We need the real SP on industry shows

AS we are all too aware, on March 16 three years ago the country was flung into national lockdown. Everything had to stop, including greyhounds.

In the 11 weeks it took to resume our sport, the betting landscape had changed, with the introduction of industry betting shows and starting prices. This meant prices generated would not be sent in the traditional way from oncourse bookmakers but instead created by media providers.

The old system for returning prices was generated by three independent on-course bookmakers, who would be monitored by an SP validator, with the average price sent from the course to betting shops and online bookmakers.

With hindsight, this system did not take into account the off-course market, which would be seeing a higher percentage of the turnover. The system was not perfect. However, it was open, fair, trusted and transparent.

The price of each dog could be seen on the boards and that price could be taken by every punter. Three years into this new system and we still have not been told how the prices are formulated.

Who creates them? What is the mechanism? Where is the transparency? Who is accountable? The fact we do not know the answers and that there is no traceability in the prices is concerning.

The show prices appear to be a progression from the early prices, providing the price is still under the betting exchange show.

As we know, early prices are generally inaccurate, and are created, it appears, mostly from algorithms. This has always been the case, even under the old system, but there was, however, a failsafe – the price which came through for the show was generated by someone with both local knowledge of the dogs and betting markets.

Under the new system that appears to no longer be the case. The industry shows are reliant on the early prices collecting ‘informed money’ to make the price accurate.

With lots of punters being restricted this ‘informed money’ is, though, having to wait until later in the betting cycle to place bets.

This creates a confidence problem with the show price, hence the dramatic changes during the show as traders try to mirror the exchanges.

We very often see examples of dogs going from 7-4 out to 4-1 and vice-versa. These volatile moves would be a detractor to the casual bettor.

So what is the solution? For an accurate market there need to be people in the pricing process. Algorithms are only as good as the data they are provided with, and a lot of the information surrounding greyhounds is incorrect. There is, however, the opportunity to create a hybrid system.

On-course bookmakers have software that can transmit prices anywhere. These could be sent straight to the people creating the shows/SPs and integrated into the system to improve accuracy, hopefully resulting in greater confidence.

THEREwouldbe other advantages as well. On-course bookmakers would beable-to-pickup on local biases, such as those seen during the recent cold spell. They would be also more accurate and quicker at pricing up races when there is a nonrunner or reserve.

These are sometimes not actually re-priced by the online bookmakers. It would also make situations like at Oxford last week, when a late nonrunner was not announced or accounted for off-course, almost impossible.

There is a need to have confidence in prices. Then online bookmakers have more confidence to lay a bet, which would give them more reason to push and promote our sport. We need them to.

Ultimately, like everyone reading this, I am a greyhound enthusiast even if I write from my bookmaking background.

Iwanttoseeuspush attendances, increase prizes, focus on welfare and find ways to bring owners old and new into the game. However, if selling the sport as a betting product is a way to bring more money into the sport then, surely, we need to do a better job in producing it?