September 14, 2003 at 16:36 #3982stevedvgMember
- Total Posts 1137
His statement is correct.
However, it didn’t tie in with the argument he was making which was all about jockeys being able to call people with inside information.
That we now have the freedom to lay horses doesn’t mean we suddenly have access to inside information.
Maybe he’s gotten so used to moving in racing circles with all its tips and inside info that he has forgotten the world the rest of us punt in.
SteveSeptember 15, 2003 at 11:30 #92084Black Sam BellamyMember
- Total Posts 441
Ian, as much as I enjoy reading your posts lets face it; you’re looking to make a living from the online betting exchanges and as such your responses to even the merest soundbite from Peter Savill or any other perceived anti-exchages individual is now completely predictable.
It’s as though you’re trying to indoctrinate the members of this forum with pro-exchange paraphernalia every time you post.
…and why do you give Redman – who I don’t know, such a hard time (and on such a personal level too) ?September 15, 2003 at 11:39 #92085
Your arguments are pathetic – even a double dose of Viagra wouldn’t stiffen them!
World best practise dictates that jockeys should, in the interest of integrity of racing, be held incommunicado for the duration of racing – what makes UK jockeys think they are saints?
I think Greg Nichols got it right when he said that the jockeys, collectively, were missing the benefit for them in these new controls.
If they can’t (freely) communicate they can’t be blamed when betting exchanges unravel the universe – particularly when one of their own ilk is implicated in some plot to defraud punters they will be able to say "even if I became aware I couldn’t have profited from it".
It would be just so much easier if exchanges were banned – they add nothing to the Sport of Racing, nor arguably to recreational punting on racing – they exist for the hardened pro’ punter and the ‘illegal’ bookmaker and can be subverted by criminal elements and just plain old fashioned greed.
And that’s without considering the fact that wagering on, or through, exchanges does not pay its full dues to racing.
But you aren’t going to agree with me either are you?
rouge hommeSeptember 15, 2003 at 13:03 #92089
pathetic Ian absolutely blubbering pathetic
go and pour yourself a stiff drink mate
I, like most in this forum use a handle, because I want to say what I think NOT what I have to say, or should say.
No great detective work on your part – just simple abuse of confidence given I have communicated privately with you via PM (as I have with many other interested forumites) – certainly wouldn’t let you into a weighing room would we – you are not to be trusted.
Yes it would be easier if exchanges were banned – and that is the near unanimous decision of a joint government (Ausralasian Racing Ministers’ Conference) task force in Australia (with just the NT dissenting as they, with a population of 190,000 in a jurisduction the size of Europe, saw an opportunity to be the pirate).
Betfair rather than play by the umpires decision is pushing the limits – they are plundering Australian Racing’s IP even after being requested to cease and desist; they are breaking laws within Australia; and are enticing, aiding and abetting laws being broken by Australian residents. I have no time for any of that – and it irrelevant what hat I may be wearing at the time.
I, that’s me, myself and I, have no vested interest – you do and you are open about that I’ll give you that much. But as I have said before, you do yourself no credit by denying that the betting exchange model has flaws.
You suggest that Betting Exchanges are as pure as the driven snow, that they pay fair and equitable royalties to racing – they aren’t and they do not!
Perhaps solutions to the flaws and problems might be found – but you won’t find the answers by denying that they exist.
Your biggest problem is that your greed to make a personal buck will not let you give up one iota of ‘advantage’ you have over ‘tradtional’ wagering.
rouge hommeSeptember 15, 2003 at 13:06 #92090Black Sam BellamyMember
- Total Posts 441
I would regard myself as pro-exchanges and the point I was trying to make is that some of your posts are almost ‘tabloid-like’ in their slanted predictability but I’m not surprised at this given your attempts to get backandlay off the ground.
You said earlier in this thread that ‘I just don’t buy this notion that exchanges increase the ”corruption opportunity” as the OFT might label it.’…do you truly believe this ? Where else would a farrier be able to lay horses on the all weather ? The recent scenario with Alan Berry’s farrier laying horses to win 100k couldn’t have occured pre-exchanges, especially for the sums of money involved.
Ian, do you actually view horse racing as a sport or merely a vehicle for backandlay to maximise profit from ?…the fewer regulations the better. The exchanges have potentially exposed horse racing to levels of corruption not witnessed before and in my view any attempts to close this exposure should be welcomed or at least discussed constructively; even those from Peter Savill !!September 15, 2003 at 13:44 #92092
what a load of codswallop
I have on many occassions discussed betting exchanges in a constructive fashion – attempting to rectify flaws – I have argued the subtlies of the twin bet methodology making it almost impossible to distinguish (under current law) a "betting exchange" from a "bookmaker".
But when all is said and done – I have two concerns that won’t go away (1) Betting Exchanges are, for racing at least, a huge threat to integrity of the SPORT; and (2) Betting Exchanges facilitate the avoidance of a fair and proper payment to "racing" (for the right to wager on racing).
You say that neither of those things exist – that is denial and counter productive to your cause (not mine because I don’t have one).
rouge hommeSeptember 15, 2003 at 21:19 #92093
- When you use a bookmaker you know who is taking your bet
- When you use an exchange you do not.
- How many of your bets would you maintain if you knew it was the horses connections that were accepting them?
- If racing is to continue it must remain a sport.
- To be a sport means that you have to have a chance.
- If a horses connections know their animal is not going to win and still take your bet, what chance have you got?
- When this happens horseracing can no longer be considered a sport, it has become fraud.
September 15, 2003 at 22:43 #92094
- Exchanges are not really a problem, only the anonymity of their users.
- To me the danger to the sport lies in connections laying their own horses.
- Last year a certain trainer, who is notorious for withdrawing his runners from 8 or 16 runner races, had 1000 runners, 5% won, if he had laid only half of the rest to lose only Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£200 each, he would have made Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£100k without the slightest risk or training effort.
- If this sort of opportunity is allowed to persist how many dishonest people will be able to resist the opportunity of such easy pickings?
- I would suggest that part of the commission fees be used to fund constant independant monitoring of layers identities and that the condition imposed on layers being their cooperation in this matter.
(Edited by johngringo at 11:49 pm on Sep. 15, 2003)September 15, 2003 at 23:13 #92095
- In general policing is needed when there is a shortage of goodwill in a specific society. What actual body provides that service is not so important as the fact that policing is needed.
- Sometimes imagination is needed to forsee the direction a novelty is taking. A recent example being an inconspicuous new heart drug that is now called Viagra and much more famous for its curious side-effect.
- Betting exchanges will never achieve their potential whilst their characteristics allow them to be so easily employed by the dishonest. What is now irritating but tolerable will tend to get worse with time unless those that are in a position to act, do so.
September 15, 2003 at 23:34 #92096GlennParticipant
- And without wishing to be too disparaging to the fine gentlemen of the J.C. security team, who I believe should have a photo of Peter Sellers on the wall of their office, they seem to have little suitability for this task.
- Total Posts 1981
Quote: from johngringo on 11:43 pm on Sep. 15, 2003[br]Last year a certain trainer, who is notorious for withdrawing his runners from 8 or 16 runner races
Who could you possibly be talking about :confused:
More to the point who would benefit from this? It was perhaps interesting that the bookies made far less of the revelations about one of this trainer’s ancillary staff’s exchange betting than you would have expected them to on past form. I can’t imagine why that could be. :wink:September 16, 2003 at 00:37 #92097
September 16, 2003 at 12:31 #92098No axeMember
- Exactly my feelings G. The real interested parties are the backers. Strange that this vital component of the betting industry is poorly and dubiously represented.
- Total Posts 5
Just to pick up on a point that Gringo made – it is not true to say that if you have a bet with a bookmaker you know who he is. For instance, how many on-course bookmakers trade under their own names? Bookmakers have survived and thrived on having more information than punters. Well before exchanges came on the scene prices would drift for no apparent reason – well it was because the bookmakers had inside information. It is naive to believe that insiders wanting and being able to lay horses is a new phenomenon. Exchanges merely make the process more transparent.September 16, 2003 at 15:25 #92099
- No Axe
September 16, 2003 at 22:33 #92100
- Whilst a bookmaker may trade under a business name, I think you will find that the ‘pitch’ is registered and the people reponsible for it well known. However if anyone is desperate enough and doesnt mind running the risk of a thick ear, they can start taking bets on a dodgy animal in the stands, but even the JC security people should be able to sort that out.
I’d agree with all that too… but who is going to pay for it… if exchanges have increased the risk a hundredfold surely they must wear the cost of that extra policing (though I would argue that they shouldn’t do it as it needs to be ‘independent’ so therefore they should cover the cost in cold hard cash).
I think the two issues, integrity and payment to racing, go hand in hand.
However… we know that racing makes much much less from a dollar wagered in a betting exchange – and in fact that the users who win (regularly) do not contribute (equitablely) to racing – despite the possibility that they may be the ‘criminals’.
One thing that always worries me is that it is possible to ‘launder’ winnings – (by simply betting the opposite proposition with different wagering operators). Only betting exchanges allow anyone to lay (or bet against) a runner.
For example, and this just an example or as the say in the movies any resemblance to a real event is purely accidental, but let’s say a farrier wanted to divert suspicion from his (previous layinging) winnings so he lays something to lose a motza and it does… but he has, with many bookmakers, backed it (in cash) to cover his ‘loss’.
Will it be identified? Maybe. But not if it there was a systematic approach done regularly in ‘smal’l amounts (or at least in proportion to the winning lays) – resulting in the ‘exchange’ account having a ‘bland’ appearence with many wins and losses and a net losing (or marginal win) position.
The bottom line is, that betting exchanges, like smoking, seemed like a good idea at the time.
rouge hommeSeptember 17, 2003 at 12:06 #92101
what no comment Ian… or are you to busy doing the laundry?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.