- This topic has 18 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
I don’t know if he is being misreported but, even by his usual high standards of nonsense, a couple of proclamations from Simon Clare this week raised the eyebrows.
Firstly, he claimed that Kauto Star’s win cost the industry £20m. That’s right – on one of the most stable and liquid markets of the year, where they’d had all season long to adjust their prices to reflect weight of money, the industry supposedly lost £20m! They’ll have to stop running this race as that would equate to a couple of million snatched from the levy. Obviously the guy hasn’t been in his trading role long and I wonder if a little greeness is showing – could someone point out to him that you first have to subtract the sum of all the stakes before you work out how much a result has ‘cost’ bookies (or, more likely, cost punters).
With the Gold Cup costing racing fortunes to run Clare has come up with a suggestion to turn things round – a silver cup. This would effectively be a 0-120 handicap hurdle at racing’s showpiece. He can’t be serious surely?
I wonder if a little greeness is showing – could someone point out to him that you first have to subtract the sum of all the stakes before you work out how much a result has ‘cost’ bookies (or, more likely, cost punters).
Are you suggesting that Kauto Star’s win would have been a winning result for most bookmakers? If so, I would suggest it is you that knows next to nothing about bookmaking…
Only 20 million. So I must be the only person who backed him
The back street boys here lost a pretty penny I can tell you so 20 million in the UK doesn’t seem an exagerated figure at all. He was 7/1 and 5/1 after the Gold Cup which must have taken a few quid for starters. Surlely there would at least a few mad punters would have backed him to take very large amounts out of the pot. Plus more than a few 5k and 10k bets, a mass of singles double and trebles and all the AP bets leading up to the race when they knew Denman was unlikely to run and KS had trotted up in the KG.
Had he not run at Aintree and won that race he fell in he would have probably stared odds on and 30-40m would have been lost.
I think you are underestimating how popular the horse and his trainer are.
The Times on Saturday March 14th reported that the share prices of Powers, Hills, Ladbrokes and Corals had all dropped a little due to modest results at Cheltenham.
Whilst the market fall would not have been down just to one race there were many other winning favourites bets apart from the actual races.
Top trainer, Top Jockey, Ground on day 1,all jollies and all obliged.
Link top jockey or /and trainer to Kauto Star winning in doubles and trebles and the sums lost could have been substancial and probably was.
Whilst the actual sum the big firms lost may never be reported accurately and due to stockmarket confidentially all they ever will be is a rough guide but when a horse who has been favourite to win a big race and has been ante post favourite for several months its a no brainer that bookmakers would have lost on the race.
I wonder if a little greeness is showing – could someone point out to him that you first have to subtract the sum of all the stakes before you work out how much a result has ‘cost’ bookies (or, more likely, cost punters).
Are you suggesting that Kauto Star’s win would have been a winning result for most bookmakers? If so, I would suggest it is you that knows next to nothing about bookmaking…
I would have thought it would take a poor bookmaker not to make money on the race TDK.
Like the BHA we get the mushroom treatment from bookies when it comes to quoting specific numbers and all we have to go on is the hyperbole. However, the only figures I have on public weight of money (the tote’s and BF’s) would suggest it is somewhat unlikely that they did £20mil in cold blood on this result.
Kauto Star was the only horse people really wanted to back, both Ante Post and on the day. The Betfair market was also either tight or under the general bookie price all day, so hedging on the exchanges would have meant locking in a loss on the horse – I reckon all the major firms would have lost on the race.
These sort of vague pronouncements about the losses on a race would carry a good deal more weight if they were ever matched by similar remarks about how much has been won when punters get things wrong.
So perhaps Mr Clare or one of his colleagues would care to give us some ballpark figures for the profit generated by Binocular, Voy Por Ustedes and Kasbah Bliss.
I can see parallels between this and the recent economic crisis.
It transpired that the British economy depended on the ability of the High Street banks to balance their books and not to take absurd risks.
The prosperity of British racing depends in no small part on the High Street bookmakers managing to balance their books and not to take unnecessary risks, such as taking a £20m hit on an obvious winner of the biggest jumps race of the year.
I just hope we don’t end up bailing these bunch of chancers out as well…
When the "most obvious" horses win, the bookmakers tend to lose…
2003 was the worst Cheltenham on record for the bookies because nearly all of the obvious horses at the meeting won.
For what its worth i remember checking the volume traded on the AP market for the gold cup on betfair a few days before it closed. I believe more money was traded on Denman than Kauto over the previous 12 months in a ratio of something like 3.5:1. I realise a lot of money would have been tied up in doubles and trebles involving Kauto star but with which horses? Quevega? MDH? My double and treble with cousin vinny, binocular and Kauto certainly didnt come in but i guess they would have considered that to be a profit made on cousin vinny. Surely a valid point?
When the "most obvious" horses win, the bookmakers tend to lose…
All the obvious ones did lose…..
I did two and a half grand on him bettng out of number 21 in Tatts. Times that by thousands of betting shops and I think the figure is probably close to £20m
Teach them for laying a champion.
An interesting critique, if they aren’t laying them, how do you propose to back him?
I dont. I want too see less racing of better quialty, far more strict stewarding, horses being stripped of victorys on courses their and then for fiddling, four places paid at a quarter of the odds when sixteen runners are decalre too run regarles of how many actaully start and regardless of whether or not its a handicap. Less money into large handicaps and more in stakes races.
I dont. I want too see less racing of better quialty, far more strict stewarding, horses being stripped of victorys on courses their and then for fiddling, four places paid at a quarter of the odds when sixteen runners are decalre too run regarles of how many actaully start and regardless of whether or not its a handicap. Less money into large handicaps and more in stakes races.
A work of undeniable genius. I also want leprechauns prosecuted for not surrendering their pots of gold when you catch them. The sneaky little oirish buggers.
These sort of vague pronouncements about the losses on a race would carry a good deal more weight if they were ever matched by similar remarks about how much has been won when punters get things wrong.
So perhaps Mr Clare or one of his colleagues would care to give us some ballpark figures for the profit generated by Binocular, Voy Por Ustedes and Kasbah Bliss.
Spot onA turf accountant will always be happy to divulge how much a winner has cost them as it keeps the punters’ dream alive: I got some out of the ‘old enemy’ so will come back for some more…
Emphasising and publicising ‘the crowd’s’ feelgood factor when they win
en masse
is an essential part of the off-course turf accountant’s psychological armoury.
20M is a bit thin Mr Clare, 50M plucked out of thin air would have sounded so much more soothing
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.