- This topic has 58 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
To me this settles the core issue of our sport , too many races for too little money , which breeds contempt, which breeds fiddling and corruption , which in turn breeds dissent from its core followers and send the support for Horse racing on a downward spiral
The rest of the civilised world fund their racing via PMU
why dont we ???
for codgers and thinkers alike ….I would love some interesting comments
cheers
We have the system we have Ricky because it’s so bad for punters it helps self-perpetuate itself.
The chances of winning under our current system are so slim that those inclined to punt in the media and corridors of power often rack-up large gambling debts. This makes them more ‘open to arguments’ about how great it is to have a fixed-odds bookmaking system (where the majority of bets are settled under a de facto tote of the SP system in any case) when legislation like the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act is drawn.
I am in 100 per cent disagreement with Betlarge’s view , if we had the opportunity to introduce PMU . punters would take to it . exotics would become a way of life …a new challenge for punters
Would they love it .
..of course they would , even the oldest of old codgers know the game is up for the present system we haveJust ask them ???
We need a total change if racing is to thrive , as it stands I cannot see much progress (apart from a few more AW tracks ..built at the bookies behest )
Will we have any chance of getting it …
no way , the bookies run racing , simple as , even now their man is about to take over the helm of the BHA
Exchanges will stay . but under the present system we wont get much from them …5 or even 10 per cent commission is not a lot of beans to share
Pmu is the only way forward to fund and secure racing with real integrity , we should run the bookies out of town and go for it
I just don’t get Betlarge’s argument that punters want bespoke horizontal bets such as trixies, yankees et al. That is what bookmakers want and market. Parimutuels can offer these bets, indeed our own tote does/did them, but the take-up suggests that there is not a great demand for them.
When offered a real choice of bets, punters all over the world opt for the type of wagers he derides – vertical bets. Why do such bets struggle here? Is it a cultural thing or because fixed-odds betting struggles to offer a competitive variant of these bets? I would suggest the latter.
I just don’t get Betlarge’s argument that punters want bespoke horizontal bets such as trixies, yankees et al. That is what bookmakers want and market. Parimutuels can offer these bets, indeed our own tote does/did them, but the take-up suggests that there is not a great demand for them.
When offered a real choice of bets, punters all over the world opt for the type of wagers he derides – vertical bets. Why do such bets struggle here? Is it a cultural thing or because fixed-odds betting struggles to offer a competitive variant of these bets? I would suggest the latter.
You got any proof they’d ‘opt’ to go there without the large takeout incentive.
Not sure I follow you Indocine. Takeouts for verticals and horizontals are similar around the world.
Just that tote punters opt for tote bets where there is comparative takeout advantage not because those are the pools they’d actually like to be playing into given a reasonably level takeout playing field. imo I’m particularly thinking worldwide tote here.
PMU currently seems most advanced in HK, so a few points:
A. Exotics
Betlarge posted on the Clare/Parasites thread that >> popular UK bets – doubles, trixies, yankees, canadians, patents, flags etc etc – would all be completely unavailable on a PMU.<<
That may be the case with the Tote in GB but for a long time it has been possible on PMUs elsewhere (eg HK , AUS).
In HK, roll-up bets covering 2 to 6 races can be composed by the punter through the All-Up or Cross-Pool All Up facility, explained further by clicking the Pari-Mutuel Pools link on the HKJC betting guide here:
http://special.hkjc.com/racing/info/en/ … /guide.asp
B. Single-pool wagering
Single-pool wagering using the Longitude algorithms promises punters being able to devise their own bet formats on PMU, with the algorithm doing the heavy lifting in working out what part of each stake should be allocated to which horse to finish in what position.
Longitude is not theoretical. It is currently being introduced into the HK PMU step-by-step in live-trialling.
Currently restricted to a bet called the Quartet (first four in correct order), it has worked well enough in terms of stability, rapid computation and real-time indicative dividends soon to be extended to other pools.
Further details here:
https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r … 8&p=485273
C. Rebates
A rebate is the concept of the punter paying eg 90 quid for a 500 to 100 quid bet. The punter gets better value through reduced stake rather than increased price.
The concept came from the likes of CITIbet (see below), but has now been adopted also by HKJC as part of its attempts to woo punters from CITIbet. So arguably a case of a shadow operator keeping the mainstream honest and on its toes.
D. Commingling
Enabling punters outside HK officially to bet directly into HK pools (the reverse is not yet on the horizon). From tomorrow Singapore joins the US, Australia, Macau and New Zealand in this facility.
Again arguably competition from the likes of CITIbet has played its part in hastening this development – the official line used to be that HK punters wouldn’t like the idea of outsiders taking their cash away from HK.
Even outside the official comminglers, CITIBet is one of those responsible for floods of money into the HKJC pools which otherwise would not reach them due to HK government restrictions on from where HKJC can accept punters.
E. CITIbet / bookmakers
The nature of CITIbet is explained here:
https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r … 2&p=547562
CITIbet is legal where it operates (Philippines), though that is not HK where the racing is based.
In structural terms CITIbet stands in relation to HKJC much as GB’s bookmakers stand in relation to the BHA.
Both essentially are junket-operators – they do not organise or run the racing; they just claim to round-up punters and to have a degree of influence/control over what they bet on.
The Chief Exec of William Hill effectively said as much when lecturing the Rabble/ROBL, telling them that he had a clientele who he could steer where his company found most profit, so Racing needed to keep that in mind in terms of its monetary expectations from betting.
It is perhaps in the way that HKJC interacts with CITIbet that lessons can be learned by GB racing in dealing with GB bookies.
In GB I’m not sure though that its the BHA which is the right counterparty to the bookies.
The BHA is William Hill’s ROBL:- Racecourses, Owners, Breeders and Licensed persons.
I think it is the R – the likes of Jockey Club Racecourses and a few others – that hold the key to restructuring British racing.
And the Racing Right could be the catalyst.
Not sure what the Autumn Statement said about the Racing Right, but there was a paper and a consultation on it which closed on 5 November:
No matter the rights and wrongs, the boat sailed in 1961, the champagne bottle cracking against the door of the first betting shop to be opened.
Tote monopolists might have the tiniest squeak of a chance if the government owned the Tote. But it doesn’t (and, arguably, never did).
So, you’d be asking for a law to be passed allowing one commercial organization – Racing – to close down another – Bookmaking, and set up a monopoly betting system, which introduces the third, and largest obstacle (as though another were needed) of meeting the anti-competitive regulations of the EU.
Even supposing it could be done commercially, and we ignore the EU and British law on monopolies, where will Racing get the money to compensate/buy-out the owners of the current 9,000 + betting shops?
in GB the Racing Right sounds like a new boat sailing.
a lot will depend on its final form, but if eg Jockey Club Racecourses is not obliged to offer Racing Rights for its courses to anyone, what’s to stop JCR keeping them in-house or negotiating a premium deal to license them to a sole betting partner ?
Fred’s Tote monopoly will expire soon.
there’s already nothing stopping JCR from setting up its own exchange or bookies.
just as there’s nothing stopping bookies from setting up racecourses (hello again Fred).
there’s no obligation on JCR to make new TV/commentary commitments on expiry of existing obligations.
the law doesn’t guarantee anyone a living, so no compensation owed to bookies. fact is the bookies have lived in a world where legally the JCRs of Brit racing have always been able to cut out of dealing with them if they so decided. the JCRs just haven’t been able to find a way to do that commercially since the Savill attempt at the copyright route stumbled.
now the Racing Right replacing the Levy could give them the commercial freedom to move from the current ossified structure.
Just had a look at the Trifecta pool for the opener at Southwell.
Circa three and half grand at the off, and about half of that came in the final seconds, so most likely price sensitive shrewd money.
Currently 800 quid in the win pool, 15 minutes before the off in the next.
It’s taking a while to catch on, this Tote business.
Indeed.
*Very sensible post Steeplechasing.
wit, what you are proposing there is not what some other diehards on here want, so, of course, it’s workable in some of the ways you suggest, but that’s a million miles from a tote monopoly.
As to the Racing Right, I’d have thought the first thing bookies will want is some sort of assurance that negotiating using that term, will not allow the establishment of a precedent for a general sports right. You’ll know a lot more about the legalities of such a stand than I would.
What the anti-bookmaking lobby should not forget is that, bookies don’t need racing per se; they need a level playing field.
Racing is already a losing product for some bookmakers and marginal for others, who can continue offering it only because of the economies of scale.
If the Racing Right costs are too high, no bookmaker will buy that right. If Racing itself can quickly set itself up as a bookie, the only one offering horse racing, good luck to them.
As it stands, racing’s betting clients have only one channel – established bookmakers. If racing as a product disappears from that channel, the majority of those clients will find something else to bet on. And bookmakers will be rid of the costliest product in their portfolio.
Just had a look at the Trifecta pool for the opener at Southwell.
Circa three and half grand at the off, and about half of that came in the final seconds, so most likely price sensitive shrewd money.
Currently 800 quid in the win pool, 15 minutes before the off in the next.
It’s taking a while to catch on, this Tote business.
Indeed.
I make that a fourteenfold increase in three years.
Wit , Thank you
Its possible to have anything under the new racing right , and as Betfred could possibly sell the tote in the next couple of years
Then anything is possible
For you guys who banish change at every opportunity , now is the time to howl …as I suspect Joe is spot on , Bookies dont need racing as much as they used to ,,,so we could well be in for a new ball game
If we dont it will be 1961 all over again
Seize the momenmt Jockey club ….this could well be the last chance for British racing to thrive ,,,not just survive
France and Hong Kong …PMU works a treat ….I especially like the co mingling concept , it does appeal in a big way
Betlarge posted on the Clare/Parasites thread that >> popular UK bets – doubles, trixies, yankees, canadians, patents, flags etc etc – would all be completely unavailable on a PMU.<<
That may be the case with the Tote in GB but for a long time it has been possible on PMUs elsewhere (eg HK , AUS).
In HK, roll-up bets covering 2 to 6 races can be composed by the punter through the All-Up or Cross-Pool All Up facility, explained further by clicking the Pari-Mutuel Pools link on the HKJC betting guide here:
Thanks Wit.
I have read the link but I don’t really understand it.
Can I give an example? Let’s just take a standard UK bet – a Yankee – which will be no doubt staked to the tune of millions of pounds every day.
Let’s say I wanted these selections today
1.50 Hexham Aniknam
2.50 Hexham Dingo Bay
3.40 Kempton Rememberance Day
2.40 Leicester SnowellI now want to do a £1 Yankee.
Firstly, if we had the French PMU how would I do it?
Secondly, if we had the HK PMU how would I do it?If this could be answered politely without any more veiled and not-so-veiled references to my staggering ignorance then that would be kind.
Mike
Click on this link http://www.hkjc.com/ENGLISH/betting/tic … lallup.asp
Select your races, selections and pool-type (win pool in your case)
Mark the 4×11 in the formula box – a yankee in English parlance (3×4 is a trixie, 3×7 is a patent, 4×15 is a lucky 15, you get the picture…)
Voila!
..of course they would , even the oldest of old codgers know the game is up for the present system we have
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.