On any given day this site is seething with discontent. Some of it can sometimes be a little spurious but a lot of it is justified. Not that anyone is listening.
The core problem appears to be that racing is a business which delivers little or nothing of substance to its customer base (and here I am referring exclusively to the punter) other than the 'thrill factor' but continually presents itself as an activity which somehow merits its place in society. In this respect it is not unlike the tobacco industry where habitual use of the product (betting) is likely to impair your (financial) health. And that can sometimes be difficult to defend.
If you feel this evaluation is unfair then make a list of all the punters you know who have made a profit from racing over a lifetime and, if you so wish, add to that another list of all the owners who have made a profit from owning horses. In the first instance it is likely to be a very short list and in the second probably nobody at all......so it all comes back to how big the kick was that you got out of the activity. Nothing wrong with that if that is your bag.
Given the above it is, therefore, important that the sport conducts itself in a transparent and ethical fashion. Which leads me to my real rant:
Ante-Post betting.
This really should be the bedrock of fixed odds betting as it allows astute punters to plan well ahead of an event and adjust their positions as the event draws nearer. Doubles, trebles, laying off......all these vehicles are options for a punter to manufacture a 'book' using ante-post betting and, hopefully, reduce or eliminate the 'gamble' from the bet.
So why does ante-post betting feature relatively poorly in South Africa and why is it so expensive?
Bookmakers claim there is often not much interest. Well - boo hoo. Do you get substantial betting activity in every race on every card? No. So do you stop pricing up on races where you believe there will be little interest? No. And have you tried offering more ante-post betting earlier to encourage the activity? Probably not. So round and round we go with the 'chicken and egg' situation.
The problem is that our entire racing industry has little or no idea how to market consistently and efficiently. And ante-post betting calls for consistent and predictable offerings until the betting public gets used to betting around longer term events instead of the next maiden plate 20 minutes from now - which is what the operator encourages with races spaced approximately 10 minutes apart to promote turnover above all else.
Perusing the current ante-post racing market I see offerings on the Queens Plate and Met. And guess what - the satchel society is betting to 140%.
Why?
In the case of the Met the entries far exceed the number that can and will run. So strike one is that horses (on which there is no refund) will be scratched or eliminated. Profit area #1.
The justification that there may be a 'market springer' is sheer nonsense. That concern is valid where there are unraced horses. But Grade 1s come hand-in-glove with a form history as long as my arm.
The next bleat is 'liability'. Much of the action is via multiples - ie doubles, trebles etc. To be frank - it is one of the only ways in which you can get on 'big' without sending the heroes into a tailspin together with the price of your fancy. Any bookmaker boasting more than one gonad will tell you that he loves multiples as it offers a variety of ways in which to cover or trade. To say nothing of late scratchings and/or form reversals close to the event. Profit area#2.
Given all of the above there should be a strong case for betting for betting to 120% but 140% remains the order of the day because they can.
Until, of course, the player becomes better educated and is once again left with the unhappy feeling of THAT's RACING! And that last feeling is sledom positively disposed towards the industry but rather leaves the feeling of having been exploited.Again.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Topic Author
