- This topic has 58 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
A tote monopoly won’t work. People already have the option of betting with the tote and most prefer bookies. We have a different culture to other countries. The problem for racing is not that bookies are turning people off racing, it’s getting them interested in the first place that is the issue. People are more and more betting on things like football (with bookies) and other things such as poker. The young just do not have an interest in racing and a tote monopoly will do nothing to change that.
How will a tote monopoly work ? Are we to have hundreds of shops started up ?
I expect plenty said the same when someone tried to start an exchange 15 or so years ago.
You state people have no interest in racing but according to betlarge in an earlier post there is tremendous interest here particularly when compared to France yet they have a successful Tote despite apparently it not being much good, so no good reason why a good one wounldn’t work here is there?
As bookmakers have little interest in laying decent bets any more may be they and their shops could be used as commission agents for a PMU, money for no risk would surely satisfy the parasites.
So what is your experience with bookmakers Ken or are speaking on behalf of others like betlarge?
Do you have a highly profitable relationship with them and no problem getting a bet on?
F
irstly Wit ,,a tremendous post , clarity as always ,,,fantastic stuff
Eddie …save your breath , the simple fact is folks including Betlarge , dont speak for anybody ,,,but here is a harsh reality to be faced
The cosy relationship between the Bha and the bookies , could well be blown apart if a labour gov get into power next year , because they will limit and restrict the FOBT cancer that the bookies are currently thriving on , if this happens , my guess is the cosy love will evaporate , racing will be offered buttons again ,,,and guess what they will have to take it , because the current funding depends on them
U
nless of course we get a PMU system to replace them
This could very well happen , FOBT,,,restricted to 2 quid a spin , and a total limit per punter of 20 quids worth before a machine reset takes place….can you imagine the howl from the bookies , hundreds of millions slashed …meanwhile racing still standing there with the begging bowl …..not a happy scenario
IMO
Eddie …save your breath , the simple fact is folks including Betlarge , dont speak for anybody
Absolutely correct. I don’t speak for anyone, I’m offering my opinion (aren’t we all?).
I would now broadly support the position of a HK-style PMU operating in Britain so we are more or less in agreement.
However, I am attempting to rationalise the pitfalls and difficulties that such a move would entail – and there are many. If a PMU is to be successfully launched (or re-launched in reality!) there will be a number of seriously difficult hurdles to overcome – legal, technical, historical and social.
No amount of shouting at me is going to change that fact.
Mike
Eddie …save your breath , the simple fact is folks including Betlarge , dont speak for anybody
Absolutely correct. I don’t speak for anyone, I’m offering my opinion (aren’t we all?).
I would now broadly support the position of a HK-style PMU operating in Britain so we are more or less in agreement.
However, I am attempting to rationalise the pitfalls and difficulties that such a move would entail – and there are many. If a PMU is to be successfully launched (or re-launched in reality!) there will be a number of seriously difficult hurdles to overcome – legal, technical, historical and social.
No amount of shouting at me is going to change that fact.
Mike
All totes penalise win & place betting relative to exotics which is why over 70% of handle ends up in exotic pools. You favour that?
All totes penalise win & place betting relative to exotics which is why over 70% of handle ends up in exotic pools. You favour that?
I don’t. I’m just about to deal with that in a post to follow…
Mike
Good read Wit.
As I see it, facilitating the move to a HK-style PMU faces three main barriers:
1. The lack of any bricks and mortar estate.
This is a serious problem. Wit’s figures show that even today more than three-quarters (76%) of income is still coming from betting shops. A new PMU setup would have none, and worse still have absolutely zero prospect of gaining any as the established bookmakers now own all sites of any worth.
If a Tote were to start up tomorrow, it would have no access to 76% of current profits and would have to float as an online entity only. As it would have full rights to all UK racing it may drag many punters with it, but it would surely lose hundreds of thousands of punters forever. Furthermore, racing would lose any ‘trading off’ money, i.e. punters coming in to have a tenner on tonight’s match then spending another few quid on the 1.0pm at Kelso that’s just about to start.
There is only one way business is drifting and that’s towards online betting, but it’s doing it very slowly and not in great monetary value. There remains a big social pull to the betting shop (as there is in France to the PMU Bar-Tabac setup). Maybe a tie-in with coffee shop chains or a launch of it’s own such chain would have some potential? Either way, Tote’s need High Street outlets – and lots of them.
2. The inability of ‘racing’ to speak and negotiate with one voice.
Anyone who’s had any dealings with what one could loosely term British racing will know that it makes herding cats look like hooking ducks at the fair. The rights to racing can only be sold as one block. The idea that there could be betting rights for this group of courses at one Tote/Exchange and this group of courses on another different Tote/Exchange is ridiculous and it would fail. To enable a united voice it would need all the racecourses along with the media rights groups at ATR and RUK to come together. Someone would need to bang heads together but surely this is not insurmountable?
3. The conservative nature of the British punter
The British punter loves his singles and multiples. I don’t know exactly what percentage of betting turnover they account for, but if it’s below 90% I’d be surprised. Any PMU that fails to offer him/her the ability to do these bets would be a complete non-starter. Therefore, the French system is just not in play, the HK system is the only answer.
However, the win and place pools in the UK now suffer from a ridiculous 16.6% takeouts at the moment. This has to stop. I would propose a 5% maximum on those pools. At such lower levels, serious betting into win pools would become viable. This would lead to bigger pools and hopefully reasonable amelioration to the Tote of it’s lower margin. This has to happen. You simply cannot sell singles betting to UK punters at such greedy margins.
Another massive betting-shop staple rears it’s head as a problem – taking an early price on selections. For all the talk of not being laid by bookmakers, early prices remain hugely popular in both singles and multi’s. It may take some lateral thinking to get round this one and ultimately it may be something that can be done on the Tote’s new exchange (did I mention they were taking on Betfair too??). There could also be the possibility of laying an ‘early price’ when the win pool for the race became big enough. It would be difficult, and may need a computer science degree or two, but let’s try to give the punter what he/she wants.
There are some other marginal problems eg combining racing bets with betting on other sports (£5 double red Rum/ Man Utd etc). Again, this could be dealt with. The new Tote will have to hold a bookies license as well – I notice the French PMU have an odds site for sports betting and I presume many other PMU jurisdictions do too. I don’t see a problem doubling up a Tote return with a football price.
—
I was vehemently opposed to a Tote monopoly. I have now completely changed my mind. I have Wit and Glenn to thank/blame for this as they pointed out to me the flexibility within the Hong Kong system. My previous experience of a Tote was the UK model and some knowledge of the French one. I would still be vehemently opposed to a Tote monopoly were they the only options.
Crack the three problems above, use the Hong Kong model and not the French model, and you will have a growing Tote that will fund racing as it deserves to be funded. The game will be about the punters and the horses. Don’t we realistically all want that?
Failure to address the problems above would severely compromise The Tote’s ability to function. It can be done, and I’ve tried to offer some potential solutions off the top of my head, but please, please ignore the siren voices of those who think it would be easy.
Best of luck!
Mike
However, the win and place pools in the UK now suffer from a ridiculous 16.6% takeouts at the moment. This has to stop. I would propose a 5% maximum on those pools. At such lower levels, serious betting into win pools would become viable. This would lead to bigger pools and hopefully reasonable amelioration to the Tote of it’s lower margin. This has to happen. You simply cannot sell singles betting to UK punters at such greedy margins.
As you rightly say Mike, PMU/Tote way of betting will only attract punters if it gives far better value than it does now. I made a few points in an earlier thread.
Why does a tote take out have to be a fixed percentage?
Surely computers today can cope with a certain percentage per horse?
I suggested a while back a take out of between 2 and 10 runners 0.5% per runner, so for a 2 runner race it would be an over-round of 101% and for a 10 runner race 105%. Then 0.333% added from 11 up to 16, so 11 runner races have a 105.333% over-round and 16 runners 107%. Then 0.25 added for every runner from 17 up to 20 runners, so a 17 runner race has an over-round of 107.25% and 20 runners 108%. Then 0.2% added for every runner between 21 and 30, so 21 runners gets an over-round of 108.2%. No more added for races of more than 30 runners, so for anything between 30 and 40 runners has an over-round of 110%.https://theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r … tart=&sid=
This "Tote/PMU" should be set up by racing benefactors, the Paul Stewart’s of this World. Letting everyone know once their costs/investment have been paid (a "not for profit" company) it will be given to "Racing"… Encouraging punters to bet with them for the good of both "racing" and themselves.
This way there does not need to be a Tote/PMU "monopoly" because bookmakers would simply not be able to compete with such small over-rounds. ie No odds-compiler is good enough to work out races with mark ups of just 0.5% per runner (or less); so no "buying off" of existing bookmakers needed, they’d just go out of business.
There is still quite a large slice of betting done off course, so because it would be too expensive to set up so many street bookmakers, it may be best to wait a while before setting the business up by using newer outlets (phone, internet, mobile etc).
Value Is EverythingCheers Mike Terrific post ….I wanted to get some discussion going on the PMU idea …looks like we are starting to get somewhere
Good points too Ginger
Thing is we could have a HK model/ or something close to it , if we really tried , the pitfalls are many , but it can be done !!!
If you guys can see the merits , then I ask one simple question
Why cant the BHA ???
Thing is we could have a HK model/ or something close to it , if we really tried , the pitfalls are many , but it can be done !!!
If you guys can see the merits , then I ask one simple question
Why cant the BHA ???
Because they are like bookmakers – lily-livered
Good point Ginge regarding flexible takeouts – it’s only a couple of algorithms into the computer program, after all.
If there was a decent-size pool offering me 0.5% a runner for 10 runners or less, I would start betting again tomorrow. No question.
Mike
Hong Kong’s Utopia is built on fewer than 700 races per year.
The UK stages around 9,000 races per year.
The Tote has existed in this country since 1928, giving it 30-year+ start on its rivals.
Until well into the 1980s (if memory serves me well) the Tote’s key sales pitch was ‘Our profits go to racing’
They’ve had a monopoly on UK horse racing pool betting for almost a century, without being able to convince punters that this is what will save/improve racing.
Bookmakers, like any business, are entitled to run their companies in what the exec believes is the optimum fashion. If that means limiting or refusing bets, then that’s what they should do. Indeed, those with shareholders, are legally obliged to do so (the directors must act in the best interests of shareholders) – assuming that the board takes the view that the long term success of the company will be enhanced by ‘weeding out’ those who damage/might damage profits.
Bookmakers are not perfect. But, as businessmen, I’d much sooner deal with them than with many others I’ve met in different fields – bankers, anyone?
Returning to the key points:
1 – could the Hong Kong model handle 60 racecourses and 9,000 races? Or would we be willing to see UK racing reduced to fewer than 1,000 races a year to fit the HK structure?
2 – Under any new guise, what (other than monopoly, imposed either by law or by the Racing Right being sold only to the Tote) would make the Tote more attractive to punters than it’s been for the past 90 years?
steeplechasing,
its not issues around PMU capacity that limits the number of HK races:- its HK government diktat.
there is tight government control over the number of races the HKJC is permitted to stage and the number of simulcasts of overseas races the HKJC can present.
[at some stage there would also be an issue over how much racing the turf could take at just the two HK racecourses, but that’s not currently the reason for the limited number of races.]
according to IFHA figures for 2013:
http://www.horseracingintfed.com/defaul … country=14
in GB there were 10,148 races that produced turnover of EUR 12.4bn (mean per race EUR 1.22m);
in HK there were 771 races that produced turnover of EUR 9.5bn (mean per race EUR 12.3 million).
so the HK PMU on its own handles per race 10 times the money that goes through all the systems combined of GB bookies /tote / betting exchanges.
and its not resting on its laurels, pushing its boundaries further through the Longitude algorithms.
the GB Tote may be 30+ years older than its rivals but it has been asleep for decades and in its offerings is now about 30 years behind state-of-art.
what might make it more attractive to GB punters is if it came into the modern world.
also if (unlike GB bookies today) it did not limit to buttons the stakes of the successful, and (unlike GB betting exchanges today) did not impose a private tax/premium charge of 60 per cent on the successful.
wit, I’d have no concerns about the technology coping. The trouble would be transferring the other merits of the administration.
UK racing, as everyone knows, has a fine history, but many problems. I think that adapting the HK structure would be like taking a system that works superbly for running two care homes, and trying to make it work for the NHS.
Joe/Steeplechasing …old habits die hard ,,,as an ex bookie man yourself , its probably inconceivable that you would be in favour
Bookie apologists are few and far between , so I reckon we need to treasure your views !!! as they are a rarity
Have no worries if we ever got PMU it would work fine , except I reckon a split would happen , jockey club courses to PMU and the rest to the bookies , who would try and monopolise those …after all they need some racing product to tempt more unfortunates to lose on the roulette
Speaking of which ,,I called into my local Ladbrokes last night to watch a few towcester doggie races (terrific card tonight BTW),,there were 5 people inside …4 doing their absolutes on roulette and yours truly looking on in amazement
Can someone change the law soon ….one guy lost 200 quid and was then seen outside the door scrabbling some discarded cigarette butts ….its just criminal
iMO
Hong Kong’s Utopia is built on fewer than 700 races per year.
The UK stages around 9,000 races per year.
The Tote has existed in this country since 1928, giving it 30-year+ start on its rivals.
Until well into the 1980s (if memory serves me well) the Tote’s key sales pitch was ‘Our profits go to racing’
They’ve had a monopoly on UK horse racing pool betting for almost a century, without being able to convince punters that this is what will save/improve racing.
Bookmakers, like any business, are entitled to run their companies in what the exec believes is the optimum fashion. If that means limiting or refusing bets, then that’s what they should do. Indeed, those with shareholders, are legally obliged to do so (the directors must act in the best interests of shareholders) – assuming that the board takes the view that the long term success of the company will be enhanced by ‘weeding out’ those who damage/might damage profits.
Bookmakers are not perfect. But, as businessmen, I’d much sooner deal with them than with many others I’ve met in different fields – bankers, anyone?
Returning to the key points:
1 – could the Hong Kong model handle 60 racecourses and 9,000 races? Or would we be willing to see UK racing reduced to fewer than 1,000 races a year to fit the HK structure?
2 – Under any new guise, what (other than monopoly, imposed either by law or by the Racing Right being sold only to the Tote) would make the Tote more attractive to punters than it’s been for the past 90 years?
Joe,
The answer is obvious. Tote have never been"able to convince punters that this is what will save/improve racing"
because of a disgracefully wopping over-round! And… as I said, there is absolutely NO reason why all sized fields should have the same over-round. Is it 116.5% now? I’ve lost interest in the Nanny. It does not compete with bookmakers early odds in anything but a big field, let alone with exchanges.
Take outs need to be reduced drastically to something like I mentioned earlier, but if they were punters
would
use it and
not
use bookmakers. Indeed, with a take out of 0.5% (or less) per runner – bookmakers would not be able to compete. Their odds compilers will find it impossible to be accurate enough to produce a normal early odds/fixed market. Therefore, they’d either go out of business (effectively producing a monopoly for a Tote/PMU) or need to produce their own Pool betting. If latter, punters faced with very similar (excellent value) choices (not like Tote is now) will more than likely choose the bookmaker whose profits remain in racing.
Value Is EverythingRicky, I’m 100% in favour of anything that could be replicate the success of HKJC here, whether it’s run by bookies or the Tote. My first and deepest commitment is to racing – I just think the bookies are an easy target for many. They do what they can to make the best of their business – as you and I and anyone else would do. Yes, they refuse bets, but it’s nothing personal, I’m sure.
HKJC do a wonderful, admirable job, and I think they are brilliant. But replicating that on a much larger scale in a country with a massively different culture would be, imo, a gargantuan task.
Fair enough Joe , point noted ….of course I agree its an uphill task , But its worth it in my view
Long term British racing would be well and truly secure ….the bookies will end up being mini casinos anyway , they are at the point now , where they could possibly say bugger off racing we dont need you any more …it may t be not too far away when that day comes , after all if you could see the books today of ladbrokes or WH , how many football bets do you reckon they took in comparison to Horse racing ,???,,,as for tomorrow , they will print money again on the football
We really do need to think about an alternative way of funding our racing , taking scraps of the bookies is just pathetic …..imo
cheers
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.