Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Pretty poor show by the racing post accepting quotes through a 3rd party without checking with their client Paul Nichols…bet you there was some smoke coming out of his ears over that.
Celeb quotes are frequently made by PR reps or agents. This allows the celeb to pocket the money without doing any work and also allows them to say, "I never said that" when the quote in question subsequently turns out to be embarrassing in some way.
I’m not saying that’s what happened in this case, nor that the RP emerges with any credit over its coverage of the Findlay story in general, but they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt in this particular aspect.
I’m gutted that Nicholls won’t be writing in the Post any more. His column was really insightful into his Saturday runners. The paper will be the poorer for its absence.
You’ll just be going to Betfair instead…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 … ust-2-2010It’s a small world racing, isn’t it?
I hope, and indeed believe, the Racing Post has credibility. I’m aware there is a school of thought that we are in the bookies’ pockets, but I strenuously refute that and am usually left empty-handed when I ask for evidence to support the theory.
Perhaps the Racing Post could launch a campaign on the issue.
Sorry Pru, perhaps I’m being dense here. Are you suggesting that, in the light of its tacit editorial support for the current BHA/HBLB campaigns, the Racing Post should logically decline to publish advertisements for off-shore internet sites, supply form services to those self-same web sites, or carry their prices in Pricewise tables?
I don’t think Uncle Ralph would like that.
Interestingly the Daily Topping chooses to carry the mildly significant news about him going to play in Gibraltar on page 13. Matt Dawson’s new job makes page 3. Well done Bruce.
Hills decision to move off shore to avoid paying levy was page 13 fare.
However, during one of the busiest weeks of the season space can be found on page 1 for VC’s ‘pledge’ to pay for his off-shore business for the first time in donkeys’ years. A ‘pledge’ that is conditional upon betting on something not to happen arbitrarily being treated differently for taxation purposes to betting on it happening.
This would be the industry that ‘pledged’ not to move its businesses off shore if it was granted the tax regime [gross profits] it preferred.
I’m just saying…
Interestingly the Daily Topping chooses to carry the mildly significant news about him going to play in Gibraltar on page 13. Matt Dawson’s new job makes page 3. Well done Bruce.
Meanwhile Greg Wood advocates old-fashioned, low-tech consumer sovereignty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 … -gibraltarcan someone please explain to me why it is that, when it comes to virtual horse racing with a supposedly random outcome, the bookmakers can offer a set of odds which remain completely fixed regardless of how much money is being bet on each cartoon horse?
Virtual racing is like roulette. The odds are known, there’s a house margin. Everyone might get it right on one virtual race (or spin of the wheel) but in the long run everyone will lose. There’s no skill, judgement or inside knowledge: if you win it’s pure luck.
Odds in a horse racing market are based on imperfect information. The simple fact that someone wishes to back a horse at the available odds implies that those odds are too generous and should therefore be shorter.
At the risk of complicating the main debate still further by providing an inaccurate summary, the gist of this thread appears to be that, in a rapidly increasing number of cases, the odds can neither be too short to deter someone from placing a bet on a ‘fancied’ runner nor, conversely, too long to prevent someone from laying an ‘unfancied’ runner.
What at first glance seems to be a perfect market, because the odds (on the exchange at least) are tending towards a 100% book, is actually an imperfect market because the time between ‘full’ liquidity and the ‘off’ is insufficient to allow the odds of certain runners to adjust fully to reflect their true chance.
As the saying goes, I wouldn’t have a scooby whether that is in fact the case.
Slightly tangential to this topic, but Boycie has written an excellent post, "Interfering on Interference".
http://boyciesbettingblog.com/betting-n … erence.phpI can’t be bothered registering there to tell him so though.
Turf TV was still able a couple of weeks ago to sign Ascot to a deal to March 2018, so it clearly doesn’t plan to go anywhere soon.
http://www.turftv.co.uk/ascot-sign-long … h-turf-tv/(Is Ascot the only racecourse that straddles the ATR/SIS RacingUK/TurfTV divide?)
if I ran an LBO and I was not one of the bookie-owners of SIS, I think I would want to know why SIS, suddenly since the advent of TurfTV, is charging me significantly more per race.
At the time it lost the Turf TV courses SIS demonstrated to the satisfaction of nobody except itself and its shareholders that LBOs were, doubtless to their considerable surprise, in fact paying scarcely anything for the coverage of those tracks.
That’s a position that remains dimly illuminated following your diligent analysis on this thread. But then I don’t suppose the cover price of the Racing Post will come down if it comes to pass that there are indeed 250 fewer fixtures in 2011.
Barry, you’re brighter than to pretend that’s a fair comparison.
http://markxdavies.blogspot.com/2010/02 … etric.htmlBetfair takes its gloves off…
“Today’s announcement by the Levy Board, together with the statement from Nic Coward of the BHA, illustrates exactly why we have redirected our voluntary levy payment. We have not withdrawn this money from British Racing; we have withdrawn our donation to the Levy Board and BHA. We want to make sure that it is spent to deliver real benefits to the sport rather than being diluted by middlemen and the accompanying costs that cover their salaries, pensions contributions and the substantial legal bills incurred in a sustained and discriminatory attack on our business.”
This promises to be good fun.
“Out of a total of 1,490 (2008 – 1,503) fixtures in the published fixture list for 2009,
243 were fixtures (2008 – 254) at racecourses who had bid for the right to stage them through an open and transparent auction process.”Were the bids in the form of guaranteed prize money levels or payments to the BHA? Just wondering who loses the money if these fixtures are culled en masse.
The contradictions of the current fixture list were evident when Ruth Quinn announced the 2010 version.
Although total horse numbers are currently down by 2% compared with 2008, the demand from the horse population for opportunities to race continues to exceed the opportunities provided by the fixture list, as illustrated by the fact that there were over 6,500 eliminations in the first half of 2009… However, there is a real question over whether we should be running this number of fixtures, at the times they are running, with the current central funding, in order to maximise the return to the sport.
Inevitably, however the axe were to fall there would be victims. All the support activities are staffed to cover the current level of fixtures.
Statement from Paul Roy.
http://www.britishhorseracing.presscent … wsAreaId=2“The BHA never gave permission to Harry Findlay to lay horses in yards where he has horses in training. At a meeting on 24th November 2008, Mr Findlay was reminded that it was a breach of the Rules of Racing to place lay bets on horses owned by him, including those registered in the name of his mother. He was also reminded of the Code of Conduct for racehorse owners, which states that they should ‘Refrain from laying any horse from a yard where you have a horse in training’. Mr Findlay accepted the warning and gave assurances that he would neither lay his own horses nor those trained in the same yard.
What was the ruling regarding the horses under his ownership or in his Mother’s name?
The Panel imposes a disqualification of 6 months to come into effect on Friday 11 June 2010 until 10 December 2010 inclusive. The effect of this decision, in the light of Mr Findlay’s admitted direct involvement in the ownership of the horses currently registered in his mother’s ownership, is that horses registered in his mother’s name cannot race while she remains owner or part owner. Administrative arrangements for transfers of interest will need to be agreed by the Findlays with the BHA.
I’ve always wondered, what is classed as "inside info"
Wonder no more.
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/insid … efault.asp2003 Don’t know
2004 Don’t knowFor the sake of completeness, 3m and 3.1m respectively.
OCD outbreak, sorry.
Typically excellent article from Lydia in the Grauniad today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 … -the-derbyUntil racing starts to embrace exciting, modern ways to make that connection, it will remain confused about whether it is failing or being failed.
‘The other side’ is represented by Des Lynam in the Telegraph.
I didn’t see this interview, but there’s an interesting ‘the state we’re in’ to be pieced together from this morning’s Racing Post.
Page 2:
Hatchfield plans are rejected
. This is the day’s ‘second’ news story after Johnny Murtagh’s earth-shattering decision to ride the horse with the best form in The Derby that claims the front page and most of page 3.
Page 4:
Levy Board blow for British Champions Day
. "[Another insider] added: ‘The time to do this is when times are buoyant, not when racing’s finances are spiralling downwards’." So we are to infer that the way to stop a spiral is keep doing exactly the same thing you’re doing now.
Page 10:
ROA chief warns over exodus over prize-money cuts
. Apparently racing has "now reached a crisis point". Yes, another one. In the same article a stud owner, Con Marnane, is disappointed that there is not more interest from owners based in Britain for French-bred youngsters to race in France. "For them, it’s not all about prize money."
Page 11:
RCA Chairman questions calls to trim fixture list
. Because turkeys don’t vote for Christmas? Apparently fixtures are all levy positive, based on confidential data he sees but we can’t and based on prize money levels determined by how much Levy they generate. Mr Barlow is an accountant by profession.
His view might be considered to sit at odds with a quote from Ruth ‘you can’t do that’ Quinn in the aforementioned page 4 story, who feels racing can’t afford to put on a 7th race at all afternoon meetings. One of them is probably right. 6 meetings with 7 races against 7 meetings with 6 races. Who can say?
Page 11:
Farnsworth and Wadham nominated for BHA board
. These are predictable nominees from the RCA and the Horsemen’s Group. However, buried at the end of this piece is a note about the ‘independent’ BHA board members Morag Gray and Jim McGrath. "Discussions are continuing with representatives of racing’s stakeholders about their possible reappointment."
If that’s where you’re going I wouldn’t start from here.
The important thing to remember about research is that it is merely validation for what you wanted to do anyway.
A) "95% of people surveyed like lollipops so we’re right to focus on promoting lollipops."
B) "Only 5% of people like lollipops so we need to work harder on promoting what’s good about lollipops."Source: Lollipops For Change.
Be suspicious of anyone who quotes market research data as a justification for doing anything.
