- This topic has 143 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This article is concerned about racing – but, it really doesn’t matter what sport you win at as it will be “pack your bags and go” if you take money from them:
Bookmakers are scum, even more so since being allowed to have FOBT’s in shops.
We all know the BHA will do sweet FA, Rust has even said he doesn’t see a problem about the issue.
All these punters being turned off racing by bookmakers and some of the ones left, backing all these non runners. Not good for the levy is it?
If only we had a Tote monopoly
I loved the last bit ‘The vast majority of punters are unaffected…..’, yeah that’s us that lose more than we win.
They’re the enemy, always were and always will be.Why is anyone surprised???
Personally I have had five accounts closed in the last ten years which is probably not many compared to some people!!
BBC News going big today on inducements for FOBT players and lack of responsible gambling training, not a good day for the bookies
Never underestimate how many scumbags will rush down to their local betting shop first thing to try to back a small arb at Roscommon.
Regular punters aren’t really affected in these stories. Perhaps a few are caught in the crossfire when they inadvertantly get on an arb, bad e-w or palp, but (as always) the message from the other side is that anyone who bets straight and can beat the overround deserves their money.
Personally I am cynical about how many supposedly enraged punters are telling the truth here. As Matron’s article revealed, a minute number of punters are actually affected by restrictions, with many probably being multi-accounters. Pride and ego play a huge role in betting and social media, so I suspect that many of those whining about restricted accounts are actually straight unrestricted losing punters trying to play the part of downtrodden winners. It’s hard to admit you’re not good enough to beat the game, especially if you’re a forum/Twitter secondlifer who feeds on likes and followers.
I have never been knocked back or had an account closed.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysbut (as always) the message from the other side is that anyone who bets straight and can beat the overround deserves their money……..
….so I suspect that many of those whining about restricted accounts are actually straight unrestricted losing punters trying to play the part of downtrodden winners. It’s hard to admit you’re not good enough to beat the game, especially if you’re a forum/Twitter secondlifer who feeds on likes and followers.
So what you’re actually saying is, the bookmaker you work for, Coral I believe (a bookie who isn’t ABP an thinks it’s ok to sponge off racing), is happy to have winning punters (they deserve their money accoring to you). Then again if you’re a losing punter you get your account restricted.
No Ken. That’s not what I believe, not what I said and not a fair reflection of Coral’s objection to ABP terms.
So Lost Soldier are you calling those of us that profess to having accounts closed as LIARS?
I DO take umbrage at accusations like that!!
And to put you right I have NO twitter or facebook account either!!
No Ken. That’s not what I believe, not what I said and not a fair reflection of Coral’s objection to ABP terms.
Get a grip man, have a bit of pride in yourself instead of toeing the company line and spouting crap for an extra fiver in your wage packet and a few brownie points.
ABP status is irrelevant to this issue, ABP bookmakers are just as bad, they all **** in the same pot.
yeats/stilvi – I have plenty of pride in myself. That’s why I stand up for what I believe in.
Punters and bookmakers are natural enemies, but you’ll never see a fair debate on forums or social media. If I can stop one person from being poisoned by this kind of hatred and hyperbole then I feel I will have done something capital-G Good. I work for a bookmaker but I’m certainly not a PR man or a shill – I’m a self-interested punter first and foremost. If I quit today and went to work for B&Q, I would feel the same way.
I understand that this is a controversial issue but people need to be responsible. To paraphrase David Foster Wallace, the secret of life is to override your default setting to access empathy and understanding. The default setting for most punters is to be like yilvi over there: to despise bookmakers and throw around dangerously emotive language without taking in the arguments from both sides. If you do your homework and then take a view against bookmaking practices then that’s fine – we’ll have a different discussion.
Since you immediately stooped to name-calling and misguided personal attacks against me (not the first time) then I can’t give you that much credit. I presume you’re much older than I am so why do I have to tell you how a debate works?
Raymo – again, read my message and you’ll see that’s not what I’m saying.
Are bookmakers not Arbs…?
When Gary Wiltshere done his peanuts all those years back at Ascot when Frankie done his magnificent seven, was it not bookies pilling off liabilities onto him?Blackbeard to conquer the World
Hedging off big liabilities rarely (probably never) brings a guaranteed win scenario like an arb.
They’re desperate situations where the bookie accepts the reduced odds to offset part of their potential losses. It’s an act of damage limitation rather than anything shrewd.
The ‘debates’ on this subject on this forum must be in double figures since I joined. I don’t respond anymore because people have such fixed positions on the subject, nothing will change their minds.
But given LostSoldier’s tenacity, I feel obliged to step in and offer some back up with my usual question, which has never yet been answered by those who slag off bookies: what would you do if the business were yours?
No business is going to stop taking custom from those who give it a profit. Yes, some innocents will be caught in the crossfire here, and doubtless, in the future, ways will be found to refine the algorithms that flag ‘dangerous’ punters.
But those algos, in the main, help bookies protect profits. Directors would be acting illegally if, knowing these tools existed, they didn’t use them (because they would not be acting in the best interests of shareholders).
But aside from the legalities, strip it back to basics: if you ran a business, any business, and you were able to prevent a customer damaging/potentially damaging your profits, would you do so?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.