- This topic has 53 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Every year it happens. And every year there are a few comments about it and then it is swept under the carpet.
In the five minutes before the race the fancied runners for the Grand National are shortened up, presumably by some money form ‘the firms’ which the on course bookies that are used to assess the SP don’t have time to react to, in terms of correcting the overall book. I’m assuming that is what causes it, perhaps not, perhaps there is something other mechanism.
But, however it happens, happen it does. You watch today.
The system of SP reporting is antiquated. It is clearly not fit for purpose when it allows the usual Grand National scandal to occur year after year.
SP’s should be ‘corrected’ mathematically to produce a certain over-round dependant on the number of runners in a race. If you have a bet on a machine (slots, etc) they are bound by legislation to display the ‘take’ on the machine. NOT SO WITH THE SINGLE BIGGEST GAMBLING EVENT IN BRITAIN. No one knows what the % ‘take’ is going to be. Is that right? Of course not.
Once a year punters up and down the land will be fleeced today and it’s high time something was done about it.
And, if you’re having a bet today, take a price. At least then you can’t get robbed like millions of others.
Bookies – we’re onto you…..!
Every year. Will be telling all punters to take prices. We all know the game, and yet it carries on irrespective. What can we do?
SP’s should be ‘corrected’ mathematically to produce a certain over-round dependant on the number of runners in a race.
Can not be done for normal races Corm. Bookmakers need to be able to increase over-rounds when there are unexposed runners. They add more mark up to an unexposed sort than exposed type. Therefore, in races with lots of unexposed types need a bigger over-round. Maiden and novice races, improving horses in any race, unexposed at the trip, going, etc.
However, the Grand National over-round should be roughly the same every year and could be made a special case.
Aintree on course bookmakers are also notorious for being stingy.
Value Is EverythingHowever, at least Paddy Power made an effort in paying 5 places today at quarter the odds and best odds guaranteed if prices taken.
Still, Corals don’t care, when I popped in the shop near me last night all 4 FOBTs were being used with 1 man waiting, like it was waiting for his turn for guaranteed free money and one old man and his dog watching the greyhounds.
Well done Paddy Power for giving the race a bit of effort.
They add more mark up to an unexposed sort than exposed type.
Eh? What?
Haven’t a clue what you mean here GT. Can you explain how that logic works? And why it means the SP can’t be corrected to provide a ‘standard’ margin.
Are you saying bookies need larger margins when there are unexposed horses? If so I don’t understand why.
From my first glance at BBC coverage it seems the same thing has happened again this year.
I’ll report back more fully with more detail when I look again at it.
Tote odds were greater than SP on every single runner. Yet still we have to read nonsense about bookies dodging a bullet if Seabass or some other horse had won and ‘cost them millions’. It’s toe-curling stuff.
In what way were they not ‘all-green’ to telephone numbers?
Glenn, where would I get any meaningful data on this?
Gary Wiltshire’s comment on the BBC (as they all shortened) ‘everything’s being backed’. Well, I dare say they were.
Why does hardly anyone talk about this? I think it’s a scandal and wouldn’t mind looking at gathering data to support some sort of review or at least kick up a stink.
Anyone on board?
If a Bookmaker works to an over-round of 110% for example,it doesn’t matter if he takes 1 million pound or 10 million,the odds remain the same.Aintree Bookmakers are making a fortune slashing odds just before the off,both
Seabass
and
Shakalakaboomboom
were available at 20/1 a week before the race and yet both return 8/1 jt fav! They think by pushing out the no-hopers ‘Tatenen’, Arbor supreme’ and ‘Postmaster’ to 100/1 that will justify their greed! Its the only race of the year that bookies get away with it because there’s 100’s of millions up for grabs! I know bookmakers that will tell you ‘Seabass’ would have been a good result for them! Why? because there never was a public gamble! I too am fascinated to hear your explanation Ginge about pricing maidens up!
Why is everyone getting upset about the national sp? Surely increased priced or smaller over rounds won’t encourage you sensible and seasoned race fans to have a gamble on the worlds most famous lottery.
The overround this year was 152%.
Of course, the supine racing "journalists" will say nothing.
If this link works you can compare the industry overround to the exchange overround – 152% to 102% – and the individual SPs, which do make interesting reading.
http://form.horseracing.betfair.com/hor … B-Ain/1615
Bottom line is, bookies will take the piss because they can as there is no control over what they have to offer as we don’t have to take it.
Presumably it is buyer beware and the ignorance of once a year punters is no excuse.
For comparison, your exchange/industry SP overounds at Wolves yesterday were: 101/112, 98/117, 101/112, 100/115, 100/111, 100/118, 99/127.
I’m on board Corm, what shall we do, is it a case of they need the bigger overround as they have shops to run and aren’t proper bookies anymore, just filthy arbers and FOBT agents?
Had to chuckle when Gary Wiltshire exclaimed ‘they’re backing everything, what a race!’
The markets are available to punters all morning and with the place concessions and price competition they offer excellent value.
Come the race time the on course market will make hay while the sun shines. There are 70,000 once a year punters on course happy to take any price they offer, for once the ‘machine’ is irrelevant.
Is it cynical profiteering? yes, of course it is but it’s no different to what happens in any other business in any other walk of life. It’s supply and demand. In the morning there is competition. In the run up to the race there isn’t. What would you do? Bet to 1/2% per runner because it’s the right thing to do?Had to chuckle when Gary Wiltshire exclaimed ‘they’re backing everything, what a race!’
I personally don’t think it’s funny that the likes of Gary Wiltshire basically refuse to tell the public that the on-course bookies are effectively ripping punters off by the SP mechanism in races like the Grand National.
How many times did the BBC tell people "don’t take the SP because it’s a rip-off" on Saturday?
Come the race time the on course market will make hay while the sun shines. There are 70,000 once a year punters on course happy to take any price they offer, for once the ‘machine’ is irrelevant.
Is it cynical profiteering? yes, of course it is but it’s no different to what happens in any other business in any other walk of life. It’s supply and demand. In the morning there is competition. In the run up to the race there isn’t. What would you do? Bet to 1/2% per runner because it’s the right thing to do?On that basis is it also acceptable that when a horse bolts and does 2 laps and is a million to run its price quite often rapidly contracts to enable bookmakers to inflict a bigger deduction on punters?
It’s not only the 70,000 on course who are affected, it suits off course bookmakers as well of course. Maybe both issues should taken from the bookmakers powers. Because something has always happened doesn’t mean it should continue to.
The entire SP system is antiquated and flawed.
Sean – the issue, for me, is not what the on-course bookmakers do. That is small beer, they’re taking relatively minute sums of money compared to the hundreds of £millions being bet off course.
It’s the fact that £millions, indeed tens of £millions, are being fleeced from unknowing punters who’ve backed horses in good faith that is the problem. The SP system is unfit for purpose. You can’t gamble on a slot machine, for example, without the machine displaying clearly what your return is likely to be. Yet a person placing a starting price bet has no idea whatsoever what the the percentage risk to their money is.
The question I do ask myself is ‘does the public care?’ and I suspect, on the whole, they are so unknowing about the intricacies of betting that they don’t. They don’t care, largely, because they have no clue what is going on.
I think of it as a bit like the insurance or endowment mis-selling scandals. Institutions cynically taking advantage of ignorance on the part of their customers to exploit them, mercilessly. No difference, fundamentally.
I’ve had enough of it, to be honest, and have started to look into the whole issue in more detail.
Did anyone know, for example (and I’m sure some of you did) that
the fellow they put in charge of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission, one Lord Donoughue, was, at the self same time as heading that body, a ‘consultant’ to Paddy Power on ‘matters relating to horse racing’?After some pressure was applied the good Lord resigned his role with the Irish Bookmaker in 2009 but not before, in 2008, the SPRC published findings based on data provided by… well, you can guess who.
Now no one is suggesting the good Lord was on the take but it was another example of the unsatisfactorily incestuous relationship between racing’s regulatory bodies and the betting industry (Paul Roy anyone?).
Why not base the SP return on the Tote return, for example. At least that is based on money actually bet and is a reflection of the real ‘market’. Let the individual bookies add a margin (that they must publicly declare) if they wish to return a different margin. They would still be free to put money into that market to manage their liabilities but they wouldn’t be able to manipulate the margin as they do now. There should be a base margin (ay Tote return) that everyone works from. Theat would produce transparency.
Oh, by the way, in case you are thinking ‘but there is a regulatory body in place, surely they look after ensuring the margin/over-round is under control’, think again. The SPRC say that the SP returned margin is outwith their remit. They are only interested in the ‘integrity’ of the SP system/process.
Last Saturday showed us the cynical profiteers once again exploiting the very lack of ‘real’ integrity at the heart of the system’s structure to take millions out of unsuspecting pockets.
Maybe they do it because they can Sean, and I appreciate that profits is what they are about and I’m not having a go at them necessarily, but the legislators should make sure that the system is not so weak that they can exploit it at will.
Farcical starting procedures, safety issues during the race, jockey dubiously (IMO) let off with whip infringement and cynical profiteering exercise by those taking bets on the whole shebang.
No wonder I’ve spent the entire week defending/spinning (often in vain) what should be racing’s greatest jewel in the crown to non-racing acquanitances.
Did anyone know, for example (and I’m sure some of you did) that
the fellow they put in charge of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission, one Lord Donoughue, was, at the self same time as heading that body, a ‘consultant’ to Paddy Power on ‘matters relating to horse racing’?No I was unaware of this Cormack. This is becoming very interesting, please give more on The Good Lord.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.