No such thing as free publicity
Oct. 7th, 2010 02:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksEvery year the likes of Graham Sharpe at William Hill and his counterparts at other major bookmaking operations take the British media for a ride with "high publicity" events for which they open a book and then report a "flood of money" for X or Y (by which they mean, someone had more than a tenner on it).
And every year the British media fall for it.
Sometimes, however, things go a bit askew. One thing that the publicity machines at these bookies do not want to happen is for them to actually lose money on the deal. The old-school bookies in the UK are still in the main run by old-school non-university types, generally guys who would be just about unemployable on the board by any other FTSE250 company. Quite a few of the middle-management types and above at William Hill have climbed a greasy pole from shop management, and wake up most mornings petrified that they are going to be found out. But, like all bookies, they get very annoyed if they actually lose money on any book that they create.
Today Ladbrokes announced that it had suspended betting on the Man Booker prize, following what it effectively alleged was a "fix" in favour of Tom McCarthy's novel "C". It had cut the odds to 4/6, and then stopped betting. Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said:
The Guardian wrote that
It's all bollocks of course. Either Ladbrokes has been taken for a ride by three bent Man Booker judges (or perhaps one of them got a bit too talkative in the pub), or Ladbrokes is "exaggerating" the level of betting so that it can get extra publicity, or the publishers of 'C'/Tom McCarthy's agent has put some money on to generate publicity for the book. As Graham Sharpe noted, you don't need to put on a lot of money to shift the price in the Man Booker.
Since distorted markets can make for good value, my bet would be that the price for 'C' has shifted too far and that the other five could prove profitable (or, alternatively, laying the McCarthy book on Betfair). But if Ladbrokes really has been caught cold, well, that's their fault. Don't shut the book down just because someone wants to put on some real money. It makes you look like wankers.
In my day Ladbrokes really had the top guys. If they were a point shorter on one horse and a point longer on another than anyone else, there was usually a good reason for it. Coral's had the worst price-setters and would often make a clanger on a Saturday morning that never lasted beyond 10.16am. These days Coral's just doesn't count. But Ladbrokes has lost it as well. Presumably no-one who knows anything about odds-setting is bothering to work in a profession that's underpaid and which is run by guys who don't really know what they are doing. These people are now all making their own fortune on Betfair rather than being a wage-slave for a company run by a dickhead. Net result, there are no decent odds-setters around in the big bookies any more.
+++++++++++++++++
And every year the British media fall for it.
Sometimes, however, things go a bit askew. One thing that the publicity machines at these bookies do not want to happen is for them to actually lose money on the deal. The old-school bookies in the UK are still in the main run by old-school non-university types, generally guys who would be just about unemployable on the board by any other FTSE250 company. Quite a few of the middle-management types and above at William Hill have climbed a greasy pole from shop management, and wake up most mornings petrified that they are going to be found out. But, like all bookies, they get very annoyed if they actually lose money on any book that they create.
Today Ladbrokes announced that it had suspended betting on the Man Booker prize, following what it effectively alleged was a "fix" in favour of Tom McCarthy's novel "C". It had cut the odds to 4/6, and then stopped betting. Ladbrokes spokesman David Williams said:
"on Wednesday morning five of the candidates were absolutely friendless and every single bet started striking on one man. It wouldn't be so surprising if there were a Rushdie in the race, but with respect, in this case it was borderline inexplicable and we decided to pull the plug."
The Guardian wrote that
"William Hill was still betting on the Man Booker this morning, with McCarthy's novel the favourite at even shorter odds of 10-11"., which kind of indicates how much most Guardian journalists know about odds. I hope that they play online poker.
It's all bollocks of course. Either Ladbrokes has been taken for a ride by three bent Man Booker judges (or perhaps one of them got a bit too talkative in the pub), or Ladbrokes is "exaggerating" the level of betting so that it can get extra publicity, or the publishers of 'C'/Tom McCarthy's agent has put some money on to generate publicity for the book. As Graham Sharpe noted, you don't need to put on a lot of money to shift the price in the Man Booker.
Since distorted markets can make for good value, my bet would be that the price for 'C' has shifted too far and that the other five could prove profitable (or, alternatively, laying the McCarthy book on Betfair). But if Ladbrokes really has been caught cold, well, that's their fault. Don't shut the book down just because someone wants to put on some real money. It makes you look like wankers.
In my day Ladbrokes really had the top guys. If they were a point shorter on one horse and a point longer on another than anyone else, there was usually a good reason for it. Coral's had the worst price-setters and would often make a clanger on a Saturday morning that never lasted beyond 10.16am. These days Coral's just doesn't count. But Ladbrokes has lost it as well. Presumably no-one who knows anything about odds-setting is bothering to work in a profession that's underpaid and which is run by guys who don't really know what they are doing. These people are now all making their own fortune on Betfair rather than being a wage-slave for a company run by a dickhead. Net result, there are no decent odds-setters around in the big bookies any more.
+++++++++++++++++
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Mercury Prize/Paul Weller revisited?
Date: 2010-10-08 08:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-08 04:50 pm (UTC)Re: The Booker. To my knowledge, it's decided on the night, and previous discussions often give little indication of the result (there is usually a bitchy post-Booker article in the Guardian from one of the judges to this effect). It's a ridiculously small market for the publicity it attracts for the bookmakers, but at least it shows that, in Graham Sharpe, they employ at least one person who knows his job.
Jason.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-08 07:18 pm (UTC)I suspect that the bookmakers do hedge on Betfair (to talk of an "arb" to an old-style bookie is likely to meet with a blank face as if you are talking Greek). Certainly the smaller bookies who also bet on-course are little more these days than conduit-brokers to Betfair -- so liquid is the Betfair market compared to the on-course market.
As for the Man Booker, so many times it's the least shitty option (i.e., the one that no more than one person absolutely hates). As in a recent "Shit my dad says" post on Twitter. "You don't have to be the best. You just have to be the least shitty option. Look, we're eating at the Olive Tree".
PJ
no subject
Date: 2010-10-11 10:37 am (UTC)(a) it is easier to pick off the offline bookies from time to time when they make increasingly frequent mistakes
(b) the offline bookies resort to swingeing (e.g.) 120% books and mug punters who are not better-informed
(c) the offline bookies very rapidly converge to identical odds and nobody shows any willingness to take a position
(d) something else?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-11 05:28 pm (UTC)PJ