- This topic has 24 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
The pros always like to back their selections in the lastest second if possible because they don’t want to be seen.
This may well be true Froddo but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Waiting till the last minute is risky if your information leaks before then. I guess there is most liquidity just before a race but you might be less likely to be ‘seen’ if you bet steadily throughout the day in small amounts.
I see that the 5.00 at Wolves was passed off as ‘hedging’ and definitely not market manipulation in today’s Post.
So, a horse my firm has liabilities on is available to money at 2/1. I then walk past the opportunity to take the 2/1 in order to avail myself of an even £300 with a bookmaker who has the ability to immediately and simultaneously avail himself of the £400-£200 I mysteriously passed over.
There is an understanding between myself and the bookie I took evens with that, if he wants my future business, he must cut the price of the horse on his board and under no circumstances increase it thereafter no matter what subsequently happens.
How can this transaction be construed as anything other than having two constituent parts: a bet of £400-£200 and a bribe of £100?
It was encouraging that Racing Post, possibly on account of a bit of prodding, decided to make something of this.
It was less encouraging that the main apologists for this piece of blatant market-rigging were allowed to maintain that white was black without the matter being taken further.
Is there anyone out there who gives one on behalf of the punters who are needed to keep this show on the road?
- Total Posts 17716
The pros always like to back their selections in the lastest second if possible because they don’t want to be seen.
This may well be true Froddo but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Waiting till the last minute is risky if your information leaks before then. I guess there is most liquidity just before a race but you might be less likely to be ‘seen’ if you bet steadily throughout the day in small amounts.
I can see your point.
I had the mutuel mostly in mind but with fixed odds too it rather makes sense to wait.
It depends who you are. Quite naturally if a trainer tells me something and I trust and it is fixed odds betting environment, then I bet early. If I was the trainer, the opposite.
I ‘ve seen trainers giving to the pressmen some otherwise-would-be outsiders that win, just like I ‘ve seen them hiding info.If you are a good handicapper and you also read the press you can tell immediately what selections are the result of the journalist applying his powers of reason and what selections are from person to person talk.
Is there anyone out there who gives one on behalf of the punters who are needed to keep this show on the road?
It’s a question that often crops up and is never satisfactorily answered. The unoffical ‘sort of almost’ punter’s voice at the BHA has left. His post has yet to be filled. In a bizaree twist the trainer of Black Pond is reported to be throwing his hat into the ring!
All that’s left is to ask racing’s image men, like Paul Struthers and Rod Street, or the media what they think. As the sort of unofficial spokesman of the punter’s awkward squad I’ll be badgering them over the next few days to say something substantive on this issue.
What we had here basically was a proposition bet. To anyone in the shops they were given the choice between Black Pond and a horse(s) which on publically available information had arguably inferior form, was less open to improvement, inferior breeding, a lower strike rate trainer, less concerns that it was out for a mark etc. Understadably they opted in upwards of 80% of cases for Black Pond.
Like all proposition bets it was designed to lure the unwary as Black Pond actually had the inferior chance and the insider(s) and/or shrewdies piled on his main opponent.
The great unwashed were almost certainly getting the worst of it therefore
before
the market manipulation. But that wasn’t enough, Hills had to turn the screw just a little tighter and give them a duff price to boot.
In the end it turned out to be like a shell game, where whichever of the three shells you turned over there was no pea to be seen.
Does anyone think this promotes racing’s image or encourages those in the shops to bet on it? British Racing seems to be sleepwalking, still relying on High Street shops that have long since stabbed it in the back, to do its marketing for them.
Does anyone think Hills would dare to offer these sort of odds on one of their machines that they want to draw people away from racing to? The contrast is stark and I’m sure Hills are quietly delighted at any of their customers that made it:
1) Bet even money each of two on a random game, with a small chance (2.7%) of neither side winning.
2) Bet 10/11 each of two on a proposition bet, with a large chance (maybe 15-20%) of neither side winning
Is it any wonder that the levy continues to plummet and a horse that cost $130,000 is racing for loose change? When are racing’s rulers going to realise that running the sport along clip-joint lines, while offering a temporary boost to funds, is disastrous for its long term future?
There is a very simple solution.
The bookies need to agree that for each track there is a maximum overround (based on the number of runners) that is
allowed
to be returned for the Starting Price. This would probably be achieved via a formula like 100+x% + y% a runner.
So – let’s say the max overround at Wolves for a 6 runner race was 115% (still not particularly generous) – that would have meant that punters would have had to have seen a 10% improvement in overround on the other runners if the favourite was to be smashed into an artificially short price.
The bookies need to agree that for each track there is a maximum overround (based on the number of runners) that is allowed to be returned for the Starting Price. This would probably be achieved via a formula like 100+x% + y% a runner.
I’ve been arguing that for some time. Except it shouldn’t be by track, the overround should be based on number of runners. A formula could be easily devised which still maintained traditional fractions if necessary.
And the bookies don’t necessarily need to agree it, it should be regulated by government. A kind of minimum pricing policy.
The moral of this story is surely never to take a bookmaker’s SP. I am mystified why anybody would. You can always take a fixed price from any bookmaker or exchange in the land, and if you want SP you can go with Betfair where the overround after comm is about 105%.
And, to be fair to the bookmakers, they also sometimes offer BOG which is a valuable concession, especially if you are backing at short odds.
The unoffical ‘sort of almost’ punter’s voice at the BHA has left. His post has yet to be filled. In a bizaree twist the trainer of Black Pond is reported to be throwing his hat into the ring!
As the sort of unofficial spokesman of the punter’s awkward squad I’ll be badgering them over the next few days to say something substantive on this issue.
The promotion of a troublemaking member of an awkward squad in order to silence him, bring him on-side, and get him out of the way has long been a succesful tactic: a position of power corrupts belief and morals, more often than not
You Glenn, do not strike me as a troublemaker who if promoted would be corrupted by a new exalted position
Get your CV off to BHA towers
Napp
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.