1. Trustworthiness/reliability/financial security/prompt and hassle-free payments.
2. The willingness to lay a good bet and then pay up with a smile if it wins instead of closing or limiting your account the next day (BetVictor please take note).
3. A wide range of horse racing markets (e.g. place only, match bets, betting without the favourite etc.) rather than just win and E/W.
4. Decent early prices which don't insult the intelligence (i.e. no overrounds above 120%).
5. The 'usual' concessions - bonuses and consolations on Lucky bets, best odds guaranteed on UK/Irish racing, double result payouts after a stewards enquiry.
6. Promotions which don't have more strings attached than a harp orchestra.
7. 'Traders' who are odds compilers rather than just betting exchange watchers and who don't rush to change their underwear every time you try to place a large bet.
Bookmakers,I'm only talking about the UK here.Havent any experience with the SA lot.
They are all take,take,take.Would like a countrywide minimum figure on the amount a bookmaker will lay a punter to lose from a single bet.£500 would be fair.
Take that Charles Byrne gamble last week,I know two LOSING punters who were lucky enough to get on,there accounts now are ridiculously restricted.One can win a max £5.
Meaning he can only have 20 pence on a 25/1 rag.
I've copied and pasted a blog below.
Are betting coups bad for Horse Racing?
The next big debate is never far away in the great sport of horse racing and the last week has been dominated by the fallout from the betting coup landed by Charles Byrnes at Roscommon last Tuesday.
Much of the debate has centred on the rights and wrongs of such coups and the wider implications of them for the image and reputation of horse racing.
Before getting into the nitty gritty of the debate, I have to get something off my chest.
Of all the reactions to the Byrnes coup, the ones that generated the most headlines and were given the most airtime were those of the representatives of a number of well-known bookmakers, with many of them pontificating as to how bad such betting coups are for horse racing. Are they for real?!
Are these not the same bookmakers that stifle the growth of betting turnover on horse racing by severely restricting the betting stakes of anyone that shows a hint of competency in their betting?
The same bookmakers that shipped their online operations offshore to avoid paying the betting tax and levy that funds the horse racing industry?
The same bookmakers that do everything in their power to funnel punters away from horse racing and into fixed-odds betting terminals, virtual horse racing and casino games?
Even if one is prepared to overlook the above, is bookmaker criticism of gambles such as this not just a prime example of results dictating analysis?
Significant market support for horses is a daily occurrence in horse racing. In many of these cases, it is supposed inside information or other form-based factors not in the wider public domain that drives the market support.
The vast majority of these gambles fail to be landed. If such gambles truly are “bad for racing”, why aren’t we hearing from the same bookmakers on this issue every day of the week? They are either bad for racing or they aren’t, whether they succeed or not should be largely irrelevant.
It seems that the bookmakers are happy to silently profit from such gambles when they fail to succeed, but all of a sudden have a problem with them on the rare occasions they have to pay out on a gambled-on winner.
All told, the bookmakers are in no position to try and take the moral high ground and lecture anyone as to what is “bad for racing.” If they want the answer to what is truly bad for racing, all they need do is look in a mirror.
Anyway, rant over. Let’s get back to the people whose opinions really matter in this debate, the racing and mainstream public.
Of course, there are people out there other than bookmakers that take a negative view of gambles on horses whose recent form doesn’t make them an obvious winner on paper.
While some of these are members of the ever-growing cult of online outrage, those that complain for the sake of complaining with little lasting conviction behind their ire, amongst the rabble there are well-meaning idealists that just want the best for horse racing.
In common with most progressive horse racing supporters, they yearn for the day that British and Irish horse racing delivers high-quality data and excellent integrity, resulting in a sporting product that the public, betting public and direct participants have the utmost confidence in.
Some of them consider that gambles such as last week’s hold the sport back from getting those things by resulting in reduced punter and bookmaker confidence in the integrity and regulation of the sport, as well as damaging the image of horse racing’s integrity in the eyes of the mainstream.
Mind, while it isn’t unreasonable to think that such gambles may serve to endorse the view that many members of the racing and mainstream public already have that horse racing is a somewhat shady sport, whether it will have a detrimental effect on the wider popularity of the sport is much more debatable.
The reality is that rightly or wrongly, horse racing will always be treated with some degree of suspicion by both the racing and general public. The sport has a long history of betting coups and the involvement of unscrupulous characters looking to make illicit profits.
While the game has come a long way in integrity terms in recent decades, even if we could magically click our fingers and make horse racing in this part of the world 100% straight and fair overnight, it is unlikely that the sport would ever be able to shake off this deep-seeded reputation in the eyes of many observers.
Whatever view one has on this subject, there are realities at play in horse racing that we all have to face up to. In common with every other sporting or business pursuit in the world where the financial stakes are high, horse racing will never be a completely level playing field.
Participants will always be vulnerable to someone that knows more than them and is willing to use that knowledge to try and gain an edge.
Even in Hong Kong, which is most tightly-regulated and strongest horse racing betting product anywhere in the world, it is common for there to be significant market moves driven by the money of those that know more than the general punter on the street in terms of both form analysis and/or inside information.
Of course, this reality doesn’t mean that every game and business shouldn’t strive to make the playing field as fair and level as possible, but an expectation of or ambition for a perfectly level playing field is just unrealistic.
Some will inevitably view this reality as a threat to the future popularity of horse racing, but on the contrary, I would rather view it as something of an obscure opportunity.
In a sporting world that is becoming more and more sanitised, clean-cut and devoid of intriguing characters by the day, one of horse racing’s unique selling points is that there is scope for some devilment and skulduggery within the rules.
The handicap system by its very nature all but encourages “creative” campaigning of horses as the participants try to beat the system while staying within the rules in the full view of the observing public and the regulatory bodies.
That said, one doesn’t have to be “on the inside” to assess the racecourse evidence and previous actions of the trainers/owners involved in an effort to anticipate the races that certain horses are likely to be targeted at.
This, combined with the betting markets being one of the sports main focuses, makes for a highly-engaging puzzle and narrative that intrigues and excites vast swathes of the racing public and indeed the mainstream.
The evidence speaks for itself. The history of horse racing is full of stories of famous and infamous betting coups that have lived on much longer than tales of even the very best racehorses of the same times.
The gambles landed by the likes of Gay Future and Yellow Sam inspired films, documentaries and books that are still enjoyed to this day.
Indeed, it is a telling fact that Charles Byrnes’s coup at a sleepy midweek meeting at Roscommon last week is likely to have generated more debate and coverage in both the racing and mainstream media than the vast majority of big-race winners this summer.
Whether one likes them or not, betting coups excite and engage both the racing and mainstream audiences in a way that the very best of our sport can often fail to do. While that may be an uncomfortable reality for some to deal with, it is a reality nonetheless.
Last edit: 8 years 10 months ago by davetheflower.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bob Brogan, Steckenpferd
Fully agree, Dave - but, then again, when have bookmakers ever been good losers?
Many years ago I briefly worked for a bookmaker (independent and old school - sadly no longer with us). I always remember him telling me that, if you're a bookmaker, you have to accept that occasionally someone will get the better of you. When that happens, you should pay up without quibbling and if you can't do that, then you should look for another profession. It's advice which many of the big firms today would do well to heed.
A reliable betting platform. (Mobi or Internet)
Customer service has to be absolutely key and on point.
A simple navigating system without too much complications.
Price up early.
Make deposits and withdrawals hassle free.
Can someone explain to this horse racing novice why we need bookmakers......why not just have a tote system like they do in Hong Kong and Singapore and I'm sure elsewhere in the world...would like to know the pros and cons of a tote system versus bookies..
Topic Author
