Just when you think the BHA can't get any more stupid and deluded.....

[barjon]

Betting shops, betting shops, ah! When betting tax was introduced in the early sixties bookies offered punters the choice of paying tax on their bet, or paying it on winnings. C&E who were responsible for the tax used to “test bet” to catch out any naughty bookie who was suppressing his takings. Obviously that was a cloak and dagger operation and I was involved in it. One day I was in a queue to collect some winnings (a failed test since no one would suppress their losers) when there was an argument up front by someone who said the tax on his winnings was wrong. On and on it went until the bookie finally lost patience and said pointing at me “Jesus, just shut up and we’ll ask the bloody Customs & Excise bloke- he’ll know”. So much for cloak and dagger.

 

[Quixall Crossett]

If I had the money to risk, as a big fk u, I'd set up a horse racing bookie with a team of my own odds compilers, who would have to keep proving themselves to keep their jobs, I've worked under those conditions & I know it keeps people sharp.

As a starting pouint, no bots, no restrictions, take a bet from anyone on any horse up to loss of £250, no fobts or casino shit, no being a cnt when people want to withdraw.

I'll say it again mate - if only !

I would definitely bet with you as long as my missus and a few mates could open an account as well.

But on a serious note, in this day and age, being allowed a bet to take out £250 is an excellent deal. But, and there is always a but, just compare it to this.
I started work for an independent bookie with seven shops back in 1980 and on my first day he gave me my instructions.
NEVER refuse a bet but after acceptance, if it looks as though it will take out more than £300, ring it into me at the head office.

As i say, that was 1980. There are scumbags masquerading as "bookmakers" around these days who wouldnt lay a bet to lose anywhere near that.

I love your idea though but you and I both know that it aint gonna happen.....................sadly.

 

[pawras]

I'll say it again mate - if only !

I would definitely bet with you as long as my missus and a few mates could open an account as well.

But on a serious note, in this day and age, being allowed a bet to take out £250 is an excellent deal. But, and there is always a but, just compare it to this.
I started work for an independent bookie with seven shops back in 1980 and on my first day he gave me my instructions.
NEVER refuse a bet but after acceptance, if it looks as though it will take out more than £300, ring it into me at the head office.

As i say, that was 1980. There are scumbags masquerading as "bookmakers" around these days who wouldnt lay a bet to lose anywhere near that.

I love your idea though but you and I both know that it aint gonna happen.....................sadly.

If someone was setting up such a real bookie I'd invest, only takes money & a williness to go against the current 'norm'.

I quoted £250 take out as a realistic starting point but I know what you mean, I was with my dad at the York Ebor meeting in the mid 80s when he'd gone to avoid betting tax & put £900 on a horse he'd followed all season, that's about £2700 in today's money. I remember seeing some serious rolls of cash going back & forth on course.

Going in the local bookies with him as a kid was a very diff place to now, was like an extension of the local working mens club.

Him & his generation gradually stopped going when it became more like an amusement arcade & the dross it attracted.

 

[Quixall Crossett]

If I had the money to risk, as a big fk u, I'd set up a horse racing bookie with a team of my own odds compilers, who would have to keep proving themselves to keep their jobs, I've worked under those conditions & I know it keeps people sharp.

As a starting pouint, no bots, no restrictions, take a bet from anyone on any horse up to loss of £250, no fobts or casino shit, no being a cnt when people want to withdraw.

Your second sentence regarding compilers having to keep proving themselves reminds me of a couple of conversations i have had over the years the clowns from various firms.
I think most on here will have had bets knocked back to ridiculous amounts and it will not have been because we have been requesting massive amounts. You know the ones, £20 bets knocked back to £1.26, £50 bets knocked back to £3.33, £25 bets being knocked back to 66p etc etc etc. I actually got a £25 bet knocked back one day to £24.70. That bloke would have been sacked in my day.
But when you look at how much money these firms are turning down, it adds up to millions and millions over the course of a week, a month, a year.
So my point here is, i spoke to a gobshite rep who appears on tv regularly and asked him if his bosses were not worried or concerned about the amount of money his traders are turning away. And i told him that if i was in charge i would want justification as to why the bet was reduced for each and every bet from each and every trader. And a total each day/week of how much we have turned down.

That might/should change the way they operate.

 

[pawras]

I'm not one for monopolies, state or other, so I wouldn't want tote only like some countries. But I would like to see the tote owned by racing & become an exchange instead with no api or bots & a 2% take out as per the lowest exchange commission, with all the profits going back into racing.

***IF*** that happened the plc bookies would shit a brick & try to kill it at birth like they did the exchange , which ended up turning to the dark side anyway because shareholders want profits end of story.

The reality though is that people are stupid, which increases with greed. So such an enterprise would almost certainly be bastardised from within via by stupidity, greed, vanity & self interest. Unless one guy, who already had big money, called the shots & made those below adhere to his vision or get sacked.

Whistful thinking I know

 

[Quixall Crossett]

One last post before i am away for a while.
I listed numerous errors, f** ups etc by the BHA the other day and they were off the top of my head. I could have added loads more Just looking at todays cards, this "Premierisation" palaver is just laughable (For starters, wasnt it just two meetings between 2.00 and 4.00 ? )

But its the field sizes that is my gripe because it affects the way i bet and if i have a bet at all. And my bets are becoming far less frequent because of the smaller and smaller field sizes we are seeing. And i do not believe for one second that the BHA have anyone within their ranks capable enough of coming up with a solution. Its not as if it is a new problem , this has been going on for a number of years now. The last figures i saw for average field sizes were just a few weeks ago and they were an average of 8.83 for flat races and 7.83 for jumps. And for someone like me who bets only in low grade handicaps over the obstacles and looks at horses priced at 8/1 and upwards in a decent size field, an average field size of 7.83 is absolutely no use whatsoever.
Newton Abbot today has only 39 runners (currently) in its six races which is obviously only 6.5 runners on average. And i had a quick look at Sedgefields entries for next Thursday evening to see if that Greenall/Gueriero horse was entered (it isnt) and of the three handicaps that i would look at, i would only be hopeful of the 7.00 race (15 entries) being a race that i would consider

Yes, the climate is changing and this year has been very warm with plenty of dry periods but this is not a new thing. The average field size over jumps in 2022 was 7.73 and in 2023 it was only up slightly at 8.2, Last year it was 8.4.
And again, we have to take the changing weather into consideration but the figures for the first six months of this year show that field sizes fell to their second lowest figures since 1995 !

Whinge over, see you in 10 days.

Have a good day everyone.