Wi-Fi or Die-Fi

Utter bollocks to suggest 3G works at Ascot. As with all events with thousands of people in one area, the 3G network cannot cope in this country.

On course bookmakers have failed to modernise and are now utterly irrelevant bar taking £2 EWs off drunkards on Saturdays in my opinion. Whether that is sad or not depends on your personal point of view but that is the case in a capitalist society.

Also worth making the point that on course bookmakers pay a set fee in Levy rather than a percentage of profits so his argument on that front doesn't hold much water. That said, I wouldn't be against them blocking access to offshore betting operators though.

Hard to agree with Geoff Banks on anything to be honest.
 
I'm split as it would be nice to be able to bet over wi-fi trackside but I love the ring. However, despite my love of the ring, I started going racing before mobile betting was introduced and the realist in me believes the bookies will fall away in the long term. If you want to see the horse in the parade ring, then go down, then get a bet on and then get a decent spot on a busy race day it is a ball ache. All to bet at bigger overrounds (although there is still value in the ring).
 
I only skimmed the article but that photo on what tracks will be like without bookies is mischievously misleading.

Picture Longchamp on a Group race Sunday, or any of the big American or Australian tracks. When we get rid of bookies we can have connections covering their annual training costs by winning a claimer. We can have G1s worth a minimum of £1m a pop. We can have a Derby worth £5m or even £10m. We can have a Grand National worth the same and every race at Cheltenham worth a minimum of 500-grand each.

And all because the bookies aren't taking out huge percentages of betting turnover.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I only skimmed the article but that photo on what tracks will be like without bookies is mischievously misleading.

Picture Longchamp on a Group race Sunday, or any of the big American or Australian tracks. When we get rid of bookies we can have connections covering their annual training costs by winning a claimer. We can have G1s worth a minimum of £1m a pop. We can have a Derby worth £5m or even £10m. We can have a Grand National worth the same and every race at Cheltenham worth a minimum of 500-grand each.

And all because the bookies aren't taking out huge percentages of betting turnover.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on this forum.

You can't get rid of bookmakers for a kick off, we live in a capitalist society where they are allowed to operate and have a vast history. The punters also hugely benefit from competition in the market, good luck to beating a tote monopoly at 130%, it's nigh on mathematically impossible to win unless you're Bill Benter.

Also, what do you do when turnover starts declining on racing on the tote monopoly (as is happening in France & USA - badly in latter)?

Oh, they have bookmakers in Australia.
 
i was just about to ask what the overrounds on these totes are. A competitive market is always going to deliver value to punters

Another way at looking at the profits and prize money issue is that the big bookies are quoted and their wealth is shared largely amongst financial institutions (i would assume). ie pension funds etc

Now i would rather the profits went there than to some billionaire owner
 
Last edited:
The buzz of the ring at racing was an essential and enjoyable part of my racing experience in years gone by. Getting a couple points above SP was almost the same as getting a winner. Well perhaps some consolation when having a loser. I enjoyed the banter and the civility of a transaction, whether it be Sir or Mr. Seul depending on the bookie.

At Cheltenham this year iirc I didn't go to the rails or ring at all, and thinking back it is some years since I've had a notable bet in the ring. Experience has shown that by and large one can get a better price either the night before or early morning. Some may drift but if the market is reasonably accurate they are the horses not to back.
 
Any on-course bookmakers in Australia must, by law, accept up to $2K (about £1200) about any horse they have priced up and at the odds they have on display, be it for the Melbourne Cup or just some crappy HCP at a gaff track.

So there's an answer right there. Bookies in the UK perhaps need to grow a pair again.
 
Gamla Stan said:
You can't get rid of bookmakers for a kick off, we live in a capitalist society where they are allowed to operate and have a vast history. The punters also hugely benefit from competition in the market, good luck to beating a tote monopoly at 130%, it's nigh on mathematically impossible to win unless you're Bill Benter.
Click to expand...

If there was the political or public will it would not be difficult to get rid of bookmakers in the same way we have clamped down significantly and in time will probably eradicate the tobacco industry.

I agree we benefit from competition in the market but it doesn't stop 99.0% of us from losing. However, I'd argue that the overrounds on SPs in a large number of races would be around 130% anyway so what's the big deal.

I suspect in the short term things would be tough for punters but in the longer term the astute ones would find a way of turning a profit because the only way to do so is to find winners that fewer people have found.

I don't believe it can be mathematically impossible to win. More difficult maybe but not impossible. In any market, even with a 130% overround, there will be overpriced contenders.

I happen to believe about 99% of punters don't care about overrounds. They just want to back the winner and will punt regardless of whether there are bookmakers or not. You just have to stand in a bookie's for a couple of hours to see the activity: check the Racing Post, have a look at the prices (not to see whether it's value or not, just to see what price it is) and place your bets. If it wins they're happy, if not they mutter or curse but that's the extent of it. When was the last time you stood next to a betting shop punter who said of a winner, "I'd have backed that but mathematically its odds were lower than its true chances"?

And the fact FOBTs are so popular is further evidence of this mentality.

As for decreasing turnover, it will be to do with factors outside racing. When you hit a financial crisis leisure is usually first to suffer.

Quality racing and quality TV coverage would minimise any prospects of lower turnover. It's becoming increasingly obvious the the quality of racehorse in the UK is in decline compared to France and Germany.

Does the existence of bookmakers in Australia depend on the individual state? I understood there were no off-course bookmakers there but am prepared to be corrected.
 
Last edited:
There are online bookmakers in Australia, but also you can use a machine in the TAB and take a price if there are fixed odds available about the event. My post was referring to on-course bookmakers specifically.

"When you hit a financial crisis leisure is usually first to suffer."

The reverse is actually true for some strange reason, and it's one of the last to suffer. Thats what we were shown during a course some years ago. It didn't make sense, but the numbers don't lie. Construction, manufacturing and a host of other things were hit harder first.
 
suspect in the short term things would be tough for punters but in the longer term the astute ones would find a way of turning a profit because the only way to do so is to find winners that fewer people have found
Click to expand...

Absolutely no one will turn a profit with 130% over rounds.

I know you are a teacher DO, but jesus, I do hope it isnt maths and economics

Aside from that you seem to want to sacrifice a decent market and the interest of punters who perhaps do take it a little more seriously than the smelly bonehead in the bookies for greater prize money for billionaires?

A barve stance to take here
 
Wi-fi provides off-course betting operators with free access to racegoers while on-course bookmakers have to pay pitch fees for the same privilege. Wi-fi is the way to go, and the bookies are probably doomed anyway, but charging pitch fees should cease.
 
I'm sorry DO but you're showing a very naive knowledge of betting and the betting industry.

You can bet most televised races on a Saturday to less than 110% sometimes, hell I have seen 99% books on the real big days. The reason this is possible is due to the ultra competitive nature of the betting industry, the punter has never had it so good. Take the 2.05 Kempton today, a competitive handicap chase. It is currently at 105% overround with all bookmakers on Oddschecker.

As soon as you increase that margin by introducing a tote monopoply, you increase gross win and then you will see a sharp fall in turnover as punters will soon get sick of it. So whilst punters may not seem bothered by overrounds on a race by race basis, they will soon notice when their pocket is getting hit harder than before and so will racing when turnover subsequently nosedives.

If you think one man on his own can beat a 130% tote then you need to brush up on mathematics and probability. The odd freak can beat Totes but only when they are ultra liquid with a good proportion of mug money in them and even then, you need a small army of analysts and a damn good algorathim as the big syndicates in Hong Kong do. The HKJC have learnt this isn't good for racing as well as all they do is win off Joe Punter who doesn't have the tools, knowledge, time etc. to even get close to profiting off a 130% tote.
 
Gamla Stan said:
I'm sorry DO but you're showing a very naive knowledge of betting and the betting industry.

You can bet most televised races on a Saturday to less than 110% sometimes, hell I have seen 99% books on the real big days. The reason this is possible is due to the ultra competitive nature of the betting industry, the punter has never had it so good. Take the 2.05 Kempton today, a competitive handicap chase. It is currently at 105% overround with all bookmakers on Oddschecker.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that and the bookmaking industry is probably the most competitive it's ever been which is brilliant for punters. I've never argued against that.

Gamla Stan said:
As soon as you increase that margin by introducing a tote monopoply, you increase gross win and then you will see a sharp fall in turnover as punters will soon get sick of it. So whilst punters may not seem bothered by overrounds on a race by race basis, they will soon notice when their pocket is getting hit harder than before and so will racing when turnover subsequently nosedives.
Click to expand...
I think you're granting too much savvy to the average betting shop punter. They're not all like TH forumites who know what's what. 90% of them are drongos. The fact they will bet on virtual racing is all the evidence you need. Shouting at the screen as the race reaches its climax and calling the jockey for everything is more if needed. And there's the ones who fire quid after quid into the FOBTs. They're not interested in value. They only want a winner.

Gamla Stan said:
If you think one man on his own can beat a 130% tote then you need to brush up on mathematics and probability. The odd freak can beat Totes but only when they are ultra liquid with a good proportion of mug money in them and even then, you need a small army of analysts and a damn good algorathim as the big syndicates in Hong Kong do. The HKJC have learnt this isn't good for racing as well as all they do is win off Joe Punter who doesn't have the tools, knowledge, time etc. to even get close to profiting off a 130% tote.
Click to expand...
This is my point. Even within a 130% Tote there will be value, especially away from the favourites (which is where most of my punting lies). It's just a question of finding it. The 130% is probably a worst-case scenario anyway. Look at the tote returns for Ascot on Saturday where probably only a tiny fraction of betting turnover on the race would have taken place on the tote. With a monopoly under a non-profit making nationally owned betting facility, overrounds could very easily get close to the minimum.

OK, my view is somewhat utopian but bookmakers are killing British racing - as opposed to British betting - even if some of us are managing to turn a profit on competitive markets.
 
Isn't this all getting off point - nobody said they should ban bookies, just the death of on course bookies....
 
Desert Orchid said:
I think you're granting too much savvy to the average betting shop punter. They're not all like TH forumites who know what's what. 90% of them are drongos. The fact they will bet on virtual racing is all the evidence you need. Shouting at the screen as the race reaches its climax and calling the jockey for everything is more if needed. And there's the ones who fire quid after quid into the FOBTs. They're not interested in value. They only want a winner.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point. All of this is academic if they start losing more money than they did before (the introduction of a tote monopoly) and at a faster rate. Both will happen if you increase the margins which they can bet at (which they will as the costs at running a tote monopoly are high).

The notion that bookmakers are killing racing is the type of tripe peddled by Rachel Hood who doesn't understand the economics of racing and betting which are intrisically linked. The only thing you can condemn bookmakers for (HEAVILY) is the offshore move and the FOBTs but these are two things that any competent government should be able to tackle.
 
Back
Top