Standard each way terms

[kasparov]

Now that on-course standard terms are 1/5 the odds for a place in a 16-21 runner handicap, and the odds can be used to calculate SPs, why haven’t off course bookmakers followed? Surely offering BOG and 1/4 the odds is potentially loss making and a temptation to arbers. The bookmakers seem to prefer restricting accounts rather than simply switching to standard terms. I don’t get it. I suppose one explanation is horseracing is not very important to bookmakers any more so they are happy to have it as a loss leader and to disguise the fact they make most of their money on FOBTs. But it doesn’t convince me.

[Purwell]

Must admit that I didn’t know they had changed, when did this happen and did anything else change?

I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highways

[kasparov]

The Jockey Club courses, including Epsom, switched in 2013. Bookies offering 1/5 the odds are also included in the SP sample at all courses I believe.

JCR champions punters’ rights with standard each-way terms

16th August 2013

Jockey Club Racecourses, the UK’s largest racecourse group1, today confirmed that from 1st September 2013 racecourse bookmakers at its 15 tracks will offer customers standard and consistent terms when accepting each-way bets.

The move is designed to provide greater certainty and protection for the punter, and in turn benefit racecourse bookmakers by increasing customer confidence in the betting ring.

Jockey Club Racecourses is the first racecourse group to implement standard each-way terms at its tracks in a change to licence agreements with racecourse bookmakers, following a three-month consultation period with various bookmaker associations and individual bookmakers.

Dickon White, Group Betting Director for Jockey Club Racecourses, said:

“We believe 1st September will be an important day for the on-course betting ring as the introduction of standard each-way terms for punters will give Jockey Club Racecourses’ customers greater confidence they are getting a fair deal when betting each-way at all 15 of our tracks.

“We’ve engaged with bookmakers in constructive and informative discussions about each-way terms and introducing a clear standard across all of our courses. We’ve listened to bookmaker feedback and been able to improve the solution we’re introducing as a result. Racecourse bookmakers are an important part of the theatre of a raceday and I am confident this change will be beneficial for both punters and bookmakers alike.

“I would like to personally thank the bookmakers who have taken part in this process and I look forward to working them on future projects to help promote the on-course betting ring.”

JCR standard each-way terms:

Where accepting each-way bets, ensure the terms shall be or shall be better, i.e. more favourable to the customer, than:

a) for races with fewer than 3 runners – all to win
b) for races with 3 or 4 runners – 1/5 odds on place 1– 2
c) for races with 5 – 7 runners (inclusive) – 1/4 odds on place 1–2
d) for races with 8 or more runners – 1/5 odds on place 1–2–3
e) for handicap races with 12 – 15 runners (inclusive) – 1/4 odds on place 1–2–3
f) for handicap races with 16 – 21 runners (inclusive) – 1/5 odds on place 1–2–3–4
g) for handicap races with 22 or more runners – 1/4 odds on place 1–2–3–4

[1] By turnover (2012: £141.2m), racecourses (15), attendances (2012: 1.8m), quality racing (Group and Graded), total prize money (2012: £35.3m) and contribution to prize money (2012: £16.5m)

– See more at: http://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/news/jcr-champions-punters-rights-with-standard-each-way-terms#sthash.aIMuouDe.dpuf

[Purwell]

Thanks, that certainly passed me by, not that I get to go racing much now, or back each way if I do go.
Can’t see how they can say it is beneficial to the punters though!

I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highways

[Richard88]

Two places on three and four runner races is nothing shy of absurd. I’m all for fairness but it works both ways. I’m not hugely familiar with the complexities of bookmaking mathematics but surely forcing bookies to pay at those terms can only be harming the win only punter which is what is being offered off course. Also presumably the vast majority of those on course would prefer better win only odds.

[stilvi]

Get the violins out.

The vast majority of punters would surely not want to see the loss of Best Odds and place terms as some sort of trade off with restricted accounts.

If Best Odds is a problem a bookmaker can already remove it. They don’t need any encouragement. I can vouch for that.

Bookmakers are well able to fight their own battles so I don’t really understand the point of threads like this.

[Author]

Posts