May 17, 2007 at 10:46 #1697
Dick Turpin, the famous highwayman is celebrated in York, where he was hanged for his crimes of banditry. It seems that his spectre is stalking the Knavesmire again and has been seen in the form of those responsible for returning SPs at the Dante meeting.
Historically, York has always had a very strong betting market because of the good racing, knowledgeable betting public and the large number of layers in Tatts and on the rails. The competition between layers to attract the punter’s pound has always been fierce, especially at the big meetings.
2006 was typical with an average over-round of 1.3% per runner, which would have been hard to better, even at Ascot and Cheltenham.
Yesterday, the first day of the Dante meeting returned 1.7% per runner for a very similar card to 2006. That represents a deterioration of about 30% in the value available to punters or put another way, an increase in SP margins of about 30%in favour of those bookmakers who settle at SP.
Those bookmakers who bet in Tatts and punters who fish around there for the best prices will have noticed absolutely no difference between 2006 and 2007. It is purely down to the way SPs are now returned following changes in November 2006.
If anyone is still betting seriously at SP, they need to have a rethink. The alternatives are to either take a price or look to the exchanges. Early prices have followed the SP trend and are now considerably shorter than pre Nov 2006, especially early in the day and the exchanges suffer from lack of liquidity until near to race time. There are perhaps a few occasions during the week when an SP bet can be justified, but the vast majority of backers should look to the exchanges or take a price later in the day.
If you are betting for fun, it doesn’t really matter, except that the price of your bet has gone up by a lot more than your wages, beer, petrol and the rest of your living expenses.
Who were those masked strangers committing robbery at York?May 17, 2007 at 12:30 #59916GlennParticipant
- Total Posts 1981
York has been a veritable [removed] compared to some of the other meetings.
4.00 Exeter yesterday: Frosty Jack smashed from 7/2 into 11/10 in an 18 runner handicap! What happened to the other four horses in single figures? They were all clipped to.
Similar story in the last at Perth yesterday and then we have the last at Thirsk on Saturday. Fav gets smashed from 4/5 into 1/3 and what happens to the second fav? That gets smashed aswell.
Heads the bookies win, tails you lose.May 17, 2007 at 12:57 #59918barry dennisMember
- Total Posts 398
why didn’t you 2 whinge 3 years ago when overounds were 2.2% per runner,
answer, because its only since the new sp system came into force and mac screamed you became aware.
anyway dont bet sp have your Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£10K bets on b/exchangesMay 17, 2007 at 12:59 #59921robnorthParticipant
- Total Posts 4578
Quote: from Glenn on 1:30 pm on May 17, 2007[br]<br>Heads the bookies win, tails you lose.
True, but there are various options other than SP, and surely anyone wishing to achieve the best return will not be betting at SP. I struggle to remember the last time I had a bet at SP, although I have bet at Tote odds on a few occasions but only when I felt I might gain advantage.
Sadly a sizeable chunk of the betting public aren’t inclined to make an effort to put themselves in the best position. But then for all the changes in returning of prices ’twas ever thus.
RobMay 17, 2007 at 13:40 #59923
I cannot recall over-rounds of 2.2% per runner as the norm 3 years ago except on AW, Irish and BAGS, least of all at a place like York.
It would be quite simple to standardise SP returns so that bookmakers laying SP were given a slightly bigger margin than the track bookmakers and the exchanges to cover all the expenses of providing a service in the High Street. The increases brought into play in November are too big. Unfair and unjustifiable,IMO.
Greed will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
The 10k punters can usually look after themselves. The Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£1 Lucky 15 players are being well and truly cynically stuffed and I don’t like to see it.May 17, 2007 at 13:51 #59924barry dennisMember
- Total Posts 398
Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£1 lucky 15’s good bets to take!!!!! shows your naivetyMay 17, 2007 at 14:33 #59928robnorthParticipant
- Total Posts 4578
Quote: from Artemis on 2:40 pm on May 17, 2007[br]The Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£1 Lucky 15 players are being well and truly cynically stuffed and I don’t like to see it. <br>
Only because of their own greed, short-sightedness, lack of knowledge or because they can’t be a**ed to think about it.
People spend millions playing casinos, slot machines and stacks of other negative expectancy bets every day.
(Edited by robnorth at 3:46 pm on May 17, 2007)May 17, 2007 at 14:39 #59929
I know all about Lucky 15s, profit margins etc and I’m far from naive when it comes to betting matters as many on this forum will testify, but that’s not my point.
Racing depends upon the goodwill of the public: once that evaporates, it will be hard to get it back. You and I are about the same age and we grew up with racing and betting because our fathers, uncles or peers took an interest in it. We followed suit. I worked in bookmaking for about 12 years before going on to teaching, so racing was in my blood.
Today it’s different and racing has to compete with many other forms of gambling to gain its market share. It’s a minority sport – it would be off the map if C4 pulled out – and we all need to let the betting public see that they can have their small bets and get a fair return.
You have done very well out of racing, not least because of your good business sense and the fact that you will lay a fair bet. You look after the most important people in your business – the customers. Yes, a lot of them are ‘mugs’ and ‘sheep’, but they don’t deserve to be fleeced.May 17, 2007 at 14:51 #59931dave jayMember
- Total Posts 3386
Quote: from barry dennis on 1:57 pm on May 17, 2007[br]why didn’t you 2 whinge 3 years ago when overounds were 2.2% per runner,<br>
<br>.. because they weren’t generally, only at dog tracks like Lingfield and Southwell.May 17, 2007 at 15:52 #59932AragornMember
- Total Posts 2208
Thats where Barry lays all his bets anyway isn;t it? More business there than on guineas day…May 17, 2007 at 16:09 #59935LibrettistMember
- Total Posts 559
I don’t think punters ‘goodwill’ will run out as for the vast majority of them gambling is an addiction. They just want a winner, any winner, any price. The bookies know this and act accordingly. Sad but true.May 17, 2007 at 16:46 #59937hoofheartedMember
- Total Posts 248
When I started punting 35 years ago, I soon realised that SP’s were the left-overs …….. the prices that those punters on the course were NOT prepared to take. I quickly adjusted my betting style to account for this.
Nothing in the interim years has changed — anyone who is content to accept SP has only themselves to blame for any shortfall. It’s a free world — you make your choice and accept the consequences. Who buys a car or any other commodity without shopping around? <br>Go racing — or go on the exchanges!
And all this talk about 2%, 3% etc over-rounds per horse on SP is deluding themselves ( or perhaps unconsciously trying to justify their constant annual betting losses) because at the hard coalface of making a balanced book at the races, such over-rounds are not in existence in a quickly changing and volatile market.May 18, 2007 at 08:32 #59938
Wednesday’s over-rounds came out at 1.7% per runner, with the last race(now the unlucky last) over 2% per runner.May 18, 2007 at 08:50 #59940davidbradyMember
- Total Posts 3901
Quote: from hoofhearted on 5:46 pm on May 17, 2007[br]And all this talk about 2%, 3% etc over-rounds per horse on SP is deluding themselves ( or perhaps unconsciously trying to justify their constant annual betting losses) because at the hard coalface of making a balanced book at the races, such over-rounds are not in existence in a quickly changing and volatile market. <br>
There is a big distinction between on-course layers laying specific prices and thinking on their feet and the big 3 manipulating those prices with the bookies who make up the SP in order that the off-course SP liabilities are minimised.
I would have no problem betting at SP if I thought the SP market was a relatively fair indicator of the probabilities involved. I appreciate that there is going to be some premium to pay for this service but provided it’s reasonable, then I have no problem with that.
I DO have an issue with the inherent profit margins in the current SP system. Barry Dennis has already stated (in a previous thread) that he prices his board to give a 100% book for the place market which means that the win-only punters are screwed.
IMO, it’s about time we scrapped the current fraction-based place betting and introduced 2 books similar to Betfair – win-only and place-only. We could use the SPs from the course as normal for the win-bets while place-only bets are settled at the tote rate, perhaps adjusted upwards to account for the 17% take-out which the tote has.May 18, 2007 at 18:50 #59944Shadow LeaderMember
- Total Posts 763
Quote: from Artemis on 4:39 pm on May 17, 2007[br]<br>Today it’s different and racing has to compete with many other forms of gambling to gain its market share. It’s a minority sport – it would be off the map if C4 pulled out – and we all need to let the betting public see that they <br>
Sorry – can’t agree with that at all. Despite what the doom and gloom merchants keep saying, betting on horseracing is still exceptionally robust despite the increased opportunities to bet on other things. Horseracing still accounts for the lions share of turnover for bookmaking firms and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Does anyone seriously think that if C4 pulled out of racing the betting on the sport would go into a massive decline? Of course it wouldn’t – it’s not the 20p terrestrial coverage lucky 15 merchants that keep the industry afloat. It would have an effect but it wouldn’t be terminal.
(Edited by Shadow Leader at 8:51 pm on May 18, 2007)
<br>(Edited by Shadow Leader at 8:53 pm on May 18, 2007)<br>
(Edited by Shadow Leader at 8:53 pm on May 18, 2007)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.