Racecourse bookmakers collude to rip off punters, according to a sensational claim by one of their number. Andy Smith, who takes bets as ‘Festival Racing’ and is known for his outspoken views, said bookies sometimes agree before racing starts they will build a particularly big profit margin into their odds, especially when a large crowd of inexperienced gamblers is expected.
Smith’s comments were prompted by a survey published recently by the Horseracing Bettors Forum, which showed odds offered at the Welsh racetrack Ffos Las were notably poor last year, most obviously on 25 August. That was the fixture marketed as ‘Ladies’ Day’, when the track had its biggest attendance of the year, at around 6,000 people.
“Because there’s not many bookies,” Smith said, “it was easy to arrange, let’s think of a word for it … a cartel. A bookie would come and ask you, one of the other bookies. They might say, we’ll do 3% the first couple of races, then we’re betting 4%.”
That is a reference to the theoretical profit margin built into the odds of each horse. As the percentage gets bigger, the odds get shorter and the money which has to be returned to winning punters gets smaller. In a competitive betting market the margin should be less than 2% per runner.
“You might not believe this but this is not a thing that happens only at Ffos Las. It’s happening more and more,” Smith said, with particular reference to ‘satellite’ betting areas at the bigger tracks, away from the main betting ring and in areas where less experienced punters are likely to be found.
While Smith took part in the collusion between firms on this occasion, he deplores the practice and is an advocate of racecourse punters being allowed access to online betting exchange sites, where odds can be bigger. Bookmakers have ready access to those sites and use them to hedge their liabilities.
“At Wolverhampton last year there was a 100-1 winner. The owner backed it with a bookie. The bookie backed it back on the machine. The bookie won six times more than the man who pays for the keep of that horse.”
For some of his punters Smith makes a point of giving away the advantage of being able to hedge at bigger odds. “I’ve got a £300-£400 punter at Ffos Las. I’ve got 7-2 on my board. He asked me for £200 at 7-2 and I said: ‘You’ve got £200 at 5-1.’ There was no way I was gonna flimp [rip off] one of my regulars.”
Smith said not all bookmakers at Ffos Las were involved in the collusion. He accepted that William Hill, which has a pitch there, may not have been included. A Hill’s spokesman said its on-course representative had never even been approached for such a discussion. The Guardian offered a chance to comment to seven other firms who traded at Ffos Las on 25 August. Six declined and one did not respond.
Mark Kershaw, a director at Ffos Las, said he had been “extremely frustrated” by the odds offered on Ladies’ Day and also at learning the course’s bookmakers generally offered poor value compared with other tracks. “The betting ring manager came to us after the meeting to say he was dissatisfied,” Kershaw said. “He thought the bookmakers were not giving any sort of value to the racegoer.
“We try hard to get the racegoers there and it needs everybody at the racecourse to pull together to make sure they want to come back again and have a good experience. It’s certainly something as a board we take extremely seriously and we will be writing to all our bookmakers, making it clear that we are really very disappointed.”
Of Smith’s cartel allegation Kershaw said: “Andy is somebody who supports us, has always helped to encourage people to come. I think he was frustrated by this. It is something that we would not want to tolerate. At the same time it’s very hard to prove that. But it’s made us sit up and become far more aware.
“I think it was a day when there was a holiday crowd and they thought: ‘We can take advantage,’ but that’s completely wrong. What we want is that holiday crowd to want to come back again. It shouldn’t be an opportunity to short-change them.”
He said the board’s ultimate sanction would be to deny non-compliant bookmakers access to the course in future. Ascot is another track where the management is increasingly aware of the need to insist on minimum standards from bookmakers. Its head of betting, Guy Chadwell, warned a bookmaker about the lack of value in his odds during the Royal meeting last year and was pleased to see an immediate response.
The story is being followed with interest by the Starting Price Regulatory Commission, which, despite its name, says it has no regulatory power over bookmakers. However it claims to have influence over the way they conduct themselves and may call before it Robin Grossmith, a director of the Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers, for its meeting next week, to discuss the implications.
However, The Guardian understands the SPRC is considering dropping the word ‘Regulatory’ from its title, as it gives an exaggerated impression of the SPRC’s ability to force change or act against any bookmaker.
Carlisle
2.00 Le Drapeau 2.30 Glingerside 3.00 Swing Hard 3.35 Blottos 4.05 Haul Us In (nb) 4.40 Bako De La Saulaie 5.10 Windsor Avenue
Kempton Park
5.20 Queen Moon 5.50 Give Him Time 6.20 Mansfield 6.50 Magic Mirror 7.20 Luna Eclipse 7.50 Oud Metha Bridge 8.20 Ardamir
Lingfield Park
1.45 You Raised Me Up 2.15 After Aspen 2.45 Arquebusier 3.15 Clash Of D Titans (nap) 3.50 Cyclop 4.25 Le Musee 4.55 Man Of Steel
-
