- This topic has 143 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
I’m with both sides of the argument, obviously agree with Joe that I wouldn’t expect a bookie to carry on taking custom off a punter who’s making millions a year with them, but restricting them to a fair amount like Steve said would be ok with me, maybe £100 per bet max or something then at least if they want to make a living then they can place bets with different firms and get on more. Just chatting out of arse though I guess ‘fair’ is a subjective word!
That is not the same as arbing, which is quite literally theft
No, it quite literally isn’t.
Mike
Bookmakers are no different from anyone else trying to run a business. It’s daft to suppose they are, which, in this case is exactly what many are doing.
Not so, bookmakers are in the fortunate position of having direct access to the more robust and profitable business practices of their competitors – viz those punters who are better odds compilers than the ones the bookmaker employs
Therefore I have never understood why bookmakers are so keen to rid themselves of such valuable information
Bookmakers are no different from anyone else trying to run a business. It’s daft to suppose they are, which, in this case is exactly what many are doing.
Not so, bookmakers are in the fortunate position of having direct access to the more robust and profitable business practices of their competitors – viz those punters who are better odds compilers than the ones the bookmaker employs
Therefore I have never understood why bookmakers are so keen to rid themselves of such valuable information
And they do indeed ‘retain’ the select among those you mention, trading off the losses for the information.
As to odds compilers, as far as day to day racing goes, Betfair is the ultimate odds compiler for the whole industry
As to restricting themselves only to losers, bookmakers, on racing alone, pay out around 85% of what they take in. In betting shops, once operating costs are paid, they are left with between and 1% and 2% profit on that. They get a bit more online because their costs are lower there.
Why isn’t it theft? People see this as a victimless activity, but it is stealing from innocent parties, taking money from both sides of the market. Straight exchange punters and bookies lose, margins shrink on both sides and the whole sport is poorer.
It’s not theft in a criminal sense (we can only wish) but I think arbing is morally indefensible. How can anyone be such a solipsist?
Why isn’t it theft? it is stealing from innocent parties
It’s not theft, it’s not stealing.
To strike a bet – win or lay – one needs a consensual party prepared to offer you the odds you require. If they do so, then one can only presume they are happy to do so.
Mike
As to odds compilers, as far as day to day racing goes, Betfair is the ultimate odds compiler for the whole industry
And there we have it. As you said Steepler these bookie bashing/defending threads appear with some regularity and they tend to end with someone pointing out that for anyone who takes their betting remotely seriously they’re an irrelevance anyway
Fun palaces for fun punters, amusement arcades for the addicted
I’m all for their dubious practices being exposed and agree with the view that racing should attempt to loosen its shackles but from a point of view of punting Bookmakers and BHS are one and the same to me: I use neither** as I have no need of their wares, but do show an interest in their dodgy methods and the way they treat their employees
Perhaps it’s time a band of bookmakers faced a Select Committee
**not quite true I ventured into BHS yesterday and bought a half-price mattress protector and three bath towels
Value is everything
Why isn’t it theft? People see this as a victimless activity, but it is stealing from innocent parties, taking money from both sides of the market. Straight exchange punters and bookies lose, margins shrink on both sides and the whole sport is poorer.
It’s not theft in a criminal sense (we can only wish) but I think arbing is morally indefensible. How can anyone be such a solipsist?
As is often the case with bookmakers and their cronies and have also seen with regards the issues of FOBT’s and allowing shops to be used for money laundering they waste no opportunity to throw in some red herrings, in a poor attempt at trying to muddy the waters.
Notice how much, lost soldier/young fella concentrates on arbing on this thread. It would be interesting to know how him and his other cronies collect the info to know someone is an arber?
With bookmakers not laying 2 bananas to a banana and the charges on the exchanges it is hardly feasible to believe arbing is much a factor at all in the greater scheme of things.To give Roscommon as an example is laughable, it will never be possible at well over 99.9% of races to arb and even then it would be for peanuts if successful.
There is no one in a better place than Tom Segal to arb, maybe lost soldier/young fella with all his inside info will tell us if Tom is an arber? And even if he was how he would obtain this information?
Bookmakers are not exactly shining beacons of integrity but then again neither are many trainers, jockeys, owners or punters so what, really, do you expect?
A tweet today (from the lad who heads the ‘boycott Betfred campaign) suggested that there have been fewer complaints about best odds guaranteed restrictions of late – the suggestion being that things may have improved for pressure in this respect.
I have never seriously troubled a bookmaker to the extent that he would want to shut me down but we should be told that in winning a specified sum, we will be banned. It is essentially risk free capitalism, incoming money with little chance of having to return significant amounts to the punter.
A post about this subject on my blog brought plenty comments from knowledgeable people (including an Australian campaigner for fairer gambling).
It seems to me that the issue here is not the closure of consistently winning accounts, but the ‘mistaken’ closure of the accounts of casual punters. If that is the issue, then that’s what campaigners need to work on by clarifying their message. That message so far (to me at least) has always been clouded by appeals for all punters to be allowed to bet, including those who consistently beat the books. The latter is never going to happen. No viable commercial organisation will allow a known threat to profits to continue.
On the plus side, no viable commercial organisation would want to close the accounts of people by mistake, or too early (when any threat has not been verified). This is where the campaigns should concentrate fire, because the strength of their case is undeniable.
The full blog piece is at https://steeplechasing.wordpress.com/ You need to click the small comments box at the foot of the post to get the full ‘story’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.