I've only been twice but I love Hexham. Ignoring the 3 1/2 hour drive, the 45 degree betting ring and the incessant wind I bloody love the place. You only get the view because you're on top of the hill anyway. It's cheap to get in, everyone bets in cash, everyone asks for the number, not the name and there's no bladdered eejits punching 7 bells out of each other. I sincerely hope they continue to thrive despite a timetable change next season that Network Rail would be proud of- not a good thing.
In other news- we've sold Cartmel. Cracking course, decent earner but, with the "dead" day in the middle of all the meetings and the cost of accommodation continuing to climb it just wasn't earning us enough given the value of the pitch. I will look on with fondness, mixed with sadness, every time I see it on the telly, but the right decision I think.
And in the final bit of preamble - a few thoughts on "Da Masheen". I saw a stat the other day which showed a 45% drop in turnover on Betfair and around the same time Simon Nott was musing about the betting ring being more vibrant should there be an absence of exchanges. I don't see exchanges disappearing, so this may be superfluous waffle but, with the drop in turnover, the in running viability all but gone and the lay side almost certainly being majority funded by traders, rather than the early utopian vision of an army of armchair layers in Basingstoke, Basildon and Bolton I guess it's more of a possibility now than it's been since its inception. The dog days may be over to some (I understand that only 5% of folk reading this might get that one, but Colin will be one of them, so I think it's worth it!) So how would it look?
There's a bit of a myth out there that all on course bookmakers are merely commission agents. Take it in one hand, back it back with the other. Whilst this is true for a small number of books (and there was a tale a few years ago of one unnamed bookmaker taking a twenty quid bet, the punter realising he'd chosen the wrong horse and being told he couldn't change it because "I've already had it back") the vast majority of books will use the exchanges as a price guide and hedging option to get their book straight on the off and/or get excess liabilities down to a level they are working to.
The absence of exchanges would, unquestionably, hit the business model of a few but I think the majority of us would actually be unconcerned about the absence of an exchange option for hedging. I say this, not to advocate that exchanges should go, but to illustrate that the vast majority of ring bookmakers would not struggle in the absence of an online exchange hedging option. A few random thoughts below;
There are a lot of keyboard warriors out there that bemoan "everyone having the same prices" in the ring. Not quite true but I see the logic. The absence of exchanges would dramatically change this landscape. Right now, if a bookmaker has the cash to pay out, they can continue to take bets on something they have that may be way over their liability and continue to take the margin and back it back. The main beneficiary of this are the exchanges. No longer. Running a £500 liability? Take £400 at 11/4? No exchanges to hedge into? You'll be cutting it to 5/2. A bad thing for the punter? Well, nope. Because you've got to get that £600 "excess" liability back somewhere and it ain't gonna be online. So that 2nd favourite you've got in at 4/1? It's 9/2 now because you need that £600 and you don't really want to hedge at a lower price than you took it at. And next door might be in the reverse position. A couple of bets later and, hey presto, you've got variance all over the place. It will also restrict the "hogging"- if a bookmaker does take a chunky bet that will either result in a bet back into the ring or, at worst, a reduction in price which gives other books a fair go.
From a punter's perspective that means a bit more shopping around. But that's part of the fun isn't it? Instead of looking at a row of 5/1s you're looking at a probable 7/2 - 6/1 spread. It's like Christmas shopping pre internet. And when you find your bargain at BHS or your bigger price 2 joints down in the ring there will be genuine joy. I think margins overall will likely to be bigger, per book, but the savvy punter will almost certainly find the ring, overall, to offer more value than it does currently.
So why not do that now? Why not have an opinion and go above the machine price? We are businesses and part of what we do is growing our business. Getting repeat custom, either on the day or in the future. Going above the machine price in today's world doesn't grow your business, it gets you a queue of arbers who you'll never see again. Apart from the other bookies who are arbing you. Giving good service, giving a fair price, laying a reasonable bet and not banning winners is how you grow your business in my opinion.
It'll probably all be meaningless conjecture but it's fun to imagine.
Anyway, how was Hexham? Bright, windy and cold.
1) Hot pot and cold betting heat. Lucinda's jolly shortened and, CairnBet aficionados will know that we wouldn't have taken enough to have a liability on it resulting in it being a smallish winner v 5 losers in the book. One of the losers, All Ways and Ever looked like it would give us a losing start at one point but the favourite prevailed. We laid the forecast though. Twice. Which eradicated the race book win and we were 0-0
2) Similar race, similar book, similar result except we steered the forecast. Betting still very poor and we hoped it was down to the make up of the race and not the apathy on the day. Still, a reasonable reward for standing the 2nd and 3rd favourites for the max and we had expenses.
3) Jolly for the max and it was never winning. We wanted the gallant Overcourt but got another 0-0 draw with 2nd favourite Universal Folly. The betting picked up a wee bit but was still pedestrian rather than Olympian.
4) And back to square one as all they wanted was Our Sam which defied a late drift. Local (ish) trainer- check, black and white colours near Newcastle- check, got a nice name- check- max loss- check, zero in the overall p&l with expenses to cover- check.
5) And the bad news just kept coming as the only two they bet, Hidden Commander and Without Conviction, were the only two in it. At least it was the half max rather than the full bhuna this time. Betting turnover continued to increase but we were behind in book and expenses to cover. "Two more to get it back" I observed optimistically, but Without Conviction. You're welcome.
6) The jolly, Kicksaftersix and the course specialist Cudgel for close to the max and we thought we were getting all the beans as the total skinner, Augharue, looked a certain winner over the last only to get snagged by Bandit Dainay on the line which was a winner but more of the modest kind. The joint nearly got a kick despite the best win of the day.
7) Onto the last. In the early betting we laid Kandor and Heard That for plenty and wanted Will Knott to balance things up a bit. Be careful what you wish for. We were bang on the price at 3/1 and elicited a sprint from one punter (who we know) to get on as we were surrounded by a slew of 11/4s. He's a very good judge and we did something we seldom do- we decided not to stand it and stuck with our original 2 as our bogeys. Good decision by him and us as it was smashed up on the off and won with barely a flicker from the pilot. Big potential loss turned into smallish win. It won't look like much but it's the ones you don't lose on that make as much impact as the big skinners.
In the end we got expenses plus a bag of chips. Didn't look likely at 4 o'clock and I still love Hexham. Kelso in a couple of weeks next for us, flood plains permitting. Until then...
Comentarios