- This topic has 61 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
and as a third question:  where was whoever is supposed to enforce the National Pitch Rules?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
18.1    A person authorised to conduct business in the Betting Ring pursuant to these Rules shall not indulge in, nor be associated in any way with, any practice that has, or might have, the effect of distorting artificially the betting market or the Starting Price at any Meeting, whether by offering false prices on any horse, or by other means.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://www.njpc-ltd.co.uk/pages/rules/rule18.mhtml
surely covers shortening a horse when its on an inexorable course to withdrawal?
<br>Glenn’s first question reminds me of the following from The Art of Legging:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>The LBOs were in practice SP offices enjoying all the advantages of SP laying but without its major drawback – cash flow problems.
At first the majority of LBOs were single units but it was quickly realised that by conducting them in groups, the value in SP laying could be greatly enhanced –  for a group of shops could be expected to lay several runners in each race, and thereby obtain arithmetic value also.  At worst, a group of shops would avoid the one-horse books that gave the single units their good and bad days.
It was held that the larger the group, the more likely it was that almost every horse in every race every day would be laid;  and since the Starting Prices, at which all bets were settled,  were over-round, a very large group of shops would be almost certain to reap a profit approximating to the over-round SP margin. ÂÂÂ
In fact most groups expected and obtained profits in excess of the over-round margin, and worked on 23% to 26% of turnover.
That expectation prompted a slightly different interpretation of over-round margins. ÂÂÂ
Instead of being seen as the safety valve that allowed layers in the Ring to manoeuvre and avoid going over-broke, the over-round margin came to be seen as a measure of off-course profits – which was why the off-course bookmakers’ organisations advocated computer-generated prices – to ensure that the huge LBO groups would maximise their profits.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
dare one say that is the reason why TDK’s perspective on the SP will always differ from Glenn’s ?  ÂÂÂ
And indeed also from Barry’s, an old-time Ring trader on whose back the SP settlers (basically, the big off-course groups) get a largely free ride ?
best regards
wit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) I don’t see why bookmakers who have taken a large chunk of the overall money bet on a race shouldn’t be included in an SP sample.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They should – but only in respect of money they’ve taken at a board price, so that its on an equal footing with money taken in the ring or on the exchanges.
For a bookie to take in money at a price to be fixed (SP) and then to use that money in the ring or on the exchanges to fix that price – not like a big punter taking a view, but like an accountant manipulating books to get maximum yield from that "unpriced" money – is seen as polluting the SP process.
historically the SP has been all about reflecting late (ie last 15 mins before the race), supposedly "informed" money that takes a price reflecting the chances of runners.
what SP layers are doing is taking in money that has specified no price,  and then using it, not with an eye to the chances of runners, but with an eye to maximising overround /profit on their own books in respect of that "no price" money (SP business being the bulk of their books, as I understand), as described above by The Art of Legging.
in doing so, they queer the SP – or at least the SP as sold to punters. ÂÂÂ
Of course they are strengthening the SP as sold to SP bookies.
Hence the reason the twain will never meet.
No wonder the Arthur Andersen report on SPs (just before Enron) couldn’t get any agreement as to what the SP was meant to be. ÂÂÂ
best regards
wit<br>
(Edited by wit at 11:33 am on April 29, 2007)
- Total Posts 17716
<br>TDK
It isn’t the rule that is wrong, but the way it was used, in this instance, to pocket 5% of the returns without the bookies risking one penny of their own.<br>If you think that fair, or that the major off-course bookies should even be in a position to engineer such robbery, then we have very different standards.<br>
TDK,
The big bookmakers may take a large chunk of the money bet in the race, but not a large chunk of the business taking place where SPs are set. The current farce was amply illustrated by Big Mac the week after the ‘diabolical’ 4/9 returned about Kauto Star (a price which no punter at Sandwon could have taken at the off) .
Once again Mac is the only one in the media to broach the issue. everyone likes to knock him, but if he is bad then everyone else must be worse.
He went down the rails before the Bula hurdle to show what was available on each board when the show price was 4/6.
The board showed either 8/11 & 6/4, 4/6 & 6/4 or 8/11 and 11/8 the front two and 14s or 16s and maybe 20s Arcalis. In other words, each board was joint-top about at least one of the principles and there was plenty of 8/11 available about the ‘4/6’ shot.
Then he came to the board of a firm by the name of Corals. They bet 4/6, 11/8 and 14s. They were worst price on everything and their rep clearly couldn’t care less that they were doing no on-course business. He seemed to be purely there to rig prices.
Probably the worst aspect of the Donoghue reforms was allowing the big 4 all into the sample – surely a massive conflict of interest. Originally they were limited to one or two of the big four being included in the sample, precisely to protect punters from this sort of manipulation.
Why did Lord Donoghue remove such protection? Was he influenced by the presents the big four bookmakers lavished on him?
As for the Prescott 2/5 fav in a 16 runner handicap example. Far from highlighting deficiencies in my proposed amendment, it merely serves to illustrate how vulnerable punters are under the current system. My finger certain wouldn’t be hovering to pick up ‘bargains’ – remember I didn’t dispute that bookies should be allowed to rule 4 the win part of the bet.
Let’s say we have five 14/1 shots, five 25/1 shots and 5 40/1 shots making up the book. Pre-withdrawel that’s a 136% win book and 340% place book (first four). Post withdrawel that’s a 193% win book and 543% place book (first three)! You can’t tell me someone now getting 3/1 about a complete rag finishing first 3 of 15 isn’t getting fleeced.<br>
"Whether that happened in this instance is surely highly questionable"
come on tdk – the horse was still being punted while dismounted and on its way back to the stables
Quote: from Cavelino Rampante on 2:02 pm on April 29, 2007[br]"Whether that happened in this instance is surely highly questionable"
come on tdk – the horse was still being punted while dismounted and on its way back to the stables
Actually I think the point is that the horse WASN’T been punted but still being shortened.
News…
Keep your losing betting slips. They will be necessary receipts when you are able to claim your money back because any ‘“substantially unfairâ€ÂÂ
The Heist continues…..
3.20 Beverley, an attractive E/W event – 17 declared runners….
<br>2 nons…….
15 go…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.