Grand National oxygen thieves

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Winseer:
.

CF - If you bet £1 Each Way on an 8-1 winner these days, you get £9 back for the win, and a FIFTH of the odds for the place, 1,2,3,4,5,6 in a typical big race handicap such as the grand national.

1/5 the odds on an 8-1 shot pays £3.60 for the place, making a total return on a £1ew bet of £12.60

The return for a placed 20-1 shot would be just £5.00, meaning in fact you wouldn’t return more as you described,

You need to back horses at prices 40-1 plus before the place return is likely higher than the winner’s return…

Races have been paying 1/5 the odds for some time now, having been lowered from formerlly 1/4 the odds for 12+ runner handicaps.

From memory the odds of an each way bet always directly reflected the placing.
IE 2nd place = half the odds etc etc.
You’d obviously have to be even more mathematically illiterate, to pay double the stake, for the privilege of getting back 1/5 of the odds, for second place or even third,
than placing a bet with odds of less than 20/1 in a race as wide open as the National.
The bookies are taking the ■■■■ and avin a larf assuming they can find punters willing to take those terms.Who needs anarchists.

Sorry Bud, I must refer you to the accurate comments of esteemed peer Maoster above.

The money won for placing in any kind of sportsbook event on an “Each Way” bet is a fraction of the odds for any place position, be it 2nd right down to 8th (paid in some large-field events…) In the grand national, 6 places were paid by most bookmakers at the usual (these days) of 1/5th odds be it 2nd place or 6th place.

The situation where 2nd pays more than 3rd, which pays more than 4th and so on…
Applies to the actual stableyard owners running the horses in the races… The prizemoney is higher in the progression you described for them - not the betting public, as it has always been.

Full Result | 17:15 Randox Grand National Handicap Chase (Premier Handicap)...

Eg. in the Grand National result linked above, you can see the amount of £500,000 to the winner, £200,000 for the runner-up, £100,000 for 3rd, and £65,000 for 4th.

The Horse I backed finished 14th, which means I didn’t win anything on my £5 each way bet, (Known in the trade as “Losing”) and the punters who DID pick the winning horse, duly got paid out £58 in total for their £5ew bets, rather than the £500,000 mentioned as the prizemoney for finishing first. Gottit?

£5 Each Way is:-

£5 to win @ 8-1 (returns £40 winnings plus £5 stake returned - total £45)
£5 to place @ 1/5 of 8-1 (returns £8 winnings plus £5 stake returned - total £13)
Altogether then - a return of £58 for the £10 (not ‘£5’) laid out as the bet stake.

I tend to bet horses with prices larger than the number of runners. In this 39 runner race then, I’d not even look at backing anything less than 40-1. (Carefully Selected - I got on at 66-1, and it SPed at 50-1)

The difference between a “moderate” gambler and a “Problem” gambler - isn’t about how often one wins, but about how much one loses on the days they do NOT win…

I can afford to lose a tenner once a year, and I’m sure most others here can to.

The mug who had £500 on the winner of this year’s race however- might be sitting pretty on £5800 returns - but I suspect they would have blown that lot in a short space on something stupid like an over-priced 10 plate BMW, which costs a lot more to insure than other 10-plate cars, is more likely to get nicked than other 10 plate cars, more likely to be crashed than other 10 plate cars, and less likely to still be driven by you in 5 years time on top…
It is hard to win £5800, but damned easy to lose it.

If you didn’t win it with your tenner spent to start with, then all you’ve lost is the tenner however.
Doing your wages on a bet - makes someone a problem gambler, rather than how often or not they win then.

[carryfast]

Winseer:

Carryfast:

Winseer:
.

CF - If you bet £1 Each Way on an 8-1 winner these days, you get £9 back for the win, and a FIFTH of the odds for the place, 1,2,3,4,5,6 in a typical big race handicap such as the grand national.

1/5 the odds on an 8-1 shot pays £3.60 for the place, making a total return on a £1ew bet of £12.60

The return for a placed 20-1 shot would be just £5.00, meaning in fact you wouldn’t return more as you described,

You need to back horses at prices 40-1 plus before the place return is likely higher than the winner’s return…

Races have been paying 1/5 the odds for some time now, having been lowered from formerlly 1/4 the odds for 12+ runner handicaps.

From memory the odds of an each way bet always directly reflected the placing.
IE 2nd place = half the odds etc etc.
You’d obviously have to be even more mathematically illiterate, to pay double the stake, for the privilege of getting back 1/5 of the odds, for second place or even third,
than placing a bet with odds of less than 20/1 in a race as wide open as the National.
The bookies are taking the ■■■■ and avin a larf assuming they can find punters willing to take those terms.Who needs anarchists.

Sorry Bud, I must refer you to the accurate comments of esteemed peer Maoster above.

The money won for placing in any kind of sportsbook event on an “Each Way” bet is a fraction of the odds for any place position, be it 2nd right down to 8th (paid in some large-field events…) In the grand national, 6 places were paid by most bookmakers at the usual (these days) of 1/5th odds be it 2nd place or 6th place.

The situation where 2nd pays more than 3rd, which pays more than 4th and so on…
Applies to the actual stableyard owners running the horses in the races… The prizemoney is higher in the progression you described for them - not the betting public, as it has always been.

Full Result | 17:15 Randox Grand National Handicap Chase (Premier Handicap) (GBB Race) | Aintree | Sky Sports Horse Racing

Eg. in the Grand National result linked above, you can see the amount of £500,000 to the winner, £200,000 for the runner-up, £100,000 for 3rd, and £65,000 for 4th.

The Horse I backed finished 14th, which means I didn’t win anything on my £5 each way bet, (Known in the trade as “Losing”) and the punters who DID pick the winning horse, duly got paid out £58 in total for their £5ew bets, rather than the £500,000 mentioned as the prizemoney for finishing first. Gottit?

£5 Each Way is:-

£5 to win @ 8-1 (returns £40 winnings plus £5 stake returned - total £45)
£5 to place @ 1/5 of 8-1 (returns £8 winnings plus £5 stake returned - total £13)
Altogether then - a return of £58 for the £10 (not ‘£5’) laid out as the bet stake.

I tend to bet horses with prices larger than the number of runners. In this 39 runner race then, I’d not even look at backing anything less than 40-1. (Carefully Selected - I got on at 66-1, and it SPed at 50-1)

The difference between a “moderate” gambler and a “Problem” gambler - isn’t about how often one wins, but about how much one loses on the days they do NOT win…

I can afford to lose a tenner once a year, and I’m sure most others here can to.

The mug who had £500 on the winner of this year’s race however- might be sitting pretty on £5800 returns - but I suspect they would have blown that lot in a short space on something stupid like an over-priced 10 plate BMW, which costs a lot more to insure than other 10-plate cars, is more likely to get nicked than other 10 plate cars, more likely to be crashed than other 10 plate cars, and less likely to still be driven by you in 5 years time on top…
It is hard to win £5800, but damned easy to lose it.

If you didn’t win it with your tenner spent to start with, then all you’ve lost is the tenner however.
Doing your wages on a bet - makes someone a problem gambler, rather than how often or not they win then.

Let’s get this right by your definition I put a ‘£10’ stake, for an ew bet, at 20/1 and the horse comes in second and I ‘win’ the princely sum of 4 quid in fact it makes no difference if it came in 3rd.Sounds like a great deal for the bookies.A bit like 8/1 on a horse with at least a mathematical way worse than 8/1 chance of winning.
Mugs indeed.
I’ll stand by my original view in that regard who with any sense is going to stake double the amount to get back 1/5 of the odds or for that matter accept less than 20/1 in a race where that’s the realistic best chance for anything of winning.
I’ll keep my money in my pocket thanks.

[the_maoster]

CF you’ve been told. Here’s something for you to practice; for once in your life just say “really? I never knew that, every day is a school day “

Try it, it’s liberating.

[carryfast]

the maoster:
CF you’ve been told. Here’s something for you to practice; for once in your life just say “really? I never knew that, every day is a school day “

Try it, it’s liberating.

I’ll admit I never knew that because I’ve never known any bookies offering those terms bearing in mind that I’ve only ever placed each way bets on the National when I’ve bothered.
The terms were always as I’ve described and I’ve never bet on any horse that came in first only 2nd or worse.The payout was always directly based on the place.Everyone always rightly laughed at the idea of a ‘favourite’ in the National.

[winseer]

“Favourite” - Horse that has the shortest price at the off. Sometimes there are “joint favourites” if there are two horses at the lowest price, or even “Co Favourites” if more than two… Cf3 means “Co Favourite of Three” for example.

“Mid Fielder” - means a horse that has a price about the number of runners. In the grand national then, a 33/1 or 40/1 chance could be described as “mid Fielders”.

“Fancied Horses” - Horses that are not the actual favourite, but their prices are shorter than the number of runners. Eg. a 12-1 shot or 25-1 shot would be “Fancied”.

“Outsider” - A horse who’s price is larger than the number of runners, Eg. a 50-1 shot in the grand national.

“Rank Outsider” - The horse with the highest price of all, with the lowest perceived chances of winning. This is usually a 200-1 shot in the grand national.

The Horse doesn’t know it’s the worst horse in the race though, Eg. Outsider Mon Mere in 2009 that came in at 100-1 as the winner of the grand national that year.

If you back a horse that is “Fancied” the odds are set so that you’ll still lose over the long term.
This is the same as betting a single number “Straight up” on a roulette wheel, where there are 37 numbers (38 on a US wheel) and you get paid 35/1 for correctly selecting the number that comes up.

Thus, if you had 37 bets of £1, you’d expect to win £36 once across those 37 spins, leaving you £1 out of pocket over the space of about an hour it takes to spin the wheel 37 times.

This small “odds against” - is enough to have you broke across a long evening of play, which is what the Casinos are aiming at. You get some "Entertainment"out of it that way apparently, although I wouldn’t know, because I have not placed a single bet inside a casino in my life, despite being a regular gambler.

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Winseer:

Carryfast:

Winseer:
.

Let’s get this right by your definition I put a ‘£10’ stake, for an ew bet, at 20/1 and the horse comes in second and I ‘win’ the princely sum of 4 quid in fact it makes no difference if it came in 3rd.Sounds like a great deal for the bookies.A bit like 8/1 on a horse with at least a mathematical way worse than 8/1 chance of winning.
Mugs indeed.
I’ll stand by my original view in that regard who with any sense is going to stake double the amount to get back 1/5 of the odds or for that matter accept less than 20/1 in a race where that’s the realistic best chance for anything of winning.
I’ll keep my money in my pocket thanks.

In America, an Each Way bet is called “Win and Show” meaning you are backing a horse to win outright as one part of the stake, and a bet to “Show” which is a bet it gets placed in the first three usually… Just to complicate things, America also has “Win Place” which sounds like the same thing, but is in fact a bet to win and be runner up ONLY (you lose if your horse finished third, but you’d get paid if you bet “Win Show” and it comes third.

An Each Way bet in the UK on a 20/1 shot is 4x the stake for the place, and the refunded place stake back - returning £25. You bet TWO fivers for a £5 each way bet, hence the total stake in the example above of £10. If you did £1 each way, then Yes - you’d win £4 and the £1 stake back, totalling £5 for the £2 total outlay in THAT example.

[franglais]

Winseer:
the odds are set so that you’ll still lose over the long term.

`Nuff said really.

[winseer]

Franglais:

Winseer:
the odds are set so that you’ll still lose over the long term.

`Nuff said really.

Definitely, that is enough to put off the casual gambler from ever having a punt on anything…

Mark Twain once said “The Worst thing that can happen on a Punter’s first visit to a Racetrack - is to win BIG that first attempt”…

The “Getting Hooked” is when you think “Beginner’s Luck” lasts forever…

You’ll need to bet on a bit more than just the Grand National and/or Derby each year for even “Beginner’s Luck” to kick in however…

In my experience, big wins are easier to achieve from all forms of gambling on Horse Racing than from say, Slot Machines, Other Sports bets, or even Casino Games.

If you back a 40-1 horse in a 10 horse race, and you get paid for the first three home (because you backed it each way, costing double to actually triple your chances of a return…) - then over time, you’ll come out ahead unless you are unlucky enough to “Run Bad” - that is, back 100+ losers on the spin - NOT actually as easy to do as one might think, or else we’d all be “Bookmakers” (where that skill is a MUST) and none of us would ever have a bet on a horse race again…

Political Bets are also worth considering, as a “Week is a long time in politics”… But you MUST ONLY bet on big-priced affairs, never be tempted to take that sub-10/1 price for something that is actually a dog’s chance at the outset, such as “Trump to win in 2020” for instance (Trump quoted at 5/1 and Biden quoted at odds-on 1/2) BOTH poor-value, and therefore lousy bets, even though Biden backers got paid out their £1.50 for each £1 bet… Hardly worth the effort - was it?

Bet on things where you think the odds under-state that selection’s real chance of winning… The discrepencies where bookmakers didn’t mark up their prices properly - are LEGION and that is where the astute punter makes their money.

I don’t follow particular “runners” - I just look for set-ups where an “upset” can happen, E.g. the expected “winning favourite” gets BEAT…
Once you’ve found an event which you’d like to “oppose the expected favourite to win” - then you need only select the best chance runner of those who might actually then go ahead to do that “beating”…

Eg. If you think Biden is going to lose in 2024, then you don’t look to bet on “Trump” - but instead, look for one of the many other candidates at big prices that would benefit if TRUMP then doesn’t run as well!

Current smart money is leaning towards people like Kennedy Jr (to be the next president/replace Biden) for example, who’s currently priced at 20/1.
By the time Biden announces he WON’T run - Kennedy’s price would likely be cut from 20/1 to odds on, so there’s an example of how to look for “Value” there.

The short prices are currently Trump, Biden, Harris, and DeSantis - all of whom I reckon have a much lower chance of winning the 2024 than has been stated. Chuck those four out of your selection process then, and pick one of the other runners behind these apparent “front running four”…

I also note with interest, that Tucker Carlson’s price to be the next President - has today been cut from 1000/1 against to 300/1 against after his sacking from FOX news… Go figure!

Seriously though, that’s a stupid bet - and Bookmaker’s Bread and Butter comes from such stupid bets from one-off punters…
Just my opinion of course!

[franglais]

Winseer:
and Bookmaker’s Bread and Butter comes from such stupid bets from one-off punters

Nope. Their income comes mostly from regular gamblers, most of whom lose.
Their favourites are those who lose, but are convinced they win. (Selective memory etc) They keep coming back.

And what happens if a gambler is truly a serial winner?
theguardian.com/society/202 … l-gamblers

[winseer]

Franglais:

Winseer:
and Bookmaker’s Bread and Butter comes from such stupid bets from one-off punters

Nope. Their income comes mostly from regular gamblers, most of whom lose.
Their favourites are those who lose, but are convinced they win. (Selective memory etc) They keep coming back.

And what happens if a gambler is truly a serial winner?
theguardian.com/society/202 … l-gamblers

I’d expand on that…
Bookmakers wish to encourage otherwise “First time Gamblers” to make a bad habit out of it… Sign up bonuses, being allowed to bet more than the maximum, no restrictions etc.

Once a customer has an account for a while, regardless of if they are winning or losing on it - “Accounts will be restricted”.

At the start of this year, I backed a 66/1 shot that got backed into 9/1 at the off, and romped home.
I have not been able to bet multibet “Four Folds” and upwards accumulator-type bets since, which buggers up the regular Yankee I like to do, as this particular bet - contains a single four-fold accumulator!

On many days too, if I back a big priced horse in the morning, by the afternoon - it is uncanny how often that horse will then NOT RUN - especially if the odds have shortened up across lunchtime… I suspect that bookmakers are paying trainers to withdraw horses in “small prize” races, where it will obviously turn a trainer a profit to NOT run the horse IF the bookmaker say, offers them twice the small prize for finishing first in that place, an amount in the low four-figures…

It is also uncanny how often a race with 8 runners - gets one pulled out at the last minute, meaning that bookmakers don’t then have to pay out for THIRD on each way bets…

Bookmakers are nothing but bean-counting accountants these days.
Perhaps if they learn to “take risks by laying” once again, then they’d be able to compete in the marketplace as they always did in days of old, offering smaller prices it’s true - -BUT taking on bets of pretty large size, no quibble…

I am not allowed to currently bet 10p+ trebles in Ireland races, cannot do Yankees and other multibets with a liability of over £150,000 (so much for “Maximum payout £1m”!!) and also at the start of this year - we customers all had to provide “proof of earnings” - or have our accounts closed.
When attempting to open an account with another bookmaker, they might ask “Have you ever had a betting account closed down by a bookmaker?” - and if you say YES - then THEY say “We decline your business then.” End of.

This is the bookmaker’s revenge for the Government taking away their lucrative FOBTs, I reckon.

If you want to get a big bet on these days - you’ll need to go to a racetrack proper, where even there you’ll find half the bookmakers are now ACCOUNTANTS rather than “Traditional Layers on the Rails”.
If you profer one of these “electronic board” bean counters a reasonable sized bet (Eg. £20 win or each way) - then they will look on BETFAIR to see if they can immediately lay if off at a bigger price, and if NOT - decline the bet. The “Rails” bookmaker - will typically offer a slightly lower price, but you can have a full grand each way on it at that price, if you want.“Bookmaker’s Risk”…

The first stage in becoming a winning punter - is stopping these buggers from preventing you having that would-be winning bet in the FIRST place.

[commonrail]

In the days before mobile phones,on line betting,etc.
Bookmakers used to make a profit by actually running a book.
That is,to offer a set of odds that offer a small profit…whatever the outcome.(over round)

[eurefrigeratedtrans]

As far as I am aware bookies open a book on any given event. Those odds then get adjusted by the amount of money on each selection. Bookmakers STILL lay off with each other and also on the internet which amazingly they also have access to.
I know a “small” bit about it because I was months away from opening a bookmakers shop myself. My research was a chap who had started at Hills as a cashier but who made it to Area manager and was bored and wanted a challenge.
I also know a bit of how bookies make their odds - They simply employ “experts” on most events - for instance, Snooker it used to be Phil Yates, While not a snooker player he IS a snooker enthusiast and journalist/commentator and knows the field new and old with the added bonus of being a walking encyclopedia on CURRENT situations on the snooker circuit including innocuous stuff like Player X has just got divorced, Player Y is going to be suspended next week for throwing frames…The odds makers job is to know ALL this stuff and that comes down to who they collectively employ (lots of “experts” work for a sort of “routers” of the betting world where the individual bookies odds makers share the info they have…It is beneficial for all concerned that they all have and share what is out there so that the sports books can be balanced. The bookie doesn’t lose. Even new bookies shouldn’t lose because you can take out stop loss insurance as a bookie as well as laying off your liabilities. So next time you think right im going to really hurt this bookie…chances are you won’t cant because it really is/should be all covered.

Online is a little different - But again they all share stuff, things like cheats, banned gamblers who win too much, poker players who use AI even through 2nd computers. Install gambling sites software on your pc or phone it is in the terms and conditions that you accept isnare (others are available) which basically monitors your whole pc/laptop/phone. If you are using banned software to try to cheat them, they will simply not pay you, ban you and share your name, address, email and ip with all the other users of that tech.

Being a bookie really isn’t rocket science, It does take a good bit of capital and to open a bricks and mortar takes a good deal of door opening…make of that what you will, But most people don’t want a bookies on their doorstep next to a corner shop, but every now and then you will see one, A goldmine in a working-class area.

It’s ok though because the government are going to crack down REALLY hard on bookmakers very soon /sarcasm. They do not protect problem gamblers and pay lip service to clean up, it is pure coincidence that any and most of the MP’s on the committees looking at this are all taking a load of freebies and corporate days out courtesy of the very industry they are supposed to be investigating. I suppose we can be thankful that they have cut the maximum bet of those fixed odds betting from unlimited to about £25 every 30 seconds.

[commonrail]

EuRefrigeratedTrans:
Online is a little different

Online is the game changer

As an example…tonight’s premier league clash between man City and arsenal…
The odds compilers will have"chalked up"a set of odds that would typically pay 5%over round.
However…the armchair layer who coincidentally is an arsenal fan thinks man City will get beat…so"pulls"them at quarter point above odds.
Same thing happens with the armchair layer,who is a man City fan…and bang goes your margin.
You check out the best prices on the exchanges…and I’ll bet you it was possible to cover every eventually…and still show a profit.
This is called overbroke,and the folk that know what they’re doing,will exploit this.

[winseer]

The “edge” that the bookmakers have lost over the years - is the “Obligation to lay odds” outright.

Back in the 1950’s - the “Golden Age of Bookmaking” - the betting public would liberally bet every outcome in any sports event.
This meant that an over-round book would ALWAYS be the case, and that book would have some depth to it too, meaning the layers could absorb a few large bets - without panicing like today’s bean counters do.

The “Rails” was where you went to put on such large bets, as betting wasn’t allowed on the other side of those same rails.

There are still rails bookmakers today, but a lot of them have inherited what used to be prime pitches from their dads, and their heart isn’t really in the game anymore, as they are too worried about “taking a view” like characters such as Barry Dennis might.

When “Taking A View” - the layer would pick a horse that they were darned sure would get beat “The Bismarck” (had to be one of the short-priced ones…) and they’d lay it for all comers, taking huge bets about it, taking the chance of course that IF the “Shrewd” punters were actually onto something - that bookmaker who stood it to “lose a fortune” - would do just that, should said horse then romp home anyways.

Bookmaking carries high risks, IF you drop the ball, and ■■■■ your prices up…

Online and Bean Counter bookmakers - are so careful these days however, that they have entirely given up the glorious profits that were once there for the taking in the bookmaking industry. These days, if someone like myself has a tenner each way about a 100/1 rank outsider, the bean counters will be laying it off aggressively, meaning if my selection then does what is expected of it (I.e. “Lose”) - then they’ve already frittered away the easy score of my money they could have kept 100% of by “not bothering to lay off so-called no-hopers”…

Cheltenham Gold Cup 1990

Full Result 3.30 Cheltenham | 15 March 1990 | Racing Post

Is remembered as one of the biggest “Skinners” of all time, with bookmakers at Cheltenham Racecourse, already the most lucrative venue for bookmaking - laying every other horse for millions EXCEPT the winner, Norton’s Coin - meant they absolutely copped the whole LOT. Every note in their satchels - was theirs to go home with…

Norton's Coin- The 1990 Cheltenham Gold Cup

Note the crowd falling silent as the winner pips Toby Tobias at the post, the horse most of the crowd were cheering for there
(Desert Orchid, the Favourite in third - was in everyone’s placepot however, so no huge dividend for that…)

[winseer]

EuRefrigeratedTrans:
As far as I am aware bookies open a book on any given event. Those odds then get adjusted by the amount of money on each selection. Bookmakers STILL lay off with each other and also on the internet which amazingly they also have access to.
I know a “small” bit about it because I was months away from opening a bookmakers shop myself. My research was a chap who had started at Hills as a cashier but who made it to Area manager and was bored and wanted a challenge.
I also know a bit of how bookies make their odds - They simply employ “experts” on most events - for instance, Snooker it used to be Phil Yates, While not a snooker player he IS a snooker enthusiast and journalist/commentator and knows the field new and old with the added bonus of being a walking encyclopedia on CURRENT situations on the snooker circuit including innocuous stuff like Player X has just got divorced, Player Y is going to be suspended next week for throwing frames…The odds makers job is to know ALL this stuff and that comes down to who they collectively employ (lots of “experts” work for a sort of “routers” of the betting world where the individual bookies odds makers share the info they have…It is beneficial for all concerned that they all have and share what is out there so that the sports books can be balanced. The bookie doesn’t lose. Even new bookies shouldn’t lose because you can take out stop loss insurance as a bookie as well as laying off your liabilities. So next time you think right im going to really hurt this bookie…chances are you won’t cant because it really is/should be all covered.

Online is a little different - But again they all share stuff, things like cheats, banned gamblers who win too much, poker players who use AI even through 2nd computers. Install gambling sites software on your pc or phone it is in the terms and conditions that you accept isnare (others are available) which basically monitors your whole pc/laptop/phone. If you are using banned software to try to cheat them, they will simply not pay you, ban you and share your name, address, email and ip with all the other users of that tech.

Being a bookie really isn’t rocket science, It does take a good bit of capital and to open a bricks and mortar takes a good deal of door opening…make of that what you will, But most people don’t want a bookies on their doorstep next to a corner shop, but every now and then you will see one, A goldmine in a working-class area.

It’s ok though because the government are going to crack down REALLY hard on bookmakers very soon /sarcasm. They do not protect problem gamblers and pay lip service to clean up, it is pure coincidence that any and most of the MP’s on the committees looking at this are all taking a load of freebies and corporate days out courtesy of the very industry they are supposed to be investigating. I suppose we can be thankful that they have cut the maximum bet of those fixed odds betting from unlimited to about £25 every 30 seconds.

My local MP is Tracey Crouch, who as Sports Minister - has already instigated many of the crack-downs on the industry.
Personally, I don’t think she went far enough on the actual crack-downs, and perhaps should have brought back the old fashioned “Obligations” of the industry, like the City still has among it’s traders… If you don’t have enough capital to become a bookmaker - don’t bloody well become one!
We want an industry that lays our bets, no quibble NOT one that treats people like dirt, just because they happen to get lucky a few times…

“Margin Call Gentlemen…”

"Turn those machines back on!" :-)

These days, the bean counters would make so many assets disappear, that you’d think the Rich boys never had any money to start with…
Who meets their financial obligations anymore among the super-rich?
Even Trump gets to go bankrupt ten times, and gets to stay a millionaire at the end of it…
The poor house - no longer exists for the wealthy elites to be sent to anymore, alas…

Isn’t it amazing how no billionaires like Soros ever seem to get “Bunker Hunted” anymore, when crashing the pound, and causing interest rate misery for millions in this country… Oh wait - It’s happening again right now, except this time it’s not just the pound - but the UK bond market that is being trodden underfoot… We’re supposed to perhaps beg to re-enter the EU again no doubt… The man is a crook, bringing poverty to millions of us, and he hasn’t even been charged with a crime!

I’d vote for any election candidate who sets out to get this git on their election manifesto… Such a pledge worked wonders for Viktor Orban of Hungary…

[commonrail]

Winseer:
These days, if someone like myself has a tenner each way about a 100/1 rank outsider, the bean counters will be laying it off aggressively, meaning if my selection then does what is expected of it (I.e. “Lose”) - then they’ve already frittered away the easy score of my money they could have kept 100% of by “not bothering to lay off so-called no-hopers”…

Cheltenham Gold Cup 1990
Full Result 3.30 Cheltenham | 15 March 1990 | Racing Post

Is remembered as one of the biggest “Skinners” of all time, with bookmakers at Cheltenham Racecourse, already the most lucrative venue for bookmaking - laying every other horse for millions EXCEPT the winner, Norton’s Coin - meant they absolutely copped the whole LOT.Every note in their satchels - was theirs

Unless they didn’t bother to fritter away the easy score of your money

[franglais]

EuRefrigeratedTrans:
It’s ok though because the government are going to crack down REALLY hard on bookmakers very soon /sarcasm. They do not protect problem gamblers and pay lip service to clean up, it is pure coincidence that any and most of the MP’s on the committees looking at this are all taking a load of freebies and corporate days out courtesy of the very industry they are supposed to be investigating. I suppose we can be thankful that they have cut the maximum bet of those fixed odds betting from unlimited to about £25 every 30 seconds.

Yep.
bbc.com/news/uk-england-41027964
And that is all legal.

[winseer]

commonrail:

Winseer:
These days, if someone like myself has a tenner each way about a 100/1 rank outsider, the bean counters will be laying it off aggressively, meaning if my selection then does what is expected of it (I.e. “Lose”) - then they’ve already frittered away the easy score of my money they could have kept 100% of by “not bothering to lay off so-called no-hopers”…

Cheltenham Gold Cup 1990
Full Result 3.30 Cheltenham | 15 March 1990 | Racing Post

Is remembered as one of the biggest “Skinners” of all time, with bookmakers at Cheltenham Racecourse, already the most lucrative venue for bookmaking - laying every other horse for millions EXCEPT the winner, Norton’s Coin - meant they absolutely copped the whole LOT.Every note in their satchels - was theirs

Unless they didn’t bother to fritter away the easy score of your money

If they lay off, then they are sacrificing part or all of punter’s stake money to reduce the risk of having to pay out, should an unlikely result that happens to have been “well backed” - comes in.

This reduces profits a LOT for modern “low-risk-taking” bookmakers.

Old School types - still exist in Ireland of course, where you can still get a decent wedge on at advertized prices, and “faces” are not treated so badly as in this country.

Because Punters don’t back all the horses in a race anymore - modern turf accountants simply won’t take the risk of naked laying any bets that then DO go on any higher-priced horse that previously had no money on with their particular book at all…

You used to see this thing at the track where the stands bookmaker would take a big wedge bet on, wipe the board of that selection so no one else could then back the same selection with them temporarily… Any punter about to make a bet on the same horse - would simply go to one of the many OTHER bookmakers nearby, BUT the tictac would quickly communicate that “money is around for ■■■ selection” and they’d cut their price on that selection in unison as well, leaving punters to either accept the shorter price OR give up that it is no longer a value bet AT that shorter price.

For me, any selection currently priced above the number of runners (Eg. a 14/1 shot in a 10 horse race) if that horse then took a big bet, and got cut to 8/1 - I’d then walk away, and not bother OR back another horse that has just gone out… IF another horse has just gone out.

I don’t have a scientific method for picking horses at all. I just de-select the top 4 in the betting first, and then attempt to pick the “best of the rest” to beat those top 4, which will be the short priced ones not worth backing, because the odds are against you.

You only have to look at the daily results on the sports pages of national newspapers to notice that “favourites get beaten by rags all the time”… If Bookmakers cannot make money if “favourites don’t get beat” on a regular basis - then the very existance of bookmakers, “ongoingly” - MUST mean that they lose often enough to make it worth someone like me to oppose favourites at every turn.

Some times I win when the favourites then lose, and sometimes I lose - because the favourites oblige.

If Punters are winning - I am losing. If Bookmakers are winning - I am too!

Remember the late McCririck when he used to say “This 33/1 winner is a great result for bookmakers” after a race… That winner would likely be for me too there, IF I’ve bet in that race, of course…

I don’t bet every day, let alone every race though. I bet with money I can afford to lose, as any sensible gambler should.

[commonrail]

Winseer:
If they lay off, then they are sacrificing part or all of punter’s stake money to reduce the risk of having to pay out, should an unlikely result that happens to have been “well backed” - comes in.

This reduces profits a LOT for modern “low-risk-taking” bookmakers.

It doesn’t,actually.
How much money do you think you can take on a 100-1shot before ending up with a hopelessly lop sided book?

Winseer:
You used to see this thing at the track where the stands bookmaker would take a big wedge bet on, wipe the board of that selection so no one else could then back the same selection with them temporarily… Any punter about to make a bet on the same horse - would simply go to one of the many OTHER bookmakers nearby, BUT the tictac would quickly communicate that “money is around for ■■■ selection” and they’d cut their price on that selection in unison as well

Obviously…if you’re getting filled in at"bottle"
What ya gonna do?

Winseer:
If Punters are winning - I am losing. If Bookmakers are winning - I am too!

Apart from the one who laid your £25 e/w Nortons Coin…on the off

Winseer:
Remember the late John McCririck

Who readily admitted to being a failed bookmaker…his book(John McCriricks world of betting)has a section that covers the gold Cup result of 1990.
It wasn’t a Skinner for one unfortunate soul.
Incidentally…1990 was the first year I clerked for an on course layer at Cheltenham.
Albeit,shadowed by the old fellow I would eventually take over from.

[winseer]

commonrail:

Winseer:
If they lay off, then they are sacrificing part or all of punter’s stake money to reduce the risk of having to pay out, should an unlikely result that happens to have been “well backed” - comes in.

This reduces profits a LOT for modern “low-risk-taking” bookmakers.

It doesn’t,actually.
How much money do you think you can take on a 100-1shot before ending up with a hopelessly lop sided book?

Winseer:
You used to see this thing at the track where the stands bookmaker would take a big wedge bet on, wipe the board of that selection so no one else could then back the same selection with them temporarily… Any punter about to make a bet on the same horse - would simply go to one of the many OTHER bookmakers nearby, BUT the tictac would quickly communicate that “money is around for ■■■ selection” and they’d cut their price on that selection in unison as well

Obviously…if you’re getting filled in at"bottle"
What ya gonna do?

Winseer:
If Punters are winning - I am losing. If Bookmakers are winning - I am too!

Apart from the one who laid your £25 e/w Nortons Coin…on the off

Winseer:
Remember the late John McCririck

Who readily admitted to being a failed bookmaker…his book(John McCriricks world of betting)has a section that covers the gold Cup result of 1990.
It wasn’t a Skinner for one unfortunate soul.
Incidentally…1990 was the first year I clerked for an on course layer at Cheltenham.
Albeit,shadowed by the old fellow I would eventually take over from.

For a bookmaker these days to offer 100/1 about a horse, there would have to be more like £1 in £1000 on the book bet that way… It is thus a poor value bet, even before taking the over-round into account - Right?

McCririck admitted to being a failed bookmaker, but I didn’t know that it was the Norton’s Coin NOT in fact being a “Skinner” for EVERY bookmaker’s benefit as you say… Mind you, paying out what would have been £3125 on a pony each way bet - shouldn’t have broken ANYONE with enough cash to make the ring at Cheltenham, of all places?

In that same book you mention, McCririck also mentions the “Loathsome Sight of Bookmakers fluttering up their cash from their satchels” - but didn’t mention anything at all about the action he partook of in that race, other than “He was there”, which I always presumed meant in his C4 Racing capacity…

When making a book, the first few bets are paramount, as a lopsided book is more likely to occur from the very start, than later on as one gets more and more money into that satchel… The bookmaker won’t therefore offer generous prices about anything at the start, which of course the shrewd punters are well aware of, hence the rush to place bets at the last minute before the off, when prices start going out that have not attracted much in bets…

THESE days - the advent of “Exchanges” means that the opening show is a bit fairer than it used to be in the days of old… I remember bookmakers at dog tracks that used to price the whole lot up at bottle bar the favoute at slightly odds-on… Only a green-as-grass punter at the first race meeting in their life is gonna walk up and place a bet at that opening show though!

Me and my Mrs used to do Tote bets, watch the board for those (usually mid-fielder priced) horses/dogs that had money on them rather less than their bookmaker showing price would suggest…

Quite often we would be getting £30-£50 tote dividends on horses with teen SP prices, with jockeys like Gary Carter strangely coming up with big tote prices all the time for his winning rides…

The “Duel Forecast” was half as hard to win as a CSF too, as it didn’t matter which way around it came in…
There were plenty of occasions where getting a midfielder with a rag - would pay well OVER the CSF despite the fact the bet was effectively half the price… The DF was replaced by the “Exacta” which didn’t increase the dividends much, but DID double the price of the bet, and made CSF more competetive with it again…

At Crayford, there would often be “combinations of three dogs” with some combinations entirely void, so we used to put on multiple 20p (minimum bet) straight trifecta tickets, and on several occasions “copped the lot” should our combintion then come in, with only our ticket to be paid out on…

I think the system was changed later that you “had to have the full £1 on it” to cop the lot, and these days - the tote pools are routinely “Seeded” by bookmakers - effectively removing the exploit that we used to take advantage of in years gone by… Happy days!

I never fancied being a bookmaker though, as I’m far too scared of the very “Black Swan” results that I have forever tried to exploit over the years!

Betfair forum boards - seem full of characters who say “Doh! I laid that 100/1 winner @ 500-1 on here!” - which makes me wonder if they are making it up, as surely if you got caught for a couple of big losses like THAT - you’d be out of the game PERMANENTLY in short order?

In any case, it is too easy for a “dodgy git” bookmaker to not pay their “Assistant”, because “They didn’t make much on their books today” - when in fact, they’ve been rabbit-holing out of that satchel all day long, usually when you popped off for a ■■■■…

“So and so horse - was no good for us alas, laddie…”

Oh? But it was a 20/1 shot guv, and I only took £15 on it, £3000 on the whole race? Where did the rest of it go?
“Oh, this one here” (points to added bet at end of ledger “£3000 to £150 Guvnor’s Con” (“right before the off”, when you did actually pop off to get the next round in, as instructed to get rid of you for 5 minutes, just after the result weighed in, actually…)

I think McCririck told a similar story in his book, but I don’t recall if he was talking about himself as the “Laddie” who was being right-royally fleeced by “Brudder Bookmaker” there…