- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just found this thread. Will read through it later. Just putting my thoughts down.
Hoping they don’t come up with gimmicky ideas like RFC did with the Champions Series (who talks about that or what horses are leading it?) and Champions Day (the Champions Series champions rarely turn up anyway).
If you want to improve betting, they need to improve the product. Just look at football. They have clear competitions, definite seasons, accessible stats.
Take the new Jockeys’ Championship. It doesn’t cover the whole season, I doubt most people know when it starts or finishes and when was the last time Channel 4 showed the Jockeys table outside the last week or so of the flat season?
My suggestions would include:-
– Stop AW and NH racing in the summer.
– Have defined/ clear seasons for the turf, NH and AW.
Turf from March to October
NH from September to April
AW from August Bank Holiday to Good FridayThen you can have proper jockey and trainers championships for each. Everyone knows when the Premier League starts and finishes, ie August to May, how many know when the racing seasons begin and end? I often here comments like the “turf season has started and there’s so many aw meetings…” and “the jumps season has just finished and there’s three jumps meetings”
If jumps course want to race in the summer, why not hold flat meetings? If you stop the AW in the summer too there will be fixtures available.
– Have a better spread of fixtures and better racing on Sunday.
I would move the likes of the Chester, Dante, July, Ebor meetings back to Tuesday, Wednesday, Thurdays and look at moving some Friday fixtures to Sunday especially those two meetings like the Guineas meeting did.
– Maybe look at having more festival type meetings. Not always top class racing but the likes of Brighton and Yarmouth have popular three day ‘festivals’.
– Better tv coverage. How about showing the Craven meeting to build the profiles of potential classic horses. How about Channel 4 showing all races from Cheltenham.
– I would love the see the Triple Crown bigged up. How about big bonuses for a Triple Crown winner or the best performing horse across the races? I don’t think the Triple Crown is out of reach. I’m pretty sure Sea The Stars would have won the St Leger if it had run. Camelot went very close and Kingston Hill was only a few lengths behind in the 2000 Guineas and second in the Derby.
– I like the AW Championships on Good Friday. Would like to see if rotated around the different AW tracks.
Horse racing will never flourish here while it is dependent on bookmakers.
Anyone who thinks Rust wants to help punters is living in cloud cuckoo land and why anyone with any intelligence would be interested in joining this farce of a horseracing bettors forum is baffling.
All Rust is interested in regarding punters, is getting more money off them via the bookmakers.
Totally agree. Just having a quick look through this thread and there is plenty of betting talk. People on racing are likely to be whether the sport is in a good shape or not. The point of this forum and to boost the betting industry should be to attract new people to horse racing not pander to the bookies or come up with gimmicky ideas for existing punters.
Make a better sporting product, get more people interested in racing and betting will increase. People get interested for big meetings, Cheltenham, Royal Ascot etc and the big races/ classics but not an average Tuesday at Southwell.
Make a better sporting product, get more people interested in racing and betting will increase. People get interested for big meetings, Cheltenham, Royal Ascot etc and the big races/ classics but not an average Tuesday at Southwell.
[/quote]Nobody would disagree with what you want, it’s how you do it that’s the problem.
People either get racing or they don’t. It’s a bit like Marmite or Quentin Tarantino movies. Take a thousand people racing for the first time, and maybe 10 will become regulars at racing and at betting (or 5 or 100 or whatever the figure is; there should be data somewhere for it).
Arguably, all fancy ideas should be dropped and the sole aim should be to get as many people going racing as possible – free meetings, promotions, introduce a friend – that sort of stuff. Throw as many at it as you can and you’ll see some stick. It’s a numbers game.
Splitting up seasons, abolishing AW, increasing prize money etc., all pointless imo. Newcomers don’t know a selling plater from a Derby winner, and a large part of the joy for those who do “get” racing and become converts, is discovering all the intricacies for themselves…
…all imo, of course :)
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>IBRacing wrote:</div>
Bookmaking is a business where where people are expected to bet and take money from bookmakers that’s the whole point of the business. Bookmakers aren’t selling products their product is the odds they are offering with the deliberate intention of the “buyer” to take the money. That is gambling. You don’y buy a national lottery ticket then when you win Camelot ban you from playing it.Bookmakers simply by the nature of their business need to accommodate the people that win just as much as those who don’t. It is a duty that they do by means of what they do.
If they can’t make a profit then they pack it in like any other business would have to.
Profitable sports gamblers are not “gamblers” at all IB, we are “investors”. Nobody “invests” in the National Lottery because it is a pure gamble.
In pre Exchange days bookmakers could accommodate more winning punters because over-rounds (profit margins) were bigger. With increased competition from Exchanges and more on line bookmakers they can no longer accommodate big losses from successful punters because of the small profit margin needed to attract punters. Therefore they have to close accounts.
They don’t have to close accounts all they need to do is create reasonable limits. I have no objection to that.
How can a bookmaker “create reasonable limits” IB? If a particular bookmaker did just that – working to a greater over-round – it will not get enough business because their prices won’t attract much money. They have no choice but to compete on prices by working to a smaller over-round and then close some accounts.
Value Is EverythingArguably, all fancy ideas should be dropped and the sole aim should be to get as many people going racing as possible – free meetings, promotions, introduce a friend – that sort of stuff. Throw as many at it as you can and you’ll see some stick. It’s a numbers game.
Well, as record attendances have just been recorded for the first 6 months of this year, racecourse attendance can hardly be cited as a problem.
Racecourses have been heaving, even if some of this is c/o Tom Jones or Madness and despite some of the exorbitant admission charges.
Why has the sport 2 dedicated satellite channels, one charging an extortionate amount of subscription for a sub-standard service?
Horse racing should be absolutely thriving in this country and deep down unless you are away with the fairies we all know why it isn’t.
I saw a tweet the other day from a James Knight, think he used to post on here. He said “Horse racing should be the best betting sport out there” yet he works for Joe Coral.
Everything to do with the sport is infected by bookmakers. BHA, RUK, ATR, Racing Post, even the new BHA bettors forum and nothing will change for the better while they run the show.
Here is a question for you all……. Would racing survive/flourish without bookmakers?
Some say a tote monopoly as in some other countries would be a good idea but what about on course bookies?
Just a few thoughts to chuck in the mix. Is racing reliant on bookies or vice versa or is it somewhere in between?yeats, I think you’ll find the attendance figures include the concert crowds. Strip those out and it’s a much different picture.
On the bookmakers front, I can assure you that they’d be delighted to do without racing under the current structure – very few of them make money from it and for many smaller shops, racing is a loss-maker.
I can assure you too that racing would be horrified were bookmakers to pull out and not take coverage in their shops. The sport would die very quickly.
A Tote monopoly wouldn’t work unless every betting shop was nationalised and forced to sell racing as a product. For decades the Tote’s advertising tagline was ‘All our profits go to racing’…the punting public’s response? ‘Who cares?’
A Tote monopoly wouldn’t work unless every betting shop was nationalised and forced to sell racing as a product. For decades the Tote’s advertising tagline was ‘All our profits go to racing’…the punting public’s response? ‘Who cares?’
We’ve been here before Joe.
If a Tote business was born where all “All Profits Go To Racing” but the Tote pool market take out were at a percentage that makes it extremely difficult if not impossible for bookmaker’s odds compilers to make a book (to compete). That way, punters would “care” because they’d be getting better odds. Bookmakers would go out of business and/or become glorified amusement arcades and Tote becomes a monopoly…Do we need TV coverage in bookmaker shops nowadays?
Value Is Everythingyeats, I think you’ll find the attendance figures include the concert crowds. Strip those out and it’s a much different picture.
On the bookmakers front, I can assure you that they’d be delighted to do without racing under the current structure – very few of them make money from it and for many smaller shops, racing is a loss-maker.
I can assure you too that racing would be horrified were bookmakers to pull out and not take coverage in their shops. The sport would die very quickly.
A Tote monopoly wouldn’t work unless every betting shop was nationalised and forced to sell racing as a product. For decades the Tote’s advertising tagline was ‘All our profits go to racing’…the punting public’s response? ‘Who cares?’
I know they include the concert crowds steeplechasing but isn’t that what you’re advocating with your getting bodies to the track free or with promotions etc idea?
The racecourse attendances for previous years have also included the concert crowds and bear in mind these figures are just up to the end of June.The tracks don’t need to offer free entry, they get full houses for 30 or 40 quid if they put Tom Jones or Madness on although this will also discourage some proper racing people, similar to what bookmakers are doing to proper punters of the sport.
Of course what you say about bookmakers is correct which is why they have no interest with taking bets from any punter who isn’t guaranteed to lose or they can make money from, some don’t even want punters who might win. FOBT’s & football betting rule the roost but that’s no good for racing is it?
Think there’s an interesting interview on ATR tonight at 9.00pm with Mark Johnston about some of these issues. As he says if you were starting with a blank canvas now you would have a Tote monopoly but it’s highly unlikely it will be done now.
If we’d had one, the sport would be flourishing now and everyone could have got their bets on for as much as they wanted subject to sensible deductions of course.No, I think depending on the concert crowds to pick up future racegoers is hopeless. You might get one or two, but I think research was done among such crowds and it had a very clear finding – they had zero interest in racing and were there only because it happened to be the venue.
Getting people to the track when there’s nothing but racing on is the way to go imo. That way, they have nothing to distract them and you have half a chance.
I ask my son-in-law who bets a lot on the football and has loads of mates who do the same. ‘Would you guys ever bet on horseracing seriously.’
‘No. Too complicated.’
I think that applies to most bettors, especially of that generation. If you get those who don’t bet and introduce them to racing, I think you have a better chance of them becoming racing punters than if they already bet on something else – sounds daft, but there it is.
It was at York for Frankel’s Juddmonte that the penny finally dropped for me. The atmosphere beforehand was like something out of a Spielberg movie, you could have almost reached and grabbed a fistful of the excitement. And after the race it was as though some miracle had occurred that everyone had benefited from. I’ve never known anything like it – different even from a Cheltenham Festival.
But, to the man in the street, all that had happened was that a nice looking horse ran past some other nice looking horses. He didn’t get it. Millions don’t get it. How many people look at you strangely when you tell them you’re right into horse racing? They don’t get it.
What makes people get it? God knows. Perhaps they should get ten thousand of us and do psychometric testing. At least then they might have some guidance on who to target.
Today I have been “Restricted” by RaceBets.
I tried to place a £200 bet on a horse at the whopping odds of 9/4 – Ante Post as well believe it or not. RaceBets very generously informed me that I could bet at that price for a massive £22.
Bookmakers? No, this firm and those like them are cowards, parasites and they should NOT be allowed to do this. Now, I’m not an unreasonable person, I understand that economically firms have to survive and prosper to some extent. I could understand being turned down at odds of 33/1 or 20/1, even maybe 10/1 but 9/4? What a complete and utter joke.
Just thought I’d share with you all and name and shame.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>IBRacing wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gingertipster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>IBRacing wrote:</div>
Bookmaking is a business where where people are expected to bet and take money from bookmakers that’s the whole point of the business. Bookmakers aren’t selling products their product is the odds they are offering with the deliberate intention of the “buyer” to take the money. That is gambling. You don’y buy a national lottery ticket then when you win Camelot ban you from playing it.Bookmakers simply by the nature of their business need to accommodate the people that win just as much as those who don’t. It is a duty that they do by means of what they do.
If they can’t make a profit then they pack it in like any other business would have to.
Profitable sports gamblers are not “gamblers” at all IB, we are “investors”. Nobody “invests” in the National Lottery because it is a pure gamble.
In pre Exchange days bookmakers could accommodate more winning punters because over-rounds (profit margins) were bigger. With increased competition from Exchanges and more on line bookmakers they can no longer accommodate big losses from successful punters because of the small profit margin needed to attract punters. Therefore they have to close accounts.
They don’t have to close accounts all they need to do is create reasonable limits. I have no objection to that.
How can a bookmaker “create reasonable limits” IB? If a particular bookmaker did just that – working to a greater over-round – it will not get enough business because their prices won’t attract much money. They have no choice but to compete on prices by working to a smaller over-round and then close some accounts.
Sorry Ginger I’ve only just seen your post.
I didn’t say bookmakers needed to work to a greater over-round. When I said create reasonable limits i meant to punters accounts. Manage those accounts but manage to a reasonable level. I don’t expect any bookmaker to accept being cleaned out by any punter but they have to play the game and play it fairly. If a customer is clearly knowledgeable set a REASONABLE limit on the amount of money a customer is allowed to win in a calendar year, inform the customer then he / she can work within that budget. There’s no guarantee he / she will succeed anyway, not with any one particular bookmaker.
If you are in the bookmaking industry then you must be made to accept that sometimes people will beat you. If you don’t allow that to happen you are not giving the opponent any chance and that is wrong. It’s like Manchester city insisting all their opponents only play with 8 men every week.
ibracing, can you imagine the scenario in an agm at any business, never mind a bookmaker?
Shareholders: ‘What are we doing to cut costs?’
CEO: ‘Oh, we’ve chosen the people who consistently damage our profits and given them a limit to that damage at which they must stop.’
Shareholders: ‘Will we get your coat for you, or will you pick it up yourself on the way into employment oblivion, not to mention the courts for not obeying the law dictating you must always act in our best interests.’
ibracing, can you imagine the scenario in an agm at any business, never mind a bookmaker?
Shareholders: ‘What are we doing to cut costs?’
CEO: ‘Oh, we’ve chosen the people who consistently damage our profits and given them a limit to that damage at which they must stop.’
Shareholders: ‘Will we get your coat for you, or will you pick it up yourself on the way into employment oblivion, not to mention the courts for not obeying the law dictating you must always act in our best interests.’
They are bookmakers their role is to get people to have bets with them that’s what the profession is. It isn’t a “betting” business if the punter isn’t allowed to win.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.