- This topic has 196 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
If owners don’t want to lose so much when backing their horse why not put less on in the first place rather than manipulate the odds for their own ends and to the detriment of other punters by trading.
Every single punter should have some idea about value and pricing otherwise they’re doing a lot of shooting in the dark. Of course the bookmaking fraternity would like the blind stabbers to be filling their shops all day long. Ratings and price guides are available all over the place. If folks want to ignore value they do so to their own detriment.
It is not Harry Findlay’s fault if someone else takes, requests or offers a price about any individual runner. His actions are not to the detriment of anyone. In fact it could be argued that his modus operandi could present opportunities for others.
If Harry pushed out the price on one of his horses the oppurtunity to acquire over the odds is available to all not just Harry. If Harry backs one heavily he presents an opportunity for a free bet to those that took the bigger prices. How is either scenario to the detriment of other punters?
Now let’s look at this from the other angle. Harry backs his horse early at 14/1. The strength of money behind the horse sees its price plunge down to 6/1. Every single punter who took early prices now has a chance for a substantial free bet. Why should an owner not have that same opportunity? Is it just up to owners to provide opportunities for others in this sport?
If we are to continue with exchange betting we need to iron out a few issues. In particular the area of concern is the difference between outright laying and trading for a nett loss or profit from laying/backing. It would also help if officials and commentators were more conversant and accurate when it comes to their knowledge of the vagaries of exchange betting.
POLONIUS:
Yet here, Laertes? Aboard, aboard, for shame!
The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,
And you are stay’d for. There, my blessing with thee.
And these few precepts in thy memory
See thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledged comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous, chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell. My blessing season this in thee!Hamlet
, Act 1, Scene 3
Fascinating letter in today’s Post from Harry himself.
‘…because of my exemplary relationship with the BHA and Betfair, it was agreed that I could carry on laying [horses from yards where I was an owner, despite the rules being changed for everyone else]. To this day I am still allowed to do so…’
Has this exemption been publicised before?
I, too, find this astonishing.
It is totally irrelevant what Harry’s P and L is on such business – why is it one rule for him and another for the rest of us?
There is something deeply disconcerting about the notion that if a bet or series of bets fit in with a customer’s "normal" betting pattern, then they somehow shouldn’t cause alarm…
I’m positive there are punters who regularly have their card marked and regularly profit from inside info – winners and losers.
So if a dodgy race goes off, do Betfair just say to the BHA – "nothing to worry about about – just the usual suspects betting as normal"?? Unacceptable if so….
TDK,
I’ve laboured this point for about 2 years now but the penny has been very slow to drop with some in the media it seems.
My argument is that the much vaunted ‘audit trail’ is only as good as the operator wants it to be.
Bruce Millington in his comment piece the other day repeated the myth that the ‘BHA has unfettered access to Betfair accounts’. It has no such thing. If it did it would know exactly how many individuals operate businesses on racing and wouldn’t have to guess.
There is a big problem with sports relying on commercial organisations to help them police their own industries. The entire history of corporate life yields very few examples (anyone think of any in fact?) where a corporation, when faced with a conflict between what is morally correct and what is most profitable, chooses the path of righteousness over the path of riches. This is not a moral judgement on my part – simply a realistic recognition of the obligation that companies have to their shareholders. A legal obligation in fact.
Time and again we’re told by pundits that it’s good that we have ‘transparency’ and we can all see what’s going on. Well who saw this little lot?By the way, I can’t see any rule that forbids owners laying other horses in their trainers yards anyway so not sure that any dispensation would have been required. HF a bit confused?
I’m positive there are punters who regularly have their card marked and regularly profit from inside info
I’ve always wondered, what is classed as "inside info"
If you are friendly with a trainer, and he tells you he thinks his horse will win a certain race, is that inside info? It’s a very hazy subject.
If this F.person is "warned off" so to speak that seems to me like a case for the court of human rights. I can see maybe not allowing horses to run in his name or not allowing licensed bookmakers to do business with him. But not allowing him to enjoy the fun and frolicks of Glorious Goodwood or going to Cheltenham for the fun of it seems like a violation of his human rights.
Is racing just about gambling? If so then we should not be encouraging young people to go racing just as we should not be encouraging them to go to bars to drink.When are we going to face the reality of the life we lead and the sports we indulge in? Who decides what gambling is good and proper and what gambling is not?Who is playing God from the gallery? Again I ask you on the forum; Who decides what is good and who decides what is right?Licensing gambling is no different than licensing a whore house. Incidentally the problem is that we probably like the pleasure provided by either too much.Hence the need felt for the "Gods Of Goodness" to start legislating their use.And we somehow think we are doing good if constrained by the higher powers.What children we are.By the way, I can’t see any rule that forbids owners laying other horses in their trainers yards anyway so not sure that any dispensation would have been required. HF a bit confused?[/quote
I’m sure there is such a rule Sean, but I very much doubt it is being rigorously enforced…
The concept of what constitutes "Inside Info" is a hazy one, but it is easy to recognise.
Imagine a stable hand told an owner that a horse in the yard, due to go off a strong favourite in an upcoming race, worked terribly the other day with a horse rated much lower, having picked up a stone bruise the previous day.
If this information wasn’t in the public domain and the owner then laid the beast in question, then (regardless of the result) he has been acting on inside information.
SCHEDULES
Schedule 3 – Integrity codes of conduct: owners
1. This integrity code of conduct applies to any Person whose name is registered in the register of owners under Part 3.
2. Refrain from laying any horse in your ownership to lose a race.
3. Avoid imparting any information to anyone about your horse’s non-participation in a race with a view to the horse being layed until such time as the non-participation has been distributed by The Racing Calendar Office.
4. Refrain from laying any horse from a yard where you have a horse in training.
5. Refrain from causing any Person who holds a licence or permit granted by the Authority and with whom you have dealings to contravene any requirement imposed on that Person by or under these Rules.If owners don’t want to lose so much when backing their horse why not put less on in the first place rather than manipulate the odds for their own ends and to the detriment of other punters by trading.
Every single punter should have some idea about value and pricing otherwise they’re doing a lot of shooting in the dark. Of course the bookmaking fraternity would like the blind stabbers to be filling their shops all day long. Ratings and price guides are available all over the place. If folks want to ignore value they do so to their own detriment.
It is not Harry Findlay’s fault if someone else takes, requests or offers a price about any individual runner. His actions are not to the detriment of anyone. In fact it could be argued that his modus operandi could present opportunities for others.
If Harry pushed out the price on one of his horses the oppurtunity to acquire over the odds is available to all not just Harry. If Harry backs one heavily he presents an opportunity for a free bet to those that took the bigger prices. How is either scenario to the detriment of other punters?
Now let’s look at this from the other angle. Harry backs his horse early at 14/1. The strength of money behind the horse sees its price plunge down to 6/1. Every single punter who took early prices now has a chance for a substantial free bet. Why should an owner not have that same opportunity? Is it just up to owners to provide opportunities for others in this sport?
If we are to continue with exchange betting we need to iron out a few issues. In particular the area of concern is the difference between outright laying and trading for a nett loss or profit from laying/backing. It would also help if officials and commentators were more conversant and accurate when it comes to their knowledge of the vagaries of exchange betting.
You are falling into the Bruce Millington trap Chiswickian. An owner or trainer has more information than the general market. Allowing them the freedom to lay their horses makes the manipulation of the market easy to the detriment of the many. Whether they have a net winning position at the off is immaterial if they have used their position to manipluate the odds beforehand to their advantage.
Fascinating letter in today’s Post from Harry himself.
‘…because of my exemplary relationship with the BHA and Betfair, it was agreed that I could carry on laying [horses from yards where I was an owner, despite the rules being changed for everyone else]. To this day I am still allowed to do so…’
Has this exemption been publicised before?
Surely there needs to be an indepedent inquiry into this, the whole thing stinks. Is corruption involved?
None of the participants come out of this with any credit, what have Roy and Coward got to say about it?Not sure if I’ve missed it somewhere within this thread?
What was the ruling regarding the horses under his ownership or in his Mother’s name?
Just notice there’s the one running at Ascot tomorrow that won at Ponte last time and is under ownership of Mick Channon??
I’ve always wondered, what is classed as "inside info"
Wonder no more.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/insid … efault.aspWhat was the ruling regarding the horses under his ownership or in his Mother’s name?
The Panel imposes a disqualification of 6 months to come into effect on Friday 11 June 2010 until 10 December 2010 inclusive. The effect of this decision, in the light of Mr Findlay’s admitted direct involvement in the ownership of the horses currently registered in his mother’s ownership, is that horses registered in his mother’s name cannot race while she remains owner or part owner. Administrative arrangements for transfers of interest will need to be agreed by the Findlays with the BHA.
"Never Nearer" wrote:
I’ve always wondered, what is classed as "inside info"
Wonder no more.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/insid … efault.aspThank Never Nearer, that’s cleared things up…I think
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.