- This topic has 143 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
I can accept any business not wanting someone as a customer, it is up to them.
However i find it sick frankly, that they dont close your account fully. But no, they still send you ” 5 free spins ” on the Roulette or let you bet unrestricted on virtual fruit machines don’t they. Very Sly indeed !
If putting enough restrictions on the markets a punter is good at Corals know it’ll stop a punter betting/profiting… And does so by still allowing them to claim they are not closing accounts. I have more respect for Victor and Stan who have closed my account than bookmakers such as Coral and William.
Value Is EverythingI can accept any business not wanting someone as a customer, it is up to them.
However i find it sick frankly, that they dont close your account fully. But no, they still send you ” 5 free spins ” on the Roulette or let you bet unrestricted on virtual fruit machines don’t they. Very Sly indeed !
If putting enough restrictions on the markets a punter is good at Corals know it’ll stop a punter betting/profiting… And does so by still allowing them to claim they are not closing accounts. I have more respect for Victor and Stan who have closed my account than bookmakers such as Coral and William.
To give an example of how cynical they are ginger I tried to place some bets on the golf with stan james, this being one of the few online bookmakers that I’ve managed to take a decent amount of
Because one time in the distant past I won a decent sum off them, every time I tried to place a bet they “recalculated” my bets, onee example being a terrible bet for Tiger woods to win last years Open which I tried to place several months in advance, it was only a fiver but the betting bot “recalculated” this stake and only allowed me to bet £1.50 or something like that. I thought this is unbelievable.
I thought that was pathetic and would in the end cost them money- but I doubt there’s much common sense involved. Other bookmakers who I haven’t managed to yet rinse are of course happily taking my cash and doing very well from it.
The problem with the “bookmakers are running a business, it’s just common sense for them to refuse anyone who is winning money from them” idea is that it runs completely counter to how bookmakers market themselves.
I would have no problem with bookmakers closing winning accounts if they were honest about it – if all their adverts and websites carried a clear disclaimer that all consistent winners would have their accounts closed down.
Of course, they don’t do that because their business would collapse. They know that 90+% of all punters are losers and they’re the only ones they want – but they can’t possibly tell punters that. Instead, they propagate the fantasy that you can win and cover up the closures by restricting to tiny percentages (so they can claim they don’t close accounts – for example my Coral account wasn’t closed – just restricted so I couldn’t bet on any sports) – or they claim you’re engaging in arbing or bonus abuse when you’re doing no such thing.
When I had my account restricted to almost zero by Unibet I got on to customer services and to be fair to them they’re the only ones who dared give a reason. They said they suspected me of arbitrage betting. When I pointed out that my £40 bets on 5/1 and 8/1 shots would win me a pittance if I was arbing all she could say was “but you’ve won £700” as if it was a crime.
It only dawned on me later that even if they know the people they close down aren’t arbing, they can’t possibly admit it in public – they cant be see to just be shutting down all winners. In fact I suspect that their customer service people are deliberately mistrained so they don’t really know what arbing looks like.
Their little game may be stopped. Minimum bet rule should be £10 (or £20 if E/W investment):
Christ, Greg Wood is a bit of an anus isn’t he? What a shamelessly agenda-driven piece that is, not in the least bit objective.
“Bookies are not open about the widespread practice of laying a price to one punter while restricting another to pennies and it is most certainly not fair”
Though we can debate about the enforcement of the policy, it IS fair as a principal. If you put the work into form study and bet with a bookie at the moment, you have to ask yourself how you will feel if you lose your BPG, fallers insurance, odds boosts etc so some clueless moneybuyer can get £20 on a filthy arb.
Linetracking scrotes and angleshooters should not be able to get a penny on – I’d like to think we can all agree on that. Opinions-based original thinkers placing fair bets on the strength of their own views SHOULD be able to get bets on. Surely old Wood can’t believe that a braindead arber and a devoted form student should get the same treatment. The main beneficiaries of a ‘minimum bet’ agreement will be the lowest of the low.
If his piece is subjective it’s to encourage a path that allows us form-studiers to get the chosen bet on – always. Many currently can’t so have to resort to, for example, using others to subvert the problem and so reap the reward for their endeavours. We couldn’t care less who else might benefit and anyway it (the arbers’ dough) will all boost “racing’s most important revenue stream”. Odds boosts, fallers insurance are not necessary; BOG is minimally handy – a horse might drift unwarrantedly, however, we often find the winner who has been overpriced by the layer originally.
Why the personal attack on Wood? Call yourself a Corbynite? You can’t be if you work for and defend the arch-capitalist bookies. There should be one turf accountant – the State. Those who labour to be so successful an investor upon horse races, it’s very hard work, that they can make an honest living from it should be free to do so without fear of restriction and account closure. Bookmakers’ current practices, as highlighted by the article, are currently dishonest and ultimately will become so damaging that it will lead to their own downfall, and possibly racing’s. Consolidation has already begun. The bubble of multitudinous online layers will burst. A business has no right to make a profit, certainly not by unscrupulous trading. What currently goes on would not be acceptable in any other consumer industry. The matter is obviously seen as serious enough to be discussed at a high political level. The soon to be imposed £2 max stake on the gaming machines will in retrospect be seen as the turn of the tide.
I think Wood is a fair target to round on. As a journalist in the last two years, his pieces have been dreadfully agenda-driven and lacking in insight. From his point of view, it is a total freeroll for him to publish this constant stream of aggressively anti-industry articles without taking a moment or using any column inches for a rational analysis of what a nationwide minimum bet guarantee might trigger. I feel Wood relishes his self-appointed role as Captain of ‘Team Punters’ and enjoys the sense of approval he gets from the militant ‘Justice For Punters’ crew. He is just keeping on with the same old mindless schtick and growing ever more tumescent with his own reputation as the renegade independent journalist, lapping up the praise from the likes of Calvin, Channing and Bisogno. I see his output as wholly self-serving and lacking in merit at this point.
There are many industry subjects that agitators like Wood should be raising awareness of. I think his energy is misplaced and he is just keeping on with the same guff to stroke his own ego at this point. How about the firms who refused to join the Senet Group? How about dangerous deposit methods – many firms allow you to deposit via CREDIT CARD? What are the responsible gambling implications there? How about the major firms who don’t even segregate customer deposits from operating funds?
Yes, let’s talk about restrictions but let’s talk about them constructively. It’s wrong that firms are closing punters because they win from straight bets over a small sample (ridiculous even) and this needs to change. Why can’t firms retain straight winning accounts and use them to inform pricing? But let’s also raise awareness of the detestable population of bonus abusers, linetrackers and wannabe moneybuyers who are driving this internal culture of paranoia and restriction within bookmaking businesses. Wood (and many of the JFP mob) are being disingenuous in crying foul when there is a large element within their own battalion whose actual racing business could only be described as filth. Most restricted punters are limited for good reason.
You personally, GoldenMiller, might not be worried about losing BPG etc. Still, I’d suspect that the typical racing enthusiast, recreational punter (or whatever you want to call the average person who bets on racing) who currently bets happily with their chosen firms online or in shop would be very upset to lose the perks they currently enjoy. BPG IS massive for a punter. I bet with bookmakers and also use the exchanges but loss of BPG on my own applicable bets in the last year would have cost me 2.5% of my total returns. That’s quite a lot of money/points and could be the difference between being a winner and a loser for many.
You cannot Arb if the market created is efficient/correct? Traders have become lazy (not you necessarily, in general) and rely on the relatively small lays taken overnight to correct the markets.
If you need BOG to be a profitable punter you should give it up. I don’t believe it’s that big a thing, recreational punters will still punt.
What will happen if a minimum lay comes in is that books will increase their percentages (tighten prices) which even though I’m not a big time punter compared to those you’ve quoted I can understand as being fair.
You cannot Arb if the market created is efficient/correct? Traders have become lazy (not you necessarily, in general) and rely on the relatively small lays taken overnight to correct the markets.
No – markets are always moving. Though there are still rick prices overnight with PP/365 going up first, ‘market vibes’ and stable confidence play a big part in price fluctuations. It’s very naive to think every horse in every race has an exact ‘correct’ price and it’s compiler error if there’s a difference. We had this discussion about Rock The Kasbah in the Peter Marsh Thread – how could he be a 7/1 shot on form? General negative stable vibes (Hobbs yard sick, negative comments about the horse) played a part.
Let’s say Suzi Best has a horse with form figures of 000980- making handicap debut in a 12 runner low-grade event during the week. You put it in at a defensive 8/1 overnight and it drifts to a general 12/1 the next morning. All’s quiet until suddenly someone has made an offer on the exchange and it’s 9.2 to lay. Now there’s a semblance of market confidence in a horse that no amount of formbook expertise could help you with. Would you want to lay (an arb) 12/1 on that horse to some chopper who doesn’t know one end of a horse from the other? In all likelihood, they’d have no connection to the Best operation and just have realtime software that alerts them to arbing opportunities. They’re going to win by linetracking in the long run despite knowing nothing about racing – is that fair?
Of course not, but neither is restricting thousands of accounts which have the potential to win you a pile of £.
I’m sure if a minimum bet is put in place there will still be restrictions, hopefully the bookies will now need to justify why and not be able to come out with the usual ‘trading decision’ nonsense. Simon Clare has said the Arbs can be caught easily enough and restricted so you will be able to filter them out quite quickly.
Books track peoples betting patterns etc using software. It’s not all one-sided as you make it seem.
If the unaggressive Wood is anti-industry it’s the betting industry/bookmakers which, because of how the majority of them operate, is actually pro the horse racing industry as a whole.
Per BOG, I was talking about those so talented that 2.5% isn’t a big deal. It’s within the variable of exactly how much profit is made in one season compared to another.
And these are the investors most affected by restriction/closure.
In the beginning a couple of horse owners challenged each other to a race and had a wager on it. Before long unconnected folk desired to bet on contests. There was a vacancy for someone to take these bets, someone thinking they could profit from entertaining the custom of all bettors. The sport and betting industry grew. In recent years capitalist entities of all sizes have put ever more resources into attracting customers, using neon flashing lights, bells and whistles. It is patently unfair business practise to entice a customer, in this unique service industry, and then tell the person their custom is no longer wanted because they are making a profit, especially when, come what may, the large turf accountants are always going to win overall due to the large number of unskilled, lazy bettors on their books.
If his piece is subjective it’s to encourage a path that allows us form-studiers to get the chosen bet on – always. Many currently can’t so have to resort to, for example, using others to subvert the problem and so reap the reward for their endeavours. We couldn’t care less who else might benefit and anyway it (the arbers’ dough) will all boost “racing’s most important revenue stream”. Odds boosts, fallers insurance are not necessary; BOG is minimally handy – a horse might drift unwarrantedly, however, we often find the winner who has been overpriced by the layer originally.
Why the personal attack on Wood? Call yourself a Corbynite? You can’t be if you work for and defend the arch-capitalist bookies. There should be one turf accountant – the State. Those who labour to be so successful an investor upon horse races, it’s very hard work, that they can make an honest living from it should be free to do so without fear of restriction and account closure. Bookmakers’ current practices, as highlighted by the article, are currently dishonest and ultimately will become so damaging that it will lead to their own downfall, and possibly racing’s. Consolidation has already begun. The bubble of multitudinous online layers will burst. A business has no right to make a profit, certainly not by unscrupulous trading. What currently goes on would not be acceptable in any other consumer industry. The matter is obviously seen as serious enough to be discussed at a high political level. The soon to be imposed £2 max stake on the gaming machines will in retrospect be seen as the turn of the tide.
Great post GoldenMiller. It’s certainly about time they had a rocket up the arris about this subject.
I cannot get a bet on for more than buttons at Corals, PaddyPower, or WilliamHill of the ‘main’ bookies, over multiple accounts too. Straight win bets, never E/W. Corals are undoubtably the biggest pansies. Closely followed by Hills & PP. As soon as an account is deemed a ‘winner’, or even consistantly beating SP by a fair margin with one of these three firms over the past few years… They place heavy/ beyond silly restrictions onto the account basically causing you a large ballache, and telling you to ‘jog along’ in a roundabout way. The three bookies above do not even exsist to me anymore, I do not factor their prices into any bet I place, I just ignore them. What’s the point? They do not want to play anymore, not if the outcome is not electronic and controled by themselves. As time has gone by, they seem to be getting worse and worse as far as horse racing punting is concerned. I had a couple of Hills accounts for many years, where I could place pretty much what I wanted within reason. Every bet would be trader refered, but I never had a bet refused by them. That all changed a couple of years back, since then it’s not even worth the time of logging in. Both accounts within days of each other too. I honestly believe that since the internet side really took off, that the big bookmakers are colluding this information with each other about savvy punters. It’s alomost like over the last couple of years, they have decided that there should be no risk involved for themselves anymore as bookmakers. Why bother having any risk, when you can streamline things to pretty much remove these risks from your business model?
I have had very similar experiences to Nausered. This thing about arbers is vastly exaggerated, thousands of pure punters caught up in the wash. Suspect you’ve been brainwashed LS.
My Corals telephone account became limited and then severely limited. If not top price in the village they’d take my bet to a reasonable stake. But if top price the maximum stake they’d allow me was often less than what they’d take as a “minimum stake” from losing punters! How can that be fair?
One case the Corals woman wanted to take the “minimum stake” of £10 from my card even though the maximum amount they’d allow on the horse was around half that! Soon wasn’t worth me bothering with Corals, which is I guess what they wanted… How many accounts are effectively closed without them appearing as “closed”?
Value Is EverythingBlimey.
moneybuyers
filthy arbs
angleshooters
choppers
detestable population
bonus abusers
braindead arbers
linetracking scrotesWe used to call them customers when I was in the business.
Mike
GT, you have shown yourself partial to a dirty EW in a few other threads…might that have had something to do with your struggles to keep betting accounts open?
And betlarge – come on, I know the culture of ‘fake news’ makes everyone think they can get away with logical fallacies and twisting words nowadays but you’re better than that. There is undeniably a significant element of angleshooters within the punting population. I refer my disparaging remarks to them rather than all customers of bookmakers.
You’d be shocked at the sheer number of linetrackers there are – the type of people who wouldn’t back a selection at a general 8/1 if it’s 9.2 to lay on the machine, but will scramble to get on if that same selection is 11/2 but now 6.4 to lay. As a bookmaker it makes me roll my eyes and feel pity, but as a punter it makes my blood boil. I’m going to lose my BPG for the sake of these people? I work at the form, I spend hours watching videos and trying to better myself as a savvy punter and I’m going to lose a percentage of my returns for them. How can that be right? And how can people possibly want that to happen? You’re all turkeys voting for Christmas IMO.
GT, you have shown yourself partial to a dirty EW in a few other threads…might that have had something to do with your struggles to keep betting accounts open?
And betlarge – come on, I know the culture of ‘fake news’ makes everyone think they can get away with logical fallacies and twisting words nowadays but you’re better than that. There is undeniably a significant element of angleshooters within the punting population. I refer my disparaging remarks to them rather than all customers of bookmakers.
You’d be shocked at the sheer number of linetrackers there are – the type of people who wouldn’t back a selection at a general 8/1 if it’s 9.2 to lay on the machine, but will scramble to get on if that same selection is 11/2 but now 6.4 to lay. As a bookmaker it makes me roll my eyes and feel pity, but as a punter it makes my blood boil. I’m going to lose my BPG for the sake of these people? I work at the form, I spend hours watching videos and trying to better myself as a savvy punter and I’m going to lose a percentage of my returns for them. How can that be right? And how can people possibly want that to happen? You’re all turkeys voting for Christmas IMO.
Complete and utter bollocks LS. Sometimes I’m not quite sure if you are just naive, or more likely brainwashed by your work surroundings.
The internet boom and computerisation of gambling, has unquestionably allowed the bookmaking fraternity to pick and choose who they play with regards horse race betting. It’s without question that this is happening, and getting worse. Please remove your head from the clouds, stop bleating on about arbers, FOBT’s are where it’s at for you lot now. Be honest and admit this, instead of treating everyone like they are stupid.
From a business point of view, I understand this totally… I mean why would you not want the easy money? As a long term punter, it makes my blood absolutely boil.
This is what it’s all about. Mark my words, if they are kicked into line regarding FOBTs, things will improve again for us horse race bettors.
If they get their way, things will only get worse.
It certainly seems to have them sweating, they would have you believe that the entire world will end if limits are applied to FOBTs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.