- This topic has 37 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I was on holiday when the Cesarewitch took place so was blissfully unaware of the Oriental Fox “gamble”.
At the risk of being called an after timer, how is it that Clare and his traders were able to allow a horse who had finished placed in two Group races in France, and won at Royal Ascot, fly under their radar?
Rather than making excuses for Clare’s squealing, he should be derided for using a pattern class horse’s gamble to point to flaws in the system.
I have used Betfair for 99% of my betting for many years now, and don’t see why anybody bets with these so called bookmakers anymore. They are bleeding the sport dry and now have their mole installed in the BHA.
As I said in a post on another thread a few minutes ago, and as I and many others have said before, it is high time Racing cut loose from the bookmakers and move towards a Tote Monopoly having successfully lobbied the government to renationalise the Tote. The recent abandoning by RMG of Turf TV in favour of SIS is further proof of the vice like grip the bookmakers have over the Racing industry. I am sure some senior palms are being very handsomely greased along the way.
It’s a sign of how warped the debate becomes when the likes of Clare enter it that horses like Oriental Fox and Shared Equity are cited as examples of coups and scams, vehicles for nefarious punters.
Oriental Fox wasn’t the proverbial Group Horse in a handicap. He was the literal Group horse in a handicap. He wound up pretty much the same price off pretty much the same mark as the last time he ran in the Ces. Shared Equity’s form figures read 52/1112-3333437 the LTO 7 was where he finished first home of horses in the top half of the draw in the Silver Cup.
Are there any horses that aren’t off limits anymore? Any horses that punters are can back without being labelled scammers?
I have used Betfair for 99% of my betting for many years now, and don’t see why anybody bets with these so called bookmakers anymore.
Whenever one of these familiar anti-bookmaker threads rears one of its many hydroid-medusoid heads someone makes this entirely valid point: more than valid, actually a truism and statement of the bleedin’ obvious
Why this continuing fascination and obsession with bookmakers?
Sure, if you bet for fun as a recreational hobby with no concern about profiting from it then by all means use those purveyors of the fun, the bookmakers. But don’t moan about them, if you don’t like their wares go and shop elsewhere
For the Bettor (with a capital B or even an emboldened lower-case b ) these sellers of poor value goods with dubious advertising are an irrelevance, has-beens and missed with the same indifference as was the demise of Woolworths
thats ridiculous as soon as someone starts beating the system thats it, should be laws regulating this
Big sports man bigger betting man
friend me at www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009790890756
copy and follow my betting at www.betfect.comtrying to reply to this thread but keeps saying its a duplicate so this is a test
Big sports man bigger betting man
friend me at www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009790890756
copy and follow my betting at www.betfect.comExcuse my ignorance, but what is “Bad EW Betting”?
‘Dirty bets’ are backing a horse E/W with a biggish odds on shot in the race, so as to have a ‘free’ win chance. Normally restricted to non handicaps. E/W doubles also profitable. Mind you, was very difficult getting these bets on 40 years ago when ‘Bookmakers’ did take a bet !!!!
That isn’t the right answer, Tim. I wouldn’t want to share it with the innocents who don’t indulge in the dark arts either.
If you don’t arb, don’t bet in bad EW races and don’t have betting patterns that suggest inside information, you’ve got a good chance of keeping your account alive, even if you’re a winner.
A red herring stock answer put forward by bookmakers in a poor attempt at giving some justification to closing accounts. Do they brainwash you when you enter Coral Towers TYF?
It’s irrelevant what method you use, you could stick a pin in the paper, if you win or beat the odds you will be banned. It’s been mentioned before but intelligence is used to see if you’re likely to be a winner, if you are you will be banned.
Where does leave horse racing though? The whole sport, BHA, Racing Post, RUK, ATR is polluted by bookmakers who wont lay a bet.
The BBC programme was quite basic but accurate and probably didn’t tell a lot of us what we didn’t already know although there were probably listeners unaware what goes on.
It did though cover an important issue that you would have thought would have been regularly covered in the racing media but isn’t, I wonder why that is.
If only racing had some sort of Tote/Exchange monopoly but Rust has already nailed his colours to the bookmakers mast. Good luck with that project British racing.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is “Bad EW Betting”?
‘Dirty bets’ are backing a horse E/W with a biggish odds on shot in the race, so as to have a ‘free’ win chance. Normally restricted to non handicaps. E/W doubles also profitable. Mind you, was very difficult getting these bets on 40 years ago when ‘Bookmakers’ did take a bet !!!!
That isn’t the right answer, Tim. I wouldn’t want to share it with the innocents who don’t indulge in the dark arts either.
You ever tried getting an E/W double on two 7/2 chances behind 4/7 shots ? Your lot certainly wouldn’t take it on the phone, though might get a small one on in a shop once or twice.
You can hardly say Dr. Rust is “in the pockets of the bookmakers”, especially in light of today’s news. He has gambled and will have burned several bridges with his ‘pay up or else’ tactics.
Yeats, you seem fixated on ‘beating the odds’. Surely if you don’t beat the SP, you’re doing something very wrong. Overnight and early morning prices and overrounds compare very favourably to SPs, so it’s hard NOT to get an advantageous price if you get on early enough. You’re likely to beat the SP if you back any random horse. If everyone who fit this profile was being restricted, there would be no punters at all – and before you jump in, publicly-released bookmaker racing product data shows that is far from the case.
You call me deluded, but I suspect racing forums and racing debates on Twitter are populated by myths driven by ego. It’s almost a badge of honour for many punters to say they have been restricted, because they associate that with being successful. If you don’t whine about difficulties in getting a bet laid, or the big bad bookies, then you come across as a novice. I believe more than half of those who bleat about restrictions are losing (yet innocent) punters who are just joining in with the bookie-bashing to seem like part of this shrewd, somehow wronged angry movement.
In the interests of balance, I’ve backed these winners at prices better than SP(as well as other losers) with Corals online this summer. All backed to win between £800 and £1200:
Maverick Wave 5/1 Sp 4/1
Secret Gesture 11/2 Sp 9/2
Ervedya 4/1 Sp 3/1
Eye of the Storm 8/1 Sp 5/1
Dartmouth 4/1 Sp 9/4
Storm The Stars 100/30 Sp 3/1
Ajaya 5/1 Sp 7/2Clearly I must be doing something wrong.
Apologies for the aftertiming, but difficult otherwise to make the point. I’m not by the way denying that punters do get restricted or closed down, it’s happened to me often enough. But my personal experience of Corals is that they will lay me a bet, even when the account is several grand in profit this year.
ALL and I do mean all major bookmakers will close accounts for each way filth and if you keep beating them on the price even if they don’t all win and half the fun is beating them without them knowing!!
I spent five years working for someone that pretty much knew all the tricks and if Simon Clare thinks Shared Equity and Oriental Fox were old fashioned gambles then he has not been around long enough or been alert enough to notice the hundreds of gambles that have occurred in the last twenty or so years.
It is very much a cat and mouse situation and the satisfaction from beating the bookies is often far better than the actual winnings!!
Subterfuge can take many faces and if you want to hear some good tails then speak to people like Michael Tabor who seems to be accepted into the inner circle now but has ducked and dived with the best of them.
P.S. Try getting a hundred pound yankee on for Colin Webster all at the prices and then you will learn tricks and subterfuge !!
In the interests of balance, I’ve backed these winners at prices better than SP(as well as other losers) with Corals online this summer. All backed to win between £800 and £1200:
Maverick Wave 5/1 Sp 4/1
Secret Gesture 11/2 Sp 9/2
Ervedya 4/1 Sp 3/1
Eye of the Storm 8/1 Sp 5/1
Dartmouth 4/1 Sp 9/4
Storm The Stars 100/30 Sp 3/1
Ajaya 5/1 Sp 7/2Clearly I must be doing something wrong.
Apologies for the aftertiming, but difficult otherwise to make the point. I’m not by the way denying that punters do get restricted or closed down, it’s happened to me often enough. But my personal experience of Corals is that they will lay me a bet, even when the account is several grand in profit this year.
Interesting AP, when you placed the bets was bigger available elsewhere?
For example I looked at the last one on the list Ajaya, it was 9/2 with Corals on the early prices while it was 4/1 with Hills & Ladbrokes. For it to drift with Corals to 5/1 it must have been weak in the market. If it was weak in the market at that time it is highly likely it was bigger on the exchanges.
You will be lucky to find a horse that drifts with the “big 3” from their early prices not bigger, some much bigger, on the exchanges. With it drifting to 5/1 with Corals I would estimate it must have been getting on for 6/1 on the exchanges.
Surely it makes good business sense to take your bet at 5/1 and bet it back at about 6/1 if they so wish while your bet is being processed?Obviously with it returning 7/2 it could have been another of those late market moves referred to by Tony Calvin.
I don’t know what Corals early price was (I presume you mean the price displayed on Pricewise?), but the account shows my bet placed at 10:28 on the morning of the race. Corals do offer increased odds for win only bets placed online which may explain the 5/1, but I can’t remember if that was the case. I certainly wouldn’t have bet at fixed odds if bigger was on offer on the exchange – I’m not a mug punter. I take fixed odds if in my judgement, I’m getting a price that I won’t be able to match later in the day. Inevitably I don’t always get it right, but the ones I get wrong which drift don’t often win – and the price you take on a loser is irrelevant.
Two other examples from that list, Eye of the Storm and Dartmouth, were backed between 7pm and 8pm the evening before the race, and were certainly bigger than what was then on offer on Betfair, both in terms of price and liquidity. If I remember correctly, the best prices about those two on Sat a.m. were 6/1 and 0/3 respectively.
Regardless of the specifics, all I’m pointing out is that the claim that ‘nobody’ is ever allowed to win, or that consistently beating the price gets you closed down isn’t 100% the case.
You can walk into any Corals shop at 11am this morning, and get a guaranteed bet to a two grand liability on each of six races in the UK this afternoon.
Not bad for a Wednesday in October.
Regardless of the specifics, all I’m pointing out is that the claim that ‘nobody’ is ever allowed to win, or that consistently beating the price gets you closed down isn’t 100% the case.
Are they perhaps using you as a surrogate odds-compiler APR, knowing that you are a well-known long-term winning punter?
For this reason I’ve never really understood bookmakers’ reticence to lay bets to proven winners, as these winners serve the valuable service of marking their card. And laying bets to lose around a grand to such winners is hardly going to dent their fieldbooks once the masses go in on the shortened marked horse
Furthermore, I suspect that bookmakers – as they always have – are still prepared to tolerate decent wins by punters provided they bet regularly with them, as you appear to do, and hence get to ‘know’ the punter’s MO
What they don’t like are infrequent ‘smart’ bets from strangers they know nothing about; be that an out-of-the-blue 50/10 or 5000/1000, win or lose
When I used the off-course books regularly there was a mantra that if you were running up a decent profit with one, some or all of them it was wise to chuck in the occasional ‘mug punt’ or windmill-tilting exotic to ease their pain and prevent/delay restriction or the terminal ‘Dear John’
No one can surely complain about Coral’s current offer mentioned by CR, providing that if it says Caviar on the tin it’s not Snook once opened
Drone,
It’s possible, but I wouldn’t be much help as I’m not what anyone would call a regular punter these days. I’ve had a total of 92 bets this flat season and only 23 of those have included part of the stake placed with Coral.
I certainly anticipate testing the shop guarantee at some point over the winter and will report back on whether the contents match the picture on the tin!
betfect dosnt restrict any of there successful betters as they rely on other people following there bets, but still make profit as most people are to weak and have to bet with there heart occasionally in other sports also
Big sports man bigger betting man
friend me at www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009790890756
copy and follow my betting at www.betfect.com
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.