- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Don’t know why you have brought up IBAs – they do not represent punters, nor do they consult punters on any issues regarding racing or betting.
I would not touch IBAS with a bargepole.
I have heard nothing but scorn for their wholesale bias towards bookmakers.
With the Gambling Act, IBAS cannot deal with any disputes concerning legal aspects and most disputes are for illegal failure to honour bets or illegal unfair terms and considerations.
A Small Claims Court summons sorts out cheating bookmakers in no time.It’s not their job to represent punters or to consult them. They are arbitrators. I carry no torch for them, but would be interested to hear of any dispute a punter has raised with them which was settled with a bias toward bookmakers.
To return to the subject, an interim goal might be to get some punter representation on the Betting Patterns Working Party, a body stuffed to the rafters with bookmaking types – some of them of questionable intellect – which has frequently banged the drum for bigger fixture lists among other things. There is no reason why only bookmakers should get a say in such matters, providing data confidentiality is observed. Indeed, it can be contended that what the BPWP, and racing, really needs are more independent minds capable of looking beyond their own narrow interests.
I remember in the days when Paul Struthers was at the BHA spending a fair amount of time lobbying for alterations to the racecard to be published online (jockey changes, headgear changes, overweights, flag starts and the like) rather than hoping that an on-the-spot reporter would notice the announcements at each track and disseminate them to the wider public (as the last horse loads up seems to be the most popular time for this, with after they’ve passed the post following a close second). Even that request was too much for them.
If they don’t even think punters are worthy of knowing who is running and who is riding, then I’m not surprised there’s apathy. No point banging your head against a brick wall.
To return to the subject, an interim goal might be to get some punter representation on the Betting Patterns Working Party, a body stuffed to the rafters with bookmaking types – some of them of questionable intellect – which has frequently banged the drum for bigger fixture lists among other things. There is no reason why only bookmakers should get a say in such matters, providing data confidentiality is observed. Indeed, it can be contended that what the BPWP, and racing, really needs are more independent minds capable of looking beyond their own narrow interests.
That’s never going to happen. Nobody independent will ever be allowed at that data because the argument that more and more races are levy-positive would not stand up to scrutiny.
The round-the-clock racing isn’t there to directly help the bookmakers’ bottom line or the levy. It’s there primarily to provide justification for round-the-clock opening hours for the FOBTs and a bit of background ambience.
The March edition of HANA’s free magazine is on this link:
http://horseplayersassociation.org/hana … dium=email
Contents include:
Barry Meadow kicks it off looking at odds lines, followed by an excellent article by Bruno de Julio, and our Cover Story, "A Review of Esquire’s Horseplayers" by Jerod Dinkin. Twinspires’ Jeremy Clemons answers eight questions and Larry Collmus gives one dandy interview. Mark Patterson of Mountaineer shares tips and tricks, Doug McPherson lends his thoughts on Quarter Horse bias. In the harness section, Garnet Barnsdale looks at a "Trident" of handicapping.
Mission Statement:
H.A.N.A. is committed to giving horseplayers a voice.
Who are we and what do we want?
H.A.N.A. is a grass roots organization made up of horseplayers just like you.We stand for:
Fair and open access to all track signals for all licensed ADWs.Optimal Takeout levels – to maximize revenue for tracks, horsemen, and state coffers.
Read HANA’s position on takeout –click here–Penalties for cheating that make the penalty a deterrent to cheating.
A modern secure tote system fast enough to deliver odds and payoffs in real time.
An environment where racing decision makers value input from the player and seek it out – because doing that improves racing’s long term outlook.
Together we can effect change.
We are an independent grass roots horseplayer organization.
Won’t you join us?
What would key topics consist of, in terms of what a punter’s lobby group would concern itself with…
Integrity – what’s being done, is it enough?
The SP system
Bookie sharp practise
Racecourses – facilities, etc (maybe)
Information – content and delivery
What else?
What would key topics consist of, in terms of what a punter’s lobby group would concern itself with…
Integrity – what’s being done, is it enough?
The SP system
Bookie sharp practise
Racecourses – facilities, etc (maybe)
Information – content and delivery
What else?
Sheer volume of racing and pointless majority of racing killing interest.
Race types must have own season that does not overlap others so much.
Summer jumping, flat turf and AW flat all going on at same time.
Splits racing followers into 3 groups that seem to denigrate the two other groups.All racecourses to be independently measured by professionals each year with reports made public and clerks to be personally liable for correct distances or reporting differences in yards each meeting. Furlong pole positions to be checked and corrected. Hurdle positions to be fixed or moves reported.
Starts to NH to be sorted out – it should be an offence (under racing on full merits) not to race from the moment the tapes go up.
A scheme to train and educate media in modern horseracing and betting matters.
Trainers to sit and pass a professional exam before they can charge clients.
BHA to actually read Steward Reports and Why They Ran Badly fictions and get real as to what is going on.
Jockeys and Trainers charged with integrity issues still being allowed to practice for a couple of years after being charged and the case actually being resolved.
Handicapper to take horse body weight into account when assessing weight allocations.
Self certificates for trainers to pull out horses should be completely banned. An independent vet report as to injury to be the only way for horse not to race.
Sheer volume of racing and pointless majority of racing killing interest.
USA has 10 times our number of races inc trotting
FR has twice as many in trotting
JP twice as many with no trotting
AUS 3.5 times as many inc trots
CAN 2.5 times as many inc trotsSheer volume of racing and pointless majority of racing killing interest.
USA has 10 times our number of races inc trotting
FR has twice as many in trotting
JP twice as many with no trotting
AUS 3.5 times as many inc trots
CAN 2.5 times as many inc trotsLow grade meetings aren’t all broadcast/covered nationally in those countries like they are here. Most of the races you’ve counted would be comparable to point-to-points here in terms of the coverage they get.
Sheer volume of racing and pointless majority of racing killing interest.
USA has 10 times our number of races inc trotting
FR has twice as many in trotting
JP twice as many with no trotting
AUS 3.5 times as many inc trots
CAN 2.5 times as many inc trotsLow grade meetings aren’t all broadcast/covered nationally in those countries like they are here. Most of the races you’ve counted would be comparable to point-to-points here in terms of the coverage they get.
They run for a purse which is an indicator of interest.
Sheer volume of racing and pointless majority of racing killing interest.
USA has 10 times our number of races inc trotting
FR has twice as many in trotting
JP twice as many with no trotting
AUS 3.5 times as many inc trots
CAN 2.5 times as many inc trotsindocine,
but looking at the other 2012 figures on the IFHA website, you are actually making Robert’s point:
GB betting turnover – Eur 11.6bn from 9,647 races at 60 courses under 1 racing body
USA – Eur 8bn from 91,000 races at 156 courses under 1 body
FR – Eur 9.9bn from 18,000 races at 244 courses under 232 bodies
AUS – Eur 11bn from 34,000 races at 448 courses under 471 bodies
CAN – Eur 1bn from 24,000 races at 33 courses under 8 bodies
so the more racing, the less public interest via betting.
only JPN at first sight might seem to buck Robert’s proposition:
JPN – Eur 27bn from 16,850 races at 25 courses under 16 bodies
but in fact, considering JPN’s wealth relative to GB [eg its GDP is double that of the UK], it also supports Robert’s proposition since there ought to be a far higher turnover figure per race than in fact exists:- JPN’s 27bn over 16,850 is not double GB’s 11bn over 9,647.
I think we should look at Prufrock’s post a bit more , it has real content
A wish list has no chance
we need to be practical and realistic ….
Remember to effect change , we need to be in a position to make it happen (bit like a coalition Gov
)Lets have a hard look at what Pru says
imo
To be honest, I was blissfully unaware of the very existence of the Betting Patterns Working Party.
Here’s their raison d’etre :-
‘The main function of the BPWP, reporting to the Levy Board, is to consider analysis of the betting performance of races with a view to recommending mutually beneficial changes to the race programme to maximise levy generation and make best possible use of the horse population. It is able to achieve this by monitoring betting performance and data, taking account of horse population trends, overseeing the funding of new initiatives and implementing action plans to avoid gaps in the race programme.’
This is the type of thing they currently support/recommend –
08/05/2012 – Betting Patterns Working Party Supports Reduction in Race Division Threshold
The trigger point for divided races – creating two races when one is oversubscribed – will fall from 20 declarations to 18 for races staged from tomorrow onwards.
Changes to Rules (F) 27, (F) 39 and (F) 102 have been put in place by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), with the support of the BPWP. The BPWP, comprised of Racing and Betting representatives and chaired by the Levy Board, endorsed this change following discussions with BHA’s Racing Department about options to make better use of the horse population and enhance betting opportunities.
The trigger point had been raised from 18 to 20 in recent years in order to reduce the call on the Divided Race Fund. The additional funds necessary to support this amendment and division of extra races will be provided from the Levy Board’s Racing and Betting Special Incentive Fund. Both divisions will continue to be run at their original value.
Alan Delmonte, Levy Board’s Operations Director and member of the BPWP said: “The BPWP and its sub group agreed this was a sensible area in which to make funds available to boost off-course betting and to provide the maximum number of opportunities for horses which would otherwise have been balloted out of the race”.
So.. absolutely the type of body that would benefit from a punter’s viewpoint/voice.
Here’s the current line-up and link to the Levy Board site for more details –
Betting Patterns Working Party Membership
Organisation Represented By
HBLB (Chairman) Alan Delmonte
HBLB Tasha Power
BHA Paul Bittar
BHA Paul Johnson
RMG Racecourses Ed Gretton
ATR Racecourses Jim Allen
Horsemen’s Group Richard Wayman
Horsemen’s Group Julian Richmond-Watson
REL/GBR Nigel Roddis
Bookmakers’ Committee Will Roseff
Bookmakers’ Committee Stu McInroy
Ladbrokes Mike O’Kane
William Hill Kate Miller
Coral Simon Clare
Betfair Mark Tranter
Betfred Joe ScanlonSome good individuals, but decisions affecting punters (the CUSTOMER) without a single customer input among the throng.
wit,
What would Hong Kong figures do to that argument?
It’s not as simple as turnover generated by the number of fixtures – many other factors must affect the decisions punters make, not least the culture of the country.
wit,
What would Hong Kong figures do to that argument?
It’s not as simple as turnover generated by the number of fixtures – many other factors must affect the decisions punters make, not least the culture of the country.
A real life example of downsizing. Italy has lost 50% of it’s races these past 8 years along with 66% of it’s betting turnover.
wit,
What would Hong Kong figures do to that argument?
It’s not as simple as turnover generated by the number of fixtures – many other factors must affect the decisions punters make, not least the culture of the country.
A real life example of downsizing. Italy has lost 50% of it’s races these past 8 years along with 66% of it’s betting turnover.
But which was the cause and which the effect?
Ahead of the financial crisis, Italy’s economy did expand, albeit modestly, and then went into reverse. Switching to quarterly data, it is still 9% below the peak it reached before the crisis.
It is also a pretty dismal picture if you look at GDP per capita, which gives a somewhat rough and ready indication of living standards. In Italy that measure fell by nearly 7% between 2000 and last year. Greece, Cyprus and Portugal have also seen falls, but not so large.
Unemployment in Italy is high, at 12.7% in December. That is above the eurozone average, but less than half the dismal figures for Greece and Spain.
But the Italian jobs situation is arguably worse than the unemployment figures suggest. People who aren’t looking for work are not counted as unemployed.
Instead we can look at the percentage of the working age population who do have jobs. In Italy that is 55.6% (in the third quarter of last year).
That’s a long way below the eurozone average of 63.8%. Spain and Greece are the only eurozone countries with a figure below Italy’s.
)- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.