- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
There are good arguments on both sides here.
Any business, not just bookmaking, is compelled to operate at a profit. It’s the first rule of the business. The problem often becomes “how much profit it enough?”
The greed of shareholders seems to have no limits and the drive for ever higher profits will often see “restructuring” to make a “leaner and more efficient company”
The reality of course is that it means making staff redundant and squeezing every molecule of work out the employees you have left.
Firms will turn away unprofitable aspects of their business, it’s just good practice to eliminate “toxic custom”
People who back selections with a bookmaker don’t have any given right for their wager to be accepted. The company I worked for had the rules written large that “We reserve the right to refuse all, or part of any bet.”
The problem I have is with bookies taking limitations on accepting bets to ridiculous sums of money in comparison with their overall turnover. It’s an old myth that any punter has been a “Bookie Basher” because it is not the Bookie’s money you are winning but instead all the losing punters’ stakes that any winner is picking up. You don’t win Coral’s money, you are winning Joe’s money, David’s money, Joni’s money etc
A bookmaker works on the theory that the book should balance itself and leave a guaranteed profit from the stakes paying the winner and the margin leaving something to keep bread on the table for Mrs Bookmaker to feed the wains. It rarely works like that though, because the money is never evenly spread. My firm used to have accounts with about six of the big bookies and any imbalance that could hurt our firm could be hedged off to whoever had the odds that made the hedge most economical for us. There certainly seemed little need for us to refuse any bets and in ten years managing the shop I never had to turn anyone away and that was up to four figure sized bets.
I have been out of the industry for seventeen years now, has it really changed that much that bookies need to limit people to £20 bets?
I feel that a firm should have a figure imposed, based on their annual turnover, that is set in stone as an amount they must be willing to accept on a given event. There seems little excuse for those with multi- millions of pounds in turnover imposing Mickey Mouse limits on punters.
ps To those who won “My” money over the years, I hope you spent it wisely and didn’t fritter it away on firewater, trinkets and loose women.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
The first meeting last Friday. Amazingly despite the admirable proposal to do something about inflated overrounds in the sp mechanism, as occurred in this years Grand National, the proposal was only carried by a MAJORITY verdict.
Who and why would anyone on a bettors forum supposedly representing punters, vote against such a proposal?
I’ve a fair idea who one might be but surely anyone who didn’t vote in favour of such a proposal should be named and shamed.
Depends on the wording of the proposal
To take an extreme example, if someone in any punters’ group said ‘let’s enforce and overround of a maximum of 1% in every race’
On the face of it, which punter wouldn’t vote for that?
But if such a proposal were imposed, every bookmaker in the land would refuse to take bets on horse racing.
Depends on the wording of the proposal
To take an extreme example, if someone in any punters’ group said ‘let’s enforce and overround of a maximum of 1% in every race’
On the face of it, which punter wouldn’t vote for that?
But if such a proposal were imposed, every bookmaker in the land would refuse to take bets on horse racing.
Perfectly possible but must be a 1000 chance. People of the intelligence of Simon Rowlands & Glenn Alcoe (could be others as well) are hardly going to be wasting their time thinking up things that aren’t sensible, fair or practical, although they may not be sensible or fair to bookmakers or their supporters and their thieving techniques.
Reform of the sp has been needed for a long time and why some members of a bettors forum would vote against such a proposal is a mystery. As they are supposed to be representing punters interests, presumably they consider the proposal not in punters interests. Why would that be?
Obviously it would be beneficial to get more details of the proposal, who voted against it and their reasoning for voting that way.
From the sound of it though, I’m not sure they are the sort of people who should be on such a forum, representing punters.
Simon Rowlands is Chair of the Horserace Bettors’ Forum. Many will recall Simon in his TRF guise of ‘Prufrock’ and I’m delighted to say that Simon has agreed to give TRF members some of his time to answer any questions any of you may have about the HBF and their work.
Outlined below is a brief summary by way of introduction sent to me by Simon, I’d encourage anyone interested to visit their website (link below) to find out more –
The Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF) was created in 2015 to understand the views of those who bet on British horseracing, and to represent those views to the individuals and bodies who make policy decisions in this area.
The HBF was created with the assistance of the British Horseracing Authority, and still maintains a good working relationship with that body, but is independent of it.
The HBF comprises up to nine voluntary members, chosen for their knowledge of the betting environment and their ability to represent the betting public. Forum members meet four times a year and correspond extensively between those meetings.
Over the first 18 months, HBF has corresponded extensively with (and sometimes met directly with) the likes of: the Starting Price Regulatory Commission; the Gambling Commission; significant individuals within the BHA; the Racecourse Association; the Independent Betting Adjudication Service; Members of Parliament; and executives of leading bookmakers.
The HBF website can be found at http://ukhbf.org/meeting-notes/ and the HBF may be contacted at comments@ukhbf.org
So, if you have any questions or comments you’d like to put to Simon about the past, present or future of the HBF please post them on this thread and I’ll make sure that Simon gets them. He’s said he’ll try to respond by end April (depending on how many questions are posed).
First of all thank you David for arranging this and thank you Simon for taking the time to answer questions.
1. What are the main issues that punters have raised?
2. How have the organisations, particularly bookmakers, reacted to your representations?
3. Have there been any particular ideas or firm proposals put forward?
4. Has the forum achieved any particular success?
Hi Simon
Does HBF have a view on the threshold test for “professional punter and so not entitled to protection of consumer law” contended for by Corals and accepted by the first-instance Scottish judge in the recent “Rangers relegation” case ?:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Hi Simon,
Can you see a time when the BHA will formalise its relationship with the HBF with a view to making it the go-to ‘department’ for policy and comment on behalf of the BHA?
If so, perhaps such a body could consult with other like-minded campaign groups with a view to having one voice espousing ‘best practice’ and campaigning as a consumer protection group?
Hi Simon,
Am not someone who believes “the game is bent” and have defended it many times on these pages. Outsiders win the number of races their price entitles them to.However, will/are some overseas visitors putting punters off?
Is it really a level playing field?
When looking at what drugs (particularly Clenbuterol) are allowed training racehorses in the USA… And the number of times Wesley Ward has violated even those USA rules… And the trainer is on record as saying he uses those substances on all his horses running in the USA. These drugs have the affect of creating overly mature two year olds and sprinters. As far as I can see, the only guarantee we have of him not using drugs (legal in USA) on his English runners – is his word. Is that enough? As I understand it, all a trainer has to do is stop using the drug at least 21 days before it’s to be tested to make sure it doesn’t show up.
I’ll see if I can find an old David Ashforth piece on this.
Am not saying Wesley Ward is doing anything wrong, but do think we should know that he isn’t.imo Not the same substance, but it’s like Zarooni setting up shop somewhere where their rules allow what he got done for – then letting/encouraging him to run horses here.
As a punter I’m having fewer bets in two year old bets at Royal Ascot; is that widespread?
To me, I don’t mind where top horses come from as long as it is a level playing field.
To a lesser degree, am also concerned about how many Irish trainers seem to come in to an important week in poor or poorish form, and then suddenly hit exceptional form exactly at the right time. (By “in form” I don’t mean just winners, I mean running to form/as well as could be expected). eg At Cheltenham, Jim Cullotty in the Lord Windermere years barely had another winner all season (be surprised if didn’t have a snowflake against his name going in to Cheltenham). Gordon Elliott and Jessie Harrington this season, and there’s been plenty of others over recent years. Of course this sort of thing happens naturally to a certain degree, horses will be targeted; but every Cheltenham horse is targeted at Cheltenham and it’s THE most competitive racing. In my “trainers in form” ratings, trainers going from a 4 (or less) out of 10 to a 9 or 10 in one or two days happens far more often with Irish trainers than British.Is suddenly hitting remarkable form exactly the right week of the season happening too often with Irish horses to be just coincidence?
Is the Irish testing system good enough? Are penalties stringent enough to discourage foul play?
Am concerned in time punters may be put off.To be sure of a truly level playing field, should British authorities be allowed to test any horse entered in Britain wherever they are being trained? Of course if a tester turns up at any overseas yard a trainer could refuse entry. But if so his horses would be banned from racing in Britain. Entering any horse in a British race should mean connections agree to those rules.
I’ll understand if these questions are too controversial for you to answer on a forum, Simon. If so please bear them in mind for your Horseracing Bettors Forum.
Thanks for all your work in the HBF and over the years with Timeform. Much appreciated.
Mark
Value Is EverythingHi Simon,
First Question is..”Have you seen any Waxwings this winter”?..I haven’t seen one myself but was lucky enough to see the ‘Dusky Thrush’ at Beeley.
2nd question is…”Do you think Rivet ran below par in the Dewhurst,bearing in mind how he ran at Doncaster either side of that performance and do you see him as a Guineas or Derby horse”?…Cheers..”Have you seen any Waxwings this winter”?..I haven’t seen one myself but was lucky enough to see the ‘Dusky Thrush’ at Beeley.
Is that Beeley near Bakewell or Beeley Woods near Sheffield?
There were flocks of Waxwings in York last winter, January I think; notably about a group of about 15 I and several others chanced upon ravaging berries from a small Rowan tree near the City Walls
By the time Simon has responded to Ginger’s questions the Rowan berries and Waxwings will be back methinks
.”Have you seen any Waxwings this winter”?..I haven’t seen one myself but was lucky enough to see the ‘Dusky Thrush’ at Beeley.
Is that Beeley near Bakewell or Beeley Woods near Sheffield?
There were flocks of Waxwings in York last winter, January I think; notably about a group of about 15 I and several others chanced upon ravaging berries from a small Rowan tree near the City Walls
By the time Simon has responded to Ginger’s questions the Rowan berries and Waxwings will be back methinks
Beeley Moor at Chatsworth Drone,the one near Bakewell like you say..Tis a haven for migrating birds being blown off course,we once had an African fish Eagle frequent there too.
As for Ginger hogging all Simons precious time I can only apologise for his selfishness.Hi again Simon:
The Hong Kong Jockey Club falls over itself to give the punter detailed written and video form, current and archived, free-at-point-of-delivery on the basis that:
a) the punter pays for it through the tote deductions from his/her gross wagers, and
b) the more info the punter has to look at, the greater the chances of growing his/her interest in racing and then wagering.
In Great Britain, punter seems to get virtually nothing in return for the various (greater) deductions made from his/her gross wagers.
Has to pay private publishers lots of extra money to get anything beyond very basic information = barrier to growth of interest in the sport, and to wagering. Situation just got worse with the major private publisher pulling lots of formerly free stuff (eg pdf racecards) behind its paywall.
Ultimately all information rights derive from the BHA and Weatherbys: they in conjunction with the venues would seem to hold the whip hand in producing GB racing.
So what’s going on ?
On the issue of horses not running to form:
What proportion of horses are non-triers and/or unfit, rather than genuinely trying but not repeating past form?
What can be done about it?
How can we predict if a horse will run to form?Great questions everyone, I’ll leave this open for a few more days, say Wednesday, and then get the Q’s off to Simon.
Remember the questions should be in relation to the HBF rather than Simon’s own work (or leisure pursuits!).
Brilliant stuff, some challenging questions there.
David
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.