the same.
We start a couple of days in advance. Midweeks are tough calls for us and even a Friday is still really a "midweek" albeit one with a slightly higher chance of being workable. We base our decision on weather and card plus the pick number we have (more on that later). Steve has a day job and it simply makes no sense for him to book time off his work to be on course when we have no idea whether we will even attend. Midweeks mean we then need a worker which is about £100 or so. Betting badge for this meeting was £190 plus a tenner for use of the on course bookmaking software so £300 before we get a wage. Field sizes between 6 and 10 runners. On course you're probably looking at an overround of 1.5% per runner so around 110%. A quick glance at the SP in the first race revealed an off course overround of 118% For those of you who think there is better value on the high street we were around 111%. Forecast was set fair- more on that later too.
On course bookmakers have a pick number and, when it comes time to select your pitch, the choice is done based on your number- pick 1 has first choice, pick 2 second etc. It's a bit like picking those football teams at school. Pick 1 gets the kid who's already signed semi professional forms for Marine and is getting trials at a couple of 4th division teams. Pick 80 is the kid who's been down to Co-op for the 8 for 5 doughnut special for his lunch. He ends up in goal. When you buy a pitch, you buy off another bookmaker who is selling. It was fairly widely reported that pick 1 at Cheltenham went for over £200,000 a couple of years ago. Pick 80 at a track which attracts 500 punters and has one Saturday a year can be bought for a tenner. You won't win though.
We have pick 5 at Musselburgh and for various reasons we knew we would get 3rd pick this particular meeting. The two picks in front of us picked the positions either side of the tunnel under the stand where punters from the back bars and paddock will usually make their way to the track via. We went to the end of the stand where the Pinkie Bar empties out and we can also service the picnic tables on the lawn and the folk picking up their fish and chips/burger. Looked a reasonable call as the weather was set fair...
I am now going to give you figures for the 7 races at Musselburgh. Next time you read nonsense about on course bookmaking in relation to regulation please feel free to refer the perpetrator of such nonsense to this blog. I don't ask for retweets but, in this case, I may make an exception. These figures are to provide the reality of the situation regarding problem gambling risk and regulatory requirements on course- no other reason and I probably won't be as forensic again.
1) We took 60 bets for 424 quid. That's 7 quid a bet. Our biggest bet was 35 quid, our smallest a quid each way. 7 quid. That's slightly less than the cost of an on course burger. Or just over a pint of beer. Or 1 1/2 Racing Posts. Our margin is around 10-11% max on a 7 runner race and you still need the results to go for you. Our costs for this meeting were 43 quid a race (not including petrol). We hedged a quid on Ana Emaraaty and that was it. Lady Pascha was losing is £104, Daley losing us £38 and Ana was losing us £90. We won £152 on Whisky McGonagall and 25 quid in places. This was our 2nd best winner in the book. At the risk of repeating myself this is the reality of on course bookmaking during the week. We won a tenner in the forecast.
2) 7 runners again and we took 64 bets for £642. I'm not working out the average for you. This figure included a 200 quid bet from connections on Gunnerside so the rest of the book was around the 7 quid a bet mark again. Gunnerside went out to a massive uncontested lead and won, more or less, on the bridle. The 200 quid bet wasn't from a problem gambler, it was from an owner who pays an awful lot more than that to keep his horse in training. In truth he may not have been able to get on off course, not because he is a problem gambler, but, if he's only betting horses that get a soft lead and win whilst the jockey remains motionless, he's unlikely to keep his accounts. But I am speculating. Either way we didn't fancy standing Gunnerside for loads when the only bet of any note was from connections so we only lost 142 quid and won £18 back in the places plus 20 quid in the forecasts. The most we could have won was £318 in theory but, watching the race, the most we could've won was minus £142... again this is the reality of on course bookmaking midweek. I won't say this again and the rest will be shorter.
3) 5 runners, 55 bets, £498, 108% overround. We stood Kiss My Face for 90 quid and Idilico for £104. We won £151 on the favourite and £11 in the places. Reality, not fantasy.
4) 5 runners, 68 bets, £518, 109% overround, no hedging. We stood Riversway for £76 and the winner, Havagomecca for £49- we also lost 15 quid in the places but won a tenner in the forecast.
5) 9 runners, 74 bets, £481, 114% overround, hedged 20 quid. Stood Scottish Wind for £116 plus a procession of weak jokes (from both sides in fairness) and Lednikov for £136. We won £142 on Simple Star and lost £2 in the places.
6) 6 runners. Rain. 55 bets, £447, won a quid on the favourite Purple Martini, 10 quid in the places and £10 in the forecast.
7) 49 bets as the crowd disappeared into the grey and damp ether. £420, lost £75 on favourite plus 8 quid in places. Won a tenner in the forecast.
Overall we won £288.88 with expenses of £300 so a loss of £11.12. We took about £3300 at an average overround which would give us about what we won. This is reality. We probably won't do this one again, though the late rain didn't help and it is a new meeting so may improve over the years.
So what's the (betting) frequency available to punters and how will on course be an option for problem gamblers? Simply, it won't. On Friday, assuming you don't live in Musselburgh, Cheltenham, Goodwood, Newmarket or Newcastle (that'll be in excess of 99.9% of the population) firstly you have to travel to get there and pay for that travel. You then have to pay an average of 25 quid to get in, a tenner if you want to eat there and 6 quid a pint if you want a beer. You can then bet on something every 35 minutes. This is simply not what problem gamblers do. They just don't.
As an experiment we put up a few races from Newmarket and Goodwood. We didn't take a bet. We didn't expect to take a bet either because the people who go racing have a bet on what they've paid an entrance fee to come and see live. They're not hassling us to price up the next horse race in a different country or a dog race in a different town because that's not why they're here.
Please don't lose focus that the gambling reforms are, supposedly, there to help problem gambling. Not to tar everyone with the same brush and not to destroy the pastimes of, in this case, approximately 1000 people enjoying a few hours of sunshine on a Friday afternoon at the start of a long weekend. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Don't confuse £2.50 each way, or even a one off £200 from an owner who has invested in the sport, once every half an hour with someone with a real, genuine problem who is hitting red/black for 20 quid every 30 seconds cos that's like comparing me with Mo Salah because we both kick a football occasionally.
Thanks for reading. Please share to those who don't see the difference or, even worse, do see the difference but still think we're a future risk for problem gambling. It's not the case. This is the reality.
Possibly Kelso on Wednesday if the monsoon misses, if not Ladies Day at Perth. Until then...
Not according to this bookie who stood at Musselburgh last week and gives a detailed account of what bets he took
https://andystallard1967.wixsite.com/cairnbet/post/musselburgh-5-5-23-what-s-the-frequency-lucy
As more and more nonsense swills around social media about on course/land based betting "getting away with it" and the "place to be for lumping on" I thought it might be useful to give you a pretty forensic break down of our day on course. This will include figures, which we don't usually do, to dispel the myths and rubbish that is being spouted by people who know little about what is actually happening.
I appreciate that it appears that I am on a crusade at the moment and, in truth, to some extent I am. This is a pivotal time for the gambling industry with new gambling regulation and, therefore, by extension to the horse racing world. I have a business that I, along with Steve, have worked hard on and invested into for 10 years. I am damned if I am going to allow misconceptions and falsehoods to potentially affect future regulatory policy which will affect me, my family, my hard work and my future and I'm sure the other 400 or so small bookmaking firms who ply their trade on course feel exactly the same.
We start a couple of days in advance. Midweeks are tough calls for us and even a Friday is still really a "midweek" albeit one with a slightly higher chance of being workable. We base our decision on weather and card plus the pick number we have (more on that later). Steve has a day job and it simply makes no sense for him to book time off his work to be on course when we have no idea whether we will even attend. Midweeks mean we then need a worker which is about £100 or so. Betting badge for this meeting was £190 plus a tenner for use of the on course bookmaking software so £300 before we get a wage. Field sizes between 6 and 10 runners. On course you're probably looking at an overround of 1.5% per runner so around 110%. A quick glance at the SP in the first race revealed an off course overround of 118% For those of you who think there is better value on the high street we were around 111%. Forecast was set fair- more on that later too.
On course bookmakers have a pick number and, when it comes time to select your pitch, the choice is done based on your number- pick 1 has first choice, pick 2 second etc. It's a bit like picking those football teams at school. Pick 1 gets the kid who's already signed semi professional forms for Marine and is getting trials at a couple of 4th division teams. Pick 80 is the kid who's been down to Co-op for the 8 for 5 doughnut special for his lunch. He ends up in goal. When you buy a pitch, you buy off another bookmaker who is selling. It was fairly widely reported that pick 1 at Cheltenham went for over £200,000 a couple of years ago. Pick 80 at a track which attracts 500 punters and has one Saturday a year can be bought for a tenner. You won't win though.
We have pick 5 at Musselburgh and for various reasons we knew we would get 3rd pick this particular meeting. The two picks in front of us picked the positions either side of the tunnel under the stand where punters from the back bars and paddock will usually make their way to the track via. We went to the end of the stand where the Pinkie Bar empties out and we can also service the picnic tables on the lawn and the folk picking up their fish and chips/burger. Looked a reasonable call as the weather was set fair...
I am now going to give you figures for the 7 races at Musselburgh. Next time you read nonsense about on course bookmaking in relation to regulation please feel free to refer the perpetrator of such nonsense to this blog. I don't ask for retweets but, in this case, I may make an exception. These figures are to provide the reality of the situation regarding problem gambling risk and regulatory requirements on course- no other reason and I probably won't be as forensic again.
1) We took 60 bets for 424 quid. That's 7 quid a bet. Our biggest bet was 35 quid, our smallest a quid each way. 7 quid. That's slightly less than the cost of an on course burger. Or just over a pint of beer. Or 1 1/2 Racing Posts. Our margin is around 10-11% max on a 7 runner race and you still need the results to go for you. Our costs for this meeting were 43 quid a race (not including petrol). We hedged a quid on Ana Emaraaty and that was it. Lady Pascha was losing is £104, Daley losing us £38 and Ana was losing us £90. We won £152 on Whisky McGonagall and 25 quid in places. This was our 2nd best winner in the book. At the risk of repeating myself this is the reality of on course bookmaking during the week. We won a tenner in the forecast.
2) 7 runners again and we took 64 bets for £642. I'm not working out the average for you. This figure included a 200 quid bet from connections on Gunnerside so the rest of the book was around the 7 quid a bet mark again. Gunnerside went out to a massive uncontested lead and won, more or less, on the bridle. The 200 quid bet wasn't from a problem gambler, it was from an owner who pays an awful lot more than that to keep his horse in training. In truth he may not have been able to get on off course, not because he is a problem gambler, but, if he's only betting horses that get a soft lead and win whilst the jockey remains motionless, he's unlikely to keep his accounts. But I am speculating. Either way we didn't fancy standing Gunnerside for loads when the only bet of any note was from connections so we only lost 142 quid and won £18 back in the places plus 20 quid in the forecasts. The most we could have won was £318 in theory but, watching the race, the most we could've won was minus £142... again this is the reality of on course bookmaking midweek. I won't say this again and the rest will be shorter.
3) 5 runners, 55 bets, £498, 108% overround. We stood Kiss My Face for 90 quid and Idilico for £104. We won £151 on the favourite and £11 in the places. Reality, not fantasy.
4) 5 runners, 68 bets, £518, 109% overround, no hedging. We stood Riversway for £76 and the winner, Havagomecca for £49- we also lost 15 quid in the places but won a tenner in the forecast.
5) 9 runners, 74 bets, £481, 114% overround, hedged 20 quid. Stood Scottish Wind for £116 plus a procession of weak jokes (from both sides in fairness) and Lednikov for £136. We won £142 on Simple Star and lost £2 in the places.
6) 6 runners. Rain. 55 bets, £447, won a quid on the favourite Purple Martini, 10 quid in the places and £10 in the forecast.
7) 49 bets as the crowd disappeared into the grey and damp ether. £420, lost £75 on favourite plus 8 quid in places. Won a tenner in the forecast.
Overall we won £288.88 with expenses of £300 so a loss of £11.12. We took about £3300 at an average overround which would give us about what we won. This is reality. We probably won't do this one again, though the late rain didn't help and it is a new meeting so may improve over the years.
So what's the (betting) frequency available to punters and how will on course be an option for problem gamblers? Simply, it won't. On Friday, assuming you don't live in Musselburgh, Cheltenham, Goodwood, Newmarket or Newcastle (that'll be in excess of 99.9% of the population) firstly you have to travel to get there and pay for that travel. You then have to pay an average of 25 quid to get in, a tenner if you want to eat there and 6 quid a pint if you want a beer. You can then bet on something every 35 minutes. This is simply not what problem gamblers do. They just don't.
As an experiment we put up a few races from Newmarket and Goodwood. We didn't take a bet. We didn't expect to take a bet either because the people who go racing have a bet on what they've paid an entrance fee to come and see live. They're not hassling us to price up the next horse race in a different country or a dog race in a different town because that's not why they're here.
Please don't lose focus that the gambling reforms are, supposedly, there to help problem gambling. Not to tar everyone with the same brush and not to destroy the pastimes of, in this case, approximately 1000 people enjoying a few hours of sunshine on a Friday afternoon at the start of a long weekend. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Don't confuse £2.50 each way, or even a one off £200 from an owner who has invested in the sport, once every half an hour with someone with a real, genuine problem who is hitting red/black for 20 quid every 30 seconds cos that's like comparing me with Mo Salah because we both kick a football occasionally.
Thanks for reading. Please share to those who don't see the difference or, even worse, do see the difference but still think we're a future risk for problem gambling. It's not the case. This is the reality.
Possibly Kelso on Wednesday if the monsoon misses, if not Ladies Day at Perth. Until then...
Show More
Point 2 a load of rubbish, talking like he knew defeat was already out the question.
You’d back it yourself wouldn't you?
I don’t wanna hear we are bookmakers it’s a completely diff discipline that’s pap, you have to be flexible and use simple maths. Remembering laying is just backing not to win bla bla
You’d back it yourself wouldn't you?
I don’t wanna hear we are bookmakers it’s a completely diff discipline that’s pap, you have to be flexible and use simple maths. Remembering laying is just backing not to win bla bla
Interesting read I thought. Can't say I'm surprised though. Racing needs to get more people through the gates (Monday to Friday) and they won't do that when it costs a bundle even before you've had a bet.
Good morning George
The same person had a very good letter printed in yesterday’s racing post.
The same person had a very good letter printed in yesterday’s racing post.
As still a very regular racegoer who uses the exchanges via phone, I watch the attendances at the tracks and despair. Not only because they are often so poor but also because the tracks have become obsessed, and I really do mean obsessed, with trying to recruit younger racegoers.
Now, I understand that to a certain degree BUT consider the following. Last week I was at Beverley (Bank Holiday so crowd not typical), Notts and Ponty. At the latter two tracks, the attendance was, in my estimation, 65-70% older people - certainly 50+ and probably mostly retired. In the same week, I also watched Salisbury via a Racing TV recording and during the between-race interviews carefully observed the passing crowd in the background. Again, 60% minimum older, and probably retired, people.
This, naturally, makes sense. On midweek, working days, those attending the tracks are much more likely to be retired. Therefore, logic suggests to me that there is a worthy business case in tracks trying to attract retired people who do not usually go racing, and then in trying to convert them to regular attendees.
In a country where the amount of aged and retired people has grown rapidly in recent times, surely there is an audience out there waiting to be wooed? Yet, no. Track obsess with the younger generations via all kinds of nonsense, from music to student days to racing clubs for 18-24 year olds.
Well, if I ran a track I'd be fretting about the lack of youngsters only once I had had a bl**dy good go at improving the attendance figures via trying to attract the people with the more immediate time and money to go racing - IE the older generations. Life experience has taught me that sometimes you let the future take care of itself and just concentrate on the here and now!
Sadly, though, tracks ignore this kind of thing. Mostly for one reason. Too many tracks are run by too many younger people who do not identify with the old and retired enough to see them as potential customers. I firmly believe they are missing a trick in doing so.
Now, I understand that to a certain degree BUT consider the following. Last week I was at Beverley (Bank Holiday so crowd not typical), Notts and Ponty. At the latter two tracks, the attendance was, in my estimation, 65-70% older people - certainly 50+ and probably mostly retired. In the same week, I also watched Salisbury via a Racing TV recording and during the between-race interviews carefully observed the passing crowd in the background. Again, 60% minimum older, and probably retired, people.
This, naturally, makes sense. On midweek, working days, those attending the tracks are much more likely to be retired. Therefore, logic suggests to me that there is a worthy business case in tracks trying to attract retired people who do not usually go racing, and then in trying to convert them to regular attendees.
In a country where the amount of aged and retired people has grown rapidly in recent times, surely there is an audience out there waiting to be wooed? Yet, no. Track obsess with the younger generations via all kinds of nonsense, from music to student days to racing clubs for 18-24 year olds.
Well, if I ran a track I'd be fretting about the lack of youngsters only once I had had a bl**dy good go at improving the attendance figures via trying to attract the people with the more immediate time and money to go racing - IE the older generations. Life experience has taught me that sometimes you let the future take care of itself and just concentrate on the here and now!
Sadly, though, tracks ignore this kind of thing. Mostly for one reason. Too many tracks are run by too many younger people who do not identify with the old and retired enough to see them as potential customers. I firmly believe they are missing a trick in doing so.
Good read.
So does Grant Tuer not actually own Gunnerside then?
(I know that's not the point of his letter).
So does Grant Tuer not actually own Gunnerside then?
(I know that's not the point of his letter).
The Knight, my brother and I went to the recent Pontefract meeting which gave free entry to over 60s, a chill day but very well attended we thought. I suppose the average older midweek punter wouldn't spend 50 quid on ale without a second thought like the younger end.
If they want serious punters back on course at ordinary meetings they have to offer something better eg. double result Expensive I know and in turn the tracks should charge little or no admission to bookies in such a case. You can get better odds here without admission or travel money. Only track advantage is seeing the horses and for me that would only help me with 2-y-o race/s with newcomers.
Howard I don’t think his point is about getting serious punters back on course it’s about letting people be free to do what they want with there own money for a few hours on a racecourse .
Very good post Knight. Do you phone Betfair from the track ? If so do you always get a signal at a busy track ?
Yes that is his main point Jimnast but while he was at it most of his piece was about him working for buttons or a loss.
As regards the Gunnerside race many bookies would have had the 2nd fav ( 4/1 SP ) at brake even certainly if you thought it had a big chance. ( refusing part of bet or laying off )
Yes that’s true Howard I think he is saying it’s not like people think and there’s plenty of punters returning,I thought his letter in the post was better as it affects almost all of us .
Thanks jimnast, I've got a copy and will have a read of it.
Not surprised target younger race goers. Likely to spend more than Old people stuffing own cheese and onion in jacket
Thanks for posting George .
One thing I didn't get was "Midweeks mean we then need a worker which is about £100 or so".
Pinno just works by himself so why does Andy NEED one midweek?
One thing I didn't get was "Midweeks mean we then need a worker which is about £100 or so".
Pinno just works by himself so why does Andy NEED one midweek?
Also more likely to be loud, leery and ill mannered swad. I've been young, it's just how they are.
Its true, they are like that.
It doesnt cost the courses anything if they are, unless ofc you are saying it puts others off going, fair point.
It doesnt cost the courses anything if they are, unless ofc you are saying it puts others off going, fair point.
The punters at midweek racing fall into 3 categories
Those who use this place because, winning or not, they KNOW that over time once the market has matured they will get a better price here than from on course books (5.9 on here, mainly 4/1 maybe 9/2 in the ring)
Those who are definitely losing and therefore still have online accounts and therefore use them when oncourse because you get BOG, FPTP, extra places etc
The rest which includes day trippers and a diminishing group of older punters who want to continue betting in cash with the books.
The on course books are fighting over the third group only. They are an irrelevance to the first two groups. Given that it's no wonder that the figures cited are so poor. Sadly I don't see a solution.
Those who use this place because, winning or not, they KNOW that over time once the market has matured they will get a better price here than from on course books (5.9 on here, mainly 4/1 maybe 9/2 in the ring)
Those who are definitely losing and therefore still have online accounts and therefore use them when oncourse because you get BOG, FPTP, extra places etc
The rest which includes day trippers and a diminishing group of older punters who want to continue betting in cash with the books.
The on course books are fighting over the third group only. They are an irrelevance to the first two groups. Given that it's no wonder that the figures cited are so poor. Sadly I don't see a solution.
parispike, the solution may be that when the first two categories get hassled for proof of income which they are reluctant to provide or if they do provide it are told that they are reduced to betting in buttons with the online /telephone bookies.....then betting on course,in cash, with the racecourse bookies may be their only way to bet
If the prices and terms offered by racecourse bookies these days were viable for serious punters, they'd be using them now. What punter who's been barred is suddenly going to start taking 4/1 with the racecourse books when he can still see 5.9 on offer on here, or the 9/2 with BOG and dual-result on his phone?
Even if he did start taking the 4/1 on-course, he'd be skint within weeks in any case.
Even if he did start taking the 4/1 on-course, he'd be skint within weeks in any case.
Chris Cook is imo the RP’s best writer and he interviewed the Head of the HBF this week.
I have to say that it wasn’t an interview that filled me with confidence.
Anyone who bets for a living, or supplements their main income from betting, might well have been aghast.
I have to say that it wasn’t an interview that filled me with confidence.
Anyone who bets for a living, or supplements their main income from betting, might well have been aghast.
I agree, GetReal. I couldn't believe what I was reading. If this is what even the Horserace Bettors Forum believes, then we can kiss the game goodbye.
The dust having settled since the government's white paper on gambling reform landed 11 days ago, this seems a good time to check in with the Horseracing Bettors Forum for a more considered reaction than anyone was able to form on the day. Sean Trivass, chairman of the HBF since the autumn, strikes a tone somewhere between acceptance and resignation when we discuss the proposals, although of course his feelings may change as more detail emerges about how those proposals will work in practice.
I wanted to ask about financial risk checks. You may recall that background checks are proposed for those who lose £125 net over a month or £500 over a year, the check being to look for "financial vulnerability indicators" like county court judgements (CCJs).
More detailed checks are proposed for those who make a net loss of £1,000 in a day or £2,000 over 90 days. Those trigger-levels are to be halved for bettors aged between 18 and 24.
Trivass says: "We think the £125 a month or £500 a year are particularly low figures. However, if that's simply checking for CCJs and bankruptcy, then it shouldn't affect very many people. So I would bow to their superior knowledge of the statistics as to why they brought those figures in.
"A thousand pounds a day, I would struggle to argue that that wasn't reasonable, to double-check on that, to be honest with you. We've got a survey that suggests most people's bets are £10 to £20 or £30 per day. We represent all punters but obviously we have to stick with the majority so I would think £1,000 a day is a reasonable place to do the second check."
In relation to the "£2,000 over 90 days" trigger, Trivass described the £2,000 as "a questionable figure that largely depends on how intrusive any further checks will be in practice and whether they have any unintended, non-gambling consequences for the bettor. However, all our surveys suggest that the majority of horse racing bettors will (hopefully) not be caught in the net at the suggested figure.
"If I lost £2,000 in 90 days, I'd be pretty upset. That's a reasonably high figure. We have to be realistic. The non-betting public would look at £2,000 and see that as an awful lot of money and I don't really see what argument we would have to suggest it should be higher, as a representative organisation.
"I don't want to defend the government particularly but my view is that they're caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they say £2,000, for a lot of people, that's a lot of money and an incredibly high sum to allow people to lose in a three-month period. If they make that sum larger, it looks like a whitewash of a paper and it's not really doing anything at all.
"Yes, bookmakers should know their customers but I'm wary that if there isn't a figure like the £2,000 to trigger this level of check, we're going to drop back to a general requirement to provide bank statements. I even heard of someone being asked to provide a valuation of their house before they were allowed to continue gambling. I've only heard of that once but that's incredible.
"A large percentage of people who bet on horses are over the age of 50 and people of that age are generally not in favour of open banking, won't even consider it. If that's the path they'd need to go down to get proof of earnings, that could be an even bigger hit to the number of people betting on horses than a £2,000 trigger level for checks. But until it happens, we can't be sure of the effect.
"The biggest concern we have is what effect these checks will have on people's future credit ratings. A friend of mine said he'd have to stop betting because he doesn't want to risk checks undermining his rating in case he wants another mortgage.
"Another friend who used to work in the finance industry says they're quite capable of doing checks that won't show up. I'd like to see that stated as fact. So I'm wary as to what effect that will have on punters and also on how many people will walk away from racing."
We discuss the practicalities of bookmakers actually maintaining an accurate, running total for the net losses of all bettors. Both of us are sceptical.
Trivass says: "At the moment, the bookmakers aren't capable of telling me whether I've got Best Odds Guaranteed or not. So how they can do that, it seems a bit pie in the sky.
"But the HBF would like to see, when you log into your account, you can see exactly what restrictions you have, what your maximum bets can be and where you are with regard to your credit check limits - are you heading down that road?
"But that will only work if you can see the impact of all your accounts [with different firms] and even then that doesn't include lottery play or other things like bingo."
As ever, the HBF is interested in hearing from punters (comments@ukhbf.org) on this subject and also if they have had any experience of financial checks being made by bookmakers. Trivass says the feedback from punters so far has been more hostile to the white paper's proposals than he had expected.
Explaining his own, milder reaction, he says: "I think we were all anticipating far worse figures for soft checks, so the white paper that came out wasn't as bad as I thought it might be.
"But what we're getting from punters, certainly through Twitter, is that they're disgusted by it, never going to bet again, have had enough, infringement of civil liberties and more. That's the majority view of those who are getting in touch through Twitter, which is our main area of contact. You have to temper that with the knowledge that those who complain tend to be the loudest.
"I think we have to accept there is going to be a change to the status quo and we have to manage it as best we can, so that we come out the other side with the ability to place a bet when we want to, within our means, and to continue supporting the sport that we all love."
I ask if punters might expect the HBF to be more vocal in opposing proposals such as those in the white paper. "We're vocal, we are campaigning," Trivass responds. "We've brought forward many positives for racing over the years.
"But we have to be realistic about things as well. At the end of the day, this is not going to get turned back. This will not be stopped, no matter how many signatures go on a petition. This is going ahead.
"So we see it as our duty now to try and move it forward in the best way possible for the bettors we represent and for the horse racing industry, which we support. We want to make sure we're involved."
Among the topics the HBF wants to address is the creation of an ombudsman for consumer redress. "We're a little bit wary of how limited the scope of the ombudsman's role is," he says. "We had hoped for one that wasn't limited to social responsibility or gambling harm."
The HBF has recently met with a senior representative of the Gambling Commission and a meeting for early summer is being planned with Stuart Andrew MP, the gambling minister.
I wanted to ask about financial risk checks. You may recall that background checks are proposed for those who lose £125 net over a month or £500 over a year, the check being to look for "financial vulnerability indicators" like county court judgements (CCJs).
More detailed checks are proposed for those who make a net loss of £1,000 in a day or £2,000 over 90 days. Those trigger-levels are to be halved for bettors aged between 18 and 24.
Trivass says: "We think the £125 a month or £500 a year are particularly low figures. However, if that's simply checking for CCJs and bankruptcy, then it shouldn't affect very many people. So I would bow to their superior knowledge of the statistics as to why they brought those figures in.
"A thousand pounds a day, I would struggle to argue that that wasn't reasonable, to double-check on that, to be honest with you. We've got a survey that suggests most people's bets are £10 to £20 or £30 per day. We represent all punters but obviously we have to stick with the majority so I would think £1,000 a day is a reasonable place to do the second check."
In relation to the "£2,000 over 90 days" trigger, Trivass described the £2,000 as "a questionable figure that largely depends on how intrusive any further checks will be in practice and whether they have any unintended, non-gambling consequences for the bettor. However, all our surveys suggest that the majority of horse racing bettors will (hopefully) not be caught in the net at the suggested figure.
"If I lost £2,000 in 90 days, I'd be pretty upset. That's a reasonably high figure. We have to be realistic. The non-betting public would look at £2,000 and see that as an awful lot of money and I don't really see what argument we would have to suggest it should be higher, as a representative organisation.
"I don't want to defend the government particularly but my view is that they're caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they say £2,000, for a lot of people, that's a lot of money and an incredibly high sum to allow people to lose in a three-month period. If they make that sum larger, it looks like a whitewash of a paper and it's not really doing anything at all.
"Yes, bookmakers should know their customers but I'm wary that if there isn't a figure like the £2,000 to trigger this level of check, we're going to drop back to a general requirement to provide bank statements. I even heard of someone being asked to provide a valuation of their house before they were allowed to continue gambling. I've only heard of that once but that's incredible.
"A large percentage of people who bet on horses are over the age of 50 and people of that age are generally not in favour of open banking, won't even consider it. If that's the path they'd need to go down to get proof of earnings, that could be an even bigger hit to the number of people betting on horses than a £2,000 trigger level for checks. But until it happens, we can't be sure of the effect.
"The biggest concern we have is what effect these checks will have on people's future credit ratings. A friend of mine said he'd have to stop betting because he doesn't want to risk checks undermining his rating in case he wants another mortgage.
"Another friend who used to work in the finance industry says they're quite capable of doing checks that won't show up. I'd like to see that stated as fact. So I'm wary as to what effect that will have on punters and also on how many people will walk away from racing."
We discuss the practicalities of bookmakers actually maintaining an accurate, running total for the net losses of all bettors. Both of us are sceptical.
Trivass says: "At the moment, the bookmakers aren't capable of telling me whether I've got Best Odds Guaranteed or not. So how they can do that, it seems a bit pie in the sky.
"But the HBF would like to see, when you log into your account, you can see exactly what restrictions you have, what your maximum bets can be and where you are with regard to your credit check limits - are you heading down that road?
"But that will only work if you can see the impact of all your accounts [with different firms] and even then that doesn't include lottery play or other things like bingo."
As ever, the HBF is interested in hearing from punters (comments@ukhbf.org) on this subject and also if they have had any experience of financial checks being made by bookmakers. Trivass says the feedback from punters so far has been more hostile to the white paper's proposals than he had expected.
Explaining his own, milder reaction, he says: "I think we were all anticipating far worse figures for soft checks, so the white paper that came out wasn't as bad as I thought it might be.
"But what we're getting from punters, certainly through Twitter, is that they're disgusted by it, never going to bet again, have had enough, infringement of civil liberties and more. That's the majority view of those who are getting in touch through Twitter, which is our main area of contact. You have to temper that with the knowledge that those who complain tend to be the loudest.
"I think we have to accept there is going to be a change to the status quo and we have to manage it as best we can, so that we come out the other side with the ability to place a bet when we want to, within our means, and to continue supporting the sport that we all love."
I ask if punters might expect the HBF to be more vocal in opposing proposals such as those in the white paper. "We're vocal, we are campaigning," Trivass responds. "We've brought forward many positives for racing over the years.
"But we have to be realistic about things as well. At the end of the day, this is not going to get turned back. This will not be stopped, no matter how many signatures go on a petition. This is going ahead.
"So we see it as our duty now to try and move it forward in the best way possible for the bettors we represent and for the horse racing industry, which we support. We want to make sure we're involved."
Among the topics the HBF wants to address is the creation of an ombudsman for consumer redress. "We're a little bit wary of how limited the scope of the ombudsman's role is," he says. "We had hoped for one that wasn't limited to social responsibility or gambling harm."
The HBF has recently met with a senior representative of the Gambling Commission and a meeting for early summer is being planned with Stuart Andrew MP, the gambling minister.
To be clear, a £2,000 loss in 90 days is a loss of £22/day. And that would apparently trigger a mental health crisis in this so-called punter. Therefore it must not be permitted for anyone else.
Lord help us (because the Horserace Bettors Forum certainly won't).
Lord help us (because the Horserace Bettors Forum certainly won't).
They are quite rightly focussing on what the checks entail, as they know that the levels at which they occur will never be changed.
Most punters aren't professional, or semi-professional - obviously the vast majority lose.
But when I first got into betting in my teens, though I didn't know much about them, names like Alex Bird, Phil Bull and Dodger McCartney seemed inspirational figures to the young punter trying to make it pay.
If the HBF is solely focussed on recreational punters, are we to assume that pro punting for a living is no longer an option and they all need to seek taxable alternative careers?
If so, and literally no one is allowed to be a long-term winner, what is the actual point of anyone ever having a bet?
It's like the National Lottery abolishing the top prize and just paying out a few fivers every week instead.
See how long it would last then.
From The Gambling Commission to the politicians to the media to even the HBF, I've never seen anyone so much as acknowledge that some people actually make their betting pay and as, such, are inspirational figures for the whole betting industry.
And making your betting figures involves transactions that blow all these recreational punter limits out of the water.
But when I first got into betting in my teens, though I didn't know much about them, names like Alex Bird, Phil Bull and Dodger McCartney seemed inspirational figures to the young punter trying to make it pay.
If the HBF is solely focussed on recreational punters, are we to assume that pro punting for a living is no longer an option and they all need to seek taxable alternative careers?
If so, and literally no one is allowed to be a long-term winner, what is the actual point of anyone ever having a bet?
It's like the National Lottery abolishing the top prize and just paying out a few fivers every week instead.
See how long it would last then.
From The Gambling Commission to the politicians to the media to even the HBF, I've never seen anyone so much as acknowledge that some people actually make their betting pay and as, such, are inspirational figures for the whole betting industry.
And making your betting figures involves transactions that blow all these recreational punter limits out of the water.
Dave, shouldn't they be focusing on whether the checks are justified at all? You're never going to defeat puritans by conceding ground to them. Puritans are relentless. They've advanced from FOBTs to internet casinos and now internet betting in general. They have to be fought here, because the next stage is all betting in general.
Besides, inflation at 10% will do the job for them, because there's no way these fanatics are ever going to raise those limits.
Besides, inflation at 10% will do the job for them, because there's no way these fanatics are ever going to raise those limits.
Totally agree with Screamin'.
All these so called punter groups do is drone on about a silly minimum bet law and keep banging on about Australia.
Whilst it is annoying to have your account closed or restricted, you still have options. You have shops,on course, beard accounts,bet on the show,change your betting habbits, or like most people have had to do for the last twenty years or so, use the exchange.
Affordability checks and SCV are far more important issues. As they can put you out of the game for good. If a bookmaker decides youre an addict, then thats it, account closed, and account closed everywhere else too.
No punter wants these checks, they are pointless, and do nothing to stop addiction. An addict, a proper compulsive addict, will just go elsewhere. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of dodgy offshore casino and crypto casinos that an addict can go and do their money on.
Any punter group worth its salt should be opposing these chacks and single customer view. You should have the right to opt out. The right to take full responsibility for your own actions. If you sign a disclaimer saying you understand the risks, and want to decide yourself if you are an addict or not, then that should be that. If you lose your money then, you have no one to blame but yourself. Having somebody else, a bookmaker especially, deciding how much you are allowed to gamble, or even IF you are allowed to gamble, is ridiculous, and needs challenging.
All these so called punter groups do is drone on about a silly minimum bet law and keep banging on about Australia.
Whilst it is annoying to have your account closed or restricted, you still have options. You have shops,on course, beard accounts,bet on the show,change your betting habbits, or like most people have had to do for the last twenty years or so, use the exchange.
Affordability checks and SCV are far more important issues. As they can put you out of the game for good. If a bookmaker decides youre an addict, then thats it, account closed, and account closed everywhere else too.
No punter wants these checks, they are pointless, and do nothing to stop addiction. An addict, a proper compulsive addict, will just go elsewhere. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of dodgy offshore casino and crypto casinos that an addict can go and do their money on.
Any punter group worth its salt should be opposing these chacks and single customer view. You should have the right to opt out. The right to take full responsibility for your own actions. If you sign a disclaimer saying you understand the risks, and want to decide yourself if you are an addict or not, then that should be that. If you lose your money then, you have no one to blame but yourself. Having somebody else, a bookmaker especially, deciding how much you are allowed to gamble, or even IF you are allowed to gamble, is ridiculous, and needs challenging.
Some people are addicted to these toys and have a man cave full of 'em. Any checks ?
https://www.libertygames.co.uk/store/pinball_machines/brand_new_pinball_machines/beatles-pinball-diamond/
https://www.libertygames.co.uk/store/pinball_machines/brand_new_pinball_machines/beatles-pinball-diamond/
Howard...always use the B/F app on course from mobile. If the track's wi-fi is poor (yet to find a track that has BF blocked via their wi-fi), I use remote network (G5S). Not had any issue anywhere except when a track is really, really busy - so a rarity. On those days, I have found that the sheer volume of people trying to text and call from their mobiles does crowd out the G5S signal.
But, simple solution is to come outside the track for a minute or so where connection may be via another mast.
ItsmeSwaddle - two serious question, why do you dislike old people so very much and why are you so insulting about them? It makes you look like a bit silly because you will be old one day!
Anyway, I challenge you now to meet me on track one day soon. Your blanket observations of older people will be entirely shattered after you have met me and those I engage with on track.
I am none of the things you think older people are about. I will be better dressed than you, better informed, more articulate and not full of bile about those who are older than my 63 years. So, I'm at Southwell Thursday, Rasen on Friday, Beverley next Tuesday and then York rest of next week. See you at one of them? I wonder...
But, simple solution is to come outside the track for a minute or so where connection may be via another mast.
ItsmeSwaddle - two serious question, why do you dislike old people so very much and why are you so insulting about them? It makes you look like a bit silly because you will be old one day!
Anyway, I challenge you now to meet me on track one day soon. Your blanket observations of older people will be entirely shattered after you have met me and those I engage with on track.
I am none of the things you think older people are about. I will be better dressed than you, better informed, more articulate and not full of bile about those who are older than my 63 years. So, I'm at Southwell Thursday, Rasen on Friday, Beverley next Tuesday and then York rest of next week. See you at one of them? I wonder...
you tell him nighty
if the gobsh1te does agree to turn up i will also
if the gobsh1te does agree to turn up i will also
If there's a free cheese and onion buttie on the go, I might turn up myself
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539