- This topic has 118 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
McCririck described Kauto Star’s 4-9 SP as "diabolical", and added: "At least half the bookmakers I saw on the boards were going 1-2. No punter on the course could possibly have taken 4-9 and 1-2 should have been the return.
"Because of the new system, SP returners are forced to go 4-9. Bookmakers have saved hundreds of thousands of pounds on that one horse alone."
Why the rip off ?
But to be fair ..
JOHN McCRIRICK’S claim that punters are losing out under a new system for returning SPs has been denied by Jim Donnelley, head of sport at the organisation whose staff validate prices.
John also adds ..
“We are keeping a daily record of percentages per runner and per race, and those figures will be presented to the SPRC on a monthly basis because the new system is being kept under review to see what it produces.â€ÂÂ
I think that this story should be read as:
"moron luddite who has no real grasp of a computerised system whines about an instance where the computerised odds of the winner happen to be shorter than the old manual system."
Does anyone really think that McCririck has the professionalism or dedication to teh facts to bother making a meaningful survey of the swings and roundabouts of the changes to the SP system?
Steve
Talking about facts Steve, I thought I would do a bit of research of my own and see how the new SP structure was effecting SP’s.
Taking two meetings at random, Chepstow 2nd Dec and Stratford on the 2nd September lets compare the SP’s and what the effect really is ..
Stratford .. 2nd September<br>2:30 .. 16 run .. TOTAL SP 124% .. 1.5%<br>3:00 .. 10 run .. TOTAL SP 113% .. 1.3%<br>3:30 .. 16 run .. TOTAL SP 123% .. 1.43%<br>4:05 .. 9 run .. TOTAL SP 114% .. 1.5%<br>4:40 .. 8 run .. TOTAL SP 112% .. 1.5%<br>5:15 .. 10 run .. TOTAL SP 115% .. 1.5%<br>5:45 .. 15 run .. TOTAL SP 121% .. 1.4%<br>Average %age per runner = 1.45%
The books returned yesterday.
Chepstow .. 2nd Dec<br>12:40 .. 11 run .. TOTAL SP 116% ..1.45%<br>1:10 .. 5 run .. TOTAL SP 110% ..2%<br>1:45 .. 11 run .. TOTAL SP 121% .. 1.9%<br>2:15 .. 8 run .. TOTAL SP 115% .. 1.875%<br>2:50 .. 8 run .. TOTAL SP 113% .. 1.62%<br>3:20 .. 11 run .. TOTAL SP 118% .. 1.6%<br>3:50 .. 16 run .. TOTAL SP 130% .. 1.875%<br>Average %age per runner = 1.76%
This computerised luddite dealing only in facts suggests that Jim Donnelly will be laughing his size six socks off !
I think I see a code embedded in these prices.
First we have 4 to 9. Clearly this symbolises the year 429 when the msot important world event was the Vandals invading the final area of the civilized world that they had yet to destroy.
The 1-2 is clearly indicative of Lord Donoghue counting his index and middle fingers held upright in front of punters’ faces. The old two finger salute.
Quote: from stevedvg on 9:36 pm on Dec. 3, 2006[br]I think that this story should be read as:
"moron luddite who has no real grasp of a computerised system whines about an instance where the computerised odds of the winner happen to be shorter than the old manual system."
Does anyone really think that McCririck has the professionalism or dedication to teh facts to bother making a meaningful survey of the swings and roundabouts of the changes to the SP system?  ÂÂÂ
Steve <br>
No swings or roundabouts, just a slide in all odds.
Nothing to do with computerisation either but the formula underpinning the SP, which can only ever result in worse or the same prices than under the old system, never better ones.
The key point he was making is that the SP is no longer the price that rules in the ring. It is not representative of what someone betting in the ring would have got at the off.
Instead Lord Donoghue has given his buddies at the big three priority in the sample and, at many meetings these days, the ability to name their own SPs. Prices at which no actual bets need to have been struck.
It’s like government. Never ever trust the government.
It seemd so obvious to me that when the goverment prompted people to take out private pensions in lieu of their government pensions, it would not be to enrich  members of the public when they came to drew their pensions….. but the reverse.
Here is a link to a very wise man who uses very profane language. He is an American comedian called, George Carlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esl4iH-atFQ
(Edited by Grimes at 11:33 pm on Dec. 3, 2006)
The whole SP system has always seemed a tad arbitary to me.
I’d like to see an analysis of SPs on big Saturday races and, in particular, shortening before the off. For example, it’s commonplace for the SPs on the front four or five in the Grand National to, illogically, ALL shorten up in the final few minutes, presumably saving ‘the industry’ 6 figs min, prob 7.
Betfair SP would be a better guide. :o
Time the betting industry was brought under the spotlight a little more critically (RP won’t do it – advertising revenue to think of).
Anyone got anything to say on the matter?
While I’m on the subject I’d also like to suggest that occasions when they knock back bets at advertised prices (as has been highlighted on here) should be reported to the commission of fair trading. That way repeat offenders could be brought to book.
<br>
<br>I can never quite understand why punters wory about how the SP is calculated, but never seem bothered about the accuracy of the betting shows from the track.
If the SP system is being manipulated in favour of the books, then simply don’t bet at SP.
But if the shows in the minutes before the off are also being manipulated in the same fashion, then the best alternative to SP is also less attractive to punters and the non exchange better is left with only bookies morning prices – and we all know the problem with those!
OK, the 4/9 SP return for Kauto Star is dodgy, but given the same prices displayed on the boards at Sandown, what price was showing in the shops 30 secs before the off?
AP<br>
- Total Posts 17716
God forbid that I should side with bookmakers, but we do need an sp system, and it is a fact that their margins have shrunk markedly since Betfair came on the scene.<br> There is a need to redress the balance, whether the new method achieves that or not is a moot point, but, in all honesty, the 1.76 per runner put up by dj for Chepstow yesterday still seems eminently reasonable compared with the situation pre the exchanges.<br> Like them or not, without them there is no free market, and the prospect of pool or exchange betting with its concomitant deductions and arbitrary prices is not the way forward.<br>Imo, of course.
Are you on a wind up? So some big three rep deciding what the SPs should be without having to strike any bets is a free market and BF is arbitrary? You’ve lost me.
Why do margins have to be high or be set to pre-pitch reform levels? The bookies get by on 2.8% margins on FOBTs, why do racing margins have to be so high? In the modern era – with EPOS and two-way markets on the exchanges, why on earth should legitimate 100/1 pokes still be priced up at 33/1?
racing depends on levy, levy is 10% of bookmakers UK horse-racing profit.
low margins, less profit, less levy as has happened last 2 years eventually no funding so no UK horse-racing.
Hi barry dennis
how has UK horse racing been, materially, effected in the last 2 years?
byefrom<br>carlisle
I know that horse racing depends on the levy, so why not increase it to 15% of bookmakers profits on horse racing ?
I whinge about this becuase it happens regularly. In a 10 runner race the opening show is 112% and it stays like that until 2 minutes beofre the off when the front 3 shorten. It usually goes along the line of (from my experience)
15/8 drifts to 5/2<br>4/1 shortens to 3/1<br>5/1 shortens to 9/2<br>10/1 drifts to 12/1
which is fine but 3 min before the off
15/8 – 5/2 then (allegedly well backed) to 7/4<br>4/1 – 3/1<br>5/1 – 9/1<br>10/1 – 12/1 – 14/1
Perhaps they think we don’t notice but the SP book is often 10% bigger than the opening show. It looks like a bookies prift maximising procedure to me which comes at the expense of punters.
Having said all of that, no-one forces a punter to take SP.
The SP system is irrelevant. The mugs that bet in shops and don’t understand or care about the margins they are backing against and won’t complain. When compared to the other high margin products the bookmakers shops earn money from the new SP’s are not too bad.
Thankfully the real market is alive and well for serious punters.<br>
Following a review by the Starting Price Regulatory Commission of which Donnelley is a member, since November 1 a larger sample of racecourse bookmakers offering prices to ‘good money’ are now used to calculate SPs with the focus of attention on the top half of the sample rather than the top third.
Previously, if the sample contained 12 layers, the SP validator focused on the four offering the best odds – from the punter’s point of view. The shortest price among the four was the SP. Now, given the same dozen bookmakers, the focus is on the six offering the best odds, and the shortest price among the six is the SP
<br>Looks an easy system to manipulate
Might be wrong, but shouldn’t the SP should represent the average price being offered by those in the sample
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.