Skip to main content

Betfair could crack California yet...

As Betfair have progressed through various stages of lobbying and legislation in the States, I have been warning strongly of the hurdles that they still have to jump before they are allowed to operate - namely, reaching agreement with the Horsemen's Groups who hold a lot of power. One thing I overlooked though, was the American system of private tracks, and thus individual agreements with organisations who, more than likely, aren't all singing from the same hymn book.

Matt Hegarty from the Daily Racing Form has the latest....

Exchange wagering draws closer at California track

Live wagering on a betting exchange in California may be coming far sooner than the Thoroughbred industry expected in that state.

On Tuesday, Ed Comins, chief operating officer of Watchandwager.com – which recently purchased the small Northern California track Cal Expo – said that the company already has an agreement with the state’s harness horsemen to offer exchange wagering if rules recently adopted by the racing commission pass muster with the state’s Office of Administrative Review. Cal Expo also would need an agreement with an exchange-wagering operator, but the track already has a relationship with Betfair-TVG, which operates the most popular exchange-wagering platform in Europe and which has high hopes for the U.S. market. .. .. .. Exchange wagering remains a highly controversial subject in the United States despite recent gains by supporters in California, where a law authorizing the practice was passed two years ago. Because exchange wagering allows players to bet on horses to lose, critics remain troubled by the potential for the practice to create questions among the public over efforts put forth by riders and horses. In addition, Thoroughbred horsemen and racetracks have questioned whether the industry would receive an adequate return for its product under Betfair’s existing business model, which is estimated to return the equivalent of 1.5 percent of handle to the racing industry.

For those reasons, Thoroughbred horsemen in California recently agreed to table any approvals with an exchange-wagering operator for at least a year. But it’s possible that Cal Expo could be offering exchange wagering well before 2013 is over.

“We’re shooting for sometime next year, yes,” Comins said after his presentation. Comins said that exchange wagering in California could actually be first launched at Los Alamitos in Southern California, which runs Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred racing year-round.

The law in California requires betting-exchange operators to reach an agreement with the track and the horsemen representing the track’s runners in order to go forward. Comins said that Cal Expo already has a “non-exclusive” agreement with Betfair to become its exchange-wagering partner if the rules are approved by the state’s Office of Administrative Review, which could happen as early as January.

Comins also said that Cal Expo’s harness races “would be a great product to test” exchange wagering because the races generally take approximately two minutes to run. One of the most popular products offered by exchange wagering platforms is so-called “in-play” betting, in which bettors offer new prices on entrants as the race is run.

Very interesting. Should it go ahead, the rest of the racing industry in the US (thoroughbred and harness) will be looking on very closely to see if the sky really does fall in. After all, they don't believe that horse racing can exist without race-day medication, despite what goes on in the rest of the world, so why take any notice of what happens in Australia, Ireland or the UK now?

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