- This topic has 37 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Most of our work was done by reccomendation with customers coming back to us time after time, decade after decade. But just because customers came to us without looking for a quote – does not mean we’d fleece them. Far from it, they deserved a good value price..
The Burlington Bertie Carpet Laying Company, prop. Gingertipster
"our carpet overlays are never scruffy-and-dirty"Bookmakers on track should take bets to SP only. Then, everyone would be able to see who offers best prices. They’d even make more money doing so.
Value Is EverythingOn Ripon racecourse website they claim:
"Bets placed with RiponBet are placed at RP ( racecourse price ) offering the racegoers a
competitive price
".
They should re-name this bet as RIP OFF BET!
In my opinion they are con men!
Value Is EverythingBookmakers on track should take bets to SP only. Then, everyone would be able to see who offers best prices. They’d even make more money doing so.
Thus removing the need for any more than one bookmaker at any given track!!
Mike
Bookmakers on track should take bets to SP only. Then, everyone would be able to see who offers best prices. They’d even make more money doing so.
Thus removing the need for any more than one bookmaker at any given track!!
Mike
I only suggest this at Bangor, Chester and Ripon for a short period of time Mike, until enough publicity is thrown at these diabolical practices.
If I were local to any of these tracks, I’d stand by one of these outlets and make sure every punter knew exactly what they are taking.
Value Is EverythingA very noble sentiment Ginge, but have you ever stood by a board in the ring that has been offering inferior value prices to other bookies and sought to divert punters from it?
(I’ve mentioned one firm notorious for bad value in a previous post)
Why should you look out for the poor-value punters of in-course tote outlets but not for the poor-value price takers in the ring?And another thing,, let’s say that Chester’s operation for instance does so well that they can afford to advertise that they will guarantee £1 more per winning bet that a punter would get SP? Would you then divert punters from betting shops on course?
Don’t think this scenario can’t happen; the Chester Race Company are as sharp as knives. Once they’ve got the hang of the thing, they’ll make it as cost-efficient as such an operation can be and may well market their product with a "better-than SP" guarantee. Or does outrage on the punters’ behalf only extend to those organisations seeking to oust the old beloved "nanny goat" of years gone by?A very noble sentiment Ginge, but have you ever stood by a board in the ring that has been offering inferior value prices to other bookies and sought to divert punters from it?
(I’ve mentioned one firm notorious for bad value in a previous post)
Why should you look out for the poor-value punters of in-course tote outlets but not for the poor-value price takers in the ring?And another thing,, let’s say that Chester’s operation for instance does so well that they can afford to advertise that they will guarantee £1 more per winning bet that a punter would get SP? Would you then divert punters from betting shops on course?
Don’t think this scenario can’t happen; the Chester Race Company are as sharp as knives. Once they’ve got the hang of the thing, they’ll make it as cost-efficient as such an operation can be and may well market their product with a "better-than SP" guarantee. Or does outrage on the punters’ behalf only extend to those organisations seeking to oust the old beloved "nanny goat" of years gone by?SP – 10% is 10% worse than an already poor value bet, and I certainly wouldn’t care if the old "nanny" was replaced with a better bet Insomniac.
I have on occasion approached a board bookmaker and asked why he’s betting to a big over-round. Done the same with bookmakers paying out 1/6th each way (only if said bookie is not working to a lesser over-round). In my experience if a bookie is offering poor value about one particular horse, then he/she’s usually offering good value about another (which is
not
happening here). And yes, when I hear once a year punters debating which price is best (eg 100/30 or 7/2) I will step in and guide them in the right direction.
If in house betting does reduce it’s over-round, then it will probably be because of people complaining, not because of "cost-efficiencey". You ask why should I "look out for the poor-value punters", I’d look out for anyone I thought was being ripped off.
Value Is EverythingI have on occasion approached a board bookmaker and asked why he’s betting to a big over-round. Done the same with bookmakers paying out 1/6th each way (only if said bookie is not working to a lesser over-round). In my experience if a bookie is offering poor value about one particular horse, then he/she’s usually offering good value about another (which is
not
happening here). And yes, when I hear once a year punters debating which price is best (eg 100/30 or 7/2) I will step in and guide them in the right direction.
Perhaps you’d care to let us know their replies, after the 9pm watershed of course, and how you managed to survive having their boards broken over your gingerlocks
Your sentiments on this thread (and in past threads it must be said) and wish to help prevent your fellow punters from being shafted in a business that’s a shafter’s dream are admirable Ginger; infact you seem just the right sort to head-up a resurrected NAPP (National Association for the Protection of Punters), though the experiences that that admirable group had with the very people they were supposed to be representing and helping may persuade you of the folly of your well-meant mission
It would be fair to say that try as it might NAPP ran headlong into a brick wall of indifference and resignation. Punters overall have no wish to be saved from themselves; they love to hate the ‘old enemy’ and the jolly good moan about them and their pratices an important part of the punting experience, as third-party blame deflects first-party inadequacy
Hard words maybe, but largely true I think
they knew
Well said Drone. Ginger seems a jolly good egg and your analysis of the how punters (most punters) think rings true.
Perhaps you’d care to let us know their replies, after the 9pm watershed of course, and how you managed to survive having their boards broken over your gingerlocks
There are ways of asking these questions Drone. Yes, I found that out the hard way.
One bookie said "overheads", the amount they have to pay racecourses for the pitch, staff and the fact few punters turned up. Little money to go around he can’t afford to offer bigger prices – apperently.Value Is EverythingYour sentiments on this thread (and in past threads it must be said) and wish to help prevent your fellow punters from being shafted in a business that’s a shafter’s dream are admirable Ginger; infact you seem just the right sort to head-up a resurrected NAPP (National Association for the Protection of Punters), though the experiences that that admirable group had with the very people they were supposed to be representing and helping may persuade you of the folly of your well-meant mission
It would be fair to say that try as it might NAPP ran headlong into a brick wall of indifference and resignation. Punters overall have no wish to be saved from themselves; they love to hate the ‘old enemy’ and the jolly good moan about them and their pratices an important part of the punting experience, as third-party blame deflects first-party inadequacy
Hard words maybe, but largely true I think
they knew
Although I have plenty of Barneys on this site Drone, don’t wish to become one.
Never a fan of NAPP and unlike possibly most punters, actually have great respect for most bookmakers.Value Is EverythingThe betting ring is a jungle and in the jungle the weak get killed – that’s life.
Why should people be wet-nursed all the time?
If people are not prepared to do the research and throw their money at poor value investments why should they be "protected"?
To be honest many of those on-course are there for a fun day out and they are not concerned about value or obsessed about making as big a profit as possible – as long as they get a winner they’re happy and I don’t think they will be too worried if they found out they could have won an extra 20p on their £2 e/w bet elsewhere.
Those who are more serious bettors will know to avoid the rip-off outlets – or if they don’t they frankly deserve to be ripped off.
I have on occasion approached a board bookmaker and asked why he’s betting to a big over-round. Done the same with bookmakers paying out 1/6th each way (only if said bookie is not working to a lesser over-round).
Surely the bookmakers response would be, "it’s a business decision and if punters don’t like the terms they can bet elsewhere"
If punters were completely ignoring those bookmakers they would soon change their terms.
Viva market forces!!!
Surely the bookmakers response would be, "it’s a business decision and if punters don’t like the terms they can bet elsewhere"
If punters were completely ignoring those bookmakers they would soon change their terms.
Viva market forces!!!
But it’s not market forces is it? On course bookmakers or Ripon/ Chester or Bangor in house betting at sp minus 10%. not much market forces there.
Not much choice there for the educated racegoer nevermind the mug.
Get ripped off by on course bookmakers or mugged by the course in house betting.Get the exchanges and Tote into those tracks then you would have a point and lets see if we get the same "If punters don’t like the terms they can bet elsewhere" response then.
To be honest many of those on-course are there for a fun day out and they are not concerned about value or obsessed about making as big a profit as possible – as long as they get a winner they’re happy and I don’t think they will be too worried if they found out they could have won an extra 20p on their £2 e/w bet elsewhere.
Those who are more serious bettors will know to avoid the rip-off outlets – or if they don’t they frankly deserve to be ripped off.
For the casual/fun punter, particularly on-course, it’s the striking of the bet that provides the entertainment: that still slightly roguish, decadent and grubby pursuit that is anathema to the Protestant Work Ethic woven with a still-tight weft and warp into British and Western society: money for nothing is bad, bad, bad, wrong, wrong, wrong
Odds, Lose, Win is of little concern though the latter will provide an unexpected bonus, result in all sorts of extravagent hoop-la, high-fives and celebration, and will provide the lucky recipient with that dopamine-fuelled feeling of well-being and belief for a fleeting moment that he/she has ‘beaten the system’ prior to his/her return to the daily grind working the ethic
As Paul points out anyone who bets seriously viz the pursuit is long-term profit not casual entertainment, or intends to bet seriously, will be cognisant of all things odds, chance, percentage and rounding of books; or if they’re not then they do indeed deserve all they get, as these are the ‘mug punters’ of folklore not that happy breed who enjoy the occasional louche flutter at the races or take the once-yearly trepidatious but enjoyably tingly step into the High Street dens of iniquity for a wee fire-up on the National
Surely the bookmakers response would be, "it’s a business decision and if punters don’t like the terms they can bet elsewhere"
If punters were completely ignoring those bookmakers they would soon change their terms.
Viva market forces!!!
But it’s not market forces is it? On course bookmakers or Ripon/ Chester or Bangor in house betting at sp minus 10%. not much market forces there.
Not much choice there for the educated racegoer nevermind the mug.
Get ripped off by on course bookmakers or mugged by the course in house betting.Get the exchanges and Tote into those tracks then you would have a point and lets see if we get the same "If punters don’t like the terms they can bet elsewhere" response then.
But is is market forces Eddie – a perfect example.
Chester, Bangor and Ripon offer the choice of bookmakers or in-house, the other courses offer a choice of bookmakers or Tote.
If punters don’t like the choices on offer they vote with their feet, something which has not happened at either Chester or Bangor and I predict will not happen at Ripon.
As somebody previously stated Chester are the probably the most astute course financially and what they are doing is clearly working for them.
If Chester, Bangor or Ripon lose money as a result of their in-house offerings they will soon scrap them …. if, as they seem to be doing, they make a good return then you can be sure other courses will follow.
Tesco, Waitrose and Aldi are all supermarkets and whilst they stock some products in common, their ranges on offer are wholly different but they are a perfect example of market forces working. It is unreasonable to expect every supermarket to stock every possible item on the market, so why should racecourses be expected to offer every type of betting product?
Anyway I see these current in-house models being a short term product anyway – what I believe will happen is they will switch to being proper in-house or group Tote operations once the protection for the Betfred Tote eventually ends. Those coursers adopting the current model will be in a position to hit the ground running when the monopoly expires.
To anyone who has seen these in operation, can I ask how and where the bets are taken?
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.