Forum Replies Created
- Posts
So all your bogus accusations can be dismissed as mere "semantics"? I hope for your sake you are never involved in a libel case
I don’t really understand the point in this instance anyway. All the horses declared at Haydock were done so on the basis of good-firm ground. The early NRs were the horses like Al Qasi where connections were presumably chancing that there may be some rain. The only thing watering was going to do was to produce more NRs on the day when trainers – like Barry Hills did with his nursery runner – realise what a shambles you have made of the course after the first few races (- and he had just won a fecking Group 1!!)
I don’t think it could be described as good -soft. There is a big difference between genuine weather induced good-soft ground and patchy overwatered fast ground. On the latter syrface many horses simply lose their confidence and don’t stride out at all – hence you get many horses running disappointingly and the field ends up strung out like washing
Semantics TDK.
The big bookies own SIS, who in turn bung the racecourses £4k per race. This bung is witheld if fields are smaller than 8, hence the endless watering.
We’ll never see firm ground again, away from Bath, as long as the big bookies punish courses that produce it.
It isn’t semantics. Presumably you are referring to owners who are actually no longer owners in the yard, who work for a bookie that doesn’t own any part of SIS!
If the racecourses are feeling any pressure from bookmakers to water, then I am in full agreement that it is totally unacceptable.
Aside from the fact that your cheap jibe has no basis in reality (as per usual) – it wasn’t just Morrison who was put away, it was every owner and trainer involved with a fast ground horse and every punter who had studied and bet based on the official going description of g/f (gd).
And what about Chapple Hyam who pulled out 2 horses in the Sprint Cup due to "fast ground"?
INteresting stuff wit. How can we know Betfair’s true market share though? Surely it is relatively hard to measure against bookmakers as it depends how you treat bets that have been backed or laid and then backed again etc… I guess "total money risked by backers" would equate pretty much to what bookmakers take, although as you state, the GPT on bookies profits and the % of commission are still two different things.
Come along now.
I see no harm in Betfair or anyone else having banners on here if it helps the forum financially ~ and Betfair would be a particularly unfair target for criticism. They allow criticism of their own site on their forum, so I hardly think that them having a banner on here is going to have any relevence to this forum’s independence.
It’s Lydia Hislop and Jonathan Neesom for me by a street. Pleasing timbres and always informative (and impeccably informed), yet neither are so in thrall to the owners / trainers / riders / officials of the sport that they won’t criticize them as and where they see fit. Jonathan’s acid wit finds particular favour.
Few things beat the two of them in full flow at somewhere like Market Rasen on a Sunday afternoon, I reckon. If I live to be only a quarter as good as them at this racing media lark then I’ll be a happy boy. As well as still four times crapper, obviously.
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Could this be one for Private Eye’s OBN column
Where do you draw the line though Dave Jay? Would you be happy for horse racing to be sent back to the days of 10% tax on stakes?
Many on here will make a moral distinction between the Roulette machines and betting on sports and horse racing, but most anti-gambling campaigners would view them in exactly the same way.
Why is Dylan Thomas odds against in some places??? Looks very solid indeed and to my mind he should be 1-2 or possibly even shorter. The ground is going to be fast ~ Duke or Marmalade and Maraahel have little chance of beating him on the book and Finsceal Beo is a doubtful stayer who is unlikely to be anywhere near good enough even if she does stay (Cashmans effort of 5-2 Finsceal Beo raised a chuckle – has there ever been a less generous ante post quote? ). If an A1 Red Rocks turned up he could pose some kind of threat, but looking at the POW Wales form, you wouldn’t be in a rush to back him to beat Dylan Thomas.
According to Kieren Fallon, Myboycharlie is the star 2 -yr -old in O’Brien’s stable. Apparently, he considers this one to be the real deal.
. Watching him again today wasn’t too dissimilar, taking a while to settle and then travelling supremely well, I think those efforts told in the last 100 yds when he finally went for the horse, there was nothing there.
.
I must have missed the bit where he "finally went for the horse". My television showed a bit of "knitting" followed by him pushing the horse out hands and heels. At no stage was he vigorous and at no stage was the whip considered.
I’m told Philadelphia has improved since Smartie Jones and the casino investment btw. Judging by TDK’s shockingly bleak post earlier, I’m starting to wonder whether we’ll have to go the same route, a miraculous switch to a pari-mutuel system notwithstanding.
It certainly wouldn’t be a bad idea. I read a decent post on another forum recently (may have even been the BF forum) that said that HOrse Racing’s basic problem is that it used to have the massive attraction that you were simply allowed to bet on it. Nowadays one can bet on anything that moves and since Gross Profit Tax was introduced, suddenly racing has to compete with betting products that don’t have huge costs associated with staging them that rely on betting operators giving money back the sport. In a nutshell, unless the government introduce some huge “pro horseracing betting” legislation (which seems unlikely), racing is going to have to start self funding to a much larger degree than it does now. As a starting point, rolling FOBTs into the halls of Sandown and Kempton isn’t such a daft idea imo.
Dave – they are significnatly lower margin than horseracing – if you bet blind on a horse race or a FOBT, your expected return would be higher on the FOBT. The key to their profitabilty from the bookmakers perspective, is that they are high "churn", in that players can bet every 30 seconds or so, rather than waiting 30 minutes for the next race.
Mike
Overrounds don’t guarantee any profit whatsoever. Imagine if someone bet 4-6 heads, 11-10 tails on a fair coin toss. There is an overround there, but any bookmaker offering those prices long term would lose money.
On horseracing, bookmakers would make far less than 30% profit even if they bet to 130% overrounds.
