There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
It's not all about the affordability checks as all the racing bodies are saying.
Yes, affordability checks are one of the main drivers but the other main issue is not ever mentioned.
WHY ?
Account restrictions is the main driver of decreased turnover. Most recreational punters cannot get a bet on with a bookmaker if they wanted to.
I have been saying for years that racing's prize money will suffer as a result of turnover decreasing as a direct result of account restrictions and everyday recreational punters not being able to get a bet on.
If you want to place a £50 bet and get told by the bookmaker you can have £2, what do you do ? Unless you are a diehard fan you give up. If you are a recreational punter you walk away and that turnover is then lost to horse racing forever as that punter cannot "punt" .
A diehard fan might turn to friends to open an account for them but that doesn't last long either.
All of us on here have been forced onto here because of account restrictions yet how many are genuine long term winners ?
So the "bookmakers" cull thousands of accounts because of the risk that a couple might be long term winners when surely the more profitable view would be to let them all run and restrict the big winners after a milestone profit was reached and offset a portion of the profits from their profitable accounts against their losing ones.
Racing's finances would be a lot healthier as a result and so would the bookmakers bottom line.
Otherwise the cycle in which we are in will make horse racing even less profitable for the bookies because if losing punters cannot deposit then the only punters left will be winning ones restricted to 25p.
The only way out of this mess is either to go to a Pari Mutual system or make the bookmakers lay a bet to £1,000 as a condition of holding a licence and follow the Australian method.
Does anyone agree / disagree , or what would you suggest as a solution ?
.
Yes, affordability checks are one of the main drivers but the other main issue is not ever mentioned.
WHY ?
Account restrictions is the main driver of decreased turnover. Most recreational punters cannot get a bet on with a bookmaker if they wanted to.
I have been saying for years that racing's prize money will suffer as a result of turnover decreasing as a direct result of account restrictions and everyday recreational punters not being able to get a bet on.
If you want to place a £50 bet and get told by the bookmaker you can have £2, what do you do ? Unless you are a diehard fan you give up. If you are a recreational punter you walk away and that turnover is then lost to horse racing forever as that punter cannot "punt" .
A diehard fan might turn to friends to open an account for them but that doesn't last long either.
All of us on here have been forced onto here because of account restrictions yet how many are genuine long term winners ?
So the "bookmakers" cull thousands of accounts because of the risk that a couple might be long term winners when surely the more profitable view would be to let them all run and restrict the big winners after a milestone profit was reached and offset a portion of the profits from their profitable accounts against their losing ones.
Racing's finances would be a lot healthier as a result and so would the bookmakers bottom line.
Otherwise the cycle in which we are in will make horse racing even less profitable for the bookies because if losing punters cannot deposit then the only punters left will be winning ones restricted to 25p.
The only way out of this mess is either to go to a Pari Mutual system or make the bookmakers lay a bet to £1,000 as a condition of holding a licence and follow the Australian method.
Does anyone agree / disagree , or what would you suggest as a solution ?
.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 187
|
By:
Just typed this from the other thread. My views only and how I see it all.
People who bet that large amount will not be staking with a regular bookmaker. We all know that by now, surely?! One may encounter a multitude of frightful tales on the racing forum, among other sources. You know what racing is a privileged rich sport with people willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money for 1 horse and still complain? Horse Racing will be around in 50 years from now and still they will complain just like the farmers. One of the main factors for the decline in horse racing turnover is the cost of living and horse racings ageing population with less money to spend. The facts are most Normal working class people at the end of the month will be lucky enough just to have quid left, or are in debt to cover their costs. I can tell you some Black Market folk will let you have a decent bet on the horses, and pay you out in a timely manner without hesitation. Online bookmakers will NOT take a decent bet, that's the problem, and that's one of the main reason for betting turnover decline IMO. The Racing Post won't highlight this because they are propped up by big corporations who's only objected in life is to gain and hold as much money as possible. |
|
By:
some good points guys ^^^
|
|
By:
Partly that.
Partly Covid distortions. Partly that British and Irish punters won't go near the Tote despite the evidence of professional Tote punters in America, Hong Kong and Australia. It is probably not coincidence that many famous professionals have really been bookmakers arbing and trading which only makes sense in a fixed odds system. So they walk away when Ladbrokes won't let them have a monkey at 2 points longer than Betfair's lay price. |
|
By:
It's so stupid how the entire betting industry sabotages itself. Stupid lawmakers, stupid bookies. Then one day they'll be asking "Where have all the punters gone? Our profits are down 70% from 5 years ago :( "
|
|
By:
One ten re.bookmakers laying a £1000 bet they would rather lay 50 punters £20 same liability but 20 content punters as opposed to one.
|
|
By:
eff all to do with affordability checks (i've never been asked, have you?), the big layers have gone. lack of non-bot competition on many markets is astounding.
|
|
By:
Where have you dredged up your "facts" oneten e.g All on here have been forced on here because of account restrictions? Also Horse Racing has become a loss leader for online bookies and has more to do with restrictions than so called affordability checks which btw do not yet exist officially.
The majority of account restrictions are designed to cull those where the cost of administration of them outweighs the return, the intent is to retain those who play the Casino type products and sports betting punters. Most work on approx 3% profit on turnover on horse racing which does not leave a margin to justify the cost of administering even some losing accounts. A separate licence is the only sensible option as far as horseracing is concerned with a gaming/casino licence being dependent on the former together with guarantees to lay a minimum bet. Much more involved but the GC seem hellbent on imposing draconian gambling restrictions and ignoring Horse Racing i.e still lumping the industry into the same pot as gaming for restriction purposes. Bookies getting the flack for reacting to what the GC's intentions are. |
|
By:
"The light touch financial risk checks simply involve using publicly available data to determine whether a customer is particularly financially vulnerable such as in bankruptcy. The operator must then take action to support a customer such as offering deposit limits especially if there are other indicators of harm. Currently the trigger for the check is a net deposit of £500 per 30 days but will drop to £150 from February 2025. This ensures the checks are targeted at higher spending customers, and most customers will not be checked". Head of GC.
£150 a month higher spending customers ? PMSL |
|
By:
The biggest issue is the bookmakers. They have found many more easier (and lazier) ways to get their profits than horse racing coupled with the fact that many racing punters have no faith that current breed will play fair.
|
|
By:
It's an issue but not the biggest. I have 4 figs in here but can only put in £100 a month. That's the issue.
|
|
By:
so if you aren't at risk of bankruptcy, you will be ok. Don't know anyone who has been checked.
|
|
By:
Internal politics don't help turnover. eg Paddy Power refusing to price up early the Arena owned Sedgefield today.
|
|
By:
I tried to get a grand antepost double on for 3 months time with Hills the other day and they offered £100.
Turns out this once great bookmaker is now cowardly. Guess that doesn’t help turnover. |
|
By:
Discontinuing the phone lines was a dire idea
|
|
By:
What is the double eric? Is that your only account or were they best priced?
|
|
By:
I walked into a bookmakers to place it as there are no phone lines now.
Ridiculous a major bookie won’t take an antepost bet that size over 3 months before the two races. |
|
By:
Well said oneten.
|
|
By:
All the posts are about account restrictions,gambling commission,limits etc.
What about,small fields,too much racing,odds on shots etc. Every factor seems to be a deterrent to betting on a horse race,from every angle. |
|
By:
The other problem is that although everyone recognizes that there is a problem it is practically impossible to sort things because there in not one all powerful authority that could get hold of things, there are numerous factions all with a say that continually work against one another, thus preventing any meaningful change.
|
|
By:
The Minimum Bet Laws (MBLs) are a blessing for Australian punters, especially the successful ones! Without minimum betting laws, online bookies could pick and choose which wagers they would accept.
Whilst the limits depend on the state or territory, the MBLs guarantees that Australian punters can bet on all races with all Wagering Service Providers (WSPs). fairly straightforward. introduce this on monday and turnover goes up. |
|
By:
also see a lot of shyster bookies disappearing. the ones that are basically online casino's guising as bookmakers (won't lay a bean on a horse).
|
|
By:
I'm betting significantly less these days, and I'm not AC affected. The main reason is because I know I'll be if I bet as before. And, I do not want that no matter what. I'd rather AC myself than AC by bookies; the latter would mean a probable restriction and/or account closure.
Does anyone not think the black market bookies ought to legitimise themselves by applying for a licence to operate in the UK? They could always reference their customers/punters as evidence of suitability and customer-friendly. They could replace those with UK licence but choose not to take bets or overly AC inclined. The owner of Brighton Football Club whose name escapes me for the moment. Why is he not restricted? He bets in huge amounts on some of his hotpots. |
|
By:
Duffy.
The problem is.everyone employed in racing has to promote it,which is correct, So if one day there was 4 walk overs on itv on a Saturday.they d be saying,the horse might not run the full last furlong,it’s really tricky today,one of the horses could fall or fail to weigh in. Then can hardly say,welcome to an afternoons racing,it’s shocking. |
|
By:
comingupthehill re small fields
There was an interesting discussion between David Jennings and Jonny Dineen re small fields, the latter saying they can be great viewing and good for the punter, and points out people are happy to watch 2-runner events like boxing, darts or football. Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/z_vnELx5DJk |
|
By:
Yeah,sometimes,the odd small field can be interesting,but basically it’s virtually now most races.
Against,Jennings and dineen,paid to promote whatever race is on,they can have a show,saying,racings crap can they. So they make the round peg fit into the square hole,as that’s their job. |
|
By:
The racing papers esp the Racing Post which is owned by bookies and the bookies have been consistently and deliberately misleading, and professionally disingenuous blaming AC and the Gambling Commission for a huge reduction in horseracing revenue.
However, the main cause is the reluctance of bookies to take or accept bets on horseracing from recreational punters; the overzealousness of bookies interpreting and enforcing AC is a contributory factor too. |
|
By:
Ramruma - it's not just about the money though, but also getting engrossed with the event, adrenaline etc.
Those 2 runner events you mention, football and boxing, offer excitement throughout, highs and lows, whereas a 2 runner horserace is pretty dull until the business end |
|
By:
Impossible, apologies for pointing out you were a half wit, far too generous so reduce that to a single lonely brain cell.
|
|
By:
Cagliari every time I notice you on a thread it’s all bad mouthing a person….calm down….dread to think what you were like in the forces with a weapon in hand…..deary me
|
|
By:
Only idiots with form Quixall, are you feeling left out or did you just feel like a troll on a supposedly serious thread?
|
|
By:
Just flicking through like most and there you were…..
|
|
By:
Horse racing authorities are also guilty of the decline of this sport.
They have allowed the bookmakers to demand more racing which in turn has weakened races and offer less value. They have also sat back as bookmaker costs rise through tv pictures, data rights and levy costs. Bookmakers want this money back and the punter is paying for it. |
|
By:
The only way out of this mess is either to go to a Pari Mutual system...
It will be a Tote system one day with terminals based in 'entertainment centres'. How those centres look is one for those that make 10/30/50/100 year plans. the current, traditional modem is on its knees. nothing personal, just business  |
|
By:
Used to like ew mulltiples but a 1/4 odds seem to have gone and shortened sp's at the head of the market have killed the bet.
No wonder there is a turn off. |
|
By:
Britain won’t go to pari mutual,because too many vested interest.
Yet all the bookies moaning,racing dosent pay,hence the restrictions. So why not go to tote,like most racing countries. Then give the agents their,10/12.5/15% cut. Even the pitches could do this.which they sort of do anyway. The bookies could still maybe offer multiplies,ante post. But the sp market could be tote type bets |
|
By:
So many great points have been made on this thread. It is interesting and quite frightening to see how we as a collective bunch of clowns could solve some of the issues racing is currently facing.
One of the reasons is that we understand the product as fans with a lifetimes knowledge hard learnt. Yet the "powers that be" parachute in people from different fields with no prior experience or expertise in horse racing . The Gamblimg Commission doesn't have a single person on the board that has ever placed a bet in their lives. So how are they meant to govern betting when they have no understanding of the subject ? It needs people on the governance side who have a lifetime of experience. The Racing Post has a lot to answer to as well in my opinion. They should be highlighting these issues and reporting on them so they talked about and investigated with a view to finding a working solution. Rather than putting their heads in the sand and pretending it isn't happening. I believe that as they are the sports daily newspaper they have a duty and a responsibility to racing as they are it's voice and should be doing more. . |
|
By:
The post can’t just slag off the state of the industry,cos it’s their daily job to promote that days racing,racing in general.so they are trapped in a conundrum.
They do say it,but also plod on promoting it,what else can they do. All the media can’t just say everyday. It’s all a load of crap,it’s all going downhill.that isn’t a great response. The tories,capitalist always say.cut your cloth accordingly,live within your means etc etc ,hence austerity. Given that logic,racing needs to lose 10-20 tracks,30/40% reduction in races,meetings. Everyone is trapped in the continualisation of plodding on.i d like to say hoping it will get better.but does anyone think it will get better,no. Arena and jockey club own the tracks,they must cull them. Make a 2 tier racing system. Push the lower tracks,into a point to point type system.but horses can run in both systems. There’s just so many different people relying on the status quo,but it won’t get better,so it’s about managing the new situation. |
|
By:
comingupthehill -- we can have a 2-tier system but not a 2-tier system with horses running in both, because then we punters (and handicappers etc) would have to study the form in both tiers anyway, in which case we will be back where we started.
|
|
By:
First race Saturday is the 10.35. Imagine the hordes pouring through the gates at Wetherby!
Unless it is just the BHA bending over to provide bookie-fodder watched by three men and a meteorologist. |