Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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 ?
.
Show More
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Racing does not regulate bookmakers, the government does (via the Gambling Commission).
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
.
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.
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.
Rather than relying on the crack cocaine fobts to give them their profits.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
Why not form a countrywide syndicate to effectively change your identity.
Lay a bet to 2k and less invasive bookie ID requirements is the key.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
fooking ell - has it been so long since any online bookmaker did any actual bookmaking that people on here have forgotten how it works 
a stranger cant walk in to a casino and demand they take his bet on red or black
I'm pretty sure (all things being equal) that he can - up to whatever the advertised house limit is.
Mar 6, 2025 -- 2:58PM, 1st time poster wrote:
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
No idea what you are saying. If the price is online then you can back it !
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.
This wasn't a bet that was available on the exchange or in Asia.
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)
They can set individual limits on any shops machines, so 20 minutes down the road the odds will probably be the original odds, shortend only in that shop or local shops but not country wide.
Yes sorry was just confirming it's been clocked and benefits in placing bets simultaneously is a real option.
They take more on the betting terminals than OTC or fobts. Easy to monitor, can add facial recognition, cameras already fitted to them,
"Obscure markets will he very low"
It actually varies hugely. I've had obscure markets limit be from £5 (£100 at 1/20) to £5k (£100 at 50/1)
It actually varies hugely. I've had obscure markets limit be from £5 (£100 at 1/20) to £5k (£100 at 50/1)
Yes GC that was probably the wrong wording, they can be but I've also saw 4 figure bets on obscure football matches laid,
The 1/20 was actually no 9 dart finish in each separate early sessions of the WDC. (I made it 1/40) I was just recycling winning bets. Wouldn't go there normally to put cash in a machine to bet 1/20.
After the 3rd or 4th session they cut it to 1/33 or 1/40. Just so happened there was a 9 dart finish on night 3 or 4 by Christian Kist of all people. Lucky escape for me. I do remember receiving a text from a friend thinking I've done my bollox.
After the 3rd or 4th session they cut it to 1/33 or 1/40. Just so happened there was a 9 dart finish on night 3 or 4 by Christian Kist of all people. Lucky escape for me
. I do remember receiving a text from a friend thinking I've done my bollox.
yes nothing is easy, there is always someone waiting in the background to boot your arris lol You have to work or stress for even free money
The general shops (Hills and Lads do their own prices) take 10bet prices, so you can check the odds there. I've taken so many markets off the general machines for good. Must have taken more off than anyone else.
CLYDEBANK2906 Mar 25 15:53
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.
You been betting on that bikini beach volleyball again CB...?
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.
You been betting on that bikini beach volleyball again CB...?
That's great CB29 (for you) but no doubt they were all minor/obscure markets - and we're kind of getting away from the point.
The reality (sadly)is now that online bookmakers have got themselves a mass of high margin, low cost, high volume, short duration, products they just don't need to participate in horse racing which by comparison is very labour intensive, very high cost, bound by time, much lower margin, much more volatile, etc, etc.
Add in all the new demographics (young people, women, etc) that they can "attract" to their shiny new "products" and then the availability of them (which is absolutely anywhere, absolutely anytime, to almost anybody) - and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that racing is already well on it's way (outside of a couple of Festivals) to dying out as a mainstream betting medium sooner rather than later.
That wouldn't really bother me now (certainly not to the extent that it really would have bothered me 20 or 30 years ago) - but for the people that it does still bother - they need to get their head out of their 4rses and do something pretty radical, pretty quickly.
I think (as suggested by the OP) some version of the Australian approach is about the only option taht could work - i.e. Government intervention that dictates, if you want the very lazy/easy money (gaming) that can be made from your operating license you also need to do a bit of work to save some heritage and the almost dead sport that the foundations of your "industry" were built upon.
If you leave it to "free markets" to find a solution or a load of old/out of touch duffers with double-barrelled sir- names - well, you might as well turn the lights off now. That's the harsh reality. The bookmakers have destroyed betting (in favour of gaming) and from a purely commercial stand-point you can't blame them - they've been very ably assisted by a lot of over privileged, in-fighting, idiots that have refused to collectively adapt or embrace progress/technology.
The reality (sadly)is now that online bookmakers have got themselves a mass of high margin, low cost, high volume, short duration, products they just don't need to participate in horse racing which by comparison is very labour intensive, very high cost, bound by time, much lower margin, much more volatile, etc, etc.
Add in all the new demographics (young people, women, etc) that they can "attract" to their shiny new "products" and then the availability of them (which is absolutely anywhere, absolutely anytime, to almost anybody) - and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that racing is already well on it's way (outside of a couple of Festivals) to dying out as a mainstream betting medium sooner rather than later.
That wouldn't really bother me now (certainly not to the extent that it really would have bothered me 20 or 30 years ago) - but for the people that it does still bother - they need to get their head out of their 4rses and do something pretty radical, pretty quickly.
I think (as suggested by the OP) some version of the Australian approach is about the only option taht could work - i.e. Government intervention that dictates, if you want the very lazy/easy money (gaming) that can be made from your operating license you also need to do a bit of work to save some heritage and the almost dead sport that the foundations of your "industry" were built upon.
If you leave it to "free markets" to find a solution or a load of old/out of touch duffers with double-barrelled sir- names - well, you might as well turn the lights off now. That's the harsh reality. The bookmakers have destroyed betting (in favour of gaming) and from a purely commercial stand-point you can't blame them - they've been very ably assisted by a lot of over privileged, in-fighting, idiots that have refused to collectively adapt or embrace progress/technology.
To 1st time poster and ramruna and any others who say, well what happens if 2,000 people all want to back any one horse and the bookie will go bust etc..
Sorry but no, you are missing the point. The bookie will have to make a book. Cut the price if they don't want their liabilities mounting up and then push something else out as a result. Remember , there are tons of bookies out there so if their prices aren't competitive they won't get any business.
No one said anything about them having to lay the same odds to 5,000 different people, but if they advertise a price they must take a bet to lose 1k or 2k.
If they're not prepared to then they should be stripped of their licence , but there is plenty of low hanging fruit for them to still take advantage of but it can't just be a one way street where they abuse degenerate addicts on fobts without having to take physical bets.
I go on course and speak to real bookies and they all tell me to a man , that they are happy to stand a bet.
So why should the high street bookmakers be allowed to duck taking money on
horse racing ?
They shouldn't.
.
Sorry but no, you are missing the point. The bookie will have to make a book. Cut the price if they don't want their liabilities mounting up and then push something else out as a result. Remember , there are tons of bookies out there so if their prices aren't competitive they won't get any business.
No one said anything about them having to lay the same odds to 5,000 different people, but if they advertise a price they must take a bet to lose 1k or 2k.
If they're not prepared to then they should be stripped of their licence , but there is plenty of low hanging fruit for them to still take advantage of but it can't just be a one way street where they abuse degenerate addicts on fobts without having to take physical bets.
I go on course and speak to real bookies and they all tell me to a man , that they are happy to stand a bet.
So why should the high street bookmakers be allowed to duck taking money on
horse racing ?
They shouldn't.
.
you can already get any price you want for vast MAJ of fields,ain't that the problembookmakers cant get enough horses in the book,to many races revolving around small % of the runners,books carried out on stretchers at WinCo today
if you believe that Knott fella tales they barely take enough for a cup of of tea all round and that's in winning races
stand a bet to whatever the machine stands ,
for someone who wants to stand a bet why do they spend 90% of their time huddled around a betfair screen ?
, for someone who wants to stand a bet why do they spend 90% of their time huddled around a betfair screen ?
On-course and online = two completely different beasts imo.
On course are flogging a dead horse 90% of all meetings. Whereas Online are trying to kill off a horse that is already on it's last legs.
For the squeamish - no actual horses were harmed or killed during the construction of this ^ post.
I'd guess realistically neither can make an actual book - even though the internet should have made it easier to do so on-line. In reality both are probably dependent on results (on a race by race or daily basis) i.e. Favs getting beat - but over any length of time - the over-round will enable them both to win in the long term.
In dread to think what the overheads must now be (on-course) as a % of turnover. Anyway - the point is, they are two completely different subjects (imo).
On course are flogging a dead horse 90% of all meetings. Whereas Online are trying to kill off a horse that is already on it's last legs.
For the squeamish - no actual horses were harmed or killed during the construction of this ^ post.
I'd guess realistically neither can make an actual book - even though the internet should have made it easier to do so on-line. In reality both are probably dependent on results (on a race by race or daily basis) i.e. Favs getting beat - but over any length of time - the over-round will enable them both to win in the long term.
In dread to think what the overheads must now be (on-course) as a % of turnover. Anyway - the point is, they are two completely different subjects (imo).
1st tp, pt 2 pts no machine, they all happy to take one and they tell me the same under rules as well. Just need to take a few minutes and have a chat with them and ask.
Some were saying the ring seems to be picking up as more are going on course to punt again because of the high street knock backs.
Some were saying the ring seems to be picking up as more are going on course to punt again because of the high street knock backs.
well if you read Knott's blogs their not betting on their 2 joints on course to any numbers, tea money race after race
The Management
06 Mar 25 10:39
Joined: 27 Dec 00
| Topic/replies: 11,124 | Blogger: The Management's blog
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.
Spot on TM. How many bingo/arcades advertisments do you see on TV nowadays? All run by thieves who do not take bets. A complete shambles and it's going to get worse as more parasites clock on.
As for a bookie going into the rails, there has to be jurastiction for that with a minimum of at least 20k cash. Say Cheltenham for example, yes, they do try their best to make a book but what if the get cleaned out after the first two races.....what then? Yes, they can borrow from others or use their cheque book but at the end of the day it will all be T0TE related....as in many countries.
06 Mar 25 10:39
Joined: 27 Dec 00
| Topic/replies: 11,124 | Blogger: The Management's blog
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.
Spot on TM. How many bingo/arcades advertisments do you see on TV nowadays? All run by thieves who do not take bets. A complete shambles and it's going to get worse as more parasites clock on.
As for a bookie going into the rails, there has to be jurastiction for that with a minimum of at least 20k cash. Say Cheltenham for example, yes, they do try their best to make a book but what if the get cleaned out after the first two races.....what then? Yes, they can borrow from others or use their cheque book but at the end of the day it will all be T0TE related....as in many countries.
Yes, a tote monopoly would be the other option that could possibly save racing and maybe that is where it will end up when things get really desperate - but obviously that is only a solution for saving the sport and it's not really a solution for people that want to bet on the sport.
Plenty betting goes on in the pub I venture into now and then..
Yes Stewarty TM is bang on the money with that one.
The sport we love is literally driving people away with its lack of nous / inability to solve any of its multiple issues.
Sort out the bookies / betting and everything else follows.
Prize money up, best horses wouldn't be sold to race abroad, owners can back their own horses, normal people can enjoy a bet.
Reduce the bloated calendar , which again is bookie driven , the irony is they want increased number of meetings yet won't take a bet..
The sport we love is literally driving people away with its lack of nous / inability to solve any of its multiple issues.
Sort out the bookies / betting and everything else follows.
Prize money up, best horses wouldn't be sold to race abroad, owners can back their own horses, normal people can enjoy a bet.
Reduce the bloated calendar , which again is bookie driven , the irony is they want increased number of meetings yet won't take a bet..
oneten -- it is you who are missing the point when you say: "No one said anything about them having to lay the same odds to 5,000 different people, but if they advertise a price they must take a bet to lose 1k or 2k."
OK, let us say they take that bet from the first punter and then cut the price, as you say they can.
Well then, from the point of view of the other 4,999 punters, the bookie has refused to honour the price.
So all this guarantee has achieved is the difference between 5,000 disgruntled punters and 4,999 disgruntled punters. What's the point of that?
And remember this is a virtual queue over the internet. The 5,000 punters are unaware of each other's presence as they sit at home clicking the web page. It is not like on course where there is a physical queue of punters who can see a bet being struck before the price is rubbed off.
If anything the guarantee has made things worse. Before, it was the cowardly bookie ducking the bets, but with the guarantee, now it is a dishonest bookie refusing to follow the rules (or that is how it looks to the 4,999 even if the first guy knows they did).
OK, let us say they take that bet from the first punter and then cut the price, as you say they can.
Well then, from the point of view of the other 4,999 punters, the bookie has refused to honour the price.
So all this guarantee has achieved is the difference between 5,000 disgruntled punters and 4,999 disgruntled punters. What's the point of that?
And remember this is a virtual queue over the internet. The 5,000 punters are unaware of each other's presence as they sit at home clicking the web page. It is not like on course where there is a physical queue of punters who can see a bet being struck before the price is rubbed off.
If anything the guarantee has made things worse. Before, it was the cowardly bookie ducking the bets, but with the guarantee, now it is a dishonest bookie refusing to follow the rules (or that is how it looks to the 4,999 even if the first guy knows they did).
£2,000 ??
Are you having a laugh? It would be great if they laid you odds to £20.
The worst is that they let you have £10 to 83p but leave the price up - that's the thing that should be illegal.
If the price is still on Oddschecker after I've had my 83p I should be allowed another 83p and another and another.
It would be less irksome if they just closed the account and sent me my money, but they don't do that because
they are still hoping I'll get rat-arsed some night and go on tilt in the casino.
Are you having a laugh? It would be great if they laid you odds to £20.
The worst is that they let you have £10 to 83p but leave the price up - that's the thing that should be illegal.
If the price is still on Oddschecker after I've had my 83p I should be allowed another 83p and another and another.
It would be less irksome if they just closed the account and sent me my money, but they don't do that because
they are still hoping I'll get rat-arsed some night and go on tilt in the casino.
Ramruna, sorry but no, you are missing the point .
The point being the same as what happens now when a price is advertised and if it shortens, you miss out , are you disgruntled ? No, it's a fact of life , when making a book, prices fluctuate.
The whole point of a minimum bet rule is that all bets are accommodated, whether they like it or not. I fail to see what you don't understand about that ? Bookies adjust their odds the same as they do over here.
Every punter backing in a race don't all back the same horse so the bookie makes a book..
All punters in Australia are accommodated to win and it works absolutely fine. Some
punters will have 10 or 15 accounts and get the same bet matched across all their accounts .
It's tried and tested and proven to work, so your argument holds no water, sorry.
Punters don't all want to back the same horse, it's why it's called bookmaking. It's down to the bookies to manage the odds correctly .
The point being the same as what happens now when a price is advertised and if it shortens, you miss out , are you disgruntled ? No, it's a fact of life , when making a book, prices fluctuate.
The whole point of a minimum bet rule is that all bets are accommodated, whether they like it or not. I fail to see what you don't understand about that ? Bookies adjust their odds the same as they do over here.
Every punter backing in a race don't all back the same horse so the bookie makes a book..
All punters in Australia are accommodated to win and it works absolutely fine. Some
punters will have 10 or 15 accounts and get the same bet matched across all their accounts .
It's tried and tested and proven to work, so your argument holds no water, sorry.
Punters don't all want to back the same horse, it's why it's called bookmaking. It's down to the bookies to manage the odds correctly .
Spot on PTB - it's not about the price or managing a book - the price doesn't move - it's punter specific - they don't want business from certain people at the price they advertise but are happy to lay the price to others with different betting profiles - that's the key point - and it's killing the sport.
Yep. Any other seller is expected to honour the prices in their adverts.
The bookies should call themselves forensic turf accountants (fta); they are NOT horseracing bet acceptors or facilitators. Most are peddlers of gaming "crack cocaine" online and in the high street.
I'd challenge the bookies to dispute my assertion/statement legally on the above.
I'd challenge the bookies to dispute my assertion/statement legally on the above.
OWNERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED A BET ON THEIR OWN HORSES ?
THEY CAN
they are most of them laying their horses to lose
THEY CAN
they are most of them laying their horses to lose
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539