- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Count me out thank you very much. No desire whatsoever at my age (67) to join an unelected talking shop with no real powers or responsibility. Especially if it means making quarterly trips to London, a ghastly place I’ve managed to avoid for the last twelve years.
I wish Simon well and hope he can manage to achieve something worthwhile, but this is fifteen to twenty years too late for me, and probably for the sport as well. In that time period, racing has signally failed to find a way to replace the Levy, which in turn has been abused by those responsible for its distribution. It has allowed the Tote to be sold to a bookmaker (I use the term loosely, since the one that woud more accurately describe Betfred would get the forum sued), and has now handed over the running of the BHA to a bookmaker.
As for having journalists as members of this forum, my personal feeling is that there should be nobody invited onto the panel unless they have experience of paying to go racing out of their own pocket! And I’d add that there should be nobody as old as me either – too easy to fall back into ‘good old days’ mode and fail to address the world as it is, rather than as I’d like it to have remained.
I hope the forum has a forum for bettors to air their views – it could be named The Bettors Forum
Simon Rowlands is a good egg and knowledgeable but he doesn’t strike me as a committee man, as he is blessed with that pre-requisite necessary of all serious and/or successful punters: being too sure of himself and his methods, and dismissive of his perceived inferiors. That is a compliment Simon, no one beat the book utilising consensus
Of past and present TRF members , Prufrock, Glenn, Gamble, Pinza, Maxilon5 and the first incarnation of Ian Davies would make a heady mix: consensual committee men them, I should cocoa!
I hope the forum has a forum for bettors to air their views – it could be named The Bettors Forum
Simon Rowlands is a good egg and knowledgeable but he doesn’t strike me as a committee man, as he is blessed with that pre-requisite necessary of all serious and/or successful punters: being too sure of himself and his methods, and dismissive of his perceived inferiors. That is a compliment Simon, no one beat the book utilising consensus
Of past and present TRF members , Prufrock, Glenn, Gamble, Pinza, Maxilon5 and the first incarnation of Ian Davies would make a heady mix: consensual committee men them, I should cocoa!
Prufrock is Simon Rowlands.
Value Is EverythingIf not “journalists” with a heavy interest in punting eg Simon Rowlands, Eddie Freemantle and Steve Mellish – don’t know who to nominate.
Please, please please… NOT John (“punter’s pal”) McCrirrick!
Value Is EverythingPrufrock is Simon Rowlands.
[/quote]Thank you Ginger, I did know that but feel that the correct etiquette when referring directly to TRF is to use members’ TRF moniker
Fancy applying for a seat on the forum yourself? It would be heaven for an value-with-odds-and-chances guru. I make you a sound bet at 4.8%
I’m glad Simon has been given the position.
Still not sure what he is or who he really represents, but a good show from Nick Rust for allowing the initiative.
I’d be happy to see Tony Calvin, Pittsburgh Phil (Flatstats) and Glenn Alcoe on board.
…as for Alan Lee…..have a word with yourself, Cormack.
No bookmakers either.
Prufrock is Simon Rowlands.
Thank you Ginger, I did know that but feel that the correct etiquette when referring directly to TRF is to use members’ TRF moniker
Fancy applying for a seat on the forum yourself? It would be heaven for an value-with-odds-and-chances guru. I make you a sound bet at 4.8%
[/quote]Thought you knew, just your post seemed contradictory. Anyway…
You could not pay me to go to London or any other city Drone. If it were a forum purely done on Skype – possibly. However, think I’d be too outspoken to last 5 mins.
Value Is EverythingThe main problem facing this new committee, imo, is that the main distributor of the product is reluctant to promote it. Bookmakers make very little from horse racing; in some cases it’s a losing product. I’ll bore forum regulars yet again by saying that what the BHA needs to do is retake commercial control of the fixtures and sell the media rights at a rate that makes the product attractive to the retailers – the same as any business would do.
As far as marketing strategy goes, Simon and his team have three options:
1.Market Penetration – trying to get gamblers who do not bet on horse racing to do so
2.Market Development – Trying to get people who do not bet, or bet very rarely, to bet regularly on horse racing
3. New Product Development – Creating a new bet, or bets, which are so attractive to the general public they achieve penetration and development.
By far the easiest of these to pull off is number 3.
Good luck to all concerned.
This forum brands itself the home of intelligent debate so let’s be intelligent here.
Horse racing is funded out of bookmakers profits – as stated above the BHA wants punters collectively to lose as much as the bookies do.
They won’t want the views of successful punters as such people don’t represent the people – recreational punters – the BHA want to reach out to more and pro punters will have their own agenda.
I somehow manage to make my betting pay but I am one of the few who does who declines the opportunity to use forums like this to whinge about not being able to get on because it’s life if you’re a long term winner with a recognisable pattern of winning activity and I have seen life from both sides of the fence.
What the BHA ideally wants, though, is for recreational punters to be able to collectively lose in as positive a way as possible.
In other words, straight racing where every horse tries, seven race cards where they bet say 3/1 the field every race with over rounds of 1% per runner (more possible if the the game is straight and there is more equal universal advance access to information with less concomitant market volatility) where the average punter goes home having backed say one winner at 9/2 and has made a small loss had several other runs for their money and had an enjoyable evening.
None of this should be of interest to anyone who actually knows what they are doing when it comes to betting – move along, nothing to see here for them.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Been waiting for summat like, and it was worth the wait
Welcome back slyest of slight returns
I somehow manage to make my betting pay but I am one of the few who does who declines the opportunity to use forums like this to whinge about not being able to get on because it’s life if you’re a long term winner with a recognisable pattern of winning activity and I have seen life from both sides of the fence.
Although you make some good points you seem to be completely out of touch with the current landscape of betting.
The scenario you describe of only long term winners being denied is something that ceased several years ago when FOBT’s came in. Now they only want long term losers and even some of them are restricted.
They are even bookmakers with no FOBT’s (eg Bet 365) who don’t want you betting with them if you display the slightest semblance of intelligence.The worrying thing for racing (and maybe you :yes:) is that Rust seemed to agree with you in his interview last week.
If racing punters have difficulty getting peanuts on they will swiftly on to other things, meaning even less money for racing. Bookmakers are turning people off racing who should be embraced.
Bookmakers are the root of all evil, one in charge of the Tote and now another in charge of racing itself.
Both racing channels are saturated with bookmakers and their mouthpieces and even C4 racing is not short of them.If only we could cut this cancer out of the sport and have a Tote/Exchange monopoly. It would be good for racing and good for punters.
The new forum will make recommendations/proposals/counsel to the Racing and Betting Committee. Populated by…bookmakers.
To Yeats’s point, I have had accounts restricted and/or closed within weeks and only a few profitable bets so it isn’t long term winners they are looking to swerve, it is anyone who shows even the slightest sign of knowing what they are at.
But, if you were a bookmaker, why on earth would you encourage someone you were likely to find an unprofitable proposition?but, if you were a bookmaker, why on earth would you encourage someone you were likely to find an unprofitable proposition?,,,,,Therin lies the problem …nobody bets …bookies win less…racing gets even smaller amount
Bookmakers are the root of all evil, one in charge of the Tote and now another in charge of racing itself.
Both racing channels are saturated with bookmakers and their mouthpieces and even C4 racing is not short of them.If only we could cut this cancer out of the sport and have a Tote/Exchange monopoly. It would be good for racing and good for punters.….I like this , makes sense to me
btw , good post fron Ian Davies …he may have discovered his mojo again …
A Tote/exchange monopoly would be good for punters who bet professionally.
Everyone else would simply lose more slowly.
In any event it isn’t going to happen so it is futile discussing it.
Punters like Mr Yeats moan about the way bookmakers operate but I challenge him and every other complainer to explain how they would operate any differently were they holding a bookmakers licence.
If accounts get closed prematurely then why aren’t all the people moaning about it setting up as bookies themselves to mop up all the potential profit that is going begging?
Maybe I am out of touch – or maybe I do most of my betting on exchanges or at racecourses where, if restricted in bet size, I politely ask how much they will accept and take what there is – if anything – graciously.
Bookmakers are human and tend to respond better to manners and civility.
I often see professionals who are probably far cleverer than me failing to get on at all because somewhere along the line these maths geniuses failed to learn about the value of common manners. #sociallydysfunctionalneeks
Oh, well…. =D
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"A Tote/exchange monopoly would be good for punters who bet professionally.
Everyone else would simply lose more slowly.
In any event it isn’t going to happen so it is futile discussing it.
Punters like Mr Yeats moan about the way bookmakers operate but I challenge him and every other complainer to explain how they would operate any differently were they holding a bookmakers licence.
If accounts get closed prematurely then why aren’t all the people moaning about it setting up as bookies themselves to mop up all the potential profit that is going begging?
Maybe I am out of touch – or maybe I do most of my betting on exchanges or at racecourses where, if restricted in bet size, I politely ask how much they will accept and take what there is – if anything – graciously.
Bookmakers are human and tend to respond better to manners and civility.
I often see professionals who are probably far cleverer than me failing to get on at all because somewhere along the line these maths geniuses failed to learn about the value of common manners. #sociallydysfunctionalneeks
Oh, well…. =D
So according to you all punters would benefit from a Tote/Exchange monopoly even the losers by losing more slowly.
You state that you often see pros who are far cleverer than you failing to get on because of lack of manners, this has to be highly questionable, leaving aside the contradiction in the statement I’m not sure that many pros frequent racecourses these days to be spotted frequently by you not getting on.
Of course a Tote/Exchange monopoly is most unlikely to happen but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed.
Many things have occurred in the world that couldn’t be predicted, even by you. eg The internet, Betting Exchanges, Racing pictures in the home etc.Compare the amount of interest in horse racing in the UK compared to somewhere like France, yet we are still racing for an absolute pittance in prize money compared to there. Racing should be absolutely thriving here and have good prize money with the amount of interest in the sport.
The reason this doesn’t happen is bookmakers, they just rip off racing and rip off punters.
Of course it would need someone with vision to change this, not likely with people like Rust in charge.
I haven’t used bookmakers for years so am in no position to be categorical but isn’t the main gripe with them nowadays the fact they won’t lay a decent bet to anyone who shows the merest bit of nous?
Regarding manners: when I was a regular on-course and had numerous credit accounts off-course I made it a rule to always be polite face-to-face or over the phone. Don’t know about others but I always thought that gentlemanly behaviour during the duel was an unwritten rule of punting and bookmaking – my friends the old enemy
An increasing number of professionals have returned to the racecourse because, apart from the major meetings, there is little liquidity on the exchanges until near the Off and even then by hunting around the ring you can often match the exchange price commission free.
Obviously you save expenses by operating online at home but it makes you easy to identify and restrict by online bookmakers.
Mr Drone is obviously an old school gentleman – refreshing.
Mr Yeats is correct, everyone would benefit from a Tote/Exchange monopoly but the big problem this new forum faces is that, by their very nature, recreational punters don’t care about value as much as serious punters do.
If they did, 15 years on, they would all be on Betfair and all bookies would have gone bust.
Ask the average lad on a Saturday night at Lingfield, pint in hand, if the idea of betting into a 101% exchange book instead of the 112% one on the board in front of them excites him and he is liable to respond: “What you on about, geezer? Not as much as that blonde sort over there!”
Joking aside, punters getting “ripped off” is nothing new and won’t change because such punters don’t actually care.
The only people driven away from racing by the way bookies operate are people who would win and contribute nothing to racings coffers anyway.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.