- This topic has 57 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Forgive my ignorance but if I punt an outcome at Bookmaker A then arb using Bookmaker B or lay on an exchange what difference does that make to Bookmaker A? As far as he is concerned I have placed a bet on an outcome and that is that, one of us will win the bet and the other lose. What I do elsewhere is absolutely none of his business. Or am I missing something?
No you’re missing nothing. In simple terms, he works for Corals, who make markets on things. He’s crying because sometimes people make money from them getting their markets slightly wrong. That’s the long and the short of it. If you do not want to lay the horse at 6-1, don’t offer it at 6-1. Someone who arbs to them, is someone who understands markets and prices. This is not the kind of punter they want, they just want mugs.
Are you sure that’s exactly it? I mean if I offer 6-1 on chelsea winning the premier league, and some other bookmaker is offering 5-1, am I getting the market slightly wrong? Or am I just expressing a different opinion, and one that happens to be just as valid?
I can understand why people attack Lost Soldier. Still as others have said, it would be a shame if he was lost to the forum completely. At least he offers a different perspective even if it’s one the majority don’t agree with.
Some of the attacks are personal and over the top. As most punters, and by extension contributors to the forum, are long-term losers at gambling, bookmakers will always be a figure of hate. But you know what, everyone’s gotta make a living
Just for the record, I was only commenting on the concept or arbing in general. Nothing specific to LS or indeed anyone else.
Presumably it is in theory possible for one to do one’s absolute brains with a particular bookie when arbing but make a large profit elsewhere to profit overall. In reality I guess it more or less evens its self out though.
Frankly, I’m appalled by most of the responses above. I don’t think I can continue to contribute to TRF when most of the contributors (and the Admin and Senior Mod) are so doggedly in favour of behaviour that I see as morally indefensible. Given the aggressive reaction to my opinions – which are heartfelt and in no way just agitation as some have suggested – I think everyone would be happier if I left as well.
Running away now is argument lost, is it not? Preetty tame stuff you’ve been on the end of anyway compared to some of the discourse there’s been on TRF during the last ten years or so you recently said you’d been on here
Nope you’re not TDK; he’d have stood his ground
From your end of the never-ending battle isn’t arbitrage an essential ploy in the art of bookmaking: the beau ideal when deciding to lay-off liabilities. Lay it short, bet it back long, luvly jubly
So what you’re implying is that arbing practised by a bookmaker is presumably morally defensible but is indefensible if practised by a punter. Strange morals there Lost Soldier
Do you recall the ‘plastic bag man’ who rose to a very short-lived fame some years ago wandering the tracks with Ks and Ks of readies amongst his Tesco groceries?
Once memorably paraded on C4, at Chester with Thommo if memeory serves, asking the late Mike Burton of Hills for an 8000/13000 with the boards elsewhere drifting to 4/6. Burton of course took the lump all too gleefully and then ‘went to work’ to quote an uncharacteristically bemused McCririck
Morally indefensible?
LS that’s what I was trying to get at – it’s clear your comments are ‘heartfelt’. It’s the logic behind it that nobody here seems able to fathom.
To brand any behaviour as morally indefensible, you must be able to justify that to others. You can obviously justify it to yourself with the deepest commitment. How do you do that? Where is the reasoning? We’re not talking Agent Orange here or the selling of body parts from babies.
Why is arbing morally indefensible?
Corals reduced my stakes many years ago, to an extent it isn’t worth keeping the account going. I kid you not – some bets were reduced to under a fiver! Think it was done because they don’t need to own up to closing accounts if punters do it themselves – their stats look better.
However, I don’t think the OP’s particular case has anything to do with successful punters or even arbers, neither is it actually against the interests of punters. Bookmakers were probably doing their best to keep as many punters happy as possible – accomodating as many punters as possible @ the advertised 6/1 odds.
Mr Singh was subject to Pricewise.
There’s only ever going to be a certain amount of money on at a price before bookmakers have no option but to shorten. Pricewise dominates betting markets on a Saturday morning, especially when Tom Segal is on the Morning Line. Lone Soldiar might know more than I about this, but years ago – before I had any problem with getting on – bookies restricted when my selection coincided with Pricewise. Even asked once “why is my stake being reduced”? Bookmakers reduce the allowed stake for each punter, which allows more punters to get on at the advertised price.Why is that a bad thing?
How would Yeats’s mate have reacted if the 6/1 had all gone and only been offered 5/1 or 9/2 instead?
It’s easy for punters to believe bookmakers are always acting against their interests. It’s not always the case.
Value Is EverythingFrankly, I’m appalled by most of the responses above. I don’t think I can continue to contribute to TRF when most of the contributors (and the Admin and Senior Mod) are so doggedly in favour of behaviour that I see as morally indefensible. Given the aggressive reaction to my opinions – which are heartfelt and in no way just agitation as some have suggested – I think everyone would be happier if I left as well.
Boo hoo, ask mummy to rub it better for you. You can’t really be for real? You need a big dose of man the hell up if you are.
I think you will feel much better if you just admit to us and more importantly yourself… That you work for scumbags.
Repeat after me… “Corals are scum”
See, that’s better already isn’t it mummy’s little soldier?
during the last ten years or so you recently said you’d been on here
Keep up Drone, LS was Previously The Young Fella.
Possibly TDK but I would wager no.Charles Darwin to conquer the World
Thank you Nathan, oh dear
A nice young fellow bent out of shape by bookmakers’ pliers
Mind you, the toad work does generally tend to narrow and cloud the wide bright eyes of gilded youth
I was young once, believe it or not
LS – none of my comments should be taken personally. We fundamentally disagree on this topic, it’s all part of the debate, the reason the forum exists. For people to share, discuss and argue opinions.
I bet they wished they had laid all the bets now, can’t understand why they still run scared of Pricewise these days.
Never worry when someone throws their toys out of the pram when they haven’t got a leg to stand on. And of course apart from his touching Please don’t go appeal to Lost Soldier, Gingertipster’s main contribution to the topic is as a bookmakers apologist, you need to look at the bigger picture pal.
Lost Soldier has the same hypocritical tendencies as his paymasters, instead of keeping to the subject matter here he immediately starts dishing out insults about arbing, moneysavingexpert forum, discount vouchers for Pizza Express and reclaiming PPI but if he receives anything in return he starts whinging like a baby.
It is quite clear from Lost Soldiers replies that the reason punters were restricted to £10 was nothing to do with liabilities but solely because the price was lower on the exchanges. It was a trading decision with no knowledge of any liabilities as betting shop managers had already been informed prior to 8.30am that all punters were being restricted to a tenner. As Tim James put’s it “They really are pathetic”.
A bit of honesty is all that’s required, if you don’t want to lay the price don’t offer it and don’t advertise it in the press. How many punters must be being put off the sport by this sort of legalised thievery by so called “bookmakers?”
Instead we are regularly treated to Simon Clare & David Stevens lying through their back teeth on television about all the big bets they have laid, unchallenged by racing presenters and pundits alike.
Why doesn’t Clare go on and justify restricting all punters to just a tenner on only a 6/1 chance in one of the biggest races of the day if he’s nothing to hide?
How does this all equate to their worthless offer of laying any horse to lose 2 grand or whatever after 11.00am? Because 99.999% of the time you would be better off backing the horse elsewhere. Corals wouldn’t do it otherwise.
Mr Singh was subject to Pricewise.
There’s only ever going to be a certain amount of money on at a price before bookmakers have no option but to shorten. Pricewise dominates betting markets on a Saturday morning, especially when Tom Segal is on the Morning Line.And there is the answer. ‘Pricewise’ the bookies best friend
No odds compiler in the universe is going to price a horse 6/1 when the rest are 7/2 it’s all done for Pricewise
Had the horse won it would be a 6 point profit when in reality it should be 3.5 point profit then at the end of the year best tipster Tom is 20 points up and his followers over 20 points down, bookies laughing.
Time and time again Pricewise given a magical, mythical bullsh!t of a price and ginger will defend it until the cows come home that Tom finds the value rather than the truth which is it is given to him.Charles Darwin to conquer the World
Mr Singh was subject to Pricewise.
There’s only ever going to be a certain amount of money on at a price before bookmakers have no option but to shorten. Pricewise dominates betting markets on a Saturday morning, especially when Tom Segal is on the Morning Line.And there is the answer. ‘Pricewise’ the bookies best friend
No odds compiler in the universe is going to price a horse 6/1 when the rest are 7/2 it’s all done for Pricewise
Had the horse won it would be a 6 point profit when in reality it should be 3.5 point profit then at the end of the year best tipster Tom is 20 points up and his followers over 20 points down, bookies laughing.
Time and time again Pricewise given a magical, mythical bullsh!t of a price and ginger will defend it until the cows come home that Tom finds the value rather than the truth which is it is given to him.“The rest” were not “7/2” while the 6/1 was available.
…And there you have the problem. Those that can not understand odds/percentages/markets will never understand the truth. Just because they themselves can not identify value – they believe others must be using “magical, mythical bullsh!t”. :lol:
Value Is EverythingIn the Black Type thread, an article by Greg Wood is quoted, which contains the following:
“..the Australian state of New South Wales introduced legislation in January 2015 which forces bookies to honour guarantees on the minimum bets they will lay, and that a number of firms have seen their turnover and profitability rise as a result.”
Maybe the bookmakers’ slash-and-burn approach to any clients who have backed the ‘wrong’ winners (or any winners in some cases) is merely a result of their own paranoia, which negatively affects their bottom-line.
Mike
You are very naive if you think Tom is not working for the bookies, ginge.
The night before a race anyone can look at oddschecker and see the prices
Tom gets to see the night prices and the next day morning prices at the same time thus gets easy pickings, especially if there is a big difference between the two.
I’d bet my life the bookies ask him who he is looking to select for the column and go bigger for him because they know they can take a moneys worth of liability before shortening the horse and know that horse will still be backed well past the value by blind Segal followers thus resulting in an overall profit because Tom goes long runs without a winner but the made up prices keeps him ahead, makes him look better than the truth, then the papers, c4 start spouting about Tom’s success which is misleading in unsuspecting punters.
Punters friend, no thank you.Charles Darwin to conquer the World
Never worry when someone throws their toys out of the pram when they haven’t got a leg to stand on. And of course apart from his touching Please don’t go appeal to Lost Soldier, Gingertipster’s main contribution to the topic is as a bookmakers apologist, you need to look at the bigger picture pal.
I am no bookmaker apologist Yeats, especially not Corals. As I said, I believe they deliberately reduce stakes of winning punters to rediculously little – so they don’t show up as closed accounts. There is much the bookmaker industry does that offends, it’s just the stuff you constantly try and blame them for – is crazy or il-judged.
What would you rather bookmakers do with Pricewise horses?
If there were no limit to stakes on Pricewise horses, then it stands to reason one sole customer would take all the advertised price in one massive bet… before arbing on the exchanges for a definate enormous profit. Leaving no 6/1 for anyone else, including your mate?
If only one person gobbles up all the advertised price then what’s the point of the column?There is no perfect solution, but is it not better to limit each punter so more customers can get the price and profit?Pricewise is not supposed to be for the heavy hitters anyway, it’s not even for the £20 or £30 punters; it’s for the £5 or £10 punters.
I wish Pricewise did not exist! Tom often stops me from getting a price about something I’ve put in hours of work identifying value myself. But not everything will be to my benefit in life. So, your mate didn’t get the amount he wanted on at the 6/1, no doubt Yeats – you got on your high horse and explained the injustice of it all. :lol: Bookmakers are not there to line punters pockets – get over it.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.