- This topic has 52 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 19 years ago by
.
- Posts
If you want to see an example of the current state of play look at the markets on the 7.25 at Windsor. Henry Cecil’s horse gets smashed off the boards, yet, even so, virtually everything else is clipped!
Eight out of the front nine in the betting shortened. They bet to 116% on the first five in the betting, with nine other horses, including the winner, running for them.
Quote: from betlarge on 7:48 pm on April 23, 2007[br]
Ps. I gave Betfair a “heads upâ€ÂÂ
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from davidbrady on 8:17 pm on April 23, 2007<br>If you can predict what horses will shorten and what horses will lengthen with the sort of regularity you claim, the exchanges is exactly where you should be. I don’t like trading myself but if I could do what you claim, I’d quit my job tomorrow and go full time on Betfair.<br>
db
Do bear in mind that I am concentrating on maybe a couple of horses in only a few races per week, which makes pricing much easier than race tissues, or whole cards.<br>Done this way, I have little doubt there is scope for successful trading; having said that, a job would be probably more attractive than sitting in front of computer all day.:)
Glenn,
I’m not questioning the integrity of the exchanges, just the ability of cartels to manipulate the market in the event of exchange odds being used in place of the present SP.
Any market can be manipulated to some extent – George Soros will testify to that. He was able to move the perfectly competitive foreign exchange markets which precipitated the ‘Black Monday’ financial crisis.
I concede that the more people use the exchanges, the more difficult it is to ‘create’ artificial prices which might be used in a parallel market. If every penny wagered went into the exchange, the market would be as perfect as you could wish for, although the commissions would have to increase to cover the overheads.
Quote: from Artemis on 8:10 am on April 24, 2007[br]Glenn,
I’m not questioning the integrity of the exchanges, just the ability of cartels to manipulate the market in the event of exchange odds being used in place of the present SP.
Any market can be manipulated to some extent – George Soros will testify to that. He was able to move the perfectly competitive foreign exchange markets which precipitated the ‘Black Monday’ financial crisis.
I concede that the more people use the exchanges, the more difficult it is to ‘create’ artificial prices which might be used in a parallel market. If every penny wagered went into the exchange, the market would be as perfect as you could wish for, although the commissions would have to increase to cover the overheads.
Why would commissions have to increase? I would have thought that commission rates should actually decrease with increased activity. The variable costs are covered by a portion of the commission but will increase in proportion to increased activity while the fixed element of the cost base are already covered to a large extent (notwithstanding the fact of stepped increases in fixed costs).
Done this way, I have little doubt there is scope for successful trading; having said that, a job would be probably more attractive than sitting in front of computer all day.
Ain’t that the truth, RH.:biggrin: Sisyphus probably enjoyed more job satisfaction – if not the rewards.
davidbrady,
The commission rates would have to be more than a maximum of 5% if every penny wagered on horse racing was directed through a betting exchange because the whole structure of the betting industry would be different.
All bookmakers would be agents, taking bets from punters and feeding them into the exchange. To meet expenses and receive a return on their capital invested, they would need an income from this in the form of a commission. This can only be paid as a deduction from winning bets. The present commission only supports the expenses of running the exchange, so it would have to increase.
I’m not saying I support such a fanciful idea: it’s just a model that can be discussed. A bit of an Aunt Sally, if you like. In any event, it would never happen, even if the practical difficulties could be overcome.
Quote: from Artemis on 4:14 pm on April 24, 2007[br]<br>All bookmakers would be agents, taking bets from punters and feeding them into the exchange.
I’ve got a better idea – all bookies could be placed in the stocks to be pelted with rancid fruit between races. I can see no other need for them sucking money out of the system in this brave new world.
Although the punters pound is not the life blood of horse racing that most people think it is ( the levy funds under 25% of the costs of keeping horses in training) it is obviously very welcome. I am under the distinct impression that if all punting money eventually went on to the exchanges horse racing would receive even less of the punters pound. Am I completely wrong? Can anybody present numbers to show that Betfair feed back to racing as high a proportion of the punters pound as the bookmakers do -( and God knows their contribution is low enough).
How the levy was spent in 05/06
£’000 <br>TOTAL 103,507 <br>Prize Money 64,019 62%<br>Integrity Services 18,214 18%<br>Other racecourse expenditure 9,614 9%<br>Improvement of Breeds 3,952 4%<br>Veterinary 3,178 3%<br>Training 874 1%<br>Others (161) 1%<br>Administration 3,606 3%<br>Bookmakers’ Committee 211 <1%
That’s 10% of their profits the other 900 million plus went into their pockets and that wasn’t enough for them so they decided from Nov 1st last year to rip the SP punter off to increasingly fraudulent levels.
How about a Times article Lydia?
(Edited by Cavelino Rampante at 1:24 am on April 25, 2007)
Didn’t the levy (losing punters) provide 60% of the prize money in 2005 and is not prize money the lifeblood
I mean, if prize money is not lifeblood, racing can do away with levy tomorrow, can’t they ?
<br>Also, if that 60% is not thef lifeblood of racing, there’s then no need to alter the SP system that fleeces the unwashed even more and makes more money for bookmakers and racing
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:54 am on April 25, 2007)
Winning punters on the books drain the levy.
Winning punters on the exchanges pay commission hence top up the levy
Right?
Winning punters on the books drain the levy.
Winning punters on the exchanges pay commission hence top up the levy
Right?
<br>Well, it’s an oblique way of looking at things. If punters never won, they wouldn’t bet. Ergo: no racing.
Mike
.. and if punters win less they bet less. And if they bet less there is less money for racing.
Sorry my post had 2 themes which was muddling
The levy is based I think? on 10% of gross betting profits ie before bookmakers costs. Since we are saying Bookmakers are 20 to 30% overround then 10% of this goes to the levy. ie 2 to 3 % of the punters pound goes to racing .The exchanges charge only 5% commision therefore only 0.5% goes to the levy. My question was if this scenario is right ( as I think it is) then will not the flight to the exchanges lower the money going into racing?
As to whether the levy is the lifeblood of racing the BHB reckon that the average owner recovers 23% of his direct costs of keeping a horse in training through prizemoney. Hence if the levy is £106million they are saying that the cost of training fees, vets, entry and jockey fees and transport are in excess of £420million a year or around £17000 per horse.
Hence the lifeblood of racing is the fact that most owners regard it as a hobby albeit an expensive one and are prepared to stand the losses. Obviously as the levy shrinks some owners might be expected to withdraw although that does not seem to be the case at the moment.<br>
Quote: from betlarge on 9:17 am on April 25, 2007[br]
<br>Well, it’s an oblique way of looking at things. If punters never won, they wouldn’t bet. Ergo: no racing.
By "winning punters" I meant those that show a long term profit. In these tax-free days of levy yield being determined by ‘gross profit’ they inevitably drain it if betting with bookmakers but contribute to it if betting on the exchanges via commission payments; hence if such punters care about the funding of the racing product they’re ‘fleecing’ (which they should) business should only be done with the exchanges.
Just a thought for the ‘faces’ on here to ponder, that’s all.
(Edited by Drone at 1:55 pm on April 25, 2007)
Maxilon,
Getting back to the reasons why the likes of Corals have abused the position in running the greyhounds tracks they own,check out the recent results for Romford which is another track they own.
A few meetings ago the track vastly favoured the outside traps and even the kennel cat could have won from either trap 4 5 or 6!
But despite no rain in the area it was no suprise to see suddenly the trap bias has been changed to favour the inside traps.<br>The last meeting there trap 1 won 3 races, trap 2 won 6 races and trap 3 won 3 races. <br>Just the 1 sole favourite obliged!<br>Traps 4,5 and 6 never had one winner between them.
All it takes to alter the track is a few gallons of diesel fuel for the tractor to rake up the outside of the track and to roll down the inside part of the track.
Lord help us all if they ever took over tracks such as Southwell or Wolverhampton!
ps however by ignoring any form and after watching a few results its not hard to win by just perming either the inside or outside traps.
(Edited by Seagull at 10:20 am on April 26, 2007)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.