TONY CALVIN: Why is betting such a dirty word, and so poorly covered, on our TV screens?

IN March 2023, after the Cheltenham Festival, I was asked by someone working on one of the three channels – that is ITV, Racing TV and Sky Sports Racing – to provide some thoughts on how their betting coverage could be improved.

I subsequently canvassed the views of nine punters and people closely connected with the betting industry.

Their thoughts, un-named, are below.

They were passed on in an anonymous format at the time, and are here, as well. Any obvious tell-tale signs of their identity have hopefully been edited out, but all comments were supplied in good faith and with no agenda attached.

Ahead of a discussion on this subject on Monday’s AKBets’ The Racing Room podcast, I thought it a good idea to reproduce it here, as a prelude to that chat.

Whether or not you agree with the comments, they were varied and certainly gave food for thought.

I imagine they will generate some debate, too. Hopefully, anyway, as the area certainly is in need of a shake-up.

Improvements may have been made, but what was true 18 months ago, pretty much is now, too.

Here is what they said:

FEEDBACK ONE: “Surely, in an ideal world, one of the 46 re-runs of Racing Replay could be replaced with a weekly round-up programme.”

With the caveats that I almost never watch ITV’s coverage and that due to the quality of the majority of their pundits/presenters SSR is often on but muted for my own mental health……here’s five off the top of my head…..

1. Betting Lab – at the risk of blowing smoke up your arse, a show like that that looks at races/tipping but absolutely from the nuts and bolts of gambling angle. As you regularly point out, selection advice with no reference to prices is worthless – something that looks at what the market for Saturday’s big race has done so far, what it might do next and what that means for punting value is not.
2. Late moves – As the world and his wife now agree that not only is a huge percentage of the money traded done in the 10 mins before the off but also that that is where the most significant moves (positive and negative) can be found, why not dedicate even 60 seconds in the 5minutes before the off to looking at that?
3. Discrepancies – A similar theme perhaps but what is the point of somebody talking up a move on the show on the fav from 3/1 to 11/4 when it’s available for chunks at 5.2 on BF? Which leads us to….
4.  Ignorance! – Not quite sure how you fix this as it’s indicative of something much bigger than betting alone but….For an example, a lightly-raced handicapper from a small, shrewd yard that was 20’s on the tissue has been punted overnight and all morning into 5’s.
5. As THEY are on and the on-course books haven’t layed it, it drifts back out to 8’s near the off. A Jonathan Neesom (I can mention people positively presumably) would be all over the angle of it being punted into 5’s whereas any number of the lightweights would gloss over it with a “5’s out to 8’s doesn’t seem any confidence behind that”.
6.  IR Betting – All we ever get is the yawn yawn “Traded at 1.02 when coming down at the last, brought down the horse in 2nd, eventual winner traded at 1000” Of course it did, and who cares? What about some nuance, some subtlety, some of the interesting bits? Obviously there’s not necessarily time for that in the midst of a busy day but surely, if we’re talking about an ideal world of coverage, one of the 46 re-runs of Racing Replay could be replaced with a weekly round-up programme. Even the RP used to do a daily spread on it, surely RTV, for instance, could stretch to a weekly look?

FEEDBACK TWO: “Often out-of-date prices on captions…they have Tanya on the firm, who is excellent at collating this stuff – so it must be a very conscious decision.”

ITV – I watch rarely, not out of any disdain – I just have access to the two dedicated channels, so just no need.

1. From what I have seen there appears very little accurate information on market moves. Often out-of-date prices on captions and very little nod to firms, they have Tanya on the firm who is excellent at collating this stuff- so it must be a very conscious decision.
2. Gleeson bouncing around the ring and paying no heed to the Safer Gaming rules that “we” all come under is bizarre. The “all in if loses I am swimming home” stuff.
3. I don’t think exchange moves are mentioned
4. Ante post quotes, at a time when a punter will get an instant opinion which is not cut and paste are ignored too often.  After the Guineas trials I think the one most important thing is the various quotes from firms, they do mention sometimes but it is not consistent. The same true of guineas winner for Derby etc.

RTV – Naturally a far better medium for all racing coverage in my view, and betting is covered well.

1. Dave Nevison is not everyone’s cup of tea, but I like him and find entertaining when they use him on the Saturday show, If finances allowed they should use him or an alternative on days they have coverage.
2. Running-up positions for their betting partners is surely of interest for most watchers also. Nothing like the punters cheering a big bad result for a firm. The daily “Nevison” could have direct whatsapp contact to trading rooms for this.  I think punters love to know a firm is in the soup.

Sky Sports Racing

1. Betting definitely been pushed back since ATR days- they still have the grids and symbols of partners who are top chalk and the PR spin from bookmakers, but it is fairly dumbed down.
2. Bar Sean Boyce, who is underused, especially since the loss on Sunday Forum – they seem to have a lack of betting knowledge in the camp, would be great to see more who know the game and potentially an afternoon betting expert- they sort of trialled this with Enzo but seems to have been dropped.
3. As with ITV instant ante-post quotes are often missed.

FEEDBACK THREE: “I tend not to listen to too much of the punditry there as I find it all very dry and Timeformy – it doesn’t tend to cover betting very well.”

Probably not the best person to ask really. I can’t watch ITV at all as Chapman is just so completely dire and unbearable.

I kind of take it as a given that betting won’t be covered properly there.

Similarly on RTV, I tend not to listen to too much of the punditry on there as find it all very dry and Timeformy – it doesn’t tend to cover betting very well though.

The stuff that would be interesting IMO is more the stuff that for example Dineen sometimes touches on on his RP podcast – which horses surprised you how well backed they were at the Festival for example? Which horses were massive drifters and ran accordingly. What insight can the betting market give for next time? EG angles around horses disappointing at short SPs and how they could be value next time.

Why you might want to back some horses at shorter prices than their current odds when you know they are fancied. Which drifters would you leave well alone, which yards would you chance? This stuff isn’t really done on any of the channels – as far as I’m aware anyway…

FEEDBACK FOUR: “The line from Chamberlin to his pundits is typically, “What wins?”, which is the wrong question.”

I respect most presenters for their ability to present; but not necessarily for their depth of form book knowledge.

That’s fine if you’re a paddock judge (Alice, Francesca, etc) but not so good if your remit is to steer people around the form book.

I don’t think any channel uses data especially well, particularly not visualisation.

Natural pre-race examples would be pace maps – dead simple – and some sort of visual formbook distillation grids. They’re blunt instruments to some degree, but they do give viewers a chance to make their own mind up rather than being spoon fed form-based opinion from a panel of varying degrees of awareness.

Even something like showing some strike rates for a horse’s sire or its trainer ahead of a maiden hurdle or 2yo race would add something.

The key is to make viewers curious, to engender a desire for them to ask their own questions, and to bet on what they perceive the answers to be. Currently, the output is way too geared towards prescribing / preaching to the audience. And this is across pretty much all channels.

In terms of pure betting, you’re far better placed to opine on how that should be presented; but everything that I’ve referenced above gets traced back to the market in search of the value play. A broader, more consistent delivery of what constitutes value on ITV would be useful, too: the line from Chamberlin to his pundits is typically, “What wins?”, which is the wrong question.

ATR/RTV are a little better at talking around value concepts but often do not especially evidence them.

FEEDBACK FIVE: “My biggest frustration is the use of ex-jockeys as form pundits who suddenly become betting experts having (in theory) not placed a bet in their career.”

I’m pleased to hear you are canvassing opinions on this topic, as in general betting is poorly presented.

I think it’s worth making a distinction between punditry and betting analysis although they are often intertwined.

Punditry is a review of each horse’s form along with any jockey trainer angles.  Perhaps highlighting anything from the paddock.  I’d expect the pundit to highlight the current odds and note if being backed or drifting. Most channels do this reasonably well to varying degrees usually dependent on time. It’s disappointing when not all runners are covered but again in larger fields not surprising if some are missed.

I’ve noticed that with French racing and now dog racing in the evening SSR often decrease their time spent on punditry on AW evening racing.

In terms of betting my biggest frustration is the use of ex-jockeys as form pundits who suddenly become betting experts having (in theory) not placed a bet in their career.

I have no problem with them saying I think this horse will win but it grates when they state this looks value at X/1 and is worth an each-way bet.

So what does a good betting analyst look like ?

I like to hear from folk who have or do bet for a living (or at least v seriously). From them I’m looking to hear which horses they consider may be underestimated in the betting, which have been overestimated and what they consider would be the best play. We all know that betting is a very personal activity and that one betting experts play may not suit another but it is interesting to hear none the less.

Ideally there would be some analysis of their P&L but that’s tricky to undertake and does drive some odd behaviours if there’s a league table or similar. However a good measure is always to compare the price taken against BSP.

I think there should be more discussion on exotics how to play them and how to find value, there’s a big opportunity for the Tote to get in on the act here and they’ve two very able experts operating on Twitter that could easily be utilised.

I was impressed with the short explainer that appeared on ITV on how to create a tissue and what constitutes a value bet.  Love to see more of those.

The Skybet Sunday Series worked well with some punditry from Timeform, there’s definitely scope for more betting explainers for beginners.

I should add that betting coverage in the ring is now almost unwatchable; the late John McCririck knew exactly how to do this and sadly cannot be emulated.

Finally and apologies for a longer email than I anticipated is a request to have betting overrounds being displayed routinely.

FEEDBACK SIX: “Racing is in a very precarious place, in that responsible gambling is making the word ‘betting’ dirty in the wider world.”

Racing isn’t an honest sport, and I am not re-inventing the wheel in saying that, but the mainstream and racing channels will not ‘go there’, so to speak.

With ITV everything is ‘nice’, look at this lovely foal, the offspring of ‘insert multiple group/grade winning mare here’.

The fact of the matter is racing is ‘donald ducked’ without betting.  Unless you go Tote-only and fund the game that way, then it will be continually funded by big operators giving what it thinks it can get away with.  The problem here is output can’t be geared to the main driver of the betting market pricing and that’s the betting exchange.

The old style of Big Mac wandering around the ring worked back in the day, because he reported action from the ring, and he could also relay what was being backed in the offices.

It doesn’t work like that now, because the on-course market isn’t as vibrant, with the bulk of the betting activity taking place on the exchanges during the show prices.  Whilst all three channels that show racing continue to have heavy bookmaker (not exchange) influence you can’t be seen to be highlighting that this horse on the off is 6/4 and well backed, yet its 3.2 on the machine and weak, as that won’t suit some operators.

The vested interests in the sport may prevent my first idea below from happening:

A couple of skilled reporters to monitor the exchange markets and report the significant chunks of money appearing on the back and lay side, informing the punter that there are clearly people wanting to be on horse X, or trying to get after horse X by laying it.

Couple that with liaising with the bookmaking fraternity’s biggest bogeys close to the off, big bets and multis running up etc and you’re getting a proper betting report.

Furthermore, the sharp money. Get in touch with two or three professional gamblers to find out what they’re doing on the race have they played? And why.  People love as much information as possible, the big winners, the big losers and of course the ‘sharps’, the shrewd money, where’s it going on the exchanges and the offices.

This has sort of been tried before, but badly in my opinion.

With regards to coverage on drifters performing badly this is also poor.  Many punters seethe with rage, when its 3s out to 7s and tailed off.  Of course, it isn’t just the dishonest angle with these, there are simply other variables that can cause a horse to run poorly, but TV channels do need to go there, or are they still scared since Curley?

Secondly, racing is now in a very precarious place in the grander scheme of things, in that responsible gambling is making the word ‘betting’ very dirty in the wider world & the TV companies seem to be less inclined to give it the heave-ho, with betting to win big, which has certainly glamourised The Sport of Kings for an age.  For production output we must ignore the naysayers & promote betting as strongly as we possibly can, without being reckless.

Education on all the channels, Richard Hoiles recently did a brilliant piece on ITV on how to price a race.

Punters like that sort of thing, to improve their games & instead of ITV talking about clobber, drink  and nice foals.

They need a section which is about betting education.

And maybe give a TV station (ITV, Racing TV, ATR) betting pot for the Flat/NH seasons.  You are promoting betting as a daily feature part of the show, but you are showing people how to manage a betting bank responsibly (thus educating people on safer gambling at the same time).

The experts working that day agree on a bet and a stake & you can then track how the station is doing throughout the season, needing discipline on the stake levels so they don’t run out of money on the barren runs.

It is banter, betting, and responsible gambling all in one.

FEEDBACK SEVEN: “Stop seeing betting as a dirty secret and accept that the majority people watch racing because they bet on it – and not because they want to absorb the majesty of the thoroughbred.”

All three channels are lacking a dedicated betting person who gets the opportunity to pick things up in the market.

For example horses trading at 20/1 on the exchanges but only 12/1 in the show, then if relevant going on to explain that as it’s a 16 runner handicap the win prices differ from the places, educating the betting people that things aren’t always as wrong as they seem.

Also actually picking up things that could be relevant, ‘this horse was 6/4 this morning for the 6f classified but it’s now 11/2 which is ominous, let’s see how she breaks.

Educating the punters on betting, doing a bit of policing and asking the question who is laying horses that are never put in the race ,show some of the fun and value of the betting ring and highlight price discrepancies giving opinions and insights not governed by who sponsors or advertises.

I realise that’s a big ask but if you have to pander to big bookmaker sensibilities there’s no way betting coverage can be objective which they need to be.

Stop seeing betting as a dirty secret and accept that the majority people watch racing because they bet on it and not because they want to absorb the majesty of the thoroughbred.

FEEDBACK EIGHT: “Every channel should have a nominated betting presenter. That person should have integrity, knowledge and also be editorially trained.”

In no particular order and some major/some minor:

1. John McCririck (RIP) was a one-off character and created his original and engaging persona. Too many pale imitators on ITV – develop a new style beyond the pantomime clown and raising voice at the end of segments. Even Big Mac’s style might no longer work in this ‘new world’.
2. Occasionally on ITV I hear a 33/1 winner but Tote paid an ‘amazing £42’ but why does it never work in reverse?
3. More integration between horse’s chance and price. Doesn’t need to be over-mathematical or off-putting but so often it’s one dimensional “I think horse X will win’ with price not even mentioned.
4. I think more in general can be made of market movers.
5. Every channel should have a nominated betting presenter. That person should have integrity, knowledge and also be editorially trained. So many stories are glossed over or even worse ignored because no one wants to / able to talk betting. Opener at Sedgefield today being a very timely example. We’re not in the world of Dick Francis conspiracies just treating the betting audience as intelligent.
6.  I would say we are at the point to be consistent of odds format. If it’s decimal then so be it but occasionally they are mixed and if anything that is confusing.
7. Would be refreshing to hear of bets beyond WIN only. Good cases for place recommendations or forecast perms for example. Also NO BET is also an acceptable recommendation rather than a token dart.
8. Bookmaker / punter / betting shop segments all good and shouldn’t be treated as ‘dirty’ content.
9. A weekly betting strategy programme would be good. For no other reason it would generally be timeless and evergreen
10. Speed of results and SP’s is often frustratingly slow. There’s probably nothing more important to a punter after they passed the post. Seen channels go to commercial breaks before announcing them.

FEEDBACK NINE: “There is a place for a betting-heavy ante-post show once a week maybe looking ahead to the weekend’s racing.”

Sorry but I really can’t be of much help here. My punting model is essentially an ante-post one these days and I team up with a couple of pro punters local to me to get those bets on.

Once those bets are on, that’s it for me until they run (or, increasingly frustratingly, don’t run) so I don’t really take any notice of day-to-day betting coverage on racing television.

Indeed, the way I work I record all live Racing TV and ATR and then fast forward through all the inter-race stuff when racing has finished so I end up watching the races and nothing else.

I do think, however, that there is a place for a betting-heavy ante-post show once a week maybe looking ahead in depth to the weekend’s racing.

The demand for Cheltenham preview nights very much suggests the appetite is there in the right format.

Part of the success of those preview nights I believe is that the panel is never the same (though Kealy and Jennings seem to pop up everywhere) and that’s something that might let RTV or ATR down if they went down that alley.

One of the appealing things about the old Racing Channel was the number of different guests they had on offering different angles/opinions unlike the indistinguishable formbods they have on today.