- This topic has 35 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
No because banning something doesn’t work, human nature is lured to the excitement of the illicit. If there was a Pari-Mutuel monopoly it would ensure that everyone got value and racing would be able to sustain itself far more effectively than is currently the case.
I’m sure the increased number of betting shops in any town has seen a reduction in the overall net profit for those shops, as a result the amount of money put back in racing has been reduced as the bookmaker’s margins have been reduced so the greater choice for punters is actually detrimental to racing.Newmarket may well be a rarity EF. Very much doubt there are as many betting shops in Britain as 5 years ago. What with phone betting, computer and now text, suspect betting shops are a thing of the past.
Nobody goes racing in France because it is boring. Bookmakers add to the flavour of a day at the races. Even if it were only an off course monopoly, no punter would know what price they’re taking. Value is all important. With Paris-Mutuel market fluctuation; unless a punter waits until the last minute (and I mean the last minute) he/she hasn’t got a clue what price the selection is going to be. And if every sensible punter waits until the last minute then…
A) So much of the market is focused in those few moments that the prices will change dramatically anyway. So even by waiting the punter still doesn’t know what price he’s going to get.
B) If so many people wait, then there will obviously be a lot of serious money that does not get on (ie too late)…
And so a lot of serious punters (with good money) will turn away from our sport. Inevitably leading to racing losing a lot of their levy.
Be careful what you wish for.
Your "Paris-Mutuel monopoly ensures" NO punter gets "value".
Value Is EverythingAt the end of the day we dont need 13 bookies in newmarket, they are only here to cancel eachother out, for example ladbrokes have 4 shops in a town of 20,000? and the bookies dont all make profit in newmarket which is fact… William hill outside the market square made under £20,000 profit last year, and the only reason they stayed open is becase of the fruit machines! as for the bookies providing a service, Dont call it a service… Its not a service…
And as for people enjoying a bet whether it wins or loses you obviously dont visit newmarket very often!
To be completely honest putting my opinion on the state of newmarket to one side, my real problem lies deep within racing, Bookies dont pay anything back into the sport, end of.
I think its time the (sorry for the language) Fuc***g Idiots at the top to say "this is our sport, if you want to bet on it, pay us" unfortunately most of the people with the decisions own shares in betting companies!
If a shop makes a profit from FOBTs then it’s a business success, if a town can support 5, 10, 20 or more, they’re all business successes and good for the econoomy.
I’m sure 99/100+ average punters couldn’t care less whose name is outside the door as long as they can feed the FOBTs, have a tenner or more on a nag or a dag or do their daily e/w goliaths.
Who does racing get it’s money from – the betting industry, owners, breeders(?), punters, tv and?
Who makes a living from racing – trainers, jockeys, other racing related jobs, people working in the betting industry and sports tv and?
If it wasn’t for the punters who voluntarily throw a percentage of their income at racing whether they can afford it or not and the wealthy owners who can afford to do the same, would racing exist?
What’s more interesting for me is the number of shops in a town of that population – what does this say about the population supporting these shops to profit – more mugs/100?
13 bookmakers in a town of 20,000 people is seen as excessive?
What a very quaint suggestion.
You have a point there Gingertipster, here at Woodbine it’s very often the same, cavernous and empty. For me it is boring and although not a big player, I always liked a nice bet on something I fancied and even that has dried up now……basically because I didn’t know until after the race what price I was going to get. Of the people I know, I’m trying to think of even one that bets ‘win’, it’s always exactas, trifectas and superfectas.That said, the Aussies seem to have a system that is a balance between both, although I don’t know enough about it to know if it’s the answer.
The injection of money from the slots/casino’s keeps us alive here. The good prize money keeps things very competitive, although it has become a lot harder for the local trainers, as the prize money has attracted better horses from south of the border.
.
I’d take a look at the levy and see exactly what bookmakers directly or indirectly put back into racing.
Regarding how many bookmakers Newmarket needs it’s all back to supply and demand, if there’s no demand for 4 Ladbrokes or 2 William Hill’s etc. then one or two or however many aren’t required will shut. At the moment that doesn’t seem to be the case so there’s clearly a demand within the town for that many betting shops.
As for a PMU monopoly sadly in the UK it won’t happen and can’t work – in France they’ve never had anything different, same with the US and in certain respects other major racing nations.
Sadly for anyone who’s pro-PMU monopoly it’s like walking into a grocers today and being able to buy 10 different varieties of fruit and then walking in tomorrow and just being able to buy the apples. People will go elsewhere and there’ll be no money at all going back into "racing" which depending on how you define "racing" will differ greatly.
Personally to me "racing" is anyone working in the racing industry be it jockeys, trainers, breeders, owner, betting shop staff, bookmakers other staff – CS staff, odds-compilers, traders, on-course bookmakers, those who run the catering vans, safety stewards etc.
Martin.
Personally to me "racing" is anyone working in the racing industry be it jockeys, trainers, breeders, owner, betting shop staff, bookmakers other staff – CS staff, odds-compilers, traders, on-course bookmakers, those who run the catering vans, safety stewards etc.
There is no "personally" option. I have to remind you of the rules.
http://www.thehorsemensgroup.com/
http://www.britishracecourses.org/
They are called stakeholders – as defined by Roy, Dixon and Barlow. The stakeholders, according to the stakeholders, are racing.
You might qualify as a stakeholder in the P2P field.
I, however, am definitely not part of racing.
No because banning something doesn’t work, human nature is lured to the excitement of the illicit. If there was a Pari-Mutuel monopoly it would ensure that everyone got value and racing would be able to sustain itself far more effectively than is currently the case.
I’m sure the increased number of betting shops in any town has seen a reduction in the overall net profit for those shops, as a result the amount of money put back in racing has been reduced as the bookmaker’s margins have been reduced so the greater choice for punters is actually detrimental to racing.Newmarket may well be a rarity EF. Very much doubt there are as many betting shops in Britain as 5 years ago. What with phone betting, computer and now text, suspect betting shops are a thing of the past.
Nobody goes racing in France because it is boring. Bookmakers add to the flavour of a day at the races. Even if it were only an off course monopoly, no punter would know what price they’re taking. Value is all important. With Paris-Mutuel market fluctuation; unless a punter waits until the last minute (and I mean the last minute) he/she hasn’t got a clue what price the selection is going to be. And if every sensible punter waits until the last minute then…
A) So much of the market is focused in those few moments that the prices will change dramatically anyway. So even by waiting the punter still doesn’t know what price he’s going to get.
B) If so many people wait, then there will obviously be a lot of serious money that does not get on (ie too late)…
And so a lot of serious punters (with good money) will turn away from our sport. Inevitably leading to racing losing a lot of their levy.
Be careful what you wish for.
Your "Paris-Mutuel monopoly ensures" NO punter gets "value".
Given that the likelihood of a Pari-mutuel monopoly in this country is nil, I wouldn’t worry about your concept of value. It is however a flawed concept. In the pari-mutuel system the prices returned are based wholly on the amount of money invested on each selection, therefore, every punter gets a price reflective of the consumer demand. The "value" that you covet is over and above consumer demand and based upon misinformed supply. Your basic human greed is to seek to gain an edge in that difference at the expense of your fellow gamblers.
As it stands, someone like yourself who I presume makes a profit from their bets on horse racing, does not actually contribute anything back to horse racing via the Levy.
Given that the likelihood of a Pari-mutuel monopoly in this country is nil, I wouldn’t worry about your concept of value. It is however a flawed concept. In the pari-mutuel system the prices returned are based wholly on the amount of money invested on each selection, therefore, every punter gets a price reflective of the consumer demand. The "value" that you covet is over and above consumer demand and based upon misinformed supply. Your basic human greed is to seek to gain an edge in that difference at the expense of your fellow gamblers.
As it stands, someone like yourself who I presume makes a profit from their bets on horse racing, does not actually contribute anything back to horse racing via the Levy.
My "basic human greed" EF, is the same as anyone in business. Everyone in business has to try and get consumers to spend in their shop at the expense of its competitors. Some of those competitors will inevitably lose money. Some (sadly most) of my competitors (fellow gamblers) will lose money. If they were better in their line of work (gambling) than I am, I would lose money.
May be Tesco, Waitrose and all food retailers should be forced out of business? So that all food will cost the same. Then every farmer could get paid the same "value" price for their product. Every consumer gets the same "value" price and no shop thrives at the expense of another.
You could say a percentage of every losing bet I have goes towards the levy. With my profits coming from the bookmaker’s pocket. But if you want to say I don’t contribute to the levy, fair enough. Do give in other ways to "racing". eg. Member at Newbury and Goodwood and contribute to Greatwood.
Oh, and just to make you feel even better about yourself…
I don’t pay tax either EF.
Value Is EverythingTo be completely honest putting my opinion on the state of newmarket to one side, my real problem lies deep within racing,
Bookies dont pay anything back into the sport, end of.
I think its time the (sorry for the language) xxxxxxx Idiots at the top to say "this is our sport, if you want to bet on it, pay us" unfortunately most of the people with the decisions own shares in betting companies!
(If you attack the BHA in that manner Lee, you should expect the same in defence).
More Lies.
Bookmakers pay for the sport from the profits they get from punters. In the same way as…
Lee Knowles pays for things from money he recieves from Tony Thompson.What evidence have you of "MOST of the people with decisions own shares in betting companies"?
You are the xxxxxxx idiot Lee! Trying to make out those at the top of the BHA don’t act against bookmakers because they ALL own shares in betting companies. When…
All you want is for the comparitively POOR punter to pay more to your boss the RICH (racehorse owner) Tony Thompson (and therefore in turn to you) via the Levy to prizemoney.
Value Is EverythingMy "basic human greed" EF, is the same as anyone in business. Everyone in business has to try and get consumers to spend in their shop at the expense of its competitors. Some of those competitors will inevitably lose money. Some (sadly most) of my competitors (fellow gamblers) will lose money. If they were better in their line of work (gambling) than I am, I would lose money.
May be Tesco, Waitrose and all food retailers should be forced out of business? So that all food will cost the same. Then every farmer could get paid the same "value" price for their product. Every consumer gets the same "value" price and no shop thrives at the expense of another.
You could say a percentage of every losing bet I have goes towards the levy. With my profits coming from the bookmaker’s pocket. But if you want to say I don’t contribute to the levy, fair enough. Do give in other ways to "racing". eg. Member at Newbury and Goodwood and contribute to Greatwood.
Oh, and just to make you feel even better about yourself…
I don’t pay tax either EF.
If you make a profit from gambling which you regard as your profession then my hearty congratulations to you. If you are not making enough of a profit to pay tax I fail to see how you are making a living from it without a certain degree of creative accountancy which is something I can admire but not something I would be overly boastful about on a public forum. So I wonder whether betting is a profitable hobby for you or something more substantial. No business is immune to change or outside influences, the betting industry has seen major changes over the last 25 years, some of which are positive and some negative. However, the betting industry has adapted to modern demands far more effectively than horse racing and has been for sometime sourcing their products from new and cheaper outlets.
While that is a good business model for the betting industry, it does not help horse racing in any respect. Horse racing is very labour intensive and there is very little that can be done to alter that fact without detriment to the care of the horse and those entrusted to care for the horse. Though I am quite sure the betting industry would not care about the quality of the horse or it’s care that is being sent out to race, never having given any credence to the concept of Giffen Goods.
Your comparison with food retailers is quite interesting. At first glimpse it appears wholly inappropriate as most people need food to exist whereas placing a bet is a choice, however the way in which the food retailers treat their suppliers does vary greatly. Consumer demand was once thought to be totally price driven, but over time it has become more complex. While price is important, quality of foodstuffs is also a key factor and people’s food choices are based on much more than "value" ie price. In my childhood, Tesco had a reputation of supplying cheap and nasty food, as they have expanded to Leviathan proportions, they have exploited their suppliers without compunction and I earnestly hope that their poor figures over the festive period will see them reap that which they have sown.At present, horse racing in this country is operating at unsustainable levels and needs to be streamlined to meet demand. Breeders are over-producing the raw materials, the surplus creates too many inferior quality horses and thus inferior races, which should not be consumed by customers. Unfortunately the betting industry consumes these poor quality races and helps to perpetuate stagnation.
Until the betting industry demands a better quality over quantity from the horseracing industry they will be part of the problem not part of the solution.Like you EF, I am very much in favour of quality over quantity and hopefully some "rubbish racing" can be culled. Although on the surface it does not matter to bookmakers what quality races are; am sure they get far more trade in good grades.
It’s true I don’t make a great deal on my gambling compared to most "jobs" EF. But as far as tax is concerned – it does not matter how much a gambler is in profit, gambling is non-taxable.
Value Is EverythingEven so, I would be very careful, the customs and revenue can investigate someone and then you would have to prove where your original stake came from and of course they can demand to see bookmakers records of your accounts. Their powers are far more wide-reaching than most people realize.
As stated on another thread, Hong Kong achieves a phenomenal turnover and they have 767. Limiting supply of races works there and the betting is controlled by the HKJC, the lack of choice doesn’t seem to discourage betting in the slightest. Racing in this country should be held on a maximum of 5 days a week and there are probably 20 racecourses too many in this country.
If you accept that most punters lose in the long run then your concept of "Value" is pointless to them, for it is merely delaying the inevitable. I’m sure that more people would bet on horse racing by taking part in the Scoop 6 or similar bets if there was a greater initial prize fund, something which could be funded if betting was more centrally controlled.I know very well how careful I have to be with the tax man EF. My father has been self employed since the 70’s. He’s managed to keep them at bay, never been "
investigated
" as it were.
I don’t see why racing can not take place every day (bar Christmas). Just have less of it on each day. Most week days could have just the one meeting in the North and one down South. Some racecourses should be closed. (But may be that’s for a different thread).
Hadn’t better get on the "value" debate too much either.
I do accept "most punters lose in the long run", but it’s because
they don’t pay enough attension to "Value". If they were to do so there would be a "point" of doing so.
In my opinion the Scoop 6 should not be the bet for the Tote/Betfred to focus on. Placepot could bring in a lot more if marketed properly. Even without a monopoly.
Value Is EverythingThe Inland Revenue were never much to worry about, it was Customs and Excise that were frightening in what they could do. Now they have merged I suppose the Revenues department now has the same powers rather than the other way round
For most people, the time required to study form, patience to seek out value etc, is not worth it in terms of the monetary gain. They can better utilize their limited time for other pursuits which give a better return on the investment of their time. To say that people could make money from gambling just by seeking out value is overly simplistic and ultimately not true. It would take them longer to lose their money but the overall result is still the same. If it wasn’t for the mug punters you would not be able to make a profit as their would be no value left.
The Inland Revenue were never much to worry about, it was Customs and Excise that were frightening in what they could do. Now they have merged I suppose the Revenues department now has the same powers rather than the other way round
For most people, the time required to study form, patience to seek out value etc, is not worth it in terms of the monetary gain. They can better utilize their limited time for other pursuits which give a better return on the investment of their time. To say that people could make money from gambling just by seeking out value is overly simplistic and ultimately not true. It would take them longer to lose their money but the overall result is still the same. If it wasn’t for the mug punters you would not be able to make a profit as their would be no value left.
When I give up my "work" entirely will have to get in touch with relevent authorities to tell them what I am doing. Need to sort out a voluntary National Insurance contribution too.
It may be "not worth" looking for value for anyone not bothered if they treat their gambling as an enjoyable hobby (like going to the pub etc). There is nothing wrong with approaching gambling in that manner, as long as they don’t expect a profit.
I said QUOTE: "I do accept "most punters lose in the long run,
but it’s because they don’t pay enough attension to Value. If they were to do so there would be a point of doing so
".
It is not "simplistic" or "ultimately not true" because I am NOT saying everyone searching for value will find value and so "profit". Most people who include it in their study won’t find it, however, some will. And if a punter does not pay "enough attension" to value he/she has next to NO chance of showing a profit.
If the average punter in the street/on course/at home changes the way he bets, is willing to put in the hours of form study and trys to allow for value (see *) – Then there is a MUCH BETTER chance he/she will show a profit. You are wrong EF, the result will NOT neccesarily be "still the same". SOME, who are good at evaluating form, WILL show a profit.
*(whichever way he/she studies, trends etc might find a profit too when allied to value).
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.