There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Again will say it - the best thing that could happen to uk racing would be for it to be mandatory for bookmakers to lay a bet to win £2,000 as a condition of holding a licence. Follow the Aussies.
Their racing is in superb health and ours is in dire straights. So surely the answer is to learn something from theor model and cherry pick the good bits ?
Does anyone know of a good reason why uk racing would not want to make this a condition of a bookmaker holding a licence ?
It would increase turnover, so levy payments would go up as well, therefore benefiting racing finances. Though surely it is time to stop levy payment being based on turnover and change it to being based on a percentage of bookmakers profits ?
Or have I missed the point , is there a good reason why they don't do this ?
.
Their racing is in superb health and ours is in dire straights. So surely the answer is to learn something from theor model and cherry pick the good bits ?
Does anyone know of a good reason why uk racing would not want to make this a condition of a bookmaker holding a licence ?
It would increase turnover, so levy payments would go up as well, therefore benefiting racing finances. Though surely it is time to stop levy payment being based on turnover and change it to being based on a percentage of bookmakers profits ?
Or have I missed the point , is there a good reason why they don't do this ?
.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 72
|
By:
How would it work in practice?
Corals goes 7/1 the 3/1 shot and it is tipped by Pricewise and Hugh Taylor. A thousand punters try to get on at the price. Who gets it? Everyone? Or are the punters queued and the first one gets the price under your legal guarantee, after which Corals can change the price? Because if that is the case, then we've only changed from 1,000 punters missing out to 999 punters missing out. |
|
By:
I agree with the sentiment oneten but I think it's now too late. While all the disparate factions within racing have been pursuing their own self-interests (rather than uniting together) - "bookmakers" have simply moved on, they've exploited technology, they've embraced new markets and created new products. Racing has been left behind - outside of a couple of festival meetings, it's no longer the bread and butter product for bookmakers and it's not even their preferred "gateway" product anymore.
Put simply they just don't need racing anymore. They've got products that are much more popular, that also happen to be cheaper to provide and that return a much higher margin for them. In a nutshell racing is now an analogue product and the bookmakers have long since embraced/exploited the digital age. |
|
By:
The bookmakers argument would be that there may well be many hundreds of people wanting to back the same horse for 2k at the same time, so a 2k bet becomes a 200k bet and would no doubt argue that the lay of 2k to one bet would affect the price of the market and subsequent 2k bets would normally be at shorter prices.
As things stand with affordability checks people who regularly deposit 2k sums into bookmakers accounts would be liable to these intrusive regulations, which like others they may not be prepared to do. |
|
By:
Racing does not regulate bookmakers, the government does (via the Gambling Commission).
|
|
By:
The Management is right.
Digital games like casinos and lotteries and cartoon horses are most profitable online. And even for actual betting, football is the new king of the betting jungle. Look at bookies' adverts! Look at who they sponsor! Look at the only betting innovation in decades if not centuries: betbuilders, aimed square on at football punters. |
|
By:
strontium is correct - except to add, that in reality nobody has bothered to regulate bookmakers for the past 20+ years. Bookmakers have exploited this fact and now we find (as is the cycle with regulators) that the previously inactive regulator feels the need to over-react to over-compensate for it's previous inactivity.
|
|
By:
The bookmakers make billions in profits. Surely they can get their odds correct so they can still make a fortune but allow people to get on to a certain amount of winnings?
Ramruma 06 Mar 25 10:39 Joined: 11 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 16,627 | Blogger: Ramruma's blog How would it work in practice? Corals goes 7/1 the 3/1 shot and it is tipped by Pricewise and Hugh Taylor. A thousand punters try to get on at the price. Who gets it? Everyone? Or are the punters queued and the first one gets the price under your legal guarantee, after which Corals can change the price? Because if that is the case, then we've only changed from 1,000 punters missing out to 999 punters missing out |
|
By:
Ramruma and stewarts rise surely this could be mitigated by the punter having to take SP if the bookmaker is not prepared to lay at the odds they are displaying? They are constantly changing prices anyway online so maybe you take a point less if you fingers aren't fast enough or SP.
The Management I agree with you unfortunately. The question you have to ask though is that as Nick Rust, with such connections within the bookmaking industry and knowledge of how it works, how did he allow the horseracing industry to go down this path as this has been a long time coming to get here. The Aussies have 'The race that stops the nation' horseracing needs to get the public back on side and interested in horseracing. Glad to see Lossiemouth and BDA opting to go in the Champion Hurdle, it will save a load of commentators talking racing down on the opening day of the biggest jump racing festival. |
|
By:
The minimum bet guarantee is a good idea. The issues seem to be:
1. Bookies have moved on and don't care about racing anyway. 2. How would it work in practice, i.e. who gets the price if 1000's want it? For 1 the bet guarantee would apply to sports markets. Lets say its £500 (i.e. to win that much) that would hardly seem unreasonable. Bookies will say that all concessions will be lost which is fine by me. They'll then say they won't be able to price up races and other events, again this is fine, only price up what you're confident doing. As for the fact they don't care about racing anyway this would soon be resolved if the affordability checks were for games of chance and that these were a separate wallet. They are highly resistant to this for pure naked self interest which is to the detriment of racing and shamelessly the Racing post and media have played along. 2. In practice likely less markets priced up and very limited concessions, again fine. The price is a live market and fluctuates, the guarantee would be on the price when you place the bet. Nothing stopping them being cut so the example highlighted above wouldn't apply. So less markets priced up with no concessions with guaranteed take out and less affordability issues. Sounds good. Whats the issue? |
|
By:
Ramruna, in answer to your above reply.
. The Aussie bookmakers say it has made them more accurate when quoting prices ! But the point being the bookie takes as many bets to lose 2k as they want then reduce the price . The same way they do currently over here and iver there when punters are backing something. We know the method works well as we can see it flourishing in Australia. The only downside is it might mean that books open up a small percentage smaller than they might have otherwise done, therefore offering slightly less value than originally but it means everyone who wants a bet can have one. |
|
By:
If they are calling themselves bookmakers at least make them lay a bet !!
Rather than relying on the crack cocaine fobts to give them their profits. |
|
By:
You are asking "bookmakers" to practice the art of actual bookmaking - sadly (on-line at least), as I pointed out above, there are no bookmakers left! All that's left (on-line) is casino/slots/bingo operators masquerading as bookmakers.
|
|
By:
In Australia they had the tab and you could bet on racing in pubs at EBT's.
Could maybe give the UK pub industry a boost if they had a small area with a TV showing the racing and terminals to bet on. The suits at the Gambling Commission might have a heart attack though at the moment! Guess they would make it so you had to have an account and couldn't do anonymous cash bets. Not sure if its possible in Australia now? |
|
By:
oneten -- "But the point being the bookie takes as many bets to lose 2k as they want then reduce the price . The same way they do currently over here and iver there when punters are backing something."
If in practice, lay guarantees will make no difference to the 99.999 per cent of customers who aren't first in the queue, what's the point? It's not getting on that people want, it is getting on at the price. If you want to get on and don't care about the price, the Tote windows are over there and you can have as much on as you like. Subject, in these enlightened times, to passing affordability checks (and KYC and AML and source of funds and not being on tilt) but that's another story. |
|
By:
I know TM. But they are purporting to be bookmakers which is why it should be mandatory for them to take a bet.
In Oz it varies from state to state , but some states say they must lay a bet from the time of final Dec's and others are from 9am for afternoon racing and 2pm for evening meetings. |
|
By:
There are another group of disillusioned punters who could be attracted back in with even modest guaranteed minimum stakes / takeouts - the enthusiastic leisure punter , who wants to have a reasonable chance of making a profit from his entertainment. He bets in 10ers / 20s / maybe the odd 50 - but likes to get competitive prices.
What's the point currently of them even looking at say mid morning prices and trying to take top industry price or bet ew in certain races when all they currently get offered is £1ew even when the firm has had the same price sitting there for some time before (and afterwards ). All that the current system is doing is pushing those people away from the sport completely. |
|
By:
Yes Johnny, and if they are purely a leisure punter they'll move onto something else and won't be a racing customer again.
Or if they are a diehard fan they will move to the black market / WhatsApp group unlicensed bookie paying nothing into the ecosystem so racing still loses out. |
|
By:
The bookmakers are happy for THE EXCHANGE to exist on life support.........the day they introduced the premium charge the exchange has been in critical condition............Yesterday I looked to place a small Antepost with one of the major books.tha value was appaling.........i managed to find 4 horses at passable prices....when i looked at the bet they went 1/5 odds 3 places ..in the fred winter / ultima / 2m 4f nov chase......3 places in 20 + runner handicaps.....this is systematic with some of the majors always try to ekk out an extra 10 / 15 %......the same firm are always the worst price always at least a point less on all runners.......without a healthy exchange punting is finished and it aint healthy at the moment
|
|
By:
so if he/they were so minded connections could set up a 100 people to to bet a horse to win up to 2 grand and your going to force a bookie to accept the bets,he,s a better idea why dont you take out a licence and sweep up all these bets standing at least 2 grand
|
|
By:
If it works in Oz why wouldn't it work in UK?
Issue is surely that bookmakers (so called) won't do voluntarily as (as been referenced here they are more interested in promoting other product) so would need regulation. The sort of thing that a gambling regulator actually interested in fulfilling their obligation to make gambling "fair and open" would do. so it won't happen. |
|
By:
If what -- exactly -- works in Oz?
If it is a requirement to lay everyone *at the price* then the bookie will eventually go bust. If it is only necessary to lay one person before the price can be slashed, then as stated earlier, it doesn't really matter because 99.9 per cent of punters will not be the lucky one who gets the value price. If it is like the old Pricewise guarantee, where bookies have to lay everyone at the price for 10 minutes or some other limited time, but only to a £10 or similar stake, then yes, that would help the average small punter but not the ones betting in monkeys and grands. (And this is less useful when betting opens the day before rather than 10am on the morning of the race.) If it is to lay everyone without regard to price, that's effectively what the Tote does so it doesn't matter. |
|
By:
And yes, I've been effectively barred (ie limited to pennies) by three high street bookmakers so I feel your pain but am not really sure what can usefully be done about it.
|
|
By:
Ramruma
An issue surely is that b/m won't lay some people ANY price. I'm not expecting unlimited liability but if a b/m puts up a price there should be an obligation to lay it to a realistic stake until they decide to cut said price. |
|
By:
Ramruma 06 Mar 25 14:15
And yes, I've been effectively barred (ie limited to pennies) by three high street bookmakers so I feel your pain but am not really sure what can usefully be done about it. no friends? |
|
By:
cut the middlemen out and just get bookmakers to write their own suicide note out to save a bit of time, you can always have a go and stick as much as you like up on Betfair and see how you get on,that's what it was designed for,I,m sure you,ll get accommodated
|
|
By:
Why not form a countrywide syndicate to effectively change your identity.
|
|
By:
Lay a bet to 2k and less invasive bookie ID requirements is the key.
|
|
By:
A trading amalgamation of 10 of the main bookies could be set up, they put up the first show to lose (say) £1,000, as there are 10 shareholders they only have a liability of £100 each, move the prices after the shrewdies have picked off the ricks, within 5 minutes they'd know roughly the right prices around which they could then make their individual books.
|
|
By:
as asked is that
one bet layed to lose 2 grand or a 1000,2000, bets laid to lose 2 grand and how would you prove they,d laid it, they,d just pay someone 20 quid to say they had |
|
By:
if plenty ofd pro punters are making a living at the game,bookmakers must be laying someone,just because its not X doesn't mean its not happening your not financing a home in south east, 4 weeks in Barbados ,going to races everyday,keeping wife happy with 1,65 ew with fred
|
|
By:
They can move the price when bets are struck, they don't need to wait for 1,000 people too bet it. That makes no sense. But if the price is online on their site live then you should be able to back it. That goes for all sports too from darts to snooker to horse racing.
|
|
By:
so as long as they say they have your happy,how you going to prove it, in a multi million pound industry logic says they do but those getting on just don't go to your school
|
|
By:
fooking ell - has it been so long since any online bookmaker did any actual bookmaking that people on here have forgotten how it works
  |
|
By:
a stranger cant walk in to a casino and demand they take his bet on red or black
|
|
By:
I'm pretty sure (all things being equal) that he can - up to whatever the advertised house limit is.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
This has happened 3 times to me in the last few days for the same bet. Asked for more obv but only laid £80 @ 4/9 cut to 4/11. (Jennings) £80 at 4/11 cut to 1/3 (Fred same online odds as Jennings although soon to have their own machines) and £330 at 4/11 cut to 3/10 (Hills), according to OC cut 6 minutes later. Quite an obscure market and they were anonymous shop bets in shop machines, so awful limits and long odds on second and third bets were cut just due to my bets)
This wasn't a bet that was available on the exchange or in Asia. |
|
By:
So price cut after just 1 bet. referring to this comment earlier on in the thread ... (Because if that is the case, then we've only changed from 1,000 punters missing out to 999 punters missing out)
|
|
By:
Those in shop machines very handy at the right times
|