Horse Racing & One off alleged cartel

[adam1]

There was one race meeting last year out of 1500 odd where the sp (starting price) returned very poorly for punters. The story is quoted below.

 

I regularly go racing and this doesn't bother me, but I want to know what others think.

 

Does anyone here still take SP?

 

And would this bother you if you went to Leicester / any other racecourse to bet with the oncourse bookmakers?

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/18/odds-fixed-against-novice-betters-bookmakers

 

Racecourse bookmakers collude to rip off punters, according to a sensational claim by one of their number. Andy Smith, who takes bets as ‘Festival Racing’ and is known for his outspoken views, said bookies sometimes agree before racing starts they will build a particularly big profit margin into their odds, especially when a large crowd of inexperienced gamblers is expected.

Smith’s comments were prompted by a survey published recently by the Horseracing Bettors Forum, which showed odds offered at the Welsh racetrack Ffos Las were notably poor last year, most obviously on 25 August. That was the fixture marketed as ‘Ladies’ Day’, when the track had its biggest attendance of the year, at around 6,000 people.

 

“Because there’s not many bookies,” Smith said, “it was easy to arrange, let’s think of a word for it … a cartel. A bookie would come and ask you, one of the other bookies. They might say, we’ll do 3% the first couple of races, then we’re betting 4%.”

That is a reference to the theoretical profit margin built into the odds of each horse. As the percentage gets bigger, the odds get shorter and the money which has to be returned to winning punters gets smaller. In a competitive betting market the margin should be less than 2% per runner.

“You might not believe this but this is not a thing that happens only at Ffos Las. It’s happening more and more,” Smith said, with particular reference to ‘satellite’ betting areas at the bigger tracks, away from the main betting ring and in areas where less experienced punters are likely to be found.

While Smith took part in the collusion between firms on this occasion, he deplores the practice and is an advocate of racecourse punters being allowed access to online betting exchange sites, where odds can be bigger. Bookmakers have ready access to those sites and use them to hedge their liabilities.

“At Wolverhampton last year there was a 100-1 winner. The owner backed it with a bookie. The bookie backed it back on the machine. The bookie won six times more than the man who pays for the keep of that horse.”

 

For some of his punters Smith makes a point of giving away the advantage of being able to hedge at bigger odds. “I’ve got a £300-£400 punter at Ffos Las. I’ve got 7-2 on my board. He asked me for £200 at 7-2 and I said: ‘You’ve got £200 at 5-1.’ There was no way I was gonna flimp [rip off] one of my regulars.”

Smith said not all bookmakers at Ffos Las were involved in the collusion. He accepted that William Hill, which has a pitch there, may not have been included. A Hill’s spokesman said its on-course representative had never even been approached for such a discussion. The Guardian offered a chance to comment to seven other firms who traded at Ffos Las on 25 August. Six declined and one did not respond.

Mark Kershaw, a director at Ffos Las, said he had been “extremely frustrated” by the odds offered on Ladies’ Day and also at learning the course’s bookmakers generally offered poor value compared with other tracks. “The betting ring manager came to us after the meeting to say he was dissatisfied,” Kershaw said. “He thought the bookmakers were not giving any sort of value to the racegoer.

 

“We try hard to get the racegoers there and it needs everybody at the racecourse to pull together to make sure they want to come back again and have a good experience. It’s certainly something as a board we take extremely seriously and we will be writing to all our bookmakers, making it clear that we are really very disappointed.”

Of Smith’s cartel allegation Kershaw said: “Andy is somebody who supports us, has always helped to encourage people to come. I think he was frustrated by this. It is something that we would not want to tolerate. At the same time it’s very hard to prove that. But it’s made us sit up and become far more aware.

“I think it was a day when there was a holiday crowd and they thought: ‘We can take advantage,’ but that’s completely wrong. What we want is that holiday crowd to want to come back again. It shouldn’t be an opportunity to short-change them.”

He said the board’s ultimate sanction would be to deny non-compliant bookmakers access to the course in future. Ascot is another track where the management is increasingly aware of the need to insist on minimum standards from bookmakers. Its head of betting, Guy Chadwell, warned a bookmaker about the lack of value in his odds during the Royal meeting last year and was pleased to see an immediate response.

The story is being followed with interest by the Starting Price Regulatory Commission, which, despite its name, says it has no regulatory power over bookmakers. However it claims to have influence over the way they conduct themselves and may call before it Robin Grossmith, a director of the Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers, for its meeting next week, to discuss the implications.

However, The Guardian understands the SPRC is considering dropping the word ‘Regulatory’ from its title, as it gives an exaggerated impression of the SPRC’s ability to force change or act against any bookmaker.

 

 

[pSinatra]

As soon as it said 'inexperienced gamblers'.........my first thought was Ladies day.  I reckon most bookies make a killing on any Ladies Day anywhere without having to fix the odds.

 

I wouldn't trust a bookie as far as I could throw him, under any circumstances.  I just assumed fixing the odds was something they do.  It would be naive to think that they don't.

 

Any regular punter will know if the odds are good or not & any non-regular punter is not going to care.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Never take SP tbh. I don't often bet with on course bookies anyway, normally just do it on the exchanges on my phone whilst stood by the parade ring (yeah its not the same but oh well).

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

Never take SP tbh. I don't often bet with on course bookies anyway, normally just do it on the exchanges on my phone whilst stood by the parade ring (yeah its not the same but oh well).

Yeah I’m the same, I get too carried away otherwise.

[ScouseFox]

don’t get SP at all. the whole point of having a bet is that you think the outcome is more likely than the odds being offered. cannot get my head around having a bet without knowing the price you’re taking. defeats the whole object of gambling. 

[separator]

Online betting is what mobile phones were invented for. Haven't used an on course bookie, or even a high street bookie for years.

[m4DD0gg]

SP is for mugs.

 

Stick with matched betting or whats left of it and make some money.

[Guest MattP]

Anyway who takes the SP deserves what they get anyway.

[ealingfox]

I'll usually have one bet with the on-course bookies just cos. Otherwise I do it all on my phone, why wouldn't you?

[NorthfieldsFox]

22 hours ago, adam1 said:

There was one race meeting last year out of 1500 odd where the sp (starting price) returned very poorly for punters. The story is quoted below.

 

I regularly go racing and this doesn't bother me, but I want to know what others think.

 

Does anyone here still take SP?

 

And would this bother you if you went to Leicester / any other racecourse to bet with the oncourse bookmakers?

 

 

 

If your not on betfair your a loser straight away