Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I have been following racing for 60 years amd I know the most certain way to lose money is to do ACCA’s. I agree that many youngsters are paying £10k per year to gain a dubious degree, but we should not encourage them to lose even more money.
My bookmaker regularly sends me messages offering me a free ACCA if I bet 3 other ACCA’s. They gave an exanple of a wonderful ACCA comprising 4 short priced favourites in the day’s football matches. Now I know the odds are 1/10 that at least one of these favourites will fail to win.
The rule is simple- if a bookmaker is offering an amazing deal – IGNORE it as there is bound to be a catch. We should encourage everyone to bet sensibly.
Apracing, I get the point you make. In my experience the SP is often equal to or better than the odds offered on-line by my bookmaker. Based on this, anyone betting on-line should do so at Tote odds. My on-line bookmaker also cancelled ‘my best odds guaranteed’ which is why I stopped betting on horses.
Given the overrounds are based on the average of an nunber of on-line bookmakers I cannot believe the on-course bookmakers would offer substantially better odds where such overrounds were excessive.
Also, in recent years there seems to be less variety in the on-course odds offered.
The way to attract more people to go racing is to make it less of a lottery and give punters a chance by bookmakers not taking excessive overrounds. Overall, many overrounds have been reasonable recently, except at Kempton where they have been excessive. Punters should NEVER back at SP, but rather back at Tote odds. This aasumes the stake is relatively modest. The reason for this is that (currently until they change it) the Tote dividend is guaranteed to be equal to or better than SP. If the bookmakers at Kempton continue to take excessive overrounds then the Tote dividends in many races will be better.
Everyone here says the same thing; there is too much racing and most of it is dross. Why do we need three all-weather flat meetings in November. The previous poster especially made sone very salient points. In the good old days when bookmakers had varying opinions it was possible to go round the ring and often beat SP. That was the fun of going racing. Nowadays, bookmakers price up Betfair odds (adjustibg downwards to take account of Betfair margins) and virtually all bookmakers are showing the same odds. From a punters’ perspective there is no competition
Why go racing to watch dross when there is no incentive to do so? On-course bookmakers are ‘retail’ and as we can see elsewhere this method of selling cannot compete with on-line suppliers.
What makes matters worse is that nothing makes sense anymore. At one time it was possible to ascertain when the Tote would beat SP (outsiders in large fields) but nowadays they are the same in most races. It the Tote was taking a fixed deduction there is no way the Tote dividend in a three runner race with a 6/4 winner would pay £2.50. So obviously the advantage in large fields has been taken away as one is subsidising the other.
In other words, it used to be fun to work out what was likely to win. Expertise was needed. Nowadays in every respect it is a lottery so what is the point?
The problem is that the racing authorities have given in to bookmakers and ignored the racing enthusiast. It is all about trying to boost betting revenue. Racing enthusiasts cannot make head or tail of anyhing to do with this type of racing. You have low grade handicaps ridden by jockeys who don’t usually ride the horse they are given. So racing enthusiasts will not bother having a bet. On the other hand 18 to 21 yo’s have no
experience so the only way to get them to bet is to get them drunk first.I agree with many writers here – the Racing League cannot last.
Everybody in the media should realise that we are up against a bundle of spin. The problem we face is that when in the mid-2000’s UK GAAP was replaced by IFRS (International Financial Reporing Systems three safeguards built in to accounting were abandoned.
The means that for a number of reasons accounts can be somewhat adjusted by directors and, of course, entirely legally. The result is that anyone reading a Profit and Loss Account may find it difficult to interpret. However, one financial statement will be as good under IFRS as UK GAAP. This is the Cash Flow Statement, which is the best one to review these days.
Betfred Group Holdings Ltd published their accounts for the year ended 1 October 2023 (available from Companies House). They declared losses of £71.692 million in their Profit & Loss Account, but net cash INFLOW from Operating Activities of £71.032 million in their Cash Flow Statement.
This is why I am vary of bookmakers pleading poverty.
No, it is not a dream and it will get worse ovwr the coming years. O’Brien’s main patrons breed their own horses which give them a significant advantage. Breeding fees go up and up while prize money is stagnating Of course it’s not healthy but it is the way of the world at the moment. The USA leads the way where billionaires have their taxes reduced while many citizens see the cost of rent and food exceed their net income.
It is absolutely tragic. Not just Dettori but several rich people with no financial knowledge are led astray by financial advisers who rake in their commission even after bad advice.
My advice as a qualified accountant would be to always spread the risk. Put half of your savings into safe investments, such as government bonds. The other half can go on riskier investments such as start-ups. This is AFTER keeping sufficient cash to pay what is due to HMRC. Do not borrow money to start a business. Start slowly and build up if it is profitable. This way, if the business goes pear shaped, you will happily survive.
Today’s meeting at Sandown says it all. Average runners per race = 4 9. By race the number of runners were 1-3-6-7-4-4-9.
Too much racing for the horse population.
The really sad thing about racing is that as years go by the level of economic madness increases. The bubble will have to burst soon. Those who are breeding from their own stock will survive, but the vast majority who are buying horses will lose money. The expected return for every £1,000 invested is around £40. Even the super rich buying horses know that they can only do so because they have got money to burn. The majority of those paying £350,000 to visit Frenkel will lose a percentage of their cash. There are only a finite number of Group 1’s so his progeny cannot win them all.
The downturn has started as some breeders have said they are losing money. In the medium turn stud fees will have to come down to decrease the gap between cost and return.
Research is the key to a good life. Where you buy a house is a key decision. If you don’t like the sound horses make it is easy:
(1) Don’t buy a house at Newmarket
(2) Don’t buy a house within 2 miles of a racing stables or racecourse.I suggest the complainant moves to Inverness. On second thoughts no, the Loch Ness monster might make too much noise.
In the 1970’s / 1980’s when we had a sensible fixture list each racecourse had one track. Nowadays they have two or three tracks with a multiple set of railings so turf can be preserved. This, of course, increases the cost of running a meeting and proves there is too much racing. Kempton Park having meetings day after day after day could not run so many turf meetings. Which is why I presume they dug up their lovely turf and replaced it with an all-weather track. Bookmakers are squealing about proposed increases in betting tax, but they will have to get used lower growth in profitability. This will not be due to tax increases but rather that punters are losing interest because horse racing has become on big bore
On the same day as Hollie Doyle was riding a 20/1 winner in Hong Kong one of Imad Alsagar’s outsiders was beaten over ten lengths at Kempton. If I were Inad Alsagar I would sack his strategy manager.
Bookmakers are greedy in the extreme. Fred Done is having a laugh by threatening to close all his betting shops with the loss of thousands of job if the government righly increases betting tax to get to persistent percentages. Well, I hope the government increases betting tax to call his bluff. The reality is that all Betfred betting shops will remain open. What Fred Done will do will be to increase the betting margins on his fruit machines to maintain overall profitability. Trump continues the lie that foreign countries pay for his tariffs when the reality is that American consumers are paying all the bills. Likewise, bookmakers will moan and groan when betting tax increases, whereas the reality is that it is the punters who will be paying.
Since sacking Hollie Doyle before the York Ebor Meeting Imad Alsagar has only had one winner and about a dozen losers. A horse Hollie Doyle won on against a very good horse went to Italy only to be beaten out of sight.
It will be interesting to see what the new year brings.
When I said that racing was at its best in the 1970’s/1980’s I was referring solely to the racing itself. I agree that since then facilities have improved.
To improve things I would:
(1) Have a separate turf and all-weather season. There should be two jockeys and trainers championship. Form for each horse would be shown for both turf and all-weather, but not lumped together. A winner of an all-weather race would still be a maiden for a turf race and vice versa.
(2) The turf season would run from its traditional start and finish, being late March to early November. The all-weather season would start on 1st October and finish on 31 May.
(3) The jumps season would run from 1st September and finish on 30 April.
The fact is that jockeys and trainers need a break; some are burnt out too quickly.
Based on the comments read, everyone agrees there is too much racing. My proposal would go some way to resolve this.
I also agree with the writer who suggested the number of listed races should be reduced. At the moment too many relatively moderate horses have black type attached to their name.
Lastly, the problem of the super rich owners running their not so good horses in moderate races lessens the chance of ordinary owners having a winner. I don’t know the solution for this, but the gap between billionaires and the rest needs looking at.
Record sums paid for some foals, yet as a whole breeders are not doing well is not contradictory. The super rich (billionaires) will spend millions to acquire the horse they want (the odd million is pocket money to them) but the rest of the market is failing. In the long run this is not sustainable as when the gap gets too large everything falls apart. When the time comes that the billionaires are winning all the big races and their worst horses horse are scooping up the novice races, then everybody else will be left with the dross. When this happens it will be the end.
