Horseracing Betting: You say it best....

General / Jack Houghton / 20 December 2008 / 1 Comments

Never one to underestimate the power of a full-stop, Jack Houghton is irked by the interminable ramblings of a 'bald talking Action man' and calls for sports broadcasters to learn the value of pith.

I hate Willie Thorne.

I know, I know... this is supposed to be about racing, but we can come back to that later. Right now I want to talk about how much I hate Willie Thorne. I hate him.

He talks too much. And it's not just the talking itself; it's the way he repeats himself, many times, within one interminable sentence. He wanted to get on the black, but played the wrong shot, now he's not on the black, all because of the wrong shot, and now look at the black. On and on and on; a bald talking Action Man who's learnt to operate his own pull-string.

It would be okay if the guy had achieved something in the game. But considering his biggest claim to fame was missing a match-winning blue off the spot before going on to squander a 13-8 lead over Steve Davis, you have to ask yourself: why does he feel himself qualified to pontificate in such a scathing manner over modern professionals who achieve more in a season than he did in his whole career? You don't hear Davis or John Parrott banging on for hours. And they've got something to bang on about.

You see, they know the value of pith. If it adds something to the pictures, say it. Say it succinctly, then shut up. If it adds nothing, shut up. It's easy. Ted Lowe was the master of it. He once stayed silent for eight minutes during a commentary. Lowe, like all broadcasting greats, understood that hush often adds more to viewing pleasure than noise. Admittedly, in this particular instance, he had collapsed on the floor of the commentary box and producers - assuming they were witnessing yet another masterclass in broadcasting poise - didn't think to find out if he was okay. Nonetheless, the sentiment holds.

And, bringing it masterfully back to racing... it's a lesson some racing pundits would do well to learn. Too many of them fall in to the trap of saying something, when nothing would be better. I thought I would share with you, in a cheery Christmas way, two things they repeatedly say that get me screaming at the television. Feel free to add your own most-hated below.

"Winning like an odds-on shot should."

If a horse is odds-on, it means the market thinks it has a better than 50 per cent chance of winning the race. The shorter the odds, the bigger that percentage. So what do pundits actually mean when they utter this rubbish? Are they suggesting the race was run a hundred times and the odds-on shot won the requisite amount?

Some will argue it's just a turn of phrase, and that I should relax a little. But the reason I can't is that there is a belief amongst some punters that short-priced horses are somehow different from longer-priced horses. It's why some line-up dutifully at betting counters, placing more than they can afford on horses they think have a somehow greater risk-reward ratio than other horses; and then look confused when, sometimes, they lose their money.

And on-air drivel only reinforces the misconception.

"Each-way money."

It seems that every time a horse at long odds shortens in price that "each-way money" is responsible. If you listen to betting commentators that is. The reality is very different.

During the preliminaries of a fifteen runner handicap the other day, the television pundit responsible for informing us of betting moves repeatedly referred to a horse shortening from 20-1 to 12-1 as the result of a "massive each-way gamble". The constant reiteration of this was annoying on three fronts.

First, it was hardly a massive gamble. A horse moving from 20-1 to 12-1 only represents three percent of the book. Much more significant in the race was the move for the favourite from 6-1 into 9-2 (four percent of the book), but this hardly got a mention.

Second, it was almost certainly not each-way money that had shortened the horse in question. Very few serious punters would be prepared to back a horse each-way in a 15 runner handicap.

Third, the gamble in question, like the vast majority of betting moves these days, was led by those betting on the exchanges. Simultaneously watching the Betfair markets and the show prices from the course, it was obvious that the on-course market was following the off-course market. And as Betfair operates separate win and place markets, rather than a combined each-way market, it could not have been "each-way money" driving the price down.

These are the two that have annoyed me most this week. But then I've been a bit agitated generally. Blame Willie.

Comments (1)

1. ron | 21 December 2008

   Im not usually one for taking the 'pith', but it really is time sb had the courage to say exactly what u say in this article. Long ago i gave up listening to Betfair radio on most occasions for exactly the reasons u outlined. Having said that there are a couple of presenters and 'pundits' who are v good but others who are totally unbearable - they do not even give race results, and generally show scant regard for punters' needs. Congratulations on ur courage in being 'politically incorrect'