- This topic has 46 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Those two sentences go hand in hand do they not? If you investigate the How then you will increase the chances of finding out if you Can. If you find out there isn’t a how, then you know you cannot. They didn’t do this.
I was going to watch this but once i read the synopsis i knew it was nothing more than a gamble aware/bookmakers abusing mugs programme. The title is wrong, not the programme, as the bookies in Britain most definitely do need to tighten up their targeting of addicts etc.
Not really.
Can you beat the bookies has a question mark
How to beat the bookies would be a full stopGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I did laugh at the courtsider – “my motivation is beating the bookies” while realistically he’s taking money from anyone silly enough to try to trade in-play low-level tennis in-play on the exchange from home. You’d last less than 20 bets if you tried courtsiding with a firm.
Can you beat the bookies has a question mark
How to beat the bookies would be a full stopPoint is Nathan; in order to answer the former, you must explain the latter.
This programme had no intention of doing what its title and introduction told us.
Entirely fake.
Value Is EverythingHe doesn’t know the answer to the latter though hence the question in the title ‘can you beat the bookies’?
followed by chatting/betting with so called pro gamblers to perhaps find out if you can not how to
How come you were not on the program ginge, would have been so much more informative but the tv company wants a bit of entertainment and viewing figures not viewers falling asleep over the odds percentage tableGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I presumed he was betting with firms on the small-scale stuff LS and just churning through accounts like wildfire? Snatch and grab type stuff if that is his method.
The courtsider was paying to use students betting accounts.
Rules of betting say a “bet” is only valid if there is a chance of winning.
Is there no rule to say there must be a chance of the bookmaker winning too?
Can bookmakers get their money back from this courtsider?
Value Is EverythingOnly takes a couple of minutes to explain how bookmakers work, Nathan. In a programme of its length is not much to ask. To answer the programme’s title it must be fair to all parties and this was not.
Value Is EverythingThe answer was given at the end of the programme. You can beat the bookies either through hard work or cheating.
Can bookmakers get their money back from this courtsider?
Not sure but as stated in the programme courtsiding is not illegal. But it seems if caught doing it the powers that be will eject you from the facility and ban you from ever going to another tennis match. I was quite surprised he had never been caught despite his long hair.
That is probably why he goes to the smaller tournaments where security is a lot slacker.
There’s boys at the big snooker tournaments blatantly trading the games in the second row, was clear as day on the TV
Surprised they get away with it but with more darkness and a lower level of betting knowledge in snooker i suppose it’s a decent target.
The answer was given at the end of the programme. You can beat the bookies either through hard work or cheating
I hoped they were going to show this conclusion so was glad they did. I liked that they showed the university professor scorning the “trust your gut” ad and pointing out that “The Professor” mate, that they made out to be the uncool fun sponge, was the only one with half a hope of beating the bookies.
I did think, like Ginger, they should have explained what an overround is- even by pricing up a 100% book on a coin toss and explaining that the difference between the evens that heads and tails should be, and the 10/11 the bookies would offer you on either, pays for Denise Coates’ holidays and her odds compilers’ kids’ shoes.
Then taken the presenter through the process of compiling his own book on a race, comparing it with the bookies’ odds and seeing if he thought there was a value bet in there, like GT does on his DLAP thread.I thought they needed to make more of the work- the greyhound guy said “videos and form” but they didn’t really show the work. The presenter placed a bet at Stratford near the start- I would have liked a horseracing pro to get him to study videos, form and pedigrees for one race in detail and think out loud with him- really delving in deep to every single aspect affecting a horse’s chances including potential future targets eg is it likely running for a mark? They could have shown that racingpost ad with all the people on the bus, and explained that the bookies have a bigger bus, with better people on it, as well as the overround in their favour.
Embarrassing drivel aimed at the Love Island celebration of stupidity class and firmly and cynically ignoring the basic but crucial fact that trying to win money betting on events that you have no knowledge or interest in will almost certainly result in total failure.
Shame on the BBC for peddling this hackneyed rubbish that assumes viewers are idiots and that people who choose to bet are part of a dimwitted sub class.
I liked that they showed the university professor scorning the “trust your gut” ad and pointing out that “The Professor” mate, that they made out to be the uncool fun sponge, was the only one with half a hope of beating the bookies.
Never seen them but that is pretty clever advertising. Subtle enough to get past the censors too. His mate (the former gambling addict) was the best person in it. I was impressed how he had a go at him for being in the adverts.
NOTE : Panarama are doing a program about addictive gambling on Monday.
They shut that presenter’s account down last week.
These they encouraging to bet more.
At the bottom of bookies adverts they have the slogan “When the fun stops : STOP! ”
I’ve said at work they don’t really mean it.
However I never dreamt they go this far as to pester people.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.That Panorama programme tonight was a real eyeopener for me too Rummy as to how the big firms carry on when they notice unusually high betting history on their sites. Of course they have all the take a break and when the fun stops STOP notices on their sites but once folk get drawn in to casino, poker and fruit machine games it’s the road to ruin
I was amazed by the man who was having over a hundred bets a day with Ladbrokes, lost his house, his business and swindled his clients out of money. He tried to give up and managed 5 months before his bookies deposited £10,000 in his account which set him off again on the road to ruin. They also gave him free VIP tickets to Wembley and Royal Ascot where he would be encouraged to gamble throughout the day by Ladbrokes own VIP management representative.
He has since put his hands up and apologised to those he swindled and the court has been lenient with him allowing him to counsel other addictive gamblers with a view to stopping.Also the 66 year old who lost her house and children’s inheritance (over £650.000) playing JackpotJoy who constantly topped up her losing runs with £100 bonuses and when she was having a paricularly bad time they put even more into her account for free to keep her playing, now she is penniless.
It really is a mugs game, I never stray away from horse racing however much money a bookie would deposit free for me to play poker or casino games. With horse racing you have a certain amount of control but the jury’s out on spinning numbers on a screen and a computer automatically turning your cards for you
…JacThings turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...Also the 66 year old who lost her house and children’s inheritance (over £650.000) playing JackpotJoy who constantly topped up her losing runs with £100 bonuses and when she was having a paricularly bad time they put even more into her account for free to keep her playing, now she is penniless.
The bit I found most shocking was the grand they gave her knowing her father had just died. That is utterly beyond the pale. I genuinely don’t know how some of these people sleep at night. The poor woman was on the verge of tears in some of those conversations where they called her up to giver her free credits.
But of course ‘everything has changed now and nothing like that could possibly happen today’. Roughly translated, ‘we may have been utter bastards in the past but we’ve changed now, honest’. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
I do firmly believe in personal responsibility for these things (I have taken responsibility for my own gambling in the past when it’s got out of hand) but the examples from that programme with the firms enticing them back in are disgusting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.