a question to the bookmakers

please expain to me why in the ante post market when horses are scratched from a race the betting stays the same bar 1 or 2 runners BUT DEDUCTIONS ARE TAKEN OFF WINNING BETS PRIOR TO SCRATCHINGS..a great example is race 4 on sunday where there are 2 scratchings and 10 and 15 percent deduction taken BUT BAR THE TOP 2 FAVOURITES THE BETTING HAS REMAINED THE SAME FOR THE REST OF THE FIELD..THAT TELLS ME THAT THE BETTING WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE..THIS IS DAYLIGHT ROBBERY

early markets are always a mile off the correct betting %%%%%%

Pirates

The opening prices are just bait to see where the fish are biting. It's pointless to even look at percentages there.

When a horse is claimed (which as you know is by a bookmaker who has decided not to stand a bet that was taken with him OR has decided to back a horse with the express purpose of shortening the horse) they won't really adjust the rest of the prices early on because it is also pointless.

The only people who back at this time is people who are afraid they will miss a price, and that usually means there will be more money for the horse.....precisely what the early betting and limited claims are designed to do, flush out the fishies!

So your statement is 100% (TELLS ME THAT THE BETTING WAS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE), but just as you looking for the best price at that point they looking to see which individual prices they have got wrong, and they hope to be tipped off with a nibble.

look at all the "claims" and you will see very few early birds catches any worms.

Troubleshooter writes: "The reputation of bookmakers in South Africa is diminishing on a weekly basis."

Substantiate this, please.

Trouble,

The latest RA press release includes a warning shot to bookmakers that they intend to take them out as a matter of priority. They proceed to justify their case by using what I think is a blend of myth and half-truths.

What is ironic to me is that when I had a short stint with a bookmaker, I would have to say the clear majority of customers, and certainly the bigger players, did in fact own horses. So it's the RA membership that is the client base of the very bookmakers they want to eradicate.

Basel is of course a hypocrite as he has been a punter with bookmakers, unless of course he has now seen the light and is converted. It so reminds me of how the architects of Prohibition in the US had the biggest private stashes.

I would point out that often it's not the 'owner' who gambles, but the 'gambler' who decides to own horses.

Perhaps the RA should question it's membership to see whether owners as a group would like to see the end of bookmakers in the belief that stakes will go up. Making 'stakes' the be all and end all of racing is very interesting, because racings customers (the punters) don't always care about the stakes.

Even on this forum, the africanBETTINGclan, the interest in stakes mystifies me. While stakes (relative to costs) are at a all time low, there are queues to pay trainers +5k a month, and in the WCape where the stakes are worst in SA relative to costs, the hardest game in town is finding an empty stable.

The following is the RA press release Jack Dash refers to.
I'm interested to see that there is now a new Racing Industry Media committee, which will, it reads, 'keep a watching brief over print media'. And I thought Mugabe only ruled in Zimbabwe.

(press release)
Details of RA strategy meeting

THE Racing Association will do all in its power to combat any form of bet that is counter-productive to the growth of the stakes pot.

This was decided at the RA board’s first strategy meeting of 2009, at which the need to enhance stakes was once again made the association’s No 1 priority.

The survival of racing in South Africa depends on growing tote turnovers in order to provide the money needed to continually increase prize money – and thereby keep racehorse owners in the game.

While bookmakers pay a small levy towards stakes, this contribution is minimal in comparison with that of the tote.

The RA resolved to urge racing operator Phumelela to redouble efforts to get legislation changed in this regard.

RA CEO Clyde Basel said the organisation was in continuous negotiation with Phumelela about boosting stakes wherever possible.

The shelved initiative to introduce night racing at Turffontein was also discussed at the strategy meeting.

Alternatives to the floodlighting proposal that was rejected in 2008 will be studied and a decision on whether to keep the issue on the agenda will be taken in mid-February. These alternatives include lighting just one of the two tracks, or just a limited section of track, instead of the entire racecourse as originally envisaged.

“We are still keen to have night racing – as long as it makes business sense,” said Basel.

The following are among the many other issues dealt with at the meeting:

• Larry Wainstein was re-elected chairman.
• Newly elected Robin Strydom was welcomed as chairman of the Eastern Cape Chapter.
• A professional firm will be appointed to handle the RA’s company secretarial duties.
• With access control to pre-race parade rings being given to the RA, after negotiations with the National Horseracing Authority and Phumelela, a campaign to improve dress standards has been launched. The RA wants parade ring visitors to enter into the spirit of its “Dress For Success” catchphrase (see the website article earlier this week). Also, RA members will be reminded of the dangers of sharing a paddock with horses. In the interests of safety, no children under 12 will be permitted in any part of the parade ring or winner’s enclosure – as is the case in most racing jurisdictions in the world.
• Negotiations to form an all-new Trainers Association are continuing, and the RA aims to work closely with the new body to improve communication between trainers and owners. The RA believes owners have a right to be regularly and honestly informed of the progress or otherwise of their horses and aims to build an environment in which good relationships between the two parties can be fostered. It wants to remedy a situation where many owners leave the game because they feel used or sidelined, and where they might be led to believe that owning a horse is a low-risk high-return business investment.
• The RA has a seat on a new racing industry Media Committee, which will focus on DStv racing channel Tellytrack to try to ensure well-balanced coverage. This body will also maintain a watching brief on print media.
• The RA continues to try to sort out technical hitches with a communications device that will enable viewers to watch television coverage of local race meetings uninterrupted by international meetings. The ADSL-linked device is available but cannot be marketed until certain broadband issues have been ironed out.
• Further efforts will be made to enhance the on-course race day experience – with particular emphasis on patron security.
• Membership of the various RA committees was agreed on:
Strategy – all directors.
Property – Larry Wainstein
Import/Export – Wainstein
Membership Relations – Peter Naidoo
Graded Races Standing – Chris Gerber
Marketing – Wainstein, Naidoo, Trevor Raath (RA member Steve Blunden is invited to attend)
Finance – Wainstein, Gerber, Derek Brugman, Michael Leaf
TBA Liaison – Gerber, Robin Strydom
Jockey Remuneration – Wainstein, Raath
Industry Liaison – Brugman, Wainstein, Raath, Peter Miller (trainers Geoff Woodruff and Corne Spies are invited to attend)
Trainer Liaison – Wainstein
Handicapping Steering – Brugman, Miller (trainers Joe Soma and St John Gray are invited to attend)
Programming – trainers Gray, Soma and Brett Warren represent the RA (Phumelela representatives also serve on this committee)
RA CEO Clyde Basel is a member of all committees.

I read with interest the extract posted by Karl.

One point states:

'In the interests of safety, no children under 12 will be permitted in any part of the parade ring or winner’s enclosure – as is the case in most racing jurisdictions in the world.'

While I agree that no children under 12 should be allowed in the parade ring due to the number of horses and the risk of injury, I draw the line at the winner's enclosure (which would not have been a issue previously with the ring and the winner's enclosure being separate). In the 'winner's enclosure' there is only one horse and if it happens to be one of mine, I will certainly not stop my 6 yr old from joining the lead in (except if the horse in question is a bit 'dilly') and being present for the 'photo'.

Have many examples on the site, have chosen the one below.
From my point of view, will never take the tote over a bookmaker/exchange when punting.
From a financial perspective, being a small time owner, the minimal increase in a stakes cheque versus the return on a bet, is a no contest.
The fact that the Japs were able to make a mockery of the ARC (the biggest race on the planet?) via tote bets.
The betting public have to have a choice and not be dictated to or threatened.
Betting on "blind totes" with no form or proper betting markets imo is a disgrace.


Re: Co-migling - bigger pools = bigger dividends..!!! (?)
Posted by: scotia ()
Date: April 22, 2008 09:33AM


This is one of my pet hates, and can find plenty more on this subject, but don't be conned!!

CO-MINGLING?


Note! This was an extract from an early Scotia in the morning posts with regards to the co-mingling French fiasco????????????????????????????????????




I also posted on the site with regards the 2 horse race, makes its so much easier to check what pressure the normal "punter" is up against, I posted PLEASE don't make them both "money-on", however blackpearl at 7/10 and 11/10 tried to come to the party, Interbet at racetime came to the party in-line with Betfair with 8/10 and 12/10 at 100%, but the early prices from the bookies at 6/10 and 9/10 shocking, but the shocker was the TOTE with 7/10 the winner and "NOT TOTE FAV", this must surely expose to the poor punter in the tote how much the "rip off" factor is. I will say this one more time as it totally infuriates me that the French co-mingling fiasco when Dettori won on the 6/1 shot and it paid 11/10 on the tote and "WAS NOT THE TOTE FAV", just wish more people could read these posts on the site, and after my inputs on Saturday, many people do read the site, but don't post

The press release from the RA is pathetic. Their arrogance and know-it-all stance is beyond belief.

When I read it my first thought was "who the f@#k do they think they are" and the next thought was a simple word: "propaganda". You can add the words "and F anyone who's interests we step on or who gets in our way" at the end of each statement they make, and it reads like it belongs there.

Meanwhile this is the association that represents most of you, the posters on this forum, to which I say "well done and good luck to you".

Jooste's interview had me thinking that the big merger was in the best interests of racing in SA, but the RA press release reads like the writers have discovered the Machiavellian manual on how to make friends and influence people. F*&K them!

catsmug Wrote:

---

will make a massive
> difference to the stakes pot.

That's a massive statement. Any idea how massive we are talking? Interested to see the amounts we talking...1/2 Million? 2 million, 10, 50?

R1 million, if directly stakes could increase say R200 per race at least.

Why doesn't anyone quantify just how much the open bet 'costs' the racing operators.

Or is the open bet story perhaps a ruse by the operators to hide their own deteriorating performance?