In any event, there must be a system in here somewhere if loads of novice race goers are turning up with no comprehension of form and affecting on course markets by backing "Frankie" blind. It's one of the reasons I strugle with jumps racing as the geenral person who can be bothered to huddle in the rain and snow of Ludlow on a Tuesday is invariably more knowledgable than the Summer social race goer
I don't know if Meister Mordin ever looks in here obviously, but I was taken by his article in this weeks Weekender which half alludes to this, although its essentially aimed at 49's and virtual racing but signs off on the idea that we should target meetings with pop bands playing. I redproduce most of it thus;
"I confess I have a dreadful fascination with the virtual racing that has been offered by British off-course bookmakers in recent years. What fascinates me is that people are prepared to bet on it. Afterall, as 49's limited, the producer of the product says in its website, "virtual racing is a computer generated presentation of a random number draw". In other words there is no way you can use your skill to improve your chances. A chimp is as likely to make a profit betting on virtual racing as a genius. No attempt is made to disguise this fact. Indeed, 49's limited describes the USP (unique selling point) of its product as "all the drama and excitment of the real thing - without the form". Wow. There was I thinking all the drama and excitment stemmed from studying the form and testing your opinion against the result. Recently I spoke to Miles Phillips, marketing manager of 49's limited about what i still insist on calling cartoon racing. He told me me the races 'run' at Portman Park, Steepledowns, Sprint Valley and the two virtual greyhound tracks generate about £420 million in betting turnover each year.
As a racing journalist this amazes me. As a punter its got me worried. It shakes my faith in the idea that most punters bet because they want to test their analytical skills as much they want to gamble. The more troubling aspect of the betting turnover being generated by virtual racing is that it could take a large slice of the 'mug money' out of betting on the real thing. The important thing to realise is that whether you're betting with a bookmaker, the Tote, or on a betting exchange, your winnings come from the losses of other punters. Take out a large slice of the 'mug money' and you reduce the losses other punters make, and therefore your own winnings. When the 'mugs' are betting on something else, the smarties are left to bet against each other, so it becomes harder to make a profit.
The problem is that it's not only the betting turnover on virtual racing that is increasing. Pretty much every other form of gambling over the past decade has increased whilst racings market share has been reduced. One way or another the 'mugs' are betting less on horseracing, leaving you and I to try grab each others money.
The introduction of betting exchanges hasn't helped this situation either. Although they've massively reduced the cost of betting on horseracing (which has to be welcomed), they've also attracted a smarter and richer punter into the game. The typical betting exchange punter doesn't see betting as a leisure activity. They are seriosuly trying to win and are prepared to study hard in an attempt to do so. I can tell you from my own experience that it has become increasingly difficult to make a profit from horseracing betting over the last decade. Thanks to the increase in the number of smart punters and the decreasing percentage of 'mugs', the betting market has become much more efficient. The betting odds now reflect the real chance of runners much more closely than they did ten or 20 years ago. It's much harder to gain and edge - at least on an everyday basis".
(he then goes on to explain that Gp1's are the easiest to pick a winner in and that Lucarno is a nailed on certainty and reminds us yet again that he used to work in advertising before returning to the theme)
"I won't be complaining about the 'dumbing down' of racing that seems to irritate so many fans of the sport. I would like to think that the right way to promote racing is to highlight the intellectual challenge of picking a winner. That may be what keeps established fans like you and me interested. But in this age of reality TV, tabloid journalism and decreasing educational standards I don't think a product can be created for a mass market by promoting its intellectual appeal.
The truth is we need the 'mug money' generated by new racing fans who aren't as smart at picking winners as us. Their losses subsidise old fans like you and me and keep us interested.
I say bring on the pop bands, the new Sovereign Series and populist presenters such as John McCririck. You don't have to like them to realise they're good for racing - and your bank balance"
