This year’s survey provides useful data on the challenges faced by those who like to bet on horseracing and the threat that the black market poses to the sport. In addition there were questions to understand the popularity of the British Horseracing Authorities Premierisation and Sunday racing initiatives. The survey had a total of 28 questions spread across the following subject headings:
1. About You (Respondent Data)
2. Affordability Checks & Account Restrictions
3. Black Market
4. Premierisation
5. The Going
6. General
The survey was published on the 22nd of July and closed 4 weeks later on the 18th of August. There were 205 responses to the survey, compared to the 2022 survey which received 896 responses, though is broadly comparable with the 2021 survey which received 256 responses with very little promotion. However, the data received provides a useful insight into the matters that are important to those represented by the HBF.
The results of the survey follow.
About You
Male respondents (94.5%) aged between 61 to 70 (31.1%) and who bet on horseracing once or twice a week (45.6%) formed the majority of respondents. This group was just narrowly ahead of those aged 51 to 60 (30.6%) and who bet on horseracing every day (44.1%). 10.2% of respondents are aged 71 or above and 1% are aged 18 to 25, the age group for which there are tighter restrictions proposed under the affordability check legislation.
The majority of respondents only bet on sports other than horseracing occasionally (35.7%) and 13.3% never bet on anything else. 31.6% bet on other sports once or twice a week, 14.3% once or twice a month and 5.1% bet on other sports every day. Question 3c asked about betting on casino type games and 83.7% of respondents said they never bet on these, and a further 10.2% responded only occasionally. Of those that played casino games more regularly, 4.1% said they did so once or twice a week and it was 1% for both playing once or twice a month or every day.
There was a good spread of average bet values, the most popular being £21 to £50 (21.4%) and £7 to £10 (20.4%) was next in. The other average bet ranges were much more closely grouped, £4 to £6 (14.8%), £51 to £100 (11.2%), under £3 (9.7%), £101 and above (9.2%), £15 to £20 (7.7%) and £11 to £15 (5.6%). When it comes to placing those bets, the most popular method is via desktop computer (141 responses). Apps on telephones and tablets are the next most popular method (113) and placing bets on-course the 3rd (81). 2 respondents placed their bets over a telephone call.
Most respondents regularly use between 2 and 4 online betting accounts (59.6%), though 19.7% only use 1. 17.6% regularly use between 5 and 9 accounts and 3.1% said they had 10 or more. 55.1% of all respondents use a price comparison website such as Oddschecker.
Question 8 asked ‘Do you ever place bets at starting price (not including Best Odds Guaranteed).’ 41.5% said they rarely bet at S.P. and 35.9% said that they never did. 22.1% often place bets at S.P. and there was just 1 respondent who said they always place their bets at S.P. With the decline of Best Odds Guaranteed offers, the survey result poses interesting questions into the future role of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission.
58.1% of respondents said their betting activity had either stayed the same or increased (52% & 6.2%). 41.8% said it had reduced, which is a concern. It would be useful to know if this response data is specifically related to horseracing betting, but taking into account the demographic deduced from the answers to the previous questions, it seems a negative for the sport to see this downward trend.
Affordability Checks & Account Restrictions
This question allowed free-text answers but there was some consistency in the responses. Bank statements, proof of identity, proof of address and proof of income were all mentioned several times. Some respondents specifically mentioned having to provide payslips and photos. One respondent stated that they were asked for proof of ID in a betting shop and that they had lost it.
This question allowed free-text answers and ‘trader’s decision’ was the most common response. Other responses were more directly linked to affordability, “My income isn’t high enough” and “I was gambling more than they were comfortable with.”
Affordability Checks & Account Restrictions – Conclusion: Whilst it is encouraging to see that most respondents have not experienced checks or account restrictions, it does look like this type of activity has increased during the last 12 months. Of those that were asked for proof of ID, income etc. 46.8% refused, which has to be a concern. It is also concerning that over 55% experienced restrictions that specifically applied to bets on horseracing.
Black Market
This question was another which allowed free-text answers. There were a couple of people who mentioned personal contacts, but the other responses showed that they either did not know or were perhaps guessing that their data had been sold to Black Market bookmakers. Possible sources were given as bookmaker accounts and online tipsters.
Black Market – Conclusion: It has to be an obvious concern that 16.4% of this relatively small sample has used Black Market bookmakers. It appears that Black Market bookmakers are actively recruiting new customers too, with 13.9% of respondents having been contacted. Their objective may be made easier with 39.3% of respondents stating that affordability checks mean it is more likely they will use an unlicensed bookmaker in the future.
Premierisation
Premierisation – Conclusion: It is encouraging that at least three quarters of respondents understand the concept. However, with only 4.2% saying they bet more on these races, there has to be a question of the initiative delivering expectations, especially as 4.2% also said they bet less on these meetings. 3.6% stated that they don’t bet on these meetings at all.
The Going
This question allowed free text answers and the Racing Post was by far the most popular response given (31). The Racecourse, either directly, via the website or social media was one of the next most popular answers, along with the BHA, At The Races and Online.
The Going – Conclusion: With 55.1% of respondents saying they either don’t trust the official gong descriptions at all or not enough to inform betting decisions, the current system appears to be letting bettors down. Just 1% fully trust the descriptions as true and accurate and 8.2% had no opinion on the subject.
General
This question allowed free-text answers and was very popular, with many responses being received. The usual need for more prize money and competitive racing featured, but there are too many to properly summarise here. Each response is unique in its own way and the HBF will consider them all when undertaking its analysis.
General – Conclusion: There is support for limiting the number of declarations for certain types of races, which is worth the HBF sharing with the BHA. As is the fact that horseracing bettors have significantly less confidence in those that run racing now than they did in recent years.
Those who believe that bettors should be guaranteed a run for their money, be it a good one or a bad one, will be heartened by the results in question 21. Not only does it show bettors would like there to be a rule change allowing stakes to be refunded on horses refusing to race, but there is an acceptance this may result in R4 deductions. It must be remembered that this result is based on a relatively small sample, but it shows a rule change to embed the principle of a guaranteed run for bettor’s money is something that should be explored further.
Comments are closed