- This topic has 85 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As Towcester is leading the way in the innovation stakes currently, perhaps the AW courses would like to follow with the abolition of class 5 and 6 handicaps?
They could be replaced with a range of claimers and conditions races with appropriately framed conditions. Running a horse down the track to lower its handicap mark would become irrelevant overnight.
Oh well the whole sport is corrupt then, it must be a complete fluke that I can make money on the low grade racing without having any "inside" information, and without having to bet close to the off.
I largely agree with those sentiments Robert and have been steadfast throughout my betting career in blaming no one but myself for my punting errors
However, when Maxilon5 with his intimate and encyclopaedic knowledge of AW racing and its betting patterns notices a change for the worse (and he’s not been alone in noticing) then IMO the rot from the one bad apple in the big barrel must be spreading
Have to admit that I’m finding it increasingly difficult to justify my love and near-100% usage of the Exchanges in the face of the (almost certain) increase in corrupt laying practices emanating from them
But betting the nags was never really for those with carbon-fibre morals was it?
Have to admit that I’m finding it increasingly difficult to justify my love and near-100% usage of the Exchanges in the face of the (almost certain) increase in corrupt laying practices emanating from them
Would it be any better to go back to the old days of just the traditional bookmakers being able to take advantage of laying horses they knew weren’t ‘off’?
- Total Posts 17716
I’d be happy to see laying banned completely, its a scourge on the game at this stage
Without any layers there is no betting, period. This universal truth has not altered for centuries in spite of the arrival of betting exchanges. I guess many just long for a return to the bad old days where only bookmakers and their mates could lay a horse.
What people really seem to be pining for without realising it is an all tote system. Very hard to be a layer in markets with a 15-20% take out. The only remaining avenue for layers then is backing all other runners in fields with long odds on favourites.
Is that what you want folks?
If there is an almost certain increase in corrupt practices related to exchanges then why haven’t the relevant bodies been tracing the obvious and well documented paper trails? Why haven’t more exchange layers been warned off or arrested?
Another thought relating to racing during the winter months. Surely many inconsistencies in form can be put down to weather related interuptions to training regimes? You’d think this would be especially so given the stop start nature of the harsh winter we’ve just experienced.
What people really seem to be pining for without realising it is an all tote system. Very hard to be a layer in markets with a 15-20% take out. The only remaining avenue for layers then is backing all other runners in fields with long odds on favourites.
I reckon you might be onto something there.
Sorry to interrupt, Chiswickian.
Robert, I go to ninety percent of Southwell meetings. Over this winter, I’ve watched about seventy five percent of Lingfield meetings and all the afternoon stuff from Dunstall and Kempton Park.
This season has definitely been different. Early last year, I pointed out the high number of favourites winning at Southwell. Others spotted that too and supported it. This year has been even worse. After George Baker’s
Jack’s Revenge
landed one of the biggest short priced gambles of modern times, the only bookmaker at Southwell who bets to an opinion, a popular and friendly one, an enthusiast, came to speak to us in the paddock and said he was packing it in. He said he couldn’t win.
Watch that race again, Robert. Nothing got near the horse. There was zero competition and hence, no need for a book – or a bookmaker. He’s not been back since.
The rest of the line hedge and arb and respond to the high street nod and essentially survive on a crust, like the rest of us scavenging crows.
Two other caps are on the verge of giving it up – I know one won’t be back after Dalakhee on Wednesday evening. A one horse book, all day, with no prospect of field money and, as Zarkava brutally points out, maximum opportunity to lay the field on betting exchanges.
At 1.30, the horse was 13/8 in places from an opening 11/2. Despite a last minute drift – which I put down to the half-rice, half-chips men laying off their liabilities – there was an overwhelming certainty amongst track punters that Midgeley’s horse was going to win. A shoulder shrugging inevitability.
I backed it. You backed it, but did you really enjoy it? Is that why you signed up to the cavalcade? To feast on the scraps from Jack’s Revenge, the Quinlan double at Lingfield, the Curley yankee, Spic and Span two weeks ago, Romeo Montague or Dalakhee?
Most of the time there are only two or three triers in an eight horse race. Usually only one. The betting percentages under those circumstances become meaningless. I’m not saying that races are carved up, nor am I saying the game is bent. Just that its less competitive than I – and many others – want.
What I am also saying is that trainers are now more willing than ever to wait for the precise moment when they can land enough bets to pay a small owners training fees and stable bills. The prize money won’t allow that to happen and it seems to me that everyone is complicit in this.
As C points out, a pari-mutuel system (I know, Ricky, Dream On!), would wipe all this out at a stroke.
"Most of the time there are only two or three triers in an eight horse race. Usually only one"
I don’t know what to say, Max, if you truly believe that then I can only wonder why you bother to continue watching/going racing and contributing to this forum.
I spend 7/8 hours a day going through the form, watching endless replays etc etc. Now if I thought racing was anywhere near as corrupt as the majority of you lot seem to think it is, then I wouldn’t bother, because clearly I wouldn’t be able to win.
Hand on heart, I reckon I see about 1 in 100 horses probably not running on merit. What I do see however is around 1 in 4 running in completely the wrong race. If you think thats cheating, fair enough, I disagree. It’s playing the game to obtain a handicap mark they can win off, or in some cases it’s incompetent trainers who might be able to train horses, but have no idea when it comes to placing them. and if your willing to put in the hours, you too can play the game.
I said the other day i’d try and start a few positive threads, to be honest I think i’d be wasting my time on here.
I’ve been racing three times in the past two weeks, it’s not dead or dying, i’ve backed numerous horses in the past weeks who have drifted markedly before the off and still won (one from 12’s to 22’s, one 14’s to 33’s, even just yesterday 6’s to 10’s)
If you want it to be as squeaky clean as it possibly can be, then sure lets have a tote monopoly, ban the exchanges, get rid of all the handicaps. Let’s turn in into a cross between french and american racing and make it as boring as we possibly can.
What worries me is that this forum is supposedly full of people that love the game, and yet hardly anyone seems to have a good thing to say about it.
It seeems pretty clear that the opportunity to lay horses on exchanges has led to a decrease in the integrity of racing. Don’t know if anyone would/could disagree with that.
Although racing has always presented opportunities for wrong-doing and sharp practise the advent of exchange betting has, for fairly obvious reasons, made it easier for people to access a ready market for gaining spoils from their nefarious activities. Not impossible to do so before but much easier and tehrefore tempting now. Yes?
So surely the thing to do is not to abolish exchanges but to ensure that all layers who play on exchanges are licensed. Before you can lay a bet on an exchange you’d have to submit an application of some kind and have referees, etc, in the same way layers on the course or on the high street do. Isn’t it that simple?
It is almost wholly illogical that I can’t pitch up at Musselburgh tomorrow and take bets but I can sit on my computer at home and take as many bets as I want. Of course there are liquidity and solvency issues associated with on and off-course layers which don’t apply on-line (where I need the cash in my account) which stops it being wholly illogical but, so far as legislating to minimise the potential for wrong-doing, the current laws controlling who can/cannot take of bets seem inadequate somehow.
It seeems pretty clear that the opportunity to lay horses on exchanges has led to a decrease in the integrity of racing. Don’t know if anyone would/could disagree with that.
Although racing has always presented opportunities for wrong-doing and sharp practise the advent of exchange betting has, for fairly obvious reasons, made it easier for people to access a ready market for gaining spoils from their nefarious activities. Noy impossible to do so before but much easier and tehrefore tempting now. Yes?
So surely the thing to do is not to abolish exchanges but to ensure that all layers who play on exchanges are licensed. Before you can lay a bet on an exchange you’d have to submit an application in the same way layers on the course or on the high street do. Isn’t it that simple?
It is almost wholly illogical that I can’t pitch up at Musselburgh tomorrow and take bets but I can sit on my computer at home and take as many bets as I want. Of course there are liquidity and solvency issues associated with on and off-course layers which don’t apply on-line (where I need the cash in my account) which stops it being wholly illogical but, so far as legislating to minimise the potential for wrong-doing, the current laws controlling who can/cannot take of bets seem inadequate somehow.
Corm, I’m not sure anything has changed in reality, it’s just that before the advent of the exchanges the ‘unusual betting patterns’ were more difficult to detect.
A fully tote-based system would help as Chiswickian has pointed out but the methodology of the handicappers as demonstrated by Jose on his thread is a positive encouragement to cheat.
Making losing less profitable (higher entry fees, greater prizemoney for success, banning horses that fail to run to within 7 pounds of their mark three runs in a row from running in handicaps until they have produced a ‘rateable’ performance) would help.
Cormack‘s suggestion:
"So surely the thing to do is not to abolish exchanges but to ensure that all layers who play on exchanges are licensed. Before you can lay a bet on an exchange you’d have to submit an application of some kind and have referees, etc, in the same way layers on the course or on the high street do. Isn’t it that simple?"
seems a good starting point.Moreover, Betfair need to enable users to see the plays by all the layers, if they want to.
Nothing works better than openness.Thanks for the info., Maxilon, & please keep it coming!
Robert Gibbs‘ point is useful indeed – he makes a profit & obviously puts in the hours. He doesn’t seem like someone who would fail to notice sharp practice on a massive scale, so I for one feel relieved to read his posts.Corm,
Apart from being totally impractical (how are you going to process the thousands of licence applications?), how exactly does a licence stop me from laying a horse I’ve been told won’t win?
AP
Well as far as I’m concerned I’m all for a PMU. It solves all the problems that exist with British horse racing in one great big sweep. Raises prize money to an acceptable standard, inables laying, eliminates gambles, eliminates bookmaker power, will attract new owners, will give horse racing a new & clean image, will lead to fewer meetings & overall a better standard of horse & I’m sure many more positive effects. If it would lead to Paul Roy losing his job, then I’m all the more for it. Despicable man.
It won’t stop it AP, just the same as an on-course bookie knowing one isn’t off can lay it all day.
But, I’d liken it to gun licensing. It doesn’t stop the occasional acts of mis-use but it does help prevent a US-style free-for-all.
I’d pay for it by utilising some of the millions in the BHA integrity budget. Or perhaps make the exchange pay for each license issued to one of their players. Yes, that’s it, licences to be issued via link-throughs from the exchange you want to play from and then charge
the exchange
per license application. Crikey, that flash of brilliance just came to me right there and then!
I’d stress that I don’t think racing is endemic with corruption. But I do think you’d be naive not to think there are some bad apples who are ‘having it away’. If Robert Gibbs’ estimate (1 in 100 runners not running on merit) is anything like correct that is ca. one race in 10 where something is going off. That’s totally unacceptable.
Robert also makes very good points re- horses running in wrong races, etc, and I think a lot of the doom-mongers and pocket-talkers don’t know what they’re looking at half the time.
2points
Corm , it doesnt matter whether the layers are legalised or not , there will still only be one horse races (trying )…the game is to cover costs and keep the show on the road , prize money has failed , ergo fiddling does PAY
Max …I realise this will come as a shock , but I now agree with you and Zorro in a previous post , the Tote Pm system is the only way forward , but getting that to happen and fund the sport like most other countries do , is a bit of a dream sadly , and perhaps a nightmare if in fact it falls into the hands of a certain Man U freak ….
Ricky
I don’t think a tote/pmu monopoly would help punters. Surely we have the best of all worlds with competition between the tote, the exchanges and bookmakers.
In my view it is a massive advantage for a punter to be able to take a price on a horse – something not possible with a tote monopoly.
But if you are worried about a price moving the wrong way you can still bet with the tote or betfair SP or bookmaker BOG or SP.
Admittedly, if you are a race-fixer, it is also an advantage to be able to take a price. You could still make some money with a tote monopoly but probably not as much because your money would force down the odds. So I guess a tote monopoly would reduce incentives for corruption. But this seems a fairly small gain compared with the loss to punters of choice and price competition.
I don’t mean to come across as bolshie, but there does seem to be an awful lot of cynical thinking around. A bad ride these days is usually construed as a crooked ride.
I’ve read a lot of people saying that they don’t like betting on low grade races because horses don’t run to their form as often, I totally accept that point. But it’s really not as straightforward as that, they’re are an awful lot of trainers that really really haven’t any idea when it comes to placing horses, and that often results in an outcome that can often look a bit "dodgy" unless you look closer.
Tuffers, and others are right, you only have to look at Joses handicapping thread to see that the system is a bit of a joke. Having far more claimers etc would be far better. But if i’m honest i don’t mind it as it is, because it is usually quite easy to spot horses that are running over the wrong trip, on the wrong ground etc, that get dropped 10lb for three runs, and then are entered under their ideal conditions. However I can understand that most people don’t like that…………….
A tote monopoly is a horrible thought to my mind, other countries might be used to it, but do you honestly think that a lot of large punters in this country will continue to bet in the volume they do, or even at all, when you’ve got no idea what odds your getting. You say it’ll bring in more money, is that guaranteed? Racing may not get much of the money I turnover on my betting, but if a tote monopoly came in, it would get nothing, because I would just stop betting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.