[BTCC] BTCC 2020 season discussion, News and Rumours!

[thetool]

Originally Posted by RS67

Try looking up the definitions of both and then you will see the similarities. Like I said as far as insurance is concerned they just have the odds stacked in their favour.

You're arguing over semantics but insurance companies don't really gamble at all.

Take this example. I pay you to deliver goods to me, and there is a 99% they will reach me. We agree £10 is a fair price for the delivery, but to factor in the chance of the goods not reaching me, I pay you 0.99*£10 = £9.90.

Now there are 2 outcomes here. Either I receive the goods and save 10 pence, or I lose £9.90 and get nothing. Still two very extreme outcomes. As I am only going to run this transaction once, I will see one of two extremes.

However, an insurance company will deal with millions of these transactions, and 1% of them will still fail. However, the law of large numbers means that I can predict with extremely high accuracy how many deliveries will fail and therefore my expected profit from these million transactions is almost a certainty.

It's the entire basis upon which the insurance industry works.

Gambling is almost the exact opposite of this process, deliberately exposing yourself to one of the extreme outcomes (in most cases, either losing your entire stake or making a substantial profit).

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by thetool

Gambling is almost the exact opposite of this process, deliberately exposing yourself to one of the extreme outcomes (in most cases, either losing your entire stake or making a substantial profit).

Exactly.

[medius]

Christ this has been an extraordinarily long silly season.

How do we see the Hyundais faring?

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by medius

Christ this has been an extraordinarily long silly season.

How do we see the Hyundais faring?

Genuinely not a clue. But they look fast when they're standing still. Hopefully they'll go good too.

[RS67]

Originally Posted by thetool

You're arguing over semantics but insurance companies don't really gamble at all.

Take this example. I pay you to deliver goods to me, and there is a 99% they will reach me. We agree £10 is a fair price for the delivery, but to factor in the chance of the goods not reaching me, I pay you 0.99*£10 = £9.90.

Now there are 2 outcomes here. Either I receive the goods and save 10 pence, or I lose £9.90 and get nothing. Still two very extreme outcomes. As I am only going to run this transaction once, I will see one of two extremes.

However, an insurance company will deal with millions of these transactions, and 1% of them will still fail. However, the law of large numbers means that I can predict with extremely high accuracy how many deliveries will fail and therefore my expected profit from these million transactions is almost a certainty.

It's the entire basis upon which the insurance industry works.

Gambling is almost the exact opposite of this process, deliberately exposing yourself to one of the extreme outcomes (in most cases, either losing your entire stake or making a substantial profit).

Both are based on risk. Just that the risk is less predictable than the other. Anything that involves risk is a gamble, regardless of what you like to call it. Only real difference is that with insurance, both parties are hoping there won't be a claim where as with gambling, one the customer is hoping for a win whilst the party taking the bet is hoping the customer loses

[thetool]

Originally Posted by RS67

Both are based on risk. Just that the risk is less predictable than the other. Anything that involves risk is a gamble, regardless of what you like to call it. Only real difference is that with insurance, both parties are hoping there won't be a claim where as with gambling, one the customer is hoping for a win whilst the party taking the bet is hoping the customer loses

The House always wins.

[Sodemo]

I take it there has been no official word on spectating at Donington?

[RS67]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I take it there has been no official word on spectating at Donington?

What other than MSV saying day visitors are allowed.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by RS67

Both are based on risk. Just that the risk is less predictable than the other. Anything that involves risk is a gamble, regardless of what you like to call it. Only real difference is that with insurance, both parties are hoping there won't be a claim where as with gambling, one the customer is hoping for a win whilst the party taking the bet is hoping the customer loses

I do understand your point but that really isn’t how insurance works. Yes, there is risk, but it’s spread across the whole industry to mitigate it.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by RS67

Both are based on risk. Just that the risk is less predictable than the other. Anything that involves risk is a gamble, regardless of what you like to call it.

Risk is present in a lot of situations that are not a gamble.

Gambling involves wagering a value against a risk in the hope of a prize.

Insurance is the exact opposite.

When you take out insurance, you are the one gambling, the insurance firm is taking the risk, the prize is a payout if the risk materialises.

Which, going back to my original point about insurance firms sponsoring BTCC teams:
At the moment, they've not had to pay out much in the way of prizes. Why would they now wager that money against the risk that BTCC marketing will not increase their position further?

[GT6]

I am just happy that someone is happy to put money into BTCC, as sponsors we need as many as possible if we are going to have our racing back

[RS67]

Originally Posted by peebee2

I do understand your point but that really isn’t how insurance works. Yes, there is risk, but it’s spread across the whole industry to mitigate it.

Just like a bookmaker taking in loads of bets and the amount of money from people who don't win is far greater than the money they have to pay out to the winners.

[MagicBoy]

Originally Posted by Matt K

Therefore, it's no chance to see tobacco brands being sponsors of racing teams. Who gives a damn?

Philip Morris still seem determined .. and with the most famous F1 team. *Cough* Mission Winnow *Cough*.

Past an ambiguous slogan there's appears no substance to the company, just a passing resemblance to a large cigarette brand logo.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I take it there has been no official word on spectating at Donington?

MSV have been emailing anyone who bought tickets for the original date if they would still be going or if they would like a refund. Technically I believe they are offering a credit note against a future purchase rather that cash refund, but same principal applies.

So baring any last minute change, spectators will be allowed.

Will be interesting to see how they handle infield access. There will be no spectator access to the paddock, and obviously one of the main routes to get into the infield is via the tunnel from the paddock. Will they fence off a walkway through the paddock to the tunnel or close the tunnel completely. I'm sure these are the same question we debated 20 or so pages ago.

[RS67]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

When you take out insurance, you are the one gambling, the insurance firm is taking the risk, the prize is a payout if the risk materialises.

Which, going back to my original point about insurance firms sponsoring BTCC teams:
At the moment, they've not had to pay out much in the way of prizes. Why would they now wager that money against the risk that BTCC marketing will not increase their position further?

As vehicle insurance is the only insurance people have to have by law, I will use that as an example.
A motorist has to take out insurance, unless it is an agreed value policy, it will payout market value or for repair. The only gamble on the part of the customer is if they include a voluntary excess to lower their premium and then that they don't have an accident. The only prize they get is a possible extra NCB for the following years premium. If they already have full NCB, then they get nothing. The insurance company however, is gambling on the customer not having to make a claim, their prize is not having to pay out any money, keeping all the money from the premium as well as the money they have learnt from the premium.

As far as spending money in the BTCC. Insurance companies need to advertise. The more customers that they get, statistics and probability should prove that they will have more customers that they won't have to pay out to in the event of claims. If they don't have enough customers, statistics and probability starts to stack against them. Insurance companies have gone bust in the past, just as bookmakers have and that is in part to not having enough money from the right sort of customers.
So with reduced payouts over the last few months means they have unexpected money to spare. Why would they not want to raise their profile and try to ensure they get your next car insurance premium rather than the next company. As I said all motorists have to have insurance to drive vehicles on the road, obviously there are a very small minority who will drive without insurance. But because people have to have it, it is one of very few industries that has been badly affected by the virus and lockdown. The fact that they have saved more money than any other industry as a result, means they are most certainly one of very few industries in a position to provide sponsorship. As lockdown reduces further, they will just be returning to their usual payouts, all that money they saved will still be spare.

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Will be interesting to see how they handle infield access. There will be no spectator access to the paddock, and obviously one of the main routes to get into the infield is via the tunnel from the paddock. Will they fence off a walkway through the paddock to the tunnel or close the tunnel completely. I'm sure these are the same question we debated 20 or so pages ago.

I would expect all spectators to be allowed only into the infield, with access via the Coppice tunnel, and nobody allowed anywhere near the paddock.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by RS67

As vehicle insurance is the only insurance people have to have by law, I will use that as an example.
A motorist has to take out insurance, unless it is an agreed value policy, it will payout market value or for repair. The only gamble on the part of the customer is if they include a voluntary excess to lower their premium and then that they don't have an accident. The only prize they get is a possible extra NCB for the following years premium. If they already have full NCB, then they get nothing. The insurance company however, is gambling on the customer not having to make a claim, their prize is not having to pay out any money, keeping all the money from the premium as well as the money they have learnt from the premium.

You've got the 'gamble' backwards there.

Buying your insurance premium is your wager. You are waiting for the event that means the insurance company pays out.
The payout is your prize.

Insurance companies are on the opposite side. They are not gambling anything. They will only ever pay out what has been taken in as premiums. If the payouts exceed the premiums received, then the payout is reduced.
Insurance companies don't pay out market value for repair, they pay their underwriters valuation on what is reasonable, which will always be in their favour.

The fact that you need motor insurance is to protect the third party. The mandatory part will never pay you anything back. Insuring your own vehicle is the gamble. Fully Comp is not mandatory.

[Matt K]

Originally Posted by MagicBoy

Philip Morris still seem determined .. and with the most famous F1 team. *Cough* Mission Winnow *Cough*.

Past an ambiguous slogan there's appears no substance to the company, just a passing resemblance to a large cigarette brand logo.

You're right, I've forgotten about them... which probably says a bit about their 'involvement.'

[peebee2]

Some people’s understanding of the insurance industry has to be based on a news-like story on something like the BBC website.

Interesting and entertaining, but utterly wrong.

[Alfaholic]

Originally Posted by redshoes

Will be interesting to see how they handle infield access. There will be no spectator access to the paddock, and obviously one of the main routes to get into the infield is via the tunnel from the paddock. Will they fence off a walkway through the paddock to the tunnel or close the tunnel completely. I'm sure these are the same question we debated 20 or so pages ago.

There's also a pedestrian entrance and tunnel to the infield at the Fogarty Esses which could be used.

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by sceptic

I would expect all spectators to be allowed only into the infield, with access via the Coppice tunnel, and nobody allowed anywhere near the paddock.

Originally Posted by Alfaholic

There's also a pedestrian entrance and tunnel to the infield at the Fogarty Esses which could be used.

It would be better if they could spread people out more by using both infield and outfield. If they use the entrance at the back of Redgate (Tarmac Lake) then you can get spectators past Hollywood and down Craners without going near the paddock.

If you can't get to the paddock then Esses tunnel just takes you from the car park. If you come in via that entrance and want to sit at the Old Haiprin then it's quite a walk from the Esses tunnel, out via Coppice tunnel and around the outfield. Likewise if you come in via Redgate entrance and want to sit infield it's an even longer walk in the other direction.

[andy97]

Originally Posted by AnnoyedMoose

Let's get cocaine dealers throwing some money into the sport to advertise their products while we're at it. After all the only consideration is that it's good for motorsport and nothing else.

Funnily enough I did know a F3 team owner a while ago whose Colombian hotshot driver disappeared when his “Coffee sponsorship” dried up after his father was imprisoned - something to do with white powder that wasn’t “creamer”!

[RS67]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

You've got the 'gamble' backwards there.

Buying your insurance premium is your wager. You are waiting for the event that means the insurance company pays out.
The payout is your prize.

Insurance companies are on the opposite side. They are not gambling anything. They will only ever pay out what has been taken in as premiums. If the payouts exceed the premiums received, then the payout is reduced.
Insurance companies don't pay out market value for repair, they pay their underwriters valuation on what is reasonable, which will always be in their favour.

The fact that you need motor insurance is to protect the third party. The mandatory part will never pay you anything back. Insuring your own vehicle is the gamble. Fully Comp is not mandatory.

If you have a vehicle insurance, you will be hoping you won't be in a position for the insurance to pay out. If you do have to claim, even if you have paid for protected NCB, you will still be paying higher insurance premiums for the next 5 years. Third Party Only insurance, maybe the required minimum, but there is no guarantee that it will be significantly cheaper than TPF&T of Comprehensive insurance.
Market value payout on car insurance is for a write off not repairs. If the cost of repairs alone or with additional costs exceeds the market value of the vehicle or a percentage of the vehicle value, the vehicle will be written off and the insured should receive market value. The idea being that you are insured to return you to a similar vehicle.

If you do make a claim on car insurance, the vehicle is returned to pre accident condition or money paid out for a replacement. That certainly isn't a prize.

The only prize is for the insurance company if you don't make a claim, because they don't have to pay out and they have basically got your premium for nothing.

[RS67]

Originally Posted by redshoes

It would be better if they could spread people out more by using both infield and outfield. If they use the entrance at the back of Redgate (Tarmac Lake) then you can get spectators past Hollywood and down Craners without going near the paddock.

If you can't get to the paddock then Esses tunnel just takes you from the car park. If you come in via that entrance and want to sit at the Old Haiprin then it's quite a walk from the Esses tunnel, out via Coppice tunnel and around the outfield. Likewise if you come in via Redgate entrance and want to sit infield it's an even longer walk in the other direction.

At Saturday's race meeting all spectators were kept to Redgate banking. Obviously a much smaller event and less stewards required to keep an eye on spectators. With a bigger event like BTCC, the crowd will be bigger, more stewards will be required and more viewing areas will be used.

[snowen250]

for the HSCC meeting at Brands this weekend the entire circuit was open for viewing. All very sensible and although not as busy as a BTCC Sunday, it was on the level of a BTCC Saturday.

Only area you couldn't go was the paddock, which is fair enough. So bodes well for the GP meeting in August for touring cars.

I did say sensible...any comment that HSCC spectators are a bit more...sensible...then BTCC ones is your own and not mine!