Skip to main content

California exchange betting could still be a long way off for Betfair

I told you this battle was going to be a lot harder than just convincing the legislators...

Exchange wagering grilled at CHRB meeting

Exchange wagering in California drew some strong opposition from The Stronach Group and several horsemen's organizations during its first California Horse Racing Board committee hearing Feb. 9 at Santa Anita.

Commissioners David Israel and Richard Rosenberg heard testimony regarding implementation of exchange wagering in the state following passage of state legislation enabling it. At the end of the four-hour meeting, they took no action on a set of proposed rules developed by CHRB staff.

“It seems to me this isn’t cooked yet,” Israel said at the conclusion. “There are too many objections by too many stakeholders. This has to be fully contemplated and the rules and regulations need to be tied down. We need to be realistic about how much time it’s going to take.”


Read more at Bloodhorse

Interesting that the Stronach Group are dead against it - I remember entertaining them with Betfair several years ago when they were very keen to get involved! Perhaps not having a piece of the pie changed their tune just a little....

And the most inventive piece of hyperbolae goes to former jockey, now Luck star, Gary Stevens.

He said that it would change how jockeys ride a race. In a turf race, Stevens said, he was always taught to save ground and hope for an opening along the rail because most horses aren’t good enough to win if they have to go around the field. He said that if exchange wagering were allowed, jockeys would always go around so that they couldn’t be accused of getting the horse stopped.

I wonder how many jockeys in Australia, Ireland or the UK were consulted before he came up with that piece of hysterical rubbish?

This battle will drag on for quite a while yet...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term ' Ponzi scheme ' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up. So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done. T