Geoff Banks Online

TROUBLE GETTING A BET ON HORSES? HERE’S WHY

Trouble getting a bet on the horses with Bookies?

Not easy getting a bet on horses these days. You hear it everywhere. Forums, papers even telly. Bookmakers roundly criticised for offering inflated odds on horses, then laying them to derisory amounts. It rather sticks in my throat to be in any way associated to such behaviour. I mean I came from a father who epitomised fearless in laying – often standing in the back lines at tracks he would dominate the far more cautious firms at the front. I took over that business some 20 years ago now, and I’ve tried to distance myself from restrictions and £10 bets. But this isn’t about me. Is the criticism levelled at modern day bookies justified? If you’ll indulge, I shall try to put this difficult subject into context.

Bear in mind there are broadly 3 different arms of the industry involved here. Exchanges, large bookmaking ‘chains’, and independents.

One of the…

View original post 2,272 more words

Barney Curley or Big Bucks?

When the office calls that early, it’s usually bad news! Something overnight, typically a multiple up on NCAA basketball colleges I’ve never heard of. This time was different. A new client just popped up – with a Trixie bet. Three selections covered in doubles and trebles on the All Weather at prices.

‘Ok, so what?’

‘ehm, well it’s the system flagging the second wager on the same three selections in the last 4 minutes.’

‘er, ok, tipping line stuff?’

‘No, – Curley’s mob up to something, all ex Curley.’

That’s how it goes in the world of private client betting. I fancied the same conversation taking place in trading rooms about the land and on the Rock too. All around 10am. Everyone laying the same 4 horses- of which we caught three. The rest is, as they say history. In truth, we lost pennies as a firm on the affair. Far less than a couple of grand. For which for a Bookmaker like me wouldn’t result in the cancellation of the sweet course. Barely an irritant.

Let me dispel some myths. I know there are a lot of people in and outside the betting world who speculate on said matters and would appreciate some insight.

‘The linemakers should have spotted these 4 ex Curley runners and priced them up conservatively’

Well, apart from the obvious, these particular animals barely beat the ambulance home in 47 races prior to CurleyGate, they were also spread over three yards and two codes. If compilers spent their time watching for such activities and pricing up a 6/1 chance at 4/5, just in case, we would be laughed out of court as well as removing huge percentages from our books at a keystroke. That’s to say we would be guessing ‘today is the day’ and accepting no stakes on 15% of the book in this example. Doesn’t sound like a lot? Imagine if Waitrose were to remove 15% from their turnover how long they would survive? That’s of course if they wanted to compete. Since there are well over 50 gambling yards sprinkled about the country, we would be endlessly ‘going with’ runners and accepting an unsupportable loss in turnover and margin. It doesn’t compute. Instead as a community we react to the weight of money. Of course in doing so, we have to accept a seriously unbalanced book we’ve no hope of redressing. In other words stories of 2 million + losses on these horses would, in my view, be on the conservative side.

‘The Bookmakers simply plough the money back on Betfair and sit back and make a profit, whichever the result’

Yes, I know I’ve covered this in previous reports, but on the basis we have a few trolls out there who think the kind of liabilities proper layers build up could ever be traded on Betfair, allow me to invite you to view the average liquidity- the biggest exchange at around 11am daily.

It’s not going to cover it, is it? You see the ‘layers’ on Betfair for morning price activity have all but dried up over the years, they’ve basically done their brains laying live horses and struggling to lay the non triers. (Yes folks, there are non triers.) The trading Bots don’t start spinning until liquidity comes on board.

‘These horses all had the form to win such races, with such as Eye Of The Tiger having won a Group 2, rated 112, and now running in a class 6 maiden off 56’

This is a fairly old argument, and one as a Bookmaker is literally impossible to determine. At what point, as a layer, does one become a backer on such animals whose form is so evidently masked by continuing poor performances? Take one of the races where he would have been off 75 at Newbury for example, at the attractive odds of 50/1? Was that the day to be with? In fact he was tailed off, just as he was during 2012. Or Indus Valley, whose form under Des Donovan in 2011 and 2012 matched that of Eye Of The Tiger and barely beat anything home. One wonders at the pre race conversation from Barney Curley to TP Queally as the ‘Tiger’ was virtually pulled up at Haydock, or any of the other efforts that year, ‘jump on the ambulance if you need to lad’. So as a Bookie it’s thoroughly impossible to determine the moment when apparent no hopers suddenly encounter money and their ‘fortunes’ so dramatically turn about.

Above photo – the Racing Post’s take on Indus Valley’s forecast odds and the line of ‘form’

As I watched the whole affair unfold, I was properly incensed at the very nature of this coup, and I said as much at the time. Describing it as Racing’s shame. That’s strong words I know. Long ago my Father told me if I chose the difficult career path of Bookmaking that the inevitable consequences would be the stigma unfairly attached to the profession, that we were less than savoury. Those who really knew John Banks as their natural ‘enemy’ in gambling came to know him as a Bookmaker of the highest order, who never turned down a bet. That he would conduct his business with them in a thoroughly honourable and respectful manner. To pay with a smile, to engage, and even entertain. He was viewed as a maverick by the establishment. Openly critical of the Jockey Club, their lack of commercial nous, and the insular manner of a Club that’s never welcomed a Bookmaker as a member. They’re not Gentlemen you see.

The Club had their day with my Father, drawing up charges with no foundation or any evidence whatsoever and warned him off for three years. Of course, we always knew it wasn’t Dad they were really after – but other upstarts, particularly jockeys, in the sport who were ‘untouchable,’ simply because to charge them for their wrong-doings meant risking the very good name of the sport. Rather like today, it’s often the middle to low pegs who feel the wrath of the BHA.

The modern day Jockey Club is divided into two clear groups. The Racetrack men, led by Simon Bazelgette. He sits in an open plan office working alongside the man who organises the ticketing. Their management characterised by a shrewd bunch of individuals, evidenced by the quality of business they run. Successful and ordered. This group of reformists are currently bent in helping Bookmakers like me improve the lot of the Betting Ring. Precisely what it needed. And in spite of archaic efforts of the FRB to block both JCR and the sensible majority of Bookmakers asking for their assistance. Once I have persuaded JCR that Bookmakers and Betting Exchanges shouldn’t be inextricably linked on track, my work with them is done! I’m constantly impressed by racetrack management from Musselborough to Ascot. I watch fellahs like Charles Barnett, Johnny Weatherby, Edward Gillespie strolling around their domains, engaging with customers in their Silver Rings, affording their customers there the same respect they afford their annual members.

The second arm of the Jockey Club, is the Stewards. Drawn from leaders of industry, breeders, trainers, Bankers and owners. Largely a Public School Club, its not unfair to say. These are the people who steward the sport, police it if you will. Do they understand Betting or include it in their analysis? More often than not it’s a no. It’s always been, to my view, totally at odds to the good name of the sport, not to properly monitor what happens in the betting market when we are talking about racing. Horses that go from 5/2 to 8/1 on Betfair, and who break out of the stalls at sometime double that quote-having done nothing wrong in emerging, other than somebody is profiting from insider knowledge. Does this type of thing go on? Constantly. Is it more or less likely under the exchange system than sharing information with the likes of John Banks and asked him to lay it for you? The answer is evidently the exchange system, because to facilitate profits from ‘lay to lose’ – you don’t need a compliant Bookmaker, you can do it yourself, lay it to the world, or ask your milkman to do it for you. And of course, where the rewards for winning are often far less than for losing, you have a major problem with integrity.

Of course, the modern day BHA structure pretty much mirrors that of the Jockey Club before it. The Chairman knows nothing about the Sport, by his own admission, and has been seen less in front of the racing public than Bobs Worth. I believe he made an outing at the Gimcrack dinner and the Leaders In Racing bash. Henderson’s star has made 3 appearances so far this season. I see no purpose in a Chairman who doesn’t thoroughly understand the product, or who is, in effect, invisible. Can you name him? Bet you can’t.

These days I am faced by an often difficult choice. Keep my mouth shut at what I see around me in support of those who errantly view silence as ‘for the good of the Sport’. In conscience I cannot allow myself to become another ‘yes man’, when I witness things which very occasionally I consider abhorrent. I love the Sport Of Kings and fight for a higher quality product, with less actual racing, more competitive and appealing events, and a strong and well funded integrity department. In spite of this, I accept that I shall never sit underneath Stubbs for lunch, I am apparently not a gentleman. No worry, I know I am. Further, my particular brand of skills has yet to be called on under the current structure in the BHA. That’s their choice, but it isn’t particularly wise.

In response to those, who would prefer I tow the line more often, I say this. First off, I’m no rebel. I am determined, however, to see certain snobbishness I evidence, banished once and for all, for the good of Racing. The racing press is far too tepid. When one considers Racing against Football for example, or the Racing Post against the Daily Mail for critical reporting – Racing gets off almost scot free. That’s not healthy.

What puts me in the position to criticise the ruling ‘class’ of the Sport? Quite simply it’s the hard world of Betting, which underpins and finances Racing, which broadens your outlook every day you’re in it. It gives you a depth of understanding far greater than many who sit in the governance of Horse Racing. Am I better qualified than Paul Bittar – could do a better job? Absolutely. I grew up on racetracks, I’ve lived and breathed Racing for over 40 years now. I didn’t start off life as an accountant. In the case of Adam Brickell, the BHA’s head of integrity, we find a trainee solicitor, with three years experience in racing sitting in an office. He’s elevated, quite farcically, to responsibility for the good name of British Racing.

It astonishes me the BHA would choose to go into battle with experienced Bookmakers on levy with such as Ralph Topping without highly experienced betting advisors to get the best deal. The trouble with this attempt at engaging with the Bookmakers and Exchanges, wasn’t the concept. In that Bittar is absolutely right. The correct approach to do is to draw them into the fold; but you have to fully understand their business, if, that is, you’re going to negotiate for Racing. I would never have advised settling on any deal prior to point of consumption. Once these Bookmakers are forced onshore, you have a whole different ball game, and a more pliable deal can be struck. A betting advisor would have known precisely how they route a top punter from their London Office to Gibraltar at the flick of a switch, why Ladbrokes raised their telephone call centre minimum to £25, or why Coral seem determined to argue for Racing of such poor field size and competitiveness it defies any logic. The importance of their machines, bingo, roulette and even the virtual.

I’m not looking for a job at High Holborn. I am pointing out that betting people are often those best qualified to run the sport. As a betting man, I know the machines would fail without racing.

What irritates me with the BHA? It fails to understand or engage with its core customers, – the punters. It consistently refuses to include them in negotiations. Describing them as ‘disparate’ – not worthy of inclusion. Why? They are adding a hundred million to your sport. Worse, it refuses to tackle its regulatory duties responsibly. Preferring sound bites over results, an occasional example made of lower grade connections. Champion trainers, leading jockeys or top owners aren’t in their headlamps. To deal with such individuals, in their view clearly, risks bringing the sport to disrepute. Investigations into such as Godolphin conducted with great haste and pronounced as solved, despite many questions unanswered. In 2013, there were over 90,000 runners over 1464 fixtures. There were just 96 running and racing inquiries. Just a couple of non triers punished. How does the board of the BHA view this as effective policing of a sport underpinned by gambling? Either we don’t have the resources, or the will to keep this great sport clean. Preferring the TV licensing approach to enforcement – we will find you with our detector vans! Oh yes, I’m sure you’re outside my stable with a van..

What concerned me most about CurleyGate, round two, if indeed he was the chief perpetrator in this case, was the polarisation of views on social media such as Twitter. Whilst I was expressing outrage, not at losing clods of money, but at the fact that last to first place gambles seem completely outside the rule book, that the Racing Post failed once again to represent the views of those of us who would prefer a clean sport to bet upon, rather than what was good for a few insiders. That they chose to print such comments from Butler as ‘I know nothing about Betting’ without adding the banner headline, ‘what a bunch of bollocks’. At the same time, others were lionising the achievements of Messrs Donovan, Butler and Curley.

Let’s deal with that. Fine, I accept the old enemy approach. One in the Bookies eye. Especially given so many ‘major’ Bookmakers these days adopt a less than customer friendly approach to punters. Who cares if they suffer occasionally? But to canonise these trainers, and their organisation, because they can get a 112 rated animal to win in a race against horses rated 4 stone inferior? Oh please, spare me such nonsense. A bit like Manchester United beating up Scunthorpe. Of course, folk will talk from their pockets. I’m sure many of those praising Curley as the figurehead of this gamble, won a score backing one of these horses at odds on, as they were for most of the day..in the meantime they were actually cheering on their own demise, as no question, the Bookmakers will close ranks on the product. If you moan you can’t get on, this gamble won’t do anything to help you out.

And who represented the views of the silly sods who backed these horses in the 47 races in which its fair to say their best chance of staying in front was in the paddock? Of course it’s not my responsibility to investigate these performers and whether or not they ran on their merits. That’s surely the role of the stewards. Fine, so where were the inquiries into group two performers finishing tailed off five times in a row? Very poor performance from the authorities and no mistake.

For every journo, blogger or twitterati praising the perpetrators of this coup, there appeared an equal number of good folk expressing often serious reservations. I read Rod Street of Great British Racing and his comments that coup’s had occurred in the past and people still bet now. Surely he’s ignoring their concerns? Or perhaps as somebody put it, adopting the ‘glass half full’ approach. And Graham Cunningham of Channel 4 with the same view, this time using the Godolphin scandal as a bench mark.

Both of these views are totally wrong. Because the racing share of the betting cake has been in serious decline for some years now. That’s a matter of fact. Now, I accept there are often varying factors in play here, but to discount the importance of a clean sport to those betting upon the same, is highly dangerous. Would you wager on a roulette table if you knew it was slanted to one side? Such views, whilst I’m sure were meant to protect the image of the sport, and in respect of lawyers, in fact go a long way to convince those who share my view that the sport doesn’t take integrity matters with anything like the gravitas it should, and the press aren’t properly on their tail. To be fair to Cunningham, he was very much on the case for his network and despite the involvement of Dubai as a sponsor, in the Al Zarooni affair. Channel 4 Racing don’t shirk their responsibilities in any way, because they don’t answer to Racing.

I put Cunningham and McGrath in the same category as Hislop, Chapman, Wood, Muscat, Paley and Cook. Journalists who need letting off the hook more often for the good of Racing. One day they’ll invite me on ATR or RUK. Not for a second would it worry King Ralph or Breon Corcoran, because they know I speak for Betting. Would it be more entertaining than a fireside chat with Alan Lee? No odds there. Want more viewers? What are you waiting for?

It isn’t just the bettors who suffer and complain. We must consider the Bookmakers if we are too encourage them to promote Racing over a machine. Give me the option, as a businessman, between four gaming machines, guaranteeing a profit, or laying a bet on the nefarious activities which pervade the likes of Wolverhampton, with horses being ‘asked to be withdrawn’ and trainers requested to be strip searched – I know which one I would choose. If we are to prosper as a sport, we must look to our responsibilities to providing a level playing field as far as humanly possible. This isn’t achieved by allowing a horse to go from 20/1 to 4/6 without a very serious inquiry and draconian punishments if found guilty.

I’ve detailed a few of the issues facing Racing. What are the solutions?

First off, it’s important to install a regulator at the head of the Sport who understands fully his responsibilities to reforming the good name of the sport. Who engages publically with all the stakeholders and conducts his affairs openly, not in careful press releases. They should have powers and staff no less than are the norm in such as the Hong Kong Jockey Club. A body who employ 240 integrity officers for 6 days racing a month and who tolerate no breaking of the rules under the most severe penalties. Counter that with the ten odd individuals the BHA employ.

Connections should have no legal right with the courts to challenge the decisions of the regulators. There has to be a clear stipulation, you run under our rules and you accept them, warts and all, to the good of the sport.

Stewarding has to be centralised, and by professionals only. Reports from Kempton the other night of stewards ‘noting’ explanations, can and were only treated with total derision by those looking in on proceedings. If Eye Of The Tiger for example had problems with his legs and back, as was claimed, presumably he would have been undergoing treatment, veterinary or physiotherapy to deal with his issues. There would have been bills. Connections must be summoned to the BHA to provide exhaustive proof, and those findings shared openly with the betting public. If there’s clear evidence- all well and good. In the absence of proper evidence, and in the light of the rather obvious gamble, one can only reasonably conclude the horse’s performances in 2012 as simply down to being unfit to race, which is clearly against the rules of racing. The clues were clear in the betting, and shouldn’t be ignored. If local stewards can’t take the hard decisions, or bring the sport into disrepute because they are unwilling to police the same, or too familiar with trainers they meet every day, they should be removed from the proceedings, completely.

Paul Bittar- now in his final year as Chief Executive has to demonstrate, a willingness to fight betting organisations, racetracks and picture providers for a security budget commensurate with the 1464 fixtures they require of the sport. A view he openly endorses. They have to be prepared to meet the proper cost of policing the sport. If unwilling to meet the costs involved, the fixtures have to be cut to a level which both increases both prize monies to owners and funds a respectable integrity division.. If he is unprepared for this undertaking, and in the face of one security crisis after another in 2013, he is clearly not the man to lead the sport, and should be dismissed. The confidence and image of the sport has to supercede any other considerations.

The All Weather programme has to be capped at its current level. Prize money has to increase dramatically at all ends of the sport. The engorged fixture list, averaging now less than 8 runners a race and riddled with odds on chances has to be cut now. The programme needs proper balancing, if a meeting consistently delivers low fields, it has to be redressed. Field sizes and quality are directly related to popularity of the events.

The BHA have to move out of unnecessary premises in High Holborn and invest the savings in integrity. The cuts in the budget for the security of the sport need reversing.

Blank days have to be introduced in the calendar to increase the appetite for Racing. The jumps season to be shortened and the All Weather season restricted to 9 months a year, excepting the evening programme.

Racing has to stop now supporting products which rival for the bettors money. Betting shops clustered together don’t add to the Levy. Picture rights incomes for racetracks, which they earn per shop, are subordinate to the Levy. Racetracks have to afford more of the circa £7500 a race fees they gain back to prize money.

Football learnt years ago it had to look to itself to improve. It dealt with its hooligan issue of the eighties, built better stadia and seats and improved the experience for those attending. We have to learn from that lead. We cannot sit back and rely on the Ebor Festival as being sufficient when bettors turn to other products and newspapers dump us from their coverage. Let us not forget the BBC no longer involves itself in Racing as it did. Anyone notice they’ve gone? This has all taken place in the last five years. Thank God for Channel 4.

The sport doesn’t run the risk of a continuing decline in its market share in the Betting Shops, it’s a racing certainty. Should we continue to permit such brazen last to first gambles, without reasonable explanation, to go unpunished, because they were off the track for two years and we can’t cope with that? To allow any individual to put two fingers up to Racing? To prefer instead a ‘cloak and dagger’ approach to stewarding, and an ‘it doesn’t happen’ approach? To rely on our great festivals to prop up the eternal midweek racing without people? Then I promise you guys, other sports, bells and whistles will replace racing as the betting medium of choice with Bookmakers and their customers. How will you fund it then?

Yesterday I watched a fabulous trials day at Chentenham, with some amazing finishes and the return of one of the biggest stars in the sport, returned to entertain us by our greatest trainer. I loved watching the whole day, win or lose. I watched bookies and fans struggle in howling gales to the betterment of the sport.

What will the press and Racing fans worldwide be remembering the most from this week though? Big Bucks or Barney Curley?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/oct/17/timeform-non-triers-widespread-jumps

The danger of liberating lunatics?

(Referencing http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/racing/article3961366.ece )

My office know not to call me when I’m skiing, since I tend to the extreme and pulling your mobile out attempting some ridge isn’t wise. I knew it was important..

‘Alan Lee’ – said James- my Horse Race guru.
‘yes what is it? If he’s died send flowers’
‘no he’s bashing twitterati’

A copy was cybered over to me, so balancing on a rock I glanced at the contents – must be outstanding methinks, not like Alan to attempt anything remotely trickier than a small glass of sherry. The first paragraph made me laugh so hard I though I was going to slip off.

‘Geraghty could have saved the life of Sprintre Sacre with his quick action at Kempton’ – Something described as pragmatic.

We’ll get to that..

A little medical lesson Alan from your old pal Doctor Banks. Atrial fibrillation in mammals is very rarely deadly. It’s nothing more than an electrical anomaly of the small chambers at the top of our precious hearts. There’s no associated pain, it won’t cause you to keel over. In a human it feels rather like your heart is ‘rippling’. The severity of the condition in some cases might cause for a small electrical charge to right the situation. In most cases it just rights itself. It’s not associated with heart attacks or disease, nor the far more severe ventricular fibrillation. It’s inconceivable the big boy felt much at all as he moseyed round Sunbury. But I suppose the ‘saves his life’ copy sounds better. More dramatic and fun!

I was at Kempton on that fateful day, – which so many journalists seemed to treat as some kind of biblical disaster. It all seemed frightfully overblown and sensational. Poor old Sire De Grugy, who would probably have beaten Sacre off level, totally forgotten about in the stupid fuss 🙂 And that’s exactly what it was.

Indulge me for a second while I put what troubled me about the drama into some kind of context. And of course I know there will be those amongst you saying ‘look – he was diagnosed with Atrial Fib the next day – so BG should immediately elevated to God Like status – right?’

Let’s look at the official ‘Racing’ version. And in the words of the great Geraghty- because that’s what I believe he is, I’ve been open in my praise for his evident talent. The horse travelled well to post – showed no indications up until the 7th fence. Where-upon he gave the horse a squeeze with his legs, akin to asking for a ‘biggie’.

Unfortunately the Big-yun had other ideas and popped the fence, the reins went slack as he landed -or within a stride or two. Parlance for dropping the bit I suppose. This wasn’t normal for the horse and Barry pulled him up. Hacked him back to the horse walk, whereupon he was diagnosed with a heart issue – with the aid of an ECG? The horse was boxed home, not to the vets, ate up that night, was delivered to Newmarket for a full examination the next day.

We know the result. Indeed a case of atrial fibrillation, not severe enough to need treatment as it reversed itself. Racing issued a press release confirming the diagnosis. Geraghty was right. Case closed, see you in March.

Alan Lee’s piece took issue with the Trolls on Twitter. He chastised their claims of ‘a fix’ and accused them of talking through their pockets via a liberal sprinkling of Times approved banter. ‘Microcosm’ ‘Intractable’ ‘Assiduously’. Thank God I went to Public Skool. I’m certain everyone else was put in their place.

He described the ‘intemperate vernacular’ (look it up) of the Betting shop as being replicated on forum websites run by Bookmakers. Surely Alan knows there’s not a single Bookmaker who operates a ‘forum’? I wonder at such comments how a journalist could live in his personal goldfish bowl, gorping at the outside world, that he doesn’t know that. At best it’s a cheap shot at the Bookies – racing’s pariahs. At worst this great sport- and everything associated with, isn’t his passion, and ATR need a more informed guest, or at least someone more entertaining. What’s this issue with ‘safe’ guests? We’re not all morons.

I’m quite certain there was no ‘fix’ here. Nobody ‘laid’ the horse in the knowledge he was about to be pulled up, and I’m certain Nicky was shocked. I don’t doubt some folk spoke through their pockets. I evidenced several lumpy bets transacted at Kempton – in the multi thousands with my colleagues. I knew my office would be delighted to see him beat – mainly because of multiple bets. Personally I tissued the horse at 1/9 – being fully two stone superior to SDG, the remainder of no consequence in that grade. I could see that in order to oppose the great horse, I would have had to in fact lay 1/4, the same odds as in the Queen Mother Champion Chase, over the fierce Cheltenham hills. Far better to avail myself of the 6/1 on offer of the Tingle Creek hero. Which I did. I’m not talking out of my pocket.

The pleasure at being such a clever Bookie was tempered by natural concern for a Racing star. I don’t mind winning-don’t get me wrong, but not if it costs the horse- any horse, injury or worse. The feeling didn’t last long as I observed Sacre hacking back to the stable. Hacking back I said

I have questions. The whole affair looked odd in that he wasn’t walked to the stables, and it surprised me nobody asked Messrs Geraghty or Henderson. You see unless Barry has a set of electrodes in his backside he couldn’t have been aware of any heart issue. In his account everything was going swimmingly right up to the pond, even having to take a few pulls – and out-jumping the whole field at the open ditch (5th). We all know the subsequent diagnosis but I think we have to look at things a little more chronologically.

According to the pilot, he squeezed his legs and the horse popped the fence, instead of the leap Geraghty hoped for. Well, ok fine, I don’t ride racehorses but that’s a monotonous occurrence over the sticks from non machine types. Second the reins went slack. I don’t see that as particularly significant. Even our greatest horses – the Kuatos, the Denmans, Arkles and so forth all have their moments where they underperform, miss a fence, or drop the bit. The standard is to ask the question, shake the reins, ask him to take the bit again, perhaps even a tap. Not what happened. Why? Of course I’m not a jockey – but isn’t this quite the norm? And if he doesn’t respond, well of course we call it a day.

Going back a step one evidenced the weakness in the market- a horse that should most certainly been twice as far odds on as he was, but this is entirely unrelated to the star being pulled up. Pessimistic noises from NJH could well have accounted for that. Nicky isn’t famous for over confidence. No harm in that.

What I did evidence was a horse without sign of distress, this to me seemed odd, and one can hardly blame folk who backed him for being upset. He was examined on the horse-walk as I understand, taken home, eaten up.

Could he have won this race and supporters would have been rewarded in their faith? I mean he was travelling upsides the not inconsiderable frame of Sire De Grugy. A stroke of genius by Geraghty, or one eye on March? In conclusion I think I would like to have seen a lot more effort in the saddle in respect of Bettors.

In the meantime, many ordinary punters lost considerable sums of money. That’s racing? These were the trolls being referred to in the report, those who had unquestionably done their money on the sure thing of the month. For the confidence of the betting product, which let us not forget funds the sport, should they not merit the fullest consideration? I wonder why nobody questioned of connections as to why he was pulled up so precipitously? I don’t know what to think with the benefit of hindsight, but the incident troubled me.

A moment to congratulate the bold connections of Sire De Grugy! I want also to say that I have met Nicky from time to time and I find him a most pleasant and personable trainer. It’s the focus on one Festival I have issues with.

Returning to the lunatics, and their keyboards. Alan’s point, these folk shouldn’t be let loose on Racing, with their empty wallets. Better such topics handled by cool and reserved hacks. Like himself you see?

However are people feeling their views are taken fully into account by the journalists who represent them? Personally, whilst I never belly ache about my losses- other than in jest, I don’t feel you can blame folk for being pretty upset sometime by gambling, it’s just the way. Of course to the Times correspondent, it’s just not cricket – we are talking about a champion horse and trainer here.

Well that’s all very well and good if they feel those same hacks out there with their pen and notebook representing not just the great and the good of Racing, the BHA and their stewards, – asking questions for the good of all the stakeholders, and not perceived as closing ranks. Too often the important customers of racing, along with owners, who underpin the Sport are casually ignored. The Punters, yes, the fodder who put in a hundred million in year in Levy and 50% of all sponsorship via the Bookmakers. They’re not in the Club. Betting is somehow ‘dirty.’ We know it goes on, but that doesn’t suggest you deserve a say at Racing’s top table.

It’s a bit rich, for a journalist, with so little to say, on fixture levels, on doping scandals, on the culture of punishing trainers who doctor reports to the BHA with paltry 3 month bans, on FOBT’s or the proliferation of unpunished non-triers in Racing – to criticise those who don’t earn a salary for their views. The important and weighty subjects tacitly ignored in favour of presenting Racing for elitists, even if in this case people were wrong to describe matters as a fix. Cosy jobs protected by selective avoidance of delicate subjects that might exclude you from interviews, upset sponsors or champion trainers.

Twitter brought down the News Of The World. It’s a forum for friendly debate. It’s sponsored by nobody. I rarely find people being rude to each other. It brings news and entertainments. Most importantly it asks and questions those in charge of industry and sport to account to the masses who support them. The views of Alan Lee, for £1 a day, won’t count a penny in the place of one well worded tweet, spun around the globe. Journalists today find their views questioned by a greater readership than they can ever hope for. Their power of speech eroded by a new and powerful medium which dares to question authority and governance and bring it fully to account.

Nothing unhealthy in that.

Geoff Banks points the finger at Nicky Henderson

Posted on http://vgtips.co.uk

In an age when punters think the only bookmakers are those faceless ones online, it is reassuring to know that there are still independent bookies working at racecourses.

Geoff Banks is such a man. It is in his blood. His father was a famous on course bookie and Geoff is now also a legend in his own lunchtime.

Outspoken, and not afraid to speak up against those who run the sport, Geoff cares passionately about the future of racing and about the future of on course bookmaking.

Such men and women cannot benefit from the tax benefits of the big companies who operate from the likes of Gibraltar.

Recently, I sat down for an hour long on camera chat with Geoff Banks. We discussed the hot topics that surround racing right now. Small field races, the growing number of all weather meetings, drugs administered to horses and much more.

In later episodes of our conversation you will hear Geoff criticise The Racing Post newspaper and give clues as to why you may wish to think twice before betting on races staged at Wolverhampton.

But, in this first part, he answers your questions sent to me via Twitter. And he has a right go at champion trainer Nicky Henderson (pictured above)

Watch the 20 minute interview here and, please, feel free to leave your comments.

Originally posted on http://www.vgtips.co.uk – http://vgtips.co.uk/geoff-banks-points-finger-nicky-henderson/

BetRacingNation – Episode 27

For an early Christmas Treat enjoy the latest episode of BetRacingNation starring yours truly.

STORM IN A TEACUP

I’ll wear what I want to..

Newbury works hard. Not easy being the one down the road from Ascot. Host a very good winter festival and put up a pile of prize money, not always snapped up by connections. I saw a lot of happy faces in the crowd, yesterday enjoying three cracking handicaps won by the ambulances! They got stuck into the betting with gusto on those.

They’ve introduced a dress code for their members enclosure. Could hardly be described as draconian. Without boring you on the detail, – jeans are out, jacket and slacks are in. You don’t need a tie. Girls aren’t allowed to wear very short skirts. That’s a bit sad as far as I am concerned, I enjoy the view, but I understand the sentiment.

There’s some scruffy urchins about these days. Supermarkets are best, excepting Waitrose, folk there don tiarras to shop. Grungy folk decant from their sofa and strut about the streets. Jeremy Kyle has a lot to answer for. Standards all over the place are slipping and the establishment do not approve!

Most amusing of all – the ranting from certain Racing Journos on the subject. Not for them hard hitting exposes on Godolphin, Field sizes, Levy deals, or the Integrity of Racing. Far more weighty matters such as why can’t they wear their jeans to members. Got it.

There’s a dress code at Ascot – and one at York, another at Goodwood. These have been in place since 1485. But for little Newbury to move to improve standards in their Premier enclosure, that’s apparently beyond the pale. I note with disdain the Racing Post with column after column on the subject. Anything affecting their sponsors barely merits a paragraph. Empty vessels tend to make the most noise. Newbury should take an Ad out in the paper – see what happens to the coverage then.

Anyone considering the long standing members of racetracks? Those happy to make an effort to dress appropriately and are proud to do so. Part of the thousands who walked into Newbury’s Premier Enclosure this week alone looking a million dollars. It’s in no way unreasonable of them to seek an enclosure of like-minded folk. Is their view of no importance, or are we just about the moaners in their jeans? Incidentally, £80 is bog average for a pair of jeans these days. Certainly couldn’t be described as ‘designer’. Members invest annually in the racetrack and seek a certain standard of dress and facilities. If said were interested in joining the Silver Ring so they could dress down, then we wouldn’t have Club enclosures. We have a tiered system in Racing on our Racetracks. I for one am very much in favour of it. I want to be with other smart folk. If people want to wear their jeans to racetracks – they can change outside in their Vauxhalls.

As to the drab penned about brawls in Racetracks. Let’s be honest here folks, this has nothing to do with a dress code. Its about the proliferation of alcohol. Don’t let the facts spoil a good story. I will get to this subject.

Let’s deal with some inaccuracies. Nobody was ‘turned away’. Those without ties were admitted to the Premier. Newbury may have been a bit over bearing in checking attire, but there’s always a teething stage. Nobody was strip searched. Ladies were not required to look Victorian.

Another myth – Racing is too class based. That’s nonsense. I expect to rub shoulders with exhaust fitters, Shop assistants, Poles, MP’s – even Bankers in Members. They let anyone in apparently! Seriously though – you are welcome in any enclosure on any race day, provided you’re prepared to dress appropriately – you don’t have to dress like Basil Fawlty in that ridiculous tweed I believe they should outlaw. 🙂

So speaking as the best dressed Bookmaker in the land, I give the reminder a solid thumbs up. I’d wager Newbury’s Members would too. If a few Hacks don’t get in because they like the on the sofa look to work, no loss, most don’t have a lot to say anyway.

Whilst we’re on the topic of standards, and racetracks looking to improve upon them – I want to expand the topic slightly. I’m in favour of Racetracks smartening the whole experience up and appealing to all denominations. Where I’d roundly criticise tracks is their drinking policy. Or complete lack of.

Racing has become the Kings of the plastic cup. And I do not approve. Even serving their customers bottles of far too often overpriced Champagnes, in a top quality dedicated Bars, in plastic beakers. (York – look away, I don’t include you!) This practice is just unacceptable. Smarten up here guys. You simply cannot expect people who enjoy a fine drink to pay you top dollar so you can save on the washing up. Lame excuses about health and safety won’t wash, along with the plastic. Excessively cheap approach.

Let’s deal with one other red herring here. There’s no health and safety directive on glasses being used in bars, – none. It’s just cheaper to use plastic than wash glasses, which involves staffing and occasional breakages. Betting rings used to be sacrosanct areas for drinkers. Now we’re surrounded by plastic pint toting crowds. Fairly vulgar environment. Some venues have become positively dangerous in their rings. Fights often breaking out uncontrollably for several minutes, whilst security waits on an appropriately trained response team. To boot, health concerns take second place to profit. I wonder at the impact on our well being from drinking out of poor quality plastic, and the long term impact on the environment?

Now I understand why the plastic cup has appeared. Money. No issue with that. Racetracks have to profit like any other business. I’m not objecting to free sales around the tracks in open areas using plastic. I see absolutely no reason however, for those inside the bars to be subjected to these nasty vessels. Especially at £4.50 a pint! We’re not Football- and to continue on this path leads Racing inevitably along the hooligan path the Soccer folk eventually had to tackle.

One last request to my friends running tracks. Want to sell thousands of pints a day? Fine, but for the good of the Sport, spend a lot more money on private security to ensure the safety and well-being of patrons from those whose excesses turn to violence. No track appears immune to that. Adopt a football like scheme to outlaw those who fight from our lovely racetracks. Further, create havens in your tracks for patrons to enjoy – free of plastic and for those smart enough to appreciate it. We’re not all Oiks and we spend a lot of money enjoying our Racing too.

47 MILLION AND CHANGE!

Ok, so that’s what the big 4 operators have guaranteed in Levy. And of course it heralds a new era of co-operation between Bookmakers and Racing. We’re all friends now eh? 8 million agreed with Betfair – money they didn’t have to offer the Levy by statute. Leaders In Racing conferences with keynote speakers led by Andy Hornby of Coral, livening up that borefest with a call for Racing to support his FOBT’s. In doing so more shops remain in business, with the potential for more turnover on UK horse racing. We’re all very encouraged by the co-operation between the new Racing – headed up by Paul Bittar, and the representatives of the largest organisations funding it. Top marks to him heralding in a new era and spirit of bonhomie between the parties.

Yes?

Now, I’m a Bookie, and by nature an independent. I pay my taxes and Levy at the going rate, and my data is an open book. So you’ll take what I say with a pinch of salt perhaps, because such independent organisations as my own are rivals in business to the majors. But hold on a minute, this ‘guarantee’ of 51.5m is significantly lower than Racing has achieved from the Horse Race Levy for many a year. The 51st Levy scheme contained a guarantee of 45m from Hills, Corals and Ladbrokes. Two years on we add Betfred and get 2.5m more? Outstanding?

Let’s forget the Levy Board’s estimates. They can’t predict results and nor can the Bookies. Nor can they in any way determine how much business is lost by attrition offshore. The Levy, to include the independent input and Betfair, over the last 6 years has fluctuated between a low of 60m and a high of 115m.

What’s the crowing about a deal which adds 2.5m more with one more major player in the cake? In fact, why bother even considering it? If you want Bookmakers to co-operate with Racing, shut them out of racetrack sponsorship, TV adverts and the like. Turn to the Government for support. Racing vs Bookmakers with legs in Gibraltar. Don’t worry, they’ll come quietly.

The multiples are popping champagne corks, and drinking to Bittar and Lee. That’s not meant as a joke. Now if I were them, I’d take all my top losers to Gibraltar because I’d know my duty bill would be topped out at £450,000, and my Levy capped at 10m. The extra 4.5m between the parties per year is in effect the same bribe to Racing that Betfair volunteered. The new way, if they won’t pay the going rate, let them pay what’s comfortable. Racing is now ‘off the back’ of the big 6, because the deal is struck. No beating down the doors of Westminster to complain. And of course for four years, they can hive off as much racing business as they like offshore and pay 11 million odd each. Lovely biscuits.

Paul Bittar -The saviour of British Racing, or a plating class salesman whose business plan involves the lowest funding level, but ‘we’ve made a deal’? I care little about the stories of meetings over months, and coffee time buddying up – if this is the end product. Bookmakers and exchanges can pay more – because their offshore duties, tax and now levy are all so low. But of course they sponsor races, and run apps for the Racing Post. Oh I see.

Why would Racing go into battle against the Bookmakers for example with two racecourse Supremos? What was their role? I don’t believe Racetracks should be negotiating on behalf of racing when their most important sponsors are across the table. Perhaps the owners would have been a better choice. After all they are the primary benficiaries of levy.

No the BHA should have been going into bat with someone like me quite frankly. Not that I’m looking for the job, I’m making a point. There’s this incredible snobbishness which I find so counter-productive to the good of the Sport. The BHA is flush with Racetrack people, Data analysts, solicitors, owners, even trainers. Yet so many decisions hinge on the betting Product which underpins the finances. Not least of all finding the right fixture levels and putting on the best balanced programme. Betting isn’t the dirty side of Racing, it is, for most folk, very much what its all about. Finance is a critical part of any business, why does the BHA ignore it? I’ve heard the call for ‘Punter’ representation for many a year at High Holborn. But still no seat at the top table of Racing for them

As a leading expert in betting pointed out to me yesterday – the Fixture list has hardly changed but for a little bit of tinkering for as long as we can remember and within each meeting are quite often the very same races. The beginners chase at Sandown yesterday – won by Hinterland, regularly has small fields! The same course in January had a meeting where four of the races worth a combined £50,000 all with fewer than 8 runners. Small fields, odds-on favourites and poor over rounds aren’t fussy, every course is blighted. If only the courses reviewed such data, improvements could be made, races changed, to make it more attractive for trainers, owners, racegoers and betting shop punters. Isn’t it the role of race planning at the BHA to look at these issues? I’m assuming we’ll end up with the same ‘Super Saturday’ next year?

Final point, is the timing – less than a year before point of consumption comes into play we sign a deal. Nowadays, you can buy a cup of coffee made in the high street, served by British staff, sit peering out of the window at a red bus. In the meantime the duty for that transaction is paid in Holland. I don’t believe for a second point of consumption, if it gets through Parliament, represents the holy grail. Everything else is circumvented, so will this. Gibraltar won’t fall into the Mediterranean any time soon. Result for Racing? More, not less, of the best customers routed offshore. By extension more dependency on a ‘guarantee’ of 51 million. Consider this, what would have occurred had the famed Ladbrokes high roller who shored up the levy to its highest level in recent years, 115m, been routed abroad?

1464 Fixtures.
Some key statistics.

January to March – 21% of all races, spread evenly between both codes, contained an odds on favourite. 24 races worth £5000 or more in January had less than 8 runners.

June, July, and August 15% of all races involved an odds on chance. A third of which were worse than 1\2, only 2.6% of Handicaps contained 16 or more runners -8% Percent of all handicaps had either 3 or 4 runners! 41% of ALL handicaps in those months – less than 8 runners! Handicaps I said..

The effect of odds-on chances? In August 35% of races returned an SP of 2% a runner or worse. In September – 30% of all races returned the same. Attractive? In June, July, August and September, there were only 4 days not containing an odds-on favourite.

Let’s look at the Chief Executive’s arguments on fixture levels. He says 1464 is the right level for Racing. This argument backed up by such as Andy Hornby of Coral, who argued, with merit, that to put on a third meeting daily midweek ‘increased his turnover by 30%’. We’re talking about shop turnover here. In the same speech, I invite you to listen, he then muddles the word ‘profit’ into the same argument, at the same level. In other words he argued a third meeting every day would represent 30% more for the Levy.

That’s a distortion of the facts. To argue that turnover equals profit directly simply isn’t true, it might be true in the case of Waitrose, because turnover is more directly linked to profit. It’s a mistake King Ralph for example would not make, but then he never ran Boots. I can assure you folks, in Racing the same is most certainly not the case. If you put on low field sizes, with odds-on chances riddling the events, they are a Levy minefield. There are bad races. Punters simply do not like wagering in races containing odds on favourites.

Levy income is directly related to quality, competitiveness and field sizes. Punters don’t groan at 7 the field – they embrace it. Hornby’s wants Racing every ten minutes, because it adds to the vibrancy of his arcades. He wants a customer to walk in at lunch (when nobody wants to go Racing by the way) and sit on his machines generating £900 a week whilst the Racing provides the background noise.

So here’s Bittar’s thesis. Get into bed with these organisations. Openly support their machines and provide fixture levels they demand. In doing so he keeps the shops actually in business and increases the pot. Even going so far as to introduce racing on good Friday in support of the LBO’s, religion and decades of history matter little when the machines are running. The argument for which will prove to be a sham in less than a year. ARC will be fortunate to pull in a million in sponsorship, it’s hard enough to find a sponsor for the Grand National. I don’t doubt they can afford the gamble though, given many of their races run for £1940.

There are 28 shops in Newmarket. Shops are literally yards apart. Do we need that many to service Racing in one little town? So what if we lose a few mini casinos? Racing isn’t the focus. Perhaps we should be about making it exactly that, with measures to improve field sizes and margins in the sport? I have argued for a substantial cut in the level of fixtures, I’m not going to get that. Racing has become boring too much of the time. I rarely pass a shop every day without sticking my head in. For large parts of the programme they’re empty. British Racing is littered with fun festivals and events and cracking racing. But let’s cut the programme by just 100 fixtures and monitor the effect on the sub cards. Hardly a slash and burn is it?

The regulator.

So let’s deal with integrity. For many of you I appreciate this is a new subject. Certainly if you buy the Racing Post every day, you’re unlikely to find exposes on this important area, except in the odd letter. And if the leading trade paper ignores the subject, it’s hardly at the forefront of most people’s minds – especially if you don’t bet.

Does integrity matter? The Sport is underpinned by bettors. What is hugely underestimated, and certainly not understood, is the damage caused to customers’ confidence when they see something drift from 6’s to 16’s or greater and run down the park. It’s treated with derision in the shops. I tell you plainly, this is not happen-chance, although just enough drifters win to cause doubt. Equally its utterly routine to watch a horse backed from 12/1 to 9/4 hose up in spite of dire recent form.

Condoned?

Trawl through the list of enquiries taking place at the BHA and you’ll find a glaring hole. Non-triers. It’s like the subject simply doesn’t exist. Oh sure, we get the odd case running through, and the sentences are generally harsh. It’s the spin. British Racing will react with vigour if you break the rules. You get the idea.

If its the regulators role to police the sport, then Bittar is clearly failing in his duty of care to the image of this same by not grasping the nettle. Heralding from a state notorious for calling out Jockeys and trainers in this department. He must wince at how weak we are by comparison. Look at Hong Kong – they are red hot on integrity and employ 240 people to look after a programme that races 6 days a month. How many do we employ for 1464? 10?

They take holidays don’t they? Can they cope with 7 day, 5 night programme servicing 1464 fixtures? Not for a second. Without Betfair tipping the hat to them from time to time, they couldn’t turn over an egg. Staffing levels are so poor with budgets cut, it’s an impossible task.

On arrival in the UK, Paul Bittar stated, ‘if you have low funded Racing, you will have a problem with the integrity.’ That’s an entirely accurate statement. So what’s he done about it? In the recent round of negotiations first with Betfair, and then with the Bookmakers, did he argue on behalf of the sport for a substantial increase in funding to support the fixture levels they demand? Is that not part and parcel of any deal?

There are several horses a month – all with similar profiles, exceptionally poor performances in lead up races, some beaten by margins approaching an incredible 80 lengths, heftily gambled upon, but with historical form that suggested they were well capable of winning races, masked by a series of poor outings. Check the reports into inquiries at the BHA how many of these horses end up being sanctioned, or their connections. What’s happened with the referrals we hear about? Or was it all just a big happy surprise? Customer confidence demands the regulator takes measured steps to ensure any unusual gambles are fully investigated. If a horse with form figures of 8,8,7,0,7 suddenly goes from 33/1 to 9/2 it demands urgent action to find out why, for the good of the sport. Sky News seem more interested than the BHA into some of the shenanigans going on routinely. Is it now condoned to prop your training fees up by planning transparent gambles and slapping each other on the back? Was the backbone knocked out of the regulators with their failures over the Top Cees case?

Jockey changes, withdrawing horses, horses drifting substantially, shoring up of morning odds on Betfair with amounts as low as £51 – all part and parcel of such gambles. Horses laid in running as the tapes go up at far greater odds than their SP. Isn’t the BHA failing in not investigating any strange movements in the market? We need far more draconian rules and most certainly no recourse to the courts to second guess decisions. If you run them under our rules, accept them warts and all. This should be a first step for the lawyers to push through.

If Mr Bittar doesn’t start to appreciate the importance to Racing of the smallest cog in the wheel – that of the humble punter, and his confidence in the betting product, – then we have a problem of leadership. Because to me, it’s of paramount importance. The customer must have faith in the product. We run the risk customers funding the whole deal through betting feel their views on integrity don’t matter to those running the sport. That’s a dangerous position to be in. How do we deal with it? Stop using the expression ‘we can’t discuss it’.

What about recent cases involving connections through the BHA hmm? Let’s brush over the Godolphin saga, it’s way too complex. However, what was with the Chapple-Hyam penalty. £3000 for misleading investigators by doctoring telephone records? Equivalent to one month’s training fees for a top horse. Cloak and dagger regulating with Frank Sheridan’s horse – Bert Trick, at Wolverhampton- being quietly asked to withdraw it after reports it had run in flapping races and following a collapse in price from 14/1 to 5/2? A top jockey called before the stewards to explain dropping his hands at Kempton, who simply denied it, which the stewards ‘noted’, or a horse at Hamilton in July which managed to improve 67lbs according to Timeform, with the trainer declaring he ‘didn’t think it would improve’. Again accepted by the stewards. What is going on with stewarding these days?

I recognise many of the problems outlined above were in place well before the arrival of the Australian. Fixture levels for example have remained a constant since 2003. The major independants whose business focus on Racing, have so far been excluded from any discussion on fixtures, planning or Levy. It’s all about the casino operators. I’m uncomfortable with getting into bed with large organisations if the result in so doing is to sell the whole product well short of its value and it’s a tool to market other products. Signing for a record low level isn’t laudable, it’s a sell out. Finally, if its the BHA’s choice instead of tackling sometimes rancid events head on, rather than pretending it doesn’t happen, then I feel it’s time for stronger leadership.

Bittar, contrary to popular folklore, didn’t sort out the whip two seconds after his arrival, more like a horrified Paul Roy rushing to clear up the mess created by a sub-committee formed to examine the whip issue. Roy had his critics, but he worked hard for racing and at least was far more visible than the incoming Chairman, and not afraid to take on Betting companies, patterns, or the establishment. Give him his due, he wasn’t a yes man.

The new chief-executive however, strikes me as rather like having a Scottish Chancellor. Everyone thinks its refreshing to have someone who doesn’t speak in polished tones. To my mind his obsession with large concerns has gone well beyond what is productive. When the Chairman of Coral starts eulogizing about the head of the BHA for striking deals and supporting fobt’s, we should, in my view, be deeply uncomfortable with what’s going on here. Unless that is, you consider Coral are more in love with racing than they are their machines

The honeymoon is definitively over.

http://www.geegeez.co.uk/bha-stewarding-review-must-look-at-non-triers/

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/feb/01/british-horseracing-authority-stewards-non-triers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/15328393

BANKS RAISES TRADING ROOM CONCERNS

Rails bookmaker and Racing Post columnist Geoff Banks has taken up the issues of licensing and the situation regarding on-course trading by Betfair – particularly in their sports lounge at Ascot – with the Gambling Commission, writes Jim Cremin.

Bookmakers remain upset at the variance in tax and expenses they face compared to internetbased exchanges. One gripe is over facilities that appear to be on-course trading rooms that they say attract people engaged
professionally in laying bets but who are regarded as recreational punters in taxation terms.

Provision of the facility has become important to some courses, with substantial fees being paid by in-running traders to use corporate boxes. However, Banks has been told by a Gambling Commission compliance officer that the
Ascot facility does not constitute a trading room. Bets are, in effect, taken through a separate company, Betfair General Betting Limited, which is a bookmaker, and then hedged into the exchange.

Banks pointed out this route covered punters backing horses on the exchange, but not the laying of bets. He said:

“Course bookmakers are strictly controlled. We face tests as to our probity and pay fat fees, but then someone can in effect stand near us and lay horses without control. Somebody’s having a laugh.”

Banks also raised with the commission concerns about some in-running betting where broadcasting time delays enable on-course exchange players to lay horses who have already fallen.

However, Banks was directed to the Gambling Act 2005, which states:

“A transaction may be a bet despite the fact that (a) the thing has already occurred or failed to occur, and (b) one party to the transaction knows that the thing has already occurred or failed to occur.”

A debate in the pub about who won the FA Cup in a certain year is cited as an example of something that leads to a bet, despite the result being known.

Originally featured in The Racing Post Tuesday, March 8th 2011

A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO WIFI

Ascot is my favourite track, by a nose from York, with Cheltenham a neck third because it’s champagne is more than York’s..

Don’t bother giving me your favourite – they’re weighed in

I thoroughly enjoy Ascot. Most of the time it’s bullet cheap to race, they do concerts, firework displays, fairground rides for the Bookies, countryside fayres and service standards, the best in the industry. Nothing’s on the cheap. Bath take a peek.

Now it includes Wifi. Wow, that’s great. Except when you login and my old Mucker King Ralph pops up waving at me from Gibraltar, just like the Racing Post Betting App. I spilled my champagne all over the oysters.

Forgetting the customers for just a second, what’s in it for the tracks? First off, it’s not a cheap investment. Putting in wifi will cost some six figures at a track like Ascot or York. You can’t just bang lots of repeaters in when there’s 40,000 souls involved. It has to be paid for. Now with apologies to some seriously bright track bosses who I routinely engage I’ll tell you what it’s for.

Money.

You see to a track, Betting is appealing. They may not be considering getting into laying horses or such, but if William Hill are going to pay them a portion of what’s turned over via their wifi to Gibraltar, then we have a new revenue stream. And Topping is no fool, he won’t overpay for the new custom. Forget what Rod Street has to say – ‘it’s a customer focussed initiative.’ That’s hyperbole, and I note with disappointment, another decision he made without consulting stakeholders. It’s about cash. No racetrack is reasonably going to invest in expensive Wifi if it wasn’t expecting something out of the deal.

Let’s deal with Rod’s take first. And I know he’s a racetrack man through and through. Is it about customers really? Will it drive footfall to the tracks – increase their customer experience? The short answer, maybe to the former – but the answer to the second is at the bottom of this read, for reasons I’ll outline. Rod knows it’s about money though. He knows everyone’s got 3g already and heading for 4g, and if they really wanted to book a table for dinner or post a picture to facebook from the track, then that works fine for that. When a customer thinks of Racing – will Wifi seal the deal on attendance when he’s got it already via his Apple? It won’t make any appreciable difference.

Now if you don’t care whether the humble Bookie turns up on course, and you feel the tracks can do well enough with their own Tote or in house betting, then read no further. Let’s not waste each other’s time.

Most of the people calling me a dinosaur with regards to this subject seem to base their arguments on value and betting. Their views revolve around going racing and achieving the best possible value for their punting dollar.

Except that they won’t (go racing) that is. Fellahs bent on achieving the top of the market in punting don’t get in their Austin Princess and drive 30 miles to Ascot. They sit at home in baseball caps on Orange screens and ‘green up’ or ‘cash out’

Woop-dee-doo

You’ve come this far. So I want you to picture a track without bookies. Here’s what it looks like.

Still going Racing? Hmm, I wonder if you really would? You see Bookmakers have been the very fabric of racecourses since they were built. Is it possible or desirable to go the whole hog with a ChesterBet type deal? (Don’t think that represents any value by the way at SP -10%! Turpin wouldn’t have faced the hangman if he’d invented RacecourseBet)

Ok, you’re a track boss, you really think you’re going to sell as many tickets if there’s no ring, or make as much from it as Bet365 might pay you for turnover? Anyone been to Kempton or Southwell, or for that matter Longchamp, excepting Arc day? They lack any appreciable atmosphere or flavour. People queue for a bet- then they queue longer to get paid. It’s not sexy. And I like rumpie-pumpie in my racing

So, to the humble Bookie, shivering in the ring. He’s invested in a pitch many thousands of pounds. He drives often scores of miles to work. Carries in heavy equipment, electronics. Pays support companies to keep him working, taxes and fees to the Gambling Commission. He’ll employ staff to service the customer, pay them out of the profit and their expenses. And finally he’ll hand over to the racetrack not only his entrance costs, but an expensive daily fee to bet and even a marketing fee someone dreamed up. All in all he’s looking at a ballpark minimum, including the startup cost of pitch and equipment of circa £600 a day. He can’t trade at the 103% book offered by someone sitting in his underpants at home with none of those costs to bear. Don’t weep. Seriously though, we all have to be prepared to pay a little extra for service and betting fun.

Yet oddly enough, the tracks now feel the Bookie should compete directly with underpants man. Not to mention King Ralph, and his lower cost-base technological kingdom. It’s thoroughly unrealistic. The little Bookmaker simply cannot withstand an assault from all directions whilst he shoulders the lions share of expenses.

Consider this. A track’s daily fees from Bookies far outweigh what Ladbrokes would pay for the rights to turnover from users on betting apps. And a home layer, fiddling around on Betfair, can now lay bets directly to the track’s customers via these super fast Wifi systems.

You’ve come this far- step the last mile with me. Modern day telephonics already afford a user all the social networking a customer requires. If he wants to post a picture of him and his girlfriend (or boyfriend) on Twitter holding his plastic cup – he can do it, no bother on his existing network. Experience proves however – its simply not fast enough to cope with Betting Apps or exchange business when there’s even 5000 users at a track. Data becomes treacle slow and I seriously doubt 4g will revolutionise the issue of ‘bandwidth’. It deals with speed of data. If there’s lots of folk on the internet, clogging up the mast, the system breaks down because the issue is the number of users sharing the line.

Hardly surprising, those screaming loudly in favour of Wifi, and calling me a T Rex, are frustrated they cannot go racing and fiddle about on Betfair. They foresee Wifi as speeding up that issue. And they’re right – it will.

But the Bookie standing in the ring – who’s paid for the ‘Right’ to bet through every pore in his body? Whilst the track finds one revenue source it didn’t have before, it will lose not only the fees it generates from the Ring – but the ring itself. It’s not the final nail of course, I’m not saying that, but were you running a little business on track, how much pressure from the internet, paying pennies to bet directly to customers floating about the track, do you think you could stand? What percentage of a track’s custom frequent the ring, view, or feel it adds a sense of British to their day?

My solution? Is one which satisfies customers, excepting those who expect betting permanently on the cheap. Block all access from racetracks from Wifi to betting sites. They’re not paying to bet to bettors at Ascot as other track stake holders do. That’s a key point. You simply cannot expect to reap harvest from Bookmakers or Betting shops and allow BetVictor those same privileges for nothing. Customers rights are unaffected, they can use their 3g anyway to post photos of pictures standing next to Rod Street and his nice new suit.

The answer to the improved customer experience question for a racetrack with little or no Betting Ring, is it a better experience than Longchamp? You make the call. If you walk into a restaurant you can’t pull out a sandwich, in the same vein if you love the betting ring you have to compromise on what you should expect from a racetrack.By the same token tracks shouldn’t bite the hand that has fed them for so long.

Geoff Banks

October 2013

A £3 BET? ARE YOU SURE?

No question about it. The old man wouldn’t understand the metamorphosis in betting in this country. And the victim is very much the long suffering bettor. Of course by this country I include Gibraltar – the puppet state the Government bizarrely supports to the fiscal benefit of our highest grossing companies. The word is ‘avoid’ not ‘evade’ of course. It’s legal folks. At least until we find Politicians who buy their own lunches and look beyond their own term.

Not many times in life I find myself in agreement with Millington of the Post. An Editor obsessed with over-rounds in the 9pm at Kempton, whilst running betting apps often running to 2% a runner. But he’s right in one area – Punters in many regards are treated in a shabby fashion these days.

I was in Cheltenham this week, filming a piece for JPFestival.com on the upcoming season. Two of the locals told me the Coral shop locally was restricting all bets to £20. Now, I want to say up front I don’t believe this to be true for one second. It’s far more likely that for certain customers- markets or times there may be restrictions in place. Stories like this though pervade the industry like a cancer. However, most LBO managers these days do spend more time ringing through anything exceeding liabilities of £100 than they do actually accepting the bets. But the FOBT’s role on without limits.

I’m going to be as kind as possible here to the modern day ‘Giants’ of Betting. For firms comfortable with a £100 spin on a machine, it’s truly pathetic if you’re holding those same customers to a £20 bet on the horses – or less. Don’t you see their point of view?

A trader gave me some stick this week, he is or had associations with Bet365 most recently, so you’d think he’d have known better.

Anyways, he placed a wager his own firm unlikely to even consider to serious money to a Horse Race trader from a rival firm, given the likelihood the selection is ‘live’, and whined publicly about how he had been ‘restricted’ by my firm. Now, let’s not let the facts ruin a good razz, and note these are already in the public domain because he tweeted the same. The bet would have returned £3600, Laid at the very best odds available. I don’t lay a bet you see. I don’t mind anyone tweeting their disapproval, but a trader for Bet365? Well that takes the biscuit!

Winning and losing isn’t important to me, but I do demand a fair ‘spread’ of business from a customer – in other words I wouldn’t entertain from a client who’d wait like a spider for us to be substantially out of line before offering a bet. Evidently this trader had ‘marks’ in his office as to the pick, and can’t get on elsewhere, or we would have been left in peace. Obviously we will lay bets we don’t always fancy accommodating, but that’s the nature of business

It’s not policy to discuss my client’s business- ever. But you’ll understand I will respond to criticism unfairly levelled in open forums. Expect it if you’re house is made of glass.

Having placed his wager – he tweeted my website as ‘unfit for purpose’ – and that ‘I wasn’t the Bookie I claimed to be.’ Of course the Bet365 website was so much better than mine. Fine – I can accept that – except to say my own Website lays a very fair bet at all times. The same isn’t necessarily true of Bet365’s, for example on the same event and selection – we could manage but £3.75 win. Hmm. Apparently my website works for placing wagers, it’s the roulette that doesn’t work properly.

♪ A picture says a thousand words tra la.. ♪

Anyway I’ve dealt with his barb.

Bottom line is choice -that’s precisely why people bet with me and I don’t go to bed wishing I were Denise, and she won’t be worried about me. I lay a fair bet, or rid myself of someone who doesn’t offer me that – win or lose. That was the ethos of John Banks – and that will remain my policy till I push up daisies.

You see all I hear and read about are restrictions from customers these days. Fine, if we’re talking about professional traders, or those working a business through exchanges, I’ve no issue with closures. Step on my toes and I’ll put on the jack boots. But I do have a serious beef with restrictions. And I have been as forthright in that opinion, as I have about modern day traders themselves. Do Bet365 lay decent wagers? Of course they do, but the complaints from those who feel unhappy at ridiculous counter offers simply undermine the good. What’s the point if you’ve determined someone is no good in allowing them to make a meal out of you online? Even if you’re a fair layer – the odd derisory offer paints a false picture of you’re worth.

Now lads, let’s all get on the same page here. If you work for a company comfortable with offering derisory bets, or anything remotely similar, then you have to work to change that policy, or the odds you’re offering that force it. Instead of attempting to compete with the tenners on an exchange for such weak markets as the 3.55pm at Clonmel, price every book up to say a minimum of 2% per runner and offer the customers a better service – a bet commensurate with their ‘average’ stakes. But bets to £10 or less? Oh, come on, you’re making a spectacle of yourself. And as for moaning at me for accommodating you to a more than reasonable bet? Well, put up or bet elsewhere.

No?

Of course the industry is governed by marketeers. The more names and e mail addresses they gather, the better it sits on their resumes. Add 10,000 new clients to your books and executives should be happy. Although the big five operators are all registering profits in the hundred million range – their net margin as a proportion of their turnover appears dangerously low. And both Ladbrokes and Hills have announced recent significant profit dips. To be fair, there’s less complaints about what Ladbrokes and Hills lay, as to their rivals. I’m a little surprised to read occasional complaints about BetVictor. Spending too much on quality telly Ads over there?

To those execs staring with rose tinted specs at their marketing departments, I offer you caution – in the world of the internet, you can order a competitively priced pizza and have it delivered to your door. If they invented a cyber doll on the internet, sex would go out the window in a week. Betting is flooded with offers from hundreds of firms – not least my own, – for our part we discount our clients payments. Does it therefore follow, that if you found custom through money back offers – and being that type of customer, you would simply migrate to other companies when the Bookmaker’s bottom line is constantly taking hits- and the offers cease? Experience proves market share wars end up with victims, on both sides of the coin. Middle pin companies and smaller go to the wall and become part of larger organisations. Customers suffer a worse standard of service as a consequence, because smaller firms tailor their service.

I make no bones about the expression – ‘The Ryanair School Of Bookmaking’ – because that’s the modern day thinking. ‘punters get the top of the market- don’t complain if we only lay you a tenner.’ That’s not good enough for me. It’s not customer focussed. That’s the ‘volume’ edict.

You know what happens, with short-sighted policies? Your clients become disaffected, even hateful of your policies. Why should a man who bets in fifties accept or begin to understand why you offer him £5? Yet he can have a spin for £100. When a Betfair comes along, and you’re part of that exchange by playing at Bookie – you almost feel a sense of achievement. Fine you’ll do your bollocks laying anything on the machine – you have to exceed Bookie prices, but that’s not my problem.

If you’re comfortable operating a high tech – high volume website and offering £3 bets from time to time– all well and good, but bear in mind that alienates traditional bettors. Many of whom have simply struck a winning run, as is common in gambling, and inexplicably find some Herbert whose spotted two winning wagers in a row, has dropped them to a silly restriction without due cause. Ensure you only lay the ‘mugs’. Disrespectful and narrow.

Now I give as good as I get. I expect to be ribbed from time to time. I’m not short on opinions on or off course. When you work for a casino operator, you’re bound to defend policy, even if privately you think some of the companies’ offers are a joke. I don’t doubt the individual I’ve engaged head on agree their own firm’s restrictions are occasionally difficult to defend. They’re certainly not based at me laying them bets to lose 3 or 4 grand at a pop.

To my mind, if you allow a customer on the one hand to sit on your fruit machine or play roulette, maxing out his cards, and do his brains on either, you leave an open goal when you offer a bet of £3.

Geoff Banks

November 2013

	Speed Kills! – Geoff… on Speed Kills!
	Ellis on Open Letter To Jenny Williams…
	Donovan Leech on it’s ok to lie- in a goo…
	Ewan Raffan on it’s ok to lie- in a goo…
	Geoff Banks Online on Racing or Lorraine?