- This topic has 143 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Not sure if you understand, botch. 10/1 AOB to break that record was a straight bet. I spent a whole morning crunching the permutations myself and made it something like 7/2. Obviously I made 10/1 huge value and got on. Their compilers evidently took a different view. WH haven’t punished my account so far as far as I know, nor would I expect them to.
Not comparable at all to an arb – this market has never been up on the exchange and I had no prospect of instantly laying off for profit. It also wasn’t a palp or expired price.
Good point about Microsoft and hackers. This is what I keep saying. Good straight winning accounts should be treasured by trading teams and used as markers.
1. Closure of betting accounts is hugely exaggerated. Accounts don’t get closed ‘if you win’ (at least not at the firms I have experience with) and those peddling that myth generally know the truth
Would the truth be that whilst few accounts are actually closed, many more are restricted to the point of de facto closure
This .
.
Stan James and Victor Chandler “closed” my account many years ago, but others have since severely restricted me as to not be worth trying. I was constantly phoning Corals and being limited to a fiver or tenner. For most punters their telephone minimum was £10, for me it seemed my maximum. Paddy Power recently (despite making a loss the last year) not much better… And since they took over Betfair, Sportsbook – who used to limit me to winning between £150 and £200, now does not say “account closed” just always comeing up “limited stake £00.00”, and I should “use the exchange”. Betfred say “SP only”, Hills similar, Sky and Ladbrokes limit me to making £200 per bet, latter sometimes a lot less.It’s not that I follow a tipster (eg no Segal or taylor), just my own selections and am not an arber – just take the best price available. Someone many years ago advised me (could’ve been you Drone) to sometimes take a slightly shorter price than the best – so as to keep the accounts open for longer – wish I’d done so but goes against the grain.
Value Is EverythingBelieve Coral only have one greyhound odds compiler for all UK races, Danny. Simply a case of copying and pasting Racing Post tissues or B365’s prices (also compiled on Racing Post tissue prices) into their website. Oh and just to add that the RP dog forecast SP’s are compiled by a ‘not too clued up’ computer.
Not sure if you understand, botch. 10/1 AOB to break that record was a straight bet. I spent a whole morning crunching the permutations myself and made it something like 7/2. Obviously I made 10/1 huge value and got on. Their compilers evidently took a different view. WH haven’t punished my account so far as far as I know, nor would I expect them to.
Not comparable at all to an arb – this market has never been up on the exchange and I had no prospect of instantly laying off for profit. It also wasn’t a palp or expired price.
What would you do if a company offered 10/1 at some point for him not to win it though ? Would you not be tempted to “arb” a little and make an easy “no risk” profit. Or would that go against your morals, go on be honest LS, you would wouldn’t you?
No difference between trading off for a profit in 10 minutes or 6 months, still the same. Really good to know bookies never ” arb ” though.
Believe Coral only have one greyhound odds compiler for all UK races
Wrong. Can’t give you any insight into how that team works or what they do, though.
Believe Coral only have one greyhound odds compiler for all UK races
Wrong. Can’t give you any insight into how that team works or what they do, though.
To be fair, it would be suicide for an odds compiler to follow a Racing Post betting forecast, journalists don’t take enough time on that sort of thing. With horse racing, the Racing Post Spotlight writer is the person who does the “betting forecast” guide – that’s what it is, a guide – he/she doesn’t spend enough time considering form and “chance”.
Value Is EverythingWhat would you do if a company offered 10/1 at some point for him not to win it though ? Would you not be tempted to “arb” a little and make an easy “no risk” profit. Or would that go against your morals, go on be honest LS, you would wouldn’t you?
No difference between trading off for a profit in 10 minutes or 6 months, still the same. Really good to know bookies never ” arb ” though.
There is a huge difference. You don’t know for sure if you’re going to get a trading opportunity when you bet ante-post. There’s an element of skill. Even if you intend to trade off later, you’re making a bet and taking a chance rather just buying money with an instant arb.
And no, I generally don’t trade off ante-post bets myself. I don’t think I’ve done it more than two or three times in the last couple of years. If I’ve got a good chunk on something I see as a 7/2 shot at 10/1 and I can afford to lose the stake, I’d be hurting my long-term ROI by exchanging any of it.
It’s not a moral thing at all (see distinction above) – I just feel like I’m in a position where I can let my bets run their course at the moment. If I was playing a stubby bankroll or looking to reduce variance, I might think about it.
1. Closure of betting accounts is hugely exaggerated. Accounts don’t get closed ‘if you win’ (at least not at the firms I have experience with) and those peddling that myth generally know the truth
Would the truth be that whilst few accounts are actually closed, many more are restricted to the point of de facto closure
Stan James and Victor Chandler “closed” my account many years ago, but others have since severely restricted me as to not be worth trying. I was constantly phoning Corals and being limited to a fiver or tenner. For most punters their telephone minimum was £10, for me it seemed my maximum.
Someone many years ago advised me (could’ve been you Drone) to sometimes take a slightly shorter price than the best – so as to keep the accounts open for longer – wish I’d done so but goes against the grain.
I might have missed it amidst the crossfire with Nausered but Lostsoldier doesn’t seemed to have refuted my question, so I can only assume it would have been answered in the affirmative; which was the 1/50 jolly anyway
Back in that proterozoic world before the exchanges, when forced to bet with bookmakers, it just seemed to be a case of being sensible not to scoff the whole arm if one had had numerous nibbles of the hand feeding you: throw in the odd mug bet or 5p Goliath; endeavouring not to get a reputation for only using certain firms when they’d put up a rick on the earlybirds; using the bookie you were running up a good profit with for betting the live market when they’d raised and belted their trousers; having won a decent sum in the early part of the two-week credit period with one concern, giving them a break by moving your business elsewhere for a while; settling the frequent ‘you lose’ credit statement by return of post
Then, they were not the enemy but valued brokers, and an account with them was a precious commodity
Nowadays it seems everyone hates them so they must be an enemy. Can’t comment, as the bookmaking fraternity became only of historical interest to me when the new millennium was in its early infancy
Not emamoured of what I read and hear though
Sorry Drone, I did miss your question.
I wasn’t treating closure and ‘de facto closure’ differently when I made that point. I wasn’t trying to hide behind semantics.
Sorry Drone, I did miss your question.
I wasn’t treating closure and ‘de facto closure’ differently when I made that point. I wasn’t trying to hide behind semantics.So, if we take ‘de facto closure’ to be the semantic equivalent of ‘severe restriction’, which of course is what I meant, this presumably means that your disclosure:
1. Closure of betting accounts is hugely exaggerated. Accounts don’t get closed ‘if you win’ (at least not at the firms I have experience with) and those peddling that myth generally know the truth
also means:
1. Severe restriction of betting accounts is hugely exaggerated. Accounts don’t get severely restricted ‘if you win’ (at least not at the firms I have experience with) and those peddling that myth generally know the truth
???
Certainly not the case according to Gingertipster: he knows the truth
I was once on a Grand National Preview panel which also included a bookmaker’s rep. During the interval I asked him why and when bookmakers close accounts?
He told me a punter does not necessarily need to be in profit. If the average price taken is over 20% better than SP they’ll look in to closing it before becoming profitable (because one like that will eventually prove profitable).
If getting a closed account it does not talk of profit. It says “because of betting patterns on this account”…
But as I say, bookmakers lately haven’t “closed” my accounts, just severely restricted to just as well be.
Am sure most very low stake profit making punters are freely allowed their bets by bookmakers. But anything else is restricted. Not only by amount allowed on, but also “special offers” may be good PR, they’re not open to everyone.
One bookmaker that restricts me to winning under £200 a time, am convinced – because am an Early Odds backer – they’re keeping me on only to tip them off when their odds compilers have got one wrong. It seems no matter who I back, every bet is afterwards shortened up within seconds. I may be a reasonably good judge, but am not that good!
Value Is EverythingNot sure if you understand, botch. 10/1 AOB to break that record was a straight bet. I spent a whole morning crunching the permutations myself and made it something like 7/2.
All morning, it was only a two horse race. A chimpanzee could do it in five minutes surely
Thank God you dont do the Grand National odds LS, it would take you 2 years to set the odds for that.
FOBTs review scrapped by Phil Hammond.
Cue the shitstorm.
Fake news: The Racing Post (and other sources) reports:
Sports minister Tracey Crouch took to Twitter on Saturday to label a newspaper’s claim’s that chancellor Philip Hammond had “shelved…a clampdown on betting machines” as “fake news”.
The Daily Mail article alleged the Treasury was opposed to any potential reduction in the maximum stake on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport due to the impact it would have on the Exchequer – citing the fact machines “contribute more than £400 million” annually.
There was nothing to substantiate the claim, only a mention of “a Whitehall source who said the Treasury fears that cutting the stake to £2 would be ‘financially crippling'”.
Crouch, the minister with responsibility for gambling, took issue with the suggestion the gaming machines review – which is expected to be published in October at the earliest having been delayed by the general election – would now no longer appear.
She tweeted a link to the article with the words “Fake news.”
Update – Bookies across the nation are now preparing to sue the newspaper in question for fake news.
It is estimated that on hearing the news £2.7 million was purchased on bottles of Champagne by the industry. A smaller claim will also be lodged at the High Court for paracetamol purchases the following morning.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.