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 horseracing 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 Bruce Millington of the Racing Post. An Editor obsessed with overrounds in the 9.00 at Kempton whilst running betting apps often running to 2% a runner. But he’s right in one area; punters in many respects are treated in a shabby fashion these days. I was in Cheltenham this week, filming a piece for JPFestival.com on the upcoming season (you can watch it here – Current State of Betting Markets). 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 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) roll 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 recently, so you’d think he’d have known better. Anyway, he placed a wager his own firm was unlikely to even consider to serious money to a horse race trader from a rival firm, given the likelihood the selection was ‘live’. He then whined publicly about how he had been ‘restricted’ by my firm. Now, let’s not let the facts ruin a good story and note these are already in the public domain because he tweeted them. The bet would have returned £3600, if 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 a client who’d wait like a spider for us to be substantially out of line before proffering a bet. Evidently this trader had ‘marks’ in his office as to his pick and couldn’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 the betting business. It’s not my 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 your 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 to get on more than £3.75 to win. Hmmm. Apparently my website works for placing wagers, it’s the roulette that doesn’t work properly. 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 my father 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. 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 3.55 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 email addresses they gather the better it sits on their CVs. 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 executives 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 Wxchange by playing at bookie; you almost feel a sense of achievement. Fine; you’ll do your bollocks laying anything on the machine as 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 and 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 agrees 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. You can read more on Geoff’s views on horserace betting in Trouble getting a bet on the horses?
My last blog about modern day racing, and its sanitized ways, seemed to attract a lot of attention or hits as they say. And more than a few compliments from like-minded souls, or perhaps concerned, individuals on Twitter. It’s hard to be humble when you’re as great as I am…in future my rate for such scribing shall be ten pounds an article, and I’m not budging from that. What was absent was the contra view which I expected from trainers and connections of horses boxed away in padded cells for months on end awaiting their glory moment. Shame that. However, all is not lost. I did receive one rather hateful response from a fellah describing himself rather grandly as ‘a proper Bookmaker’ who ranted about my attitudes to modern day betting rings. He wasn’t quite brave enough to tell us all who he was, doubtless of the view should he reveal his true identity, some would have realised the true worth of his business practices. Few punters thoroughly approve of modern day Bookmakers. The horrible truth. Exchanges are the ‘good guys’ wherever they trade from. Who’s going to criticise someone for low liquidity when you’re part of the problem? It’s perhaps helpful if I illustrate the problems as I see it in the modern ring, for those who do not understand the issues. Anyone who goes racing, midweek in particular, can’t have failed to notice the distressed state of the ring. A handful of Bookies, usually with just one member of staff each, huddling for warmth whilst serving but a few customers. In an environment where racetracks claim attendances overall are holding up, it’s a paradox that rings are so quiet. Of course, were I the RCA, I’d be talking up the product. And yes, if they don’t address the problem of stable stars retiring as 3 year olds or worse sitting out for Cheltenham, they’re going to have attendance issues; we’re agreed on that. On a Saturday, and at the major meetings however, the crowds still look good to me, but the public aren’t betting as they used to. Or perhaps they are. I mean who goes racing these days and doesn’t have a bet? Racing’s pretty dull if you don’t have some kind of interest other than an anoraky view of form or breeding. Why does the Queen have so many ladies in waiting when she’s in attendance? Quite right, they’re running her bets out! She’s no fool. Loves a Union Jack does the Boss. Everyone’s having a play in reality. Because if you’re racing, and not betting, you must be wondering what all the fuss and noise is about! As to the Punters, they’re just getting bored. 98% of Bookies these days have turned to trading as a simple and cheap method of making a living. From the moment the interminably ignorant Rob Hughes, of the then controlling Levy Board, cast his vote in favour of opening up the Ring to outside influences, in particular exchanges, the die was cast for the Bookies. Led by ‘pioneers’ like Martyn of Leicester, who I recall describing it as the new Holy Grail to me one day, many leapt from odds, percentages and margins, to trading every dollar they took with an exchange, at better odds. Presto, easy money – minimal risk. At the outset the gap between the odds offered by the trader and the exchange was wide, and the method simple. It was a golden time. As the years progressed, with traders chasing a diminishing pound, and their own silly greed for every bet available, the odds soared to the punters. Traders found with what profits could be engendered, squeezed so tight, they couldn’t breathe. Even when the crowds were good, they moronically bet so tight to the exchange, the profits, if at all, were derisory. In the same period, liquidity on exchanges fell markedly. Now we had a situation where traders would offer 7/1 about a horse trading at 8.2 on the exchange but only to £20. Lord-A-Mighty if someone asked for a couple of hundred each way – a bet far larger than they could stand, trade or even dump with the few proper Bookmakers betting to opinions. Casually they knocked the larger punters back, without thought for their future. They turned to following the exchange win price, but restricting the place returns, making something off of that book instead. Tossing casually away years of agreements and the code laid down by Tattersalls. This code has, and still is, respected in betting shops and credit offices and even improved upon. They laid off staff, and finally stopped going in some cases, altogether. So when ‘a proper Bookmaker’ tells me I shouldn’t be going about criticising their business plan, I have to laugh. Proof of the pudding is in the eating. It gives me little pleasure to be proven totally right. I said this operandi would fail on every platform available to me, to whoever would listen and many who would not. If there’s no work – you’ve failed. I’ve covered the traders, what about the views of my customers? First off, make no mistake, I like a laugh with my punters, especially when they lose – but I don’t mind the jibes when I do either! It’s part of the fun of betting with the old enemy. Because I am, the old enemy in all but age… I still offer odds which reflect my views and I don’t knockback bets from genuine punters, ever. Why aren’t the punters flocking to a ring where they can very often beat an exchange price and pay no commission? Because my friends, like me, they’re so famously bored of a ring with rows of Bookmakers betting like soldiers – all offering the same odds. There’s no variety or choice. It’s uniform and drab. Worse it’s an exchange driven cartel. Most punters believe the Bookmakers win, whatever the result. If everyone has the same price it appears like price fixing. They disapprove of restrictive practices such as 1/5th odds on the Grand National, and traders who dress as if they’ve just stepped out of their front rooms. And worse, they just want the fun of a bet. It really matters little to them whether a horse is 5/1 or 4/1 when the nags are toiling up the straight. One of the loudest punters in the ring I love, little Tommy, makes the most noise. He doesn’t bet big, but to him it’s still the buzz, and I love him for his enthusiasm. These days, customers are afforded little of the respect of past days, when giants like John Banks and Stephen Little battled them with a smile, a thumping bet at their odds, and a tie. I offer two thoughts for punters at this stage, out of balance. If you moan about poor place odds and you give those traders who offer them your fiver each way at 1/5 the odds on the Cambridgeshire because they are 17/2 about something which is 8/1 elsewhere, then you’ve only yourselves to blame for supporting them, in any race. I believe you should identify the culprits and never bet with them; period. That’s how you rid the ring of scoundrels without the business acumen to appreciate exchanges aren’t the savior, but their death knell. Oh, and tell your friends. Second, although I enjoyed the banter from Big Mac, even if it occasionally made no sense, the culture of moreism always has a price; go for service over value, every time. Think I fly Ryanair if British Airways head in the same direction? Fine, I’ve given my thoughts. What of the future? For those leading Bookmakers these days, and for the empty vessels in the ring, standing looking at the tumbleweed, bitching away, and blaming everyone but themselves for the problems, I offer these solutions. Number one; allow the racetracks to dictate the terms of business in the rings. Fundamentally to restore order on place markets, introduce a guaranteed minimum lay to lose amount for each ring. This stops traders betting to pennies, offering unsustainable odds, and knocking back the larger punters. It’s so tiresome to hear dinosaurs claim tracks ‘shouldn’t be allowed to dictate the terms of business’. What a narrow view, especially as even now, they already do! It’s hardly in the favour of racetracks to do away with the draw of their betting rings, is it? Chesterbet is a success, but only in parallel with Bookmakers bringing the punters to play into the track in the first place. On their own, and without a ring, tracks – whilst they can deliver on the bet at more restrictive odds – can’t deliver on the flavour and atmosphere people in this country enjoy about the ring so much. Think that Simon Bazalgette and Charles Barnett are rubbing their hands with a go it alone approach? They’re no fools. They would prefer a symbiotic relationship. Every time we say no to their requests for improved service standards, they become just a little more unsympathetic to our problems. They will naturally turn their vast expertise in running business, into taking betting under their wings and employing people like me to show them how it’s done successfully. And yes, I would, if the alternative is to stand amongst a bunch of fiddlers trading dollars in their jeans. Number two, for racetrack bosses. Extinguish the cosy little relationship between RDT and Betdaq, with software capable of skillfully enabling traders to hive off bets at lightning speed to the exchange. Do away with track broadband and WiFi altogether. Outlaw data cards, secondary laptops and hand held PDAs for Bookmakers. No, it’s not air tight, but it does go an awful long way to restricting the ability to trade with exchanges. Especially at festival meetings where mobile phone networks like Vodafone do a total runner. Fundamentally, switch off the exchange displays on laptops provided by companies such as RDT and return rings to a lower tech environment. Give serious pause for what I’m advocating if you value a vibrant ring, its draw and income. Stop worrying about losing a few traders who do not approve of restrictions. Believe me, they’re no loss! En fin, if you’re showing exchange odds on a big screen at your Racetrack, you’re doing yourselves no favours. It isn’t about price. Number three Bookies, get into the modern day age of cashless societies and find bank’s willing to offer the new fast generations of swipe debit cards to enable punters to bet without the need to queue for hours and days at cash points. I accept there will be a variety of views out there to this. If you’re a hard working Bookie, you have my respect for your efforts, but you’re going nowhere, if you don’t adapt, and you know this is true. If you’re the blinkered sort, who believes the Son of John Banks got here through luck rather than focusing on service standards, or if you’re worried someone else in the ring on a mobile will break the mould and have a huge mass of punters at his joint, whilst you have nothing, then you’re missed the point. It’s greed and an unworkable long term business plan that got you here in the first place. You have to work as a collective, rather than a series of individuals, and you have to act now and stop thinking of what’s good for you, but what’s best for the customers you’ve lost. The tracks have the power to lay down sensible practices, if you’d only let them. One thing’s absolutely for sure, the one you’re using right now has failed, miserably. I don’t think anyone could argue with that. For those that view some of the points as ‘legally challengeable’, I point you to the free for all 2008 Gambling Act. Good luck in Court trying to get a decision as to what is, or isn’t legal anymore, because the Gambling Commission certainly don’t. One final point, Bookies. Just a few years ago, many of these points were laid down by the NJPC articles. I don’t recall anyone at that time complaining, or challenging the terms. We can change, and we must, if the whole shebang doesn’t migrate to GoodwoodBet in a very short time.