Tag: FOBTS

Six more fixtures

I don’t want to bore you with statistics, sometimes they can prove meaningless, but there’s one stat that cannot be ignored in the sport we hold so dear. From 2008-2014, the horse population has declined by 1600, around 10%, that’s to say horses in training. In the same period – the number of races has grown by 15%. I hesitate to coin the phrase ‘the net result thereof’ – but you have to admit there appears a strong correlation in these two figures. More races – less horses..

Next year- six more fixtures. I want to make clear from the outset, I was given more than fair opportunity by the British Racing Authority to state the case on behalf of those of us who believe there’s simply too much racing. I was simply out-voted, or failed to press my arguments, indeed I think it’s fair to say my view stood pretty much alone in the face of data and reports compiled by important racing entities, to include the Racecourse Association, Arena leisure and Jockey Club. Racecourse Media Group, and Attheraces. The Levy Board also support the current level, based on data provided by big betting.

The consultation group doesn’t include any elements of Betting..

The aforementioned ‘pick five’ of racing (excluding Bet365, who oddly declined any participation, perhaps they don’t see us as serious?) Ladbrokes, Betfred, Coral, William Hill, Betfair broadly agreed with the current levels. This, despite their complaints on field sizes, elements of planning with competing fixtures devaluing certain races they sponsor, quite understandable, – that .

As to the influential Horseman’s Group? I honestly don’t know where they stand.

The BHA? As usual they get the blame, despite only controlling 200 odd fixtures themselves. One has to bear in mind, the OFT stripped the body of its powers in effect, and this is the result. I believe they definitely favour a reasonable cut. After all, the consultation was their plan. They weren’t prepared for the various stake holders to play rough, with spurious claims as to what any kind of cull would cost, without mind to the potential benefits in a raising of the bar on quality.

The sport is losing TV viewers and racegoers midweek. Bookmakers are the dominant sponsors, even if some view that as distasteful. Cheltenham lost six sponsors for their major festival races alone.  The margin in betting has seriously declined, so has racing’s market share of the betting cake and lay to lose is a cancer on the sport. I’m sure racing’s most important group of tracks would prefer to move to a more balanced sponsors book given the pervasive influence of betting, but can’t find sufficient alternate companies at the current time. After all our tv networks and newspapers are literally stuffed with adverts from gaming empires. I’m aware some of you don’t care, nor understand the long term impact of this. But a full moon is coming.

Ladbrokes, one of the largest operators in betting worldwide, have already told you of their concern as to the viability of racing as a betting product. Were you listening, or did you put it down to their failures as a company to deliver a competitive digital platform?

In order for the BHA to ‘monetise’ the sport abroad, to betting, and to new sponsors, they must deliver on field sizes, and control the level of ‘grunge’ – low quality racing put on exclusively for betting, and stop the tendency for our best meetings to compete with England vs Moldova. An instant fail.

The critical Asian market, we base some of our Levy upon, bases itself on numbers betting, – often backing several in a race. The odds permit this kind of play. How does that fit with a five runner race at Southwell? Indeed, of what interest are such events to our betting public – other than the professional players? None. Of course, I’m painfully aware to some track bosses this is of no importance right now, but change is coming with the new media rights negotiations.

In the face of the spirit of change from the Authority, Arena leisure have threatened legal action.  Yes folks, the same group who benefitted from the whole Good Friday concession is now holding the sport to ransom over their demands for a gothically dull floodlit mile for predominately low class horses at Gosforth Park. In much the same way as Pat Cosgrave was delivered back to racing – by lawyers, and their assertions. Tracks aren’t about to permit any reduction in their share of a media rights cake that has seen Bookmakers pay more than a hundred million more in recent times in fees to racing, with racetracks the primary beneficiary, and they’re not going to let a good thing go lightly..

We’ve reacted to the threat to field sizes by actually increasing the number of fixtures. Hard to believe it’s true. One is bound to question the purpose behind expensive consultation processes, other than to witness a circling of the wagons from ‘stakeholders.’ They simply refuse to countenance change, even if its utterly clear this is exactly what the sport requires to prosper.

The consultation discussed the removal of races that attracted low turnouts midweek. What’s wrong with that? It also discussed reducing the grade in certain races, to grow field sizes because we have more horses of very poor quality. This is to embark on a programme of lowering the overall quality of the programme still further. That wouldn’t be my choice, but I believe there are those who would use rocking horses if it made up a race.

All weather is on the increase, despite poor attendances, which adequately demonstrate the public have no appetite for it. The fare is largely unappealing. Racetracks focus our jewels in a one hour slot on Saturdays, often opposing more popular sports such as soccer. The midweek continues to be run down to the extreme. Sunday night racing, distressingly, has now appeared on the calendar. Nobody trumpeted that. Hardly surprising.

Few of these measures are customer focussed or about increasing quality. They evidence of an Authority boxed in the corner. Placed there by the office of fair trading. What a mess they made, ignorants with clipboards.

I’m fully aware though, there’s a strong body of fans and insiders who believe the current volume of the sport is farce.  That to prune the programme by less than 1% and move a few races about won’t change things much. It’s a view I’ve heard many times from my customers, read constantly on social networking. Most of these views are the punters of course. The vital stakeholders group in racing who don’t have a seat at the top table, as things stand currently. They are joined though by a few brave souls from the training ranks, and some well intentioned journalists.

As we keep lowering the bar on quality, we make the whole thing just that bit less interesting to bet on. The USA has seen a dramatic decline in interest and betting in the sport. Excessively dull as a product. That’s precisely where we’re heading. Believe it’s true. The global data is fully at odds from that argued by the Levy Board and Betting.

Of course, I know we can offer some superb product, and accept we can’t always have group ones. Anyone at Ascot last weekend on British Champions Day can only be thoroughly impressed by the event. Cheltenham, Aintree, York and Goodwood showcase the best of Racing. Horseracing in Britain can be utterly superb at times. I want no mistake made that I have the utmost faith in the sport. Yet we seem to be choosing the route as driven by big betting, and backed up by their highly questionable data. I don’t want to dwell on the tracks themselves. If they’re paid to race in front of empty stands, they will do just that. It’s a business. They will inevitably favour the current level. Many have impressive debt levels to service.

People are persuaded by betting by two very simple phrases. ‘Every race contributes to the Levy’ and ‘if we don’t provide racing when the punters are in the shops, we will simply sell rival products.’ Data is brought out to back up this argument. As a colleague correctly pointed out, it’s hard to take the argument for a cut in the volume of racing forward when the data appears to show we could lose substantially from any cut in the programme. I argue in a different vein. No data has been produced, nor analysed, to show what would happen to the sport’s finances were we to embark on a programme which raised the overall bar on quality. No figures have been produced to show that in fact were we to raise the average field sizes by just one – from the current average of 7 to 8 horses a race, that the extra business we would ‘field’ would more than balance any loss in the total volume. Horses would seek other opportunities.

I hope I have made that simple point well.

Let me explain big betting for those who do not understand it. No, I’m not here to discuss those who ‘get on.’ Broadly speaking, what the multiples desire is ‘product’ – lots of it. The successful supergiant will deliver as many betting opportunities as they can in an hour. Racing is marginalised as a product in comparison to gaming, which is the engine of their businesses, and other sports such as soccer. The actual number of races put on every week, make the sport relatively inexpensive to bookmakers in real terms, and they generate noise and footfall in the LBO’s. They get so many spins of the wheel. Anyone who’s remotely threatening in the modern betting environment is closed down with alacrity.

What’s our future? I believe the data rights deals racetracks have enjoyed likely heftily squeezed by the bookmakers, and we will see racetracks close.  The bookmakers simply carry far more commercial nous. Midweek racing most weeks has simply collapsed. Even our finest races ‘carve up’ between a select few, whilst lesser owners struggle at the cost of keeping their horse as the balance between prize money at the highest level and most of the programme is thoroughly disproportionate We can make more of the product.

We can grow, by embarking on a programme to cull more fixtures and move the overall quality and competitiveness right of centre. How many of you are prepared and supportive of the battle the BHA faces in forcing change, or to contribute financially towards a more interesting programme? The simple fact of life – we need a robust BHA, thoroughly in charge of what’s best for Racing. How vocal will you be in support of the surgery we actually require? I don’t see many leaders. We need a few more prepared to serve the sport and not eat its lunch.

Racetracks are feeding off rich machine based pickings from Betting, whilst many fixtures deliver a very poor product much of the time. Their focus has to be in deliverance of a better product for bettors. Not holding their hand out because 8 races makes more money than 7. Poor thinking

If I’m ever asked to stand to post and serve the sport I love in a capacity other than pricing up races, by people who seek and desire constructive change, I shall of course, but will evidently have to climb over a few stakeholders on the way! Geoff Banks October 2014

TROUBLE GETTING A BET ON HORSES? HERE’S WHY

56554133_betting

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 things that strikes me about the complaints is they’re rarely levelled at exchanges. To my mind they’ve always been the smart ones. By investing heavily in marketing and advertising, you sanitise your product from some of the more important critics, such as journalists. Don’t bite the hand that feeds, even if it lives under a rock. Yet they often claim the moral high ground. Good job there lads.

You see, the deal with exchanges is simple. First off most punters are small, and don’t wager more than £20 in a bet. Second, it’s accepted you can’t get a place bet on the same. I don’t see an exchange offering an each way bet. Third, not easy to blame the exchange for what is often pitiful liquidity levels, when you’re supposed to pony up and add to the ‘lays column’ is it? That aside, the effect of exchanges on British Racing margins cannot be overstated. Obscenely they govern the on course bookmakers, many of whom have turned into arbers, playing exchange odds off against what punters will take. Low liquidity is ridiculously easy to manipulate. If you’re trying to get 10 – 20 thousand or more on a horse,  simply feed in a relative low amount into the lay side and watch it drift as bots and the ill-informed react. Alternatively, pick a random ‘gambling stables’ no hope 33/1 chance, pop a grand or two on it and watch it collapse to 9/2. In the meantime, you’re favoured selection drift from evens to 2/1. Your 20 grand profit becomes 40, for an investment of 1. It’s a childishly simple example. Surely it’s not that easy you say? Oh but it is. Plus if you have the second in the market ‘squared away’, in knowledge or integrity terms, you’re flying.

It’s not just the track which obeys the pennies on exchanges these days. It’s the off track ‘odds compilers’ at the large bookmaking chains. And here’s their sub plot. Go onto LinkedIn, type in ‘Corals’ or ‘William Hill’ and you’ll be met by picture after picture of guys in their 20’s – fresh faced out of school, describing themselves as ‘traders’ or ‘odds compilers’. It’s a grand term, or used to be.

In my time, such individuals would spend years working hefty on course markets, working figures and percentages. Or perhaps work their way into the trading room after due time in the trenches answering phones. But in an environment which puts so much stock in exchange movements, all these spotties really do these days is monitor the price movements on their screens and shave their odds appropriately. Same as most racecourse clerks do. Neither group are particularly skilled. I accept some may have an inflated view of their abilities. That comes with youth. In this game, experience counts for everything and they bring little of that to the table. Policies such as these have led to large concerns being assaulted by a new two new breeds of punter. Arbers – very much the same as many track bookies, and those putting ‘job’ monies on for the connected. Both groups, in a world of odds which are more often than not both unrealistic and manipulated, are extremely difficult to beat. As a consequence they’re restricted. By extension this has a knock on effect for the less ‘professional punter’. An accident of circumstances I suppose.

Similarly if you spend your time following certain tipping lines, backing shorteners, betting mainly on the inflated morning odds markets, backing each way when the favourite is odds on or happening to back the same selections as per say Patrick Veitch, you’ll find your half-life as a punter with such firms shortened dramatically, along with what you can get on.

It’s also important to understand the world of Ralph Topping. In his time, boardmarker to boss, he’s witnessed William Hill turn from a traditional bookmaker to a casino operator. This is a key point. Let’s call a spade a spade here – were I king Ralph, as things stand, I’d do exactly the same as he’s doing. You see the oil in the machine is precisely that. The machines. Large chains have engorged themselves on legislation permitting them to site shops anywhere and that growth remains unchecked. Witness the recent case in London against Paddy Power, brought by a Newham Council who argued they had piles of shops already in the region and that the shops were merely a vehicle for their Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. FOBTs. The case was quashed on the grounds there’s no law against serial proliferation of betting shops. Let me be honest here, Newham was right in my opinion. They didn’t need the shop, nor its machines. This situation is true in many of our towns. But Paddy won the day, arguing they made a ‘positive contribution to High Streets’. Of course that’s nonsensical hyperbole. Essentially though Newham hadn’t proved their argument and were kicked out. Each FOBT generates a gross profit of circa £900 a week for such firms – and they can have 4 in every shop. That’s £3600 in gross profit a week. Add in a ‘manager’ who gives out the change, a cashier, and a rolling ‘relief manager’ and you’ve a very low staff cost, maintenance and risk business. Providing that is you don’t get too involved in the poor margin horse racing product.

This is where leaders such as Paul Bittar are so blinkered in their view that more racing equals more levy. A childishly simple claim, and one with no data to support it. The reality is quite the opposite. A punter has a fixed amount to spend. More racing won’t make him draw out more money. The machines claw for his cash, and they’re clearly addictive. When the racing is competitive, it becomes the draw.If it’s low grade 5 runner races on offer, they become the background rather than the vehicle that pulls people into the shop to start with. The BHA is far too tight in with the bookmaking-exchange fraternity to be healthy. Ostriches see a little more. Am I a little unfair to the new Chief Exec? I don’t believe so. Within a month of his arrival he had thrown his hat into the ring with big business and declared 1450 as the right ‘level’ for Racing. Was that an informed decision based on hard data he hadn’t been provided with by the way, or just towing the establishment line? I’ll let you decide on that one. There isn’t a third option, except for the PR merchants from the chains.

I haven’t mentioned the casino side of most modern day bookmaker or exchange businesses. These super profitable products yield enormous profits. Why focus your attention on the 4.05 at Plumpton and the risks involved, when you can push your customers to bet on the areas of your business you absolutely know represent a no-lose situation. To boot there’s been a substantial market share war going on between the large concerns over the last 3 years. It’s routine for the morning price market for a feature race on a Saturday to be actually overbroke between the majors. The King George at Ascot ran to 89% at best odds available. This represents a net loss to racing of 11% in real terms. Will such top of the market offers make it more likely you’ll get your £100 each way wager? Evidently not.

Of course the whole margin debate is pretty much a nonsense these days, except perhaps for Bruce Millington who majors on the 9.30 at Wolverhampton. So many horses effectively priced out of events; we never saw horses going off at 400/1 in the sixties and seventies. One of the major issues affecting the laying of bets is the integrity of the sport. The bottom line is, the lower the prize fund available, the more likely the integrity of the event will be affected. The great scandals in racing of late can be directly attributed to serial failures at the BHA who should insist on a strong, well-funded and staffed integrity division. In fact in a period where there’s more racing than ever before, the integrity division at the BHA has had its budgets slashed. Being kind it’s poor management, but I lean towards a dereliction of their responsibilities to police the sport. The key phrase ‘shut the stable door after the horse has bolted’ wouldn’t be out of place here. All the spin in the world from Mr Bittar cannot hide the fact it’s grossly understaffed and most certainly lacking in the experience necessary to break down the vital betting markets. In fact, in a bizarre twist of fate, it’s Betfair who highlight most of the scandals perpetrated on its own exchange, but then only when amounts are excessive. Hong Kong has 238 people tasked with maintaining the integrity of its programme, which races 6 days a month. Here with 1450 fixtures we have less than 20 including those running around testing horses and the like. The numbers don’t stack up. It’s time to get proper with integrity, and not just when Channel 4 ask the questions on doping. Non-triers and ‘explosive last to first’ gambles have become the accepted norm. Why? How does it affect your punting dollar? Will it be easier or fairer to bet when people in the industry don’t trust the ‘lesser’ events?

One smaller factor to consider is the time delay. On course traders react swiftly to volatile exchanges in proffering odds. However, the actual shows fed into betting shops will reflect those movements by anything between 1-2 minutes later, and may be made up by some trader betting to a sixth of the odds on the place book. This creates a clear arbing situation of betting shows vs exchange odds. Don’t forget the modern day punter is armed with super fast broadband links to exchanges – they know the reality and can gain significant advantage over the bookmaker in the High Street.

How do these points relate to how much you can get on? Well you have to understand what you’re betting on; racing is up against the other products a bookie is offering. Sure if you do your nuts you can call your own tune with any bookie. That’s obvious. But if they don’t know you – and you just have a lucky run? Well I’m afraid the outlook is dim.

Let’s encapsulate racing in this simple equation:

Exchange – On Course Traders – Delayed shows to LBO’s + Glut of Racing = Low margin out of date product open to serial manipulation v Fixed Odds Betting Terminals and casino products.

The last cog in the wheel are the independents. They’re either shop based, or running telephone and internet operations such as my own at geoff-banks.com. Many do not possess the vital casino products, nor are they able to operate relief manager situations to rotate their staffing and keep costs down. They shoulder increased share of costs such as taxation and Gambling Commission fees and they’re competing with offshore low cost firms to boot. Smaller firms tend to rely much more heavily on their racing product. As a result they’re struggling to remain competitive with set down by firms who are reluctant to lay much more than an egg at those paper odds. Does it really matter if they survive, any more than does it matter if the on course market does? I’ve heard the argument for natural selection in business. And I fundamentally disagree. In my view, it’s an unhealthy situation. Big business is getting bigger, they’re paying less taxes than small business and most certainly giving a vastly inferior standard of service. Who hasn’t sat on a phone line to speak to a world weary operator with little training or the ability affect change to improve the lot of the customer they are serving?

Decisions are made at boardroom level by ‘executives’ who won’t have to sit waiting to be served by the individuals they employ. They’re in no way into ‘customer facing’ or ‘customer focussed’ initiatives. They’re about money.

The internet has most certainly improved many areas of our lives. But unchecked it spells the death knell for many businesses we used to take for granted which are the very fabric of the decent society we grew up in. I’m one of life’s survivors – I lay a fair bet. My boys answer a call within two rings, or answer a textbet within a minute. But businesses like my own are in the minority. The bottom line is: the larger the firm, the worse its service standards. But they’re cheap. They offer deals and money back offers and price guarantees.

If you want real change in the service you receive, including how much you get on – you have to accept such standards involve you being prepared to take slightly less in return for a more civil way to bet. It’s a choice. Want an exchange price? Accept it’s only going to be to their stakes. Not a lot these days.

Ryanair aren’t British Airways, and they treat their customers with a disdain that’s breathtaking. But they’re cheap. They lead on low cost travel without frills or service standards or conduct codes respected by rivals. So are Paddy Power, Bet365 and William Hill. If you believe in SP guarantees, money back if your horse falls and so forth, all well and good and they will happily accommodate you to lower stakes. It’s simple, you cannot offer the top of everyone’s market and lay whoppers. So bet away with the offshores but expect to pay for it elsewhere.