- This topic has 57 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
‘Dire’ in the rating/ability sense in contrast to the norm for the high summer months. Emphasised rather than refuted by the main races being just two G3s on a summer Saturday incidentally Robnorth.
‘Dire’ as a word appended to spectacle can be applied to any race be it G1 or Seller, as can the term ‘great race’ as you imply Robert99.
As my preferred betting media and in many ways preferred spectacles are ‘dire’ handicap chases run at the northern gaffs in mid-winter, then I plead a loud and confident ‘not guilty’ to a charge of elitism.
‘Dire’ in the rating/ability sense in contrast to the norm for the high summer months. Emphasised rather than refuted by the main races being just two G3s on a summer Saturday incidentally Robnorth.
Drone
Given that ‘dire’ means ‘calamitous’ or ‘desperate’ I was taking issue with your description. ‘Low key’ might be a term, perhaps ‘below average’, but ‘dire’ seems simply over the top to me.
Given that there are 52 weekends every year, it’s not possible to fling up Group 1s and Group 2s every weekend. Anyway, since the 10 Class 2 events and two Group 3s will all involve those rated 100+ then I’d say this cup is ‘half full’ rather than ‘half empty’.
The racing authorities might justifiable say that the Shergar Cup is a major event. Some might not agree, and that probably includes youself judged by your comments, but distaste for the format of this event doesn’t mean that the racing offered is ‘dire’.
Rob
Yes Rob, I’ll certainly plead guilty to a poor choice of word, hence my rather rushed attempt to qualify what I meant. ‘Low key’ would indeed have been wiser, and as stated I do have a preference for such in NH so it would be hypocritical to criticise the Flat equivalent.
I’m loath to get involved in the ‘too much racing’ debate as sound reasons have been given on this thread why there isn’t…
…but I personally do think there is, only because I’m a simple punter and spectator who finds the volume overwhelming, not an owner on a limited budget who may welcome the chance of ownership made possible by a surfeit of ‘low key’ racing.
CR’s ostensibly humourous words concerning ‘point-to-point flat racing’ may actually be a valid glimpse into the future, as whether we racing afficionados like it or not IMVHO the Rules fixture list as it stands – Flat in particular – is wholly unsustainable in anything but the short term, and I suspect the BHA realise this given their somewhat shoelace-staring announcement of the 2010 calendar.
It’s going off at a slight tangent but I do feel uneasy about the ever-growing population of thoroughbreds. Not only because it means an increasing number of less-than-race-proven colts are being used for breeding – "we’ll find him a little place at stud" – but also because I believe something as noble, beautiful and special as the TB merits a small population and deserves a high price for the privilege of owning one.
There is far too much racing in the UK and why? Largely, perhaps, to serve self-seeking industry interests. Having been mad keen on the sport since my teens and a regular bettor, I pay relatively little attention to it now – viewing it as dull and unimaginitve. However, I’m sure that the spend of lager-swilling chavs carries far more weight than my views and a good time will be had by all this Saturday at Ascot.
Total races run Year 2000 = 4775 – Levy yield 61.9 million
Total races run Year 2008 = 6255 – Levy yield 100 million (ex highroller money)A 31% increase in fixtures matched by a 65.8% increase in levy yield. CLEARLY the demand has been there.
.. that’s pretty poor work Cav, I would expect better from you.
62M in 2000 is about 78M in real terms, if you allow 3% per year for inflation which is an increase of 22%.
Then you would have to take into account the overround per runner in each year to assess if there was any demand there, if the overround was 1.8% in 2000 and the 2.3% in 2008 .. the so called increase could be a bit of a myth.
Someone famous once said about statistics, ‘all veil pies are good for you, if you know what the ingrediants are and who made them ..’
- Total Posts 17716
Total races run Year 2000 = 4775 – Levy yield 61.9 million
Total races run Year 2008 = 6255 – Levy yield 100 million (ex highroller money)A 31% increase in fixtures matched by a 65.8% increase in levy yield. CLEARLY the demand has been there.
.. that’s pretty poor work Cav, I would expect better from you.
62M in 2000 is about 78M in real terms, if you allow 3% per year for inflation which is an increase of 22%.
Then you would have to take into account the overround per runner in each year to assess if there was any demand there, if the overround was 1.8% in 2000 and the 2.3% in 2008 .. the so called increase could be a bit of a myth.
Someone famous once said about statistics, ‘all veil pies are good for you, if you know what the ingrediants are and who made them ..’
Neither does it take into account that the 9% betting tax wasn’t abolished until late 2001 – which made a significant difference to turnover and, as a consequence, the levy.
If the Shergar Cup is to exist and flourish, then necessarily there has to be no good racing elsewhere in the country that day.
- Total Posts 17716
Just my take on this, but I do think the way racing has gone demeans it as a sport – the primary objective of which should be to find out which is the best, and not as a betting medium or fund generator for the racecourses.
Generally speaking, the more any sport is diluted, the more the focus is taken away from its raison d’etre, and one only has to look at the current state of such as boxing, snooker or darts to foresee racing’s future – if it continues down its present path. Sure, football and cricket have branches at much lower levels than the big leagues and internationals, but they also serve as nurseries for the higher levels, and certainly weren’t brought into existence as betting vehicles, or to be filled with the flotsam and jetsam that trails their rear end.
Whatever happens, I’ll always find enough bets at some level, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I’d want to see the sport I love prostituted to provide them.
Screw the bean-counters: give us back our sport!- Total Posts 17716
If the Shergar Cup is to exist and flourish, then necessarily there has to be no good racing elsewhere in the country that day.
The Shergar Cup is I suppose is racings equivelant to golfs RyderCup only I could tell you the teams for the Ryder Cup but I haven’t a clue apart from Hughsie capt one team who the other captain is. It hasn’t exactly been shoved down my throat to take a real interest and I’m on the web everyday.
They should be trying to promote this as Jockey’s V Jockeys..Country V Country more…..the quality of horse then doesn’t matter 2 jots.
England V Scotland in football USA V Europe are sold that way….nobody cares if Tiger is there or not they go to support their country.
Where’s all the pics of the teams? How much would it cost them to have struck a deal with the Racing Post and Sporting Life that for 7 to 14 days prior to the event you go through a full page pop up screen with pics of the teams everytime you log on? You don’t ell the racing you sell the idea and get people geed up.
Quite frankly they need a boot up the ass…….couldn’t promote free 100 dollar bill hand outs.
- Total Posts 17716
They should be trying to promote this as Jockey’s V Jockeys..Country V Country more…..the quality of horse then doesn’t matter 2 jots.
Remember the fuss that year when Kieren Fallon did precisely that, employing team tactics for the good of his country, rather than riding his horse out to achieve its best possible placing!
. that’s pretty poor work Cav, I would expect better from you.
62M in 2000 is about 78M in real terms, if you allow 3% per year for inflation which is an increase of 22%.
Then you would have to take into account the overround per runner in each year to assess if there was any demand there, if the overround was 1.8% in 2000 and the 2.3% in 2008 .. the so called increase could be a bit of a myth.
Someone famous once said about statistics, ‘all veil pies are good for you, if you know what the ingrediants are and who made them ..’
Your equating the cost of a bet with the cost of a pint of milk there Dave, a comparison that cant be made. My pint of milk may now cost 27% more than it did in 2000, but the cost of my £1 bet in 2009 costs exactly the same as it did in 2000. My winnings will buy me less and the net worth to the levy is less but punters still had to lose 1 billion in 2008 to generate 100 million for the levy, just as they had to lose 600 million to generate 60 million in 2000. The cost of betting is not index linked!
As I’ve mentioned before the ingredients of my "veil pie" are Raceform and the Levyboard, links provided to both on a previous post.
Your points about overrounds are much more relevant to the cost of a bet. At 2.07 percent per runner in 2000 they had declined to 1.45 percent by mid 2006. You can track the decline almost exactly from the time Betfair and Flutter merged in late 2001. Donoghue has of course reversed the decline but the latest data from last month shows overrounds stabilising at 1.75% and granted the overound is more concentrated on the business end of the market these days particularly with all weather racing I’d be very surprised if over the decade overrounds have played a significant part in levy yield given their 6 year decline prior to 2007. Increased turnover due to increased fixtures has a lot more to do with it.
Neither does it take into account that the 9% betting tax wasn’t abolished until late 2001 – which made a significant difference to turnover and, as a consequence, the levy.
Exactly my point Reet. You give punters a fairer deal on racing and they will bet more on racing even when there’s more of it. Profits margins may decline, increased turnover compensates for it. Turnover is King.
Unless it is some exotic dish I have never heard of wouldn’t
veil pie
be a bit hard to chew and tend to stick in the throat.
Maybe it’s an anagram and should read
vile
or
evil pie
Here’s a few figures to ponder while I wait for the next Class E at Sandown
Flat turf racing UK
Year 2000: % of Class C races and above 643-2316 = 27.77%
Year 2008: % of Class C races and above 664-2660 = 24.96%A small drop but hardly calamitous is it. About 1 Class C and above race less per week than 9 years ago.
Year 2000: % of individual horses who ran a RPR of 93 or above 534-8263 = 6.4%
Year 2008: % of individual horses who ran a RPR of 93 or above 618-9874 = 6.3%The number of horses running to a Class C level and above is almost identical.
Total races run Year 2000 = 4775 – Levy yield 61.9 million
Total races run Year 2008 = 6255 – Levy yield 100 million (ex highroller money)A 31% increase in fixtures matched by a 65.8% increase in levy yield. CLEARLY the demand has been there.
% of Levy Yield contributed by "betting shop fodder" 2008 =
67.58%
Hong Kong Racing has per race more money gambled on it than any where else on Earth.
% of current 120+ rated horses in Hong Kong compared to overall racehorse population there = 0.16%
% of current 90+ rated horses in Hong Kong compared to overall racehorse population there = 11.8%
% of current 65 and below rated horses in Hong Kong compared to overall racehorse population there =
62.34%
Well over 50% of all Hong Kong horses are Selling level, doesn’t stop them gambling on it though….why?
Superb product
that’s why.
The expression of Lies,damned lies and statistics comes to mind
The reason for the 65.80% increase in levy yield since 2000 is partly due to the abolition of the 9% betting tax and not because of the increase in the number of races run. Another reason for the increase is because sports betting has become much more popular in the last decade ( especially on soccer, golf and tennis ) so horse racing has therefore obtained it’s fair share of this popularity – whether the increase in the number of fixtures has helped or hindered it is questionable.
I think that the comparision with racing in HK is misleading as the Chinese are renowned for betting on anything that moves and don’t care about the class of race.
The expression of Lies,damned lies and statistics comes to mind Smile
The reason for the 65.80% increase in levy yield since 2000 is partly due to the abolition of the 9% betting tax and not because of the increase in the number of races run
Read my last post.
Another reason for the increase is because sports betting has become much more popular in the last decade ( especially on soccer, golf and tennis ) so horse racing has therefore obtained it’s fair share of this popularity – whether the increase in the number of fixtures has helped or hindered it is questionable.
Dont know what point your trying to make?
I think that the comparision with racing in HK is misleading as the Chinese are renowned for betting on anything that moves and don’t care about the class of race.
An utterly clueless post regarding racing in Hong Kong.
They’re not allowed to import a horse from europe with a rating under 80.
Just looking at the imports, the local rating looks around 16lb lower. ie a UK 3yo import rated 103 will get a local rating of about 87 to start its career.The expression of Lies,damned lies and statistics comes to mind Smile
The reason for the 65.80% increase in levy yield since 2000 is partly due to the abolition of the 9% betting tax and not because of the increase in the number of races run
Read my last post.
Another reason for the increase is because sports betting has become much more popular in the last decade ( especially on soccer, golf and tennis ) so horse racing has therefore obtained it’s fair share of this popularity – whether the increase in the number of fixtures has helped or hindered it is questionable.
Dont know what point your trying to make?
I think that the comparision with racing in HK is misleading as the Chinese are renowned for betting on anything that moves and don’t care about the class of race.
An utterly clueless post regarding racing in Hong Kong.
I did read your last post – it makes no difference to the misleading statistics you posted which suggested that the increase in levy was due solely to the increase in fixtures which is not true.
The point I am trying to make is that the increase in fixtures has not necessarily been the reason for the increased levy over the past decade.
I know people from HK and it’s the mentality of the Chinese who bet in HK on the horse racing which is relevant – it’s not the type of horse racing. It seems that you do not realise this and my previous post is anything but clueless.
I did read your last post – it makes no difference to the misleading statistics you posted which suggested that the increase in levy was due solely to the increase in fixtures which is not true.
The point I am trying to make is that the increase in fixtures has not necessarily been the reason for the increased levy over the past decade.
I didn’t say "solely", I am implying "mainly". Have you any figures to prove if racing last year was still at Year 2000 fixture levels we’d have had a levy return of 115 million solely due to the abolition of 9% betting tax?……Thought not.
I know people from HK and it’s the mentality of the Chinese who bet in HK on the horse racing which is relevant – it’s not the type of horse racing.
Xenophobic nonsense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.