Pricing Up Incorrectly

We have a simple question and if anyone can point us in the right direction we would appreciate it alot!!

Who is the central authority deciding on the daily opening betting prices for the South African thoroughbred horse racing industry and how would we go about contacting them?

We would like to know who is making these decisions and how they are establishing the prices of horses in the daily betting market.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Morning

Bookmakers make their own prices, without them you can only bet on the tote

The only thing you can do is not bet if you don’t like the price

back in the day betting changes in any shop were always disseminated from the same centre

Here's my understanding of the early betting. The "bigger" bookies price up (themselves) the day before on the big centres i.e. Johannesburg, Cape Town KZN. The morning of the meeting the Bookmaking Society have a collective called BODS who price up at 10.00am the day of the meeting, and then everyone compares and adjusts their prices accordingly.

Some of the early prices is very restrictive, limit wise.

Pricing up is an opinion in my view. Everyone is entitled to their own.

Bookies had Hillary 3/10 to win the elections

there is no such thing as pricing up incorrectly as it is simply an opinion ..the onus is on the punter to price up himself and take up his betting from there ...

there has to be more to it then saying its an opinion

Its amazing how well informed these "opinions" are on 1st timers that can run or rather are expected to run

I think the word "incorrectly" is in reference to the shorter priced horses in the ante-post betting compared to (say) England. Admittedly we have many short priced favourites in the Maiden races who don't warrant such an o/p.

My personal opinion, if the BODS type set-up made more bookies inclusive in the pricing up process, we the public would get better odds because the risk can be spread between more bookies and the limits would be bigger.

I think that is the intention of the question/thread, but hopefully the poster can come back and clarify what s/he means.

Simply put, everytime a favourite does not win a race, the bookies "got it wrong"....so to speak. Whether it is deliberate or not is the other question.

The title thread says “incorrectly”. What does that mean?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ladbrokes in the UK used to pay trainers for information, they don’t bother now!

Ladbrokes Coral insist trainers get no better odds than punters
BY JON LEES 7:00PM 7 NOV 2017
Ladbrokes Coral have said it is not company trading policy to lay bets to licensed trainers at preferential odds, nor would the bookmaker "knowingly" shorten the price of a horse to manipulate the rule 4 deduction.

A BHA inquiry into trainer David Evans's betting activity heard on Monday that Ladbrokes had offered Evans odds of 4-1 when he put £6,000 - the largest bet placed on the account used - on his runner Black Dave in January 2015, when he was generally available at 7-2.

In the same call, Evans told a trader he was going to withdraw stablemate Tango Sky from the same Wolverhampton race, after which that horse was shortened to 3-1 (from 7-2) by the firm, which led to a rule 4 deduction taking 25p from every £1, rather than 20p, on all bets in the race before Tango Sky was officially announced a non-runner.

During evidence, Keith Page, regulatory development manager of Ladbrokes Coral, said offering better prices to a certain profile of customer was a regular occurrence, and he described Evans as "a highly valued customer".

He also suggested the reason Tango Sky's price was reduced could either have been "a very cynical price change in order to affect the subsequent rule 4, or our traders were alerted to something not being right about the market".

It was Ladbrokes who later notified the BHA of their concerns about the Evans bet, which led to the inquiry at which the trainer was fined a total of £3,140.

The bookmaker subsequently merged with Coral to form Ladbrokes Coral, whose PR director Simon Clare said on Tuesday: "This incident pre-dated the Ladbrokes Coral merger, so it's difficult to comment on the specifics.

"However, I can state that the current Ladbrokes Coral trading policy is very clear on this issue as we will only lay licensed trainers prices that are readily available to our other customers at that time. We'll also never knowingly shorten the price of a suspected non-runner to benefit from an improved rule 4 deduction.

"In fact, Ladbrokes Coral has recently been proactive in working with the BHA to achieve a process whereby non-runners are notified and removed from markets more quickly, so that the whole non-runner process is more efficient and transparent for both bookmakers and customers."

The BHA will assess the disciplinary panel's full written reasons before considering whether to comment on the issues raised in the case, but it confirmed that guidance is in place to discourage trainers from seeking bigger prices on horses from bookmakers.

It was contained within the integrity code of conduct introduced in 2007, which expected trainers to "ensure relationships with betting organisations, or any person representing a betting organisation, do not confer special privileges or concessions which may invite adverse inferences to be drawn".

Since a review in 2011 the guidance has become part of the criteria to be taking into account when assessing an applicant's suitability for a training licence.