- This topic has 53 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Cormack, I hope you don’t find the good lord was a consultant to Bet365 too. Might make things difficult as they are the sites sponsor?!
They aren’t the site’s sponsor itsawar. They sponsor one of our competitions, as do a variety of other sponsors, including Paddy Power. For which I am grateful.
I’ve alreadty mentioned that I can understand their (major bookmakers) position, they have shareholders to answer to and to deliver to. They are just exploiting a weakness, just as you or I would do if they were offering a wrong price.
It’s the SP mechanism and regulation that allows/enables them to do this which is at fault.The prices are carved up in the final minutes each year as the industry has it’s annual feeding frenzy.
It makes good business sense to do this to a main audience of once a year punters many of whom would be happy to go each way on a 6/4 shot.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to pressure the big boys to offer fairer place terms?
Perhaps a media campaign highlighting the fact that the big three (four now if you include baldy now he has the nanny goat) only go four places in a race of forty runners, when they go four places in handicaps of just 16 normally. When more than half the field in the national don’t complete the course, the rip off element becomes all the more apparent to the man in the street ( hopefully).
For all his faults John Mac is the only person who consistantly points this out and puts the industry on the spot about this.
I simply vote with my feet and find a firm going extra places when it comes to the GN.‘Joe Public’ are nothing more than the Rabbits staring at the headlights of the Bookmakers about to run them down they dont question the SP of the Grand National and they certainly dont ask how a certain price is created.Bookmakers have always had the Punters Pants down their odds compilers dont sit in a darkened room and miraculously all come out with the same prices for a race they communicate and coerce.When a punter walks into a Ladbrokes shop for example and miraculously gets a £10k bet on a horse Ante-Post say at 10/1,Ladbrokes cut the said horse into 8/1 and surprise surprise so do all the other Bookmakers even though thay haven’t taken a penny,How come? As for ‘Seabass’ and ‘Shakaklakaboomboom’ was there a queue of punters right across the boards all holding a grand in their hands waiting to bet on both horses? Nope just the bookmakers communicating to one another as to which horse shall we slash next,irrelevant of how much money had been taken for it……and so it goes,always has and always will because nobody questions Why and how!
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.
Sorry Corm, been away for a couple of days.
How can bookmakers do "SP’s should be ‘corrected’ mathematically to produce a certain over-round dependant on the number of runners in a race"? What is a fair amount of over-round per runner?
If I were a bookmaker:
Say there’s three horses with what I consider to be the same chance of winning in a 12 runner race. After considering all aspects of form I have them all as fair 12.5% 7/1 shots. However, one is a very reliable sort, who’s run many times and keeps on putting up the same performance rating. He’s abnormally easy to asses, so I’d be happy to offer 13/2 (13.3%) a mark up of just 0.8% 13.3 – 12.5 = 0.8. If the second 12.5% horse is a bit more difficult to weigh up, I’d be happy to offer 6/1 (14.3%) a mark up of 1.8% 14.3 – 12.5 = 1.8. If the third 12.5% horse was particularly unexposed, eg could improve markedly at the longer/shorter trip, I’d want a bigger mark up and offer 11/2 (15.4%) for a mark up of 2.9% 15.4 – 12.5 = 2.9.
So yes, the more unexposed runners there are, the larger the over-round has to be.Also, if you want the over-round to be directly effected by number of runners: Say there’s a four horse race where all four are thought to have the same 3/1 25% chance 4 x 25 = 100. Even if all four are exposed types and upping them one price, they’d all start 11/4 26.7%. Betting to 106.8% 4 x 26.7 = 106.8. An over-round of 6.8% (or 6.6 recurring if pedantic). That’s 1.7% per horse.
Not only are mark ups effected by whether a horse is exposed or unexposed, price (or chance of winning) is also a major factor. The shorter a price is the larger the over-round, longer prices have smaller over-rounds. Even an exposed 50% (fair Evens) chance might have 2.4% added to it for an offered 10/11. Where as a fair 0.25% (fair 400/1) might only have 0.4 added to offer 150/1. Therefore, it isn’t as simple as having a specific over-round per runner.
eg.
If 1.7% per runner in the 4 runner race were replicated in the Grand National 1.7 x 40 = 168) betting to 168% (68% over-round). Even bigger than 152% (52% over-round) on Saturday.Unless you can come up with a formula Corm.
Value Is EverythingWhy do I get the impression this forum is a soap box?
Too many on here wish you were a bookie with the rubbish books you post Ginger………gawd help any bookie who employed you to make up a book he in the grubber in a week.
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.
Really?! And what percentage of those non-racing acquaintances mentioned their concern about SP overround percentages rising in the run-up to the start of the race?
Look, seasoned punters (us) don’t bet SP on such events. Once-a-year-punters don’t give a sh*t. It seems you’re all getting het-up about a subject that has no relebvance whatsoever to it’s ‘victims’.
To imply that this subject is every bit as important to the image of the race as the ‘safety issues’ you rightly mention is just nuts.
BTW, if I had a joint at Aintree on GN day, I’d be betting to 160% easily! If it was opposite a bar, I’d bet to 200% !!
Mike
Why do I get the impression this forum is a soap box?
Too many on here wish you were a bookie with the rubbish books you post Ginger………gawd help any bookie who employed you to make up a book he in the grubber in a week.
Identified Neptune Collonges as the best value bet in the Grand National HGM. Can’t get them all right.
You don’t seem to understand my books are to
100%
(no bookies mark up). They’re also
not
what I think the odds
will be
. They’re certainly
not
a betting
forcast
like you’d see in the Racing Post. They’re what
I believe the fair odds are
. You should
not
see them as a
prediction of bookmakers
odds. I’m happy with a 54/1 winner now and again.
And my thread shows a healthy profit thank you very much. So my books can’t be too bad HGM. As to your question. Why do I get the impression this forum is a soap box?
I was answering a question posed by Corm.Value Is EverythingBet Large –
I’ve said several times on the thread that I do wonder if people actually care about this. It’s certainly not something any non-racing person has mentioned to me, you’re right. But that doesn’t make it OK, does it? We know it’s not right.
I also agree it’s not anything like the issue safety is but everyone is talking about safety – the BHA are reviewing it, etc.
No one is talking about this or doing anything about it.
Maybe it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, people pay their money and take their choice.
But it matters to me, it’s one of those wrongs that has rankled for years and I intend to probe it a little. I don’t expect to get far but I’d like to see what the people involved have to say about it.
How can bookmakers do "SP’s should be ‘corrected’ mathematically to produce a certain over-round dependant on the number of runners in a race"? What is a fair amount of over-round per runner?
Q1. By a simple formula GT. If bookmakers on course (the ones used for SP return purposes) are betting to, say, 150% the forumla would adjust it to, say, 130% by proportionately lengthening each price. Drawback is that we’d be into fractional returns, but nothing different there to the Tote or Betfair.
Q2. I’ve no idea, that would have to be established by looking in detail at t/over, etc, in detail to ensure a ‘fair’ and sustainable return. As I’ve said, bookmakers would be at liberty to add on the margin they felt was appropriate but I’d require them to do so on a consistent basis and to declare their margins UPFRONT. Then it’d be an open market, bookies adding on too much would lose business and so on.
I understand the arithmetic of bookmaking GT but, while I can see nwhy you would be conservative in marking up an unexposed horse, once the money started arriving you’d be able to adjust your book based on the money being taken. Not easy in practise I know when the money arrives in the last 5/10 mins. Anyway, it becomes irrelevant (for SP purposes) if the SP return is being normalised to an agreed over-round.
Out of interest GT – what do you think to the idea of the SP return being based on the Tote prices? We’d be able to do away with a swathe of SP returners and Starting Price Regulatory Commission Lords for a start – an annual audit of the Tote would be all that was required. It almost sounds too sensible.
I understand the arithmetic of bookmaking GT but, while I can see nwhy you would be conservative in marking up an unexposed horse, once the money started arriving you’d be able to adjust your book based on the money being taken. Not easy in practise I know when the money arrives in the last 5/10 mins. Anyway, it becomes irrelevant (for SP purposes) if the SP return is being normalised to an agreed over-round.
Out of interest GT – what do you think to the idea of the SP return being based on the Tote prices? We’d be able to do away with a swathe of SP returners and Starting Price Regulatory Commission Lords for a start – an annual audit of the Tote would be all that was required. It almost sounds too sensible.
Even if the market was fully formed Corm, I think it is still not on to restrict bookmakers to a certain over-round. Unlike the Tote, they don’t have a guaranteed amount of profit. Some horses would show a small profit, some a large one, one or two may even show a loss. Which is why I believe they should be allowed to back a horse to shorten it. Though the way most are shortened and few lengthen is wrong. May be there should be an enquirey in to it. Not allowing them to shorten some horses would just mean reduced over-rounds in the early price book too. Being selfish, bigger bookie profits from SP returns probably mean bookmakers can offer better early prices.
If bookmakers had the right to ignore a restriction of over-rounds, then everyone would probably ignore it by the same degree. The ins and outs of why punters should not take SP’s ought to be explained at every opportunity (including Grand National day) may be then they’d take some notice. Luckily John will soon be a dead Parrot and Garry Will need another job before long. These days with so many concessions, including bog, there’s no excuse. It’s a great time to be a punter and we have terrific choice.That choice includes the Tote, surely if punters want a Tote type bet, they’d take it? Now, if we are talking about the Tote, It’s long overdue, their take out should be on a per runner basis. They could even compete with exchanges.
Value Is EverythingNow, if we are talking about the Tote, It’s long overdue, their take out should be on a per runner basis.
Explain why?
There is an amount of money bet on each race (say £100). There is a margin on each race (say 80% returned to bettors). Now, if I have my book balanced I should return £80 and keep £20, regardless of whether there were three runners or forty runners.
So why the insistence on a margin per runner, I don’t understand that fixation. Why not a margin per event (or race)? Not having a go at you here GT – just exploring the issue for debate’s sake.
Apparently every single runner last Saturday retuned shorter on the Tote.
Every single last one.
That fact will be trumpeted loudly round all parts TRF next April, of that you can be sure.
Now, if we are talking about the Tote, It’s long overdue, their take out should be on a per runner basis.
Explain why?
There is an amount of money bet on each race (say £100). There is a margin on each race (say 80% returned to bettors). Now, if I have my book balanced I should return £80 and keep £20, regardless of whether there were three runners or forty runners.
So why the insistence on a margin per runner, I don’t understand that fixation. Why not a margin per event (or race)? Not having a go at you here GT – just exploring the issue for debate’s sake.
Apparently every single runner last Saturday retuned shorter on the Tote.
Every single last one.
That fact will be trumpeted loudly round all parts TRF next April, of that you can be sure.
You’re wrong Corm, winner paid 47.8 on Tote, only 33/1 SP. To be honest, so few of my bets are on the Tote these days, I’ve lost touch. Only occasionally having an on course wager just before the off. Are they still working to 116% on every race?
Thought I had explained why Corm.
Tote are on a guaranteed profit for every race. At the moment they’re uncompetitive. Unless there are plenty of runners in a race, most bookmakers early odds would beat Tote prices. Say they slashed their take out to 0.5% per runner with a maximum of 5% per race. So no increase past 10 runners. On their current share of the market Tote wouldn’t make much money. But it undercuts bookmakers to such an extent as to make it impossible for bookies to compete. Driving normal bookmakers out of business because it would be impossible for them to work out a 105% book on a 10 runner race. We sometimes get b365 working to 1% per runner, but 0.5%??? Can’t be done accurately enough. Eventually making a Tote Monopoly some have been crying out for. Tote would also be very competitive with Exchanges, when taking in to account commission charged by such services.Value Is EverythingWhy do I get the impression this forum is a soap box?
Too many on here wish you were a bookie with the rubbish books you post Ginger………gawd help any bookie who employed you to make up a book he in the grubber in a week.
Identified Neptune Collonges as the best value bet in the Grand National HGM. Can’t get them all right.
You don’t seem to understand my books are to
100%
(no bookies mark up). They’re also
not
what I think the odds
will be
. They’re certainly
not
a betting
forcast
like you’d see in the Racing Post. They’re what
I believe the fair odds are
. You should
not
see them as a
prediction of bookmakers
odds. I’m happy with a 54/1 winner now and again.
And my thread shows a healthy profit thank you very much. So my books can’t be too bad HGM. As to your question. Why do I get the impression this forum is a soap box?
I was answering a question posed by Corm.Why are you boasting about having a 54/1 winner?…….just what odds did you get after you deduct the other bets….around 9/4 I believe on the win market? You actually did much better on the place market as you had only one bet and got 7.6/1
Can you actually make up a book off your own back Ginge which would be anywhere near the starting prices on the day.
For example can you give the Scotty Brand Handicap Chase at Ayr an Saturday a try and have it up by the end of racing today?….there will be non runners but I’m just wondering if you would have the faintest idea which horses would start favorites and in what order if you didn’t have the RP as a guide.
I certainly couldn’t just wondering if you could
If bookies odds compilers and Peter Martins can work out 100% books, before adding a mark up; why can’t others. I am not the only punter on here to do this HGM. Robnorth (for one), who also came up with the winner. I don’t see why, just because you can’t do it, you don’t believe anyone can. My Grand National 100% book was significantly different to bookmakers prices, and included Neptunes Collonges as
The Best
value bet at individual odds of 54/1.
Not "boasting" HGM, just defending myself against your post. In my Grand National Verdict (
after doing my 100% book
) I did give punters all the options, so if they prefer to back one horse win only, I gave them one tip, Neptunes Collonges. If they prefer one each way, I gave them one tip, Neptune Collonges. If prefering two win only bets (at combined odds of 18/1)…, two each way… or combination of the horses I thought to be value (combined 3/1) at the time of writing:
"Options are:
Backing Neptune Collonges win only.
Backing Neptune Collonges each way.
Backing Neptune Collonges and Organisedconfusion win only.
Backing Neptune Collonges and Organisedconfusion each way.At 27/1 and 54/1 Organisedconfusion and Neptune Collonges would be a combined price of around 18/1.
Backing all 8 runners would be around 3/1 combined price.
However, I’d recommend splitting your total stake in to 100 and having: (Isn’t to be counted in my thread as already backed antepost).20% @ 54/1 Neptune Collonges +1000 points
17% points @ 28/1 Organisedconfusion +376
11% points @ 49/1 Always Right +450
7% points @ 54/1 Black Apalachi +285
6% points @ 169/1 Midnight Haze +920
14% points @ 19/1 Cappa Bleu +180
14% points @ 15/1 Ballabriggs +124
11% points @ 21/1 Becauseicouldntsee +142"
Even by backing the 8 horses, to my reccomennded stakes would pay 10/1 (100 points staked 1000 profit) with Neptune Collonges.However, because I personally had already wasted money backing some non-runners and soft ground horses myself (which I’ve already said wasn’t my finest hour) only made 386 points in the race. All stakes taken in to account just over 5/2 returned. The place bet was 8.6/1, not 7.6/1.
Also gave Neptune Collonges as 1st in the 1,2,3,4 thread.Backing more than one horse is not against the rules HGM, you (quite rightly) just don’t get as much credit for it than if it were your only bet. Of course I could say some people just want the adulation over profit, therefore wouldn’t dream of backing more horses.
If you prefer backing one horse, fine. But when you are all over Synchronised and yet also fancy Neptune Collonges… don’t come crying to me. Doing a book for the Scottish National would prove nothing, you still can’t understand they’re
NOT betting forcasts
. Won’t have time to do one anyway, going to Newbury Friday and Saturday. I would’ve thought my profit in both Jumping and Flat threads show my 100% books are accurate enough. Not that I do books for every race. Used to use the Racing Post betting forcast only to check I hadn’t overlooked something; but not since they stopped non-subscribers seeing it the night before. Spotlight writers can’t spend a lot of time on betting forcasts anyway and (so I was told by a Spotlight writer) it’s NOT what they think the betting SHOULD be, but what they think it WILL be. Which somewhat defeats the object. They take in to account public sentiment in their prices.
I do think Harry The Viking should start favourite up at Ayr HGM.
Value Is EverythingCan you actually make up a book off your own back Ginge which would be anywhere near the starting prices on the day.
For example can you give the Scotty Brand Handicap Chase at Ayr an Saturday a try and have it up by the end of racing today?….there will be non runners but I’m just wondering if you would have the faintest idea which horses would start favorites and in what order if you didn’t have the RP as a guide.
I certainly couldn’t just wondering if you could
I’ll have a go Hurdy!
Junior
2/1fav
Now let me see what price he really is on Oddschecker….
Wow 12/1! Get on,so long as the ground stays on the Good side he’ll carry the weight! ‘Merigo’ and ‘Portrait King’ for the places!
And my thread shows a healthy profit thank you very much. So my books can’t be too bad HGM. - You must be logged in to reply to this topic.