- This topic has 34 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Why would the nationality or location of a poster have a bearing on the veracity or logic of what they post? We have had people seemingly from North America, Australasia, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and various parts of Europe post on here. Some of them were surely natives of the land where they live, and some were Brits abroad. If Horse Punter rises to your bait and reveals his or her nationality and location, does that mean we all must preface our posts with similar information, for our ideas and observations to be accepted, if we wish to comment on the UK gambling environment?
The same would go for William Hill, which took great pleasure in revealing that a London woman had chosen this firm to make her first-ever bet: a £100,000 punt on the UK voting to stay in the EU.
Another life damaged or destroyed. And they call it entertainment.
Whilst I would heartily agree with Mr Lawson on his examination of the FOBT menace, the above refers to a completely different subject. The lady in question may have £50 million in her handbag for all we know! She may be laying-off against chunky bets on Leave. The idea that her’s is “another life damaged or destroyed” is a ridiculous conclusion.
Regarding the original piece, are we being told the full story here? Despite rumours to the contrary, bookmakers are sensitive to negative publicity and as reported, this would take fully ten seconds for a magistrate to find for the plaintiff. If the punter involved is resorting to the threat of legal action to force Bet365 to release her funds and the company has no defence to that, then it is disgraceful behaviour by them.
If Bet365 are willing to go to court (and it doesn’t say they are) then they must have some reasoning behind such action.
It would be interesting to hear a follow-up from Greg Wood
Mike
That was my reading of the Daily Mail article too Mike – ie. some excellent points on FOBTs, stupid conclusion on Brexit Vote betting.
People campaigning against FOBTs should keep their criticism to FOBTs otherwise it loses bite.
The name “Fixed odds betting terminals” says it all, the odds are “fixed”/vastly in the bookmaker’s favour and there is absolutely no skill to betting on it.
With Sports/Political gambling – despite the record amount lost by gamblers as a whole – it has never been easier to make a profit from investing in betting markets (if punters are willing to put the work in).
Value Is EverythingMatron, I am Irish, Dublin born and bred. Why would I have an interest in the UK? My interest is because I back horses and have been doing so for close on 45 years. There are no borders when it comes to online gambling, I am restricted or refused just the same as anybody else when I want to have a bet on a horserace, yet I receive on a daily basis, the same emails trying to lure me towards their “Casino” site, with unrequested free bets lodged in my account, where I can gamble as much as I like, as often as I like.
Me using the word gamble is actually wrong, it’s definition “to bet on an uncertain outcome” doesn’t apply here, the outcome is already known, to both me and the “Bookmaker”, that all casino games on the site, will always return a favourable healthy fixed percentage profit, to the “Bookmaker”. Come have a “Bet” with us on Leeds, Come have a “Bet” with us on The Eclipse, come “PLAY” on our Casino site. Bet definition “An agreement usually between two parties that the one who has made an incorrect prediction about an uncertain outcome will forfeit something stipulated to the other, A view or opinion, especially about something that cannot be known at the present time”. Play definition “recreational activity”.
FOBT’s represent MASSIVE risk free profits, horseracing does not and that’s the problem, they want to completely eliminate any risk, understandably every business wants to make profits, eliminate risk and cut overheads. This is beyond that, this is greed, using every dirty, filthy trick in the book and not in the book more often, to screw a punter that wants to have a bet on a nag, in fact to screw anybody that deposits money with them for whatever purpose.
Here in Ireland, when the world recession hit, we were on our knees, to the point that our credit rating was a triple minus rating, all normal borrowing sources dried up, we were bailed out, our Government introduced charges, taxes and cut spending beyond the bone. Thankfully know we are well ahead of our fiscal targets now, way ahead in repayments, our economy is growing in the right manner, not on false lending and spending. During the low point our Government passed a law banning entirely the introduction of FOBT’s into Ireland. A Country desperate for income into the public purse, looking a cash cow in the face and kicking it, because they saw the widespread effects that FOBT’s would have on both the individual primarily and then the betting Industry.
I can walk into a bookies in Ireland and have a relatively decent bet, yet those same bookies won’t entertain me online where they can control me and get rid of me unless I go their Casino route. This isn’t an individual Country issue, it’s a punters issue, no matter where you live, if you’re a horsepunter you’re being screwed and it’s as a direct result of FOBT’s, their knock on effect and the “bookies” determination to eliminate all risk, just look at PP, having bought Betfair, they now through the running of a bot, control the entire market, pumping every bet taken into Betfair, jumping ahead of everybody, the perfect risk free machine, beautiful risk free commission. Try having a bet on their Sportsbook, if ain’t bigger and matchable on the exchange, forget it. I’m not going to comment further on this Thread, apologies to the OP for turning this Thread off issue a bit.
With regard to Bet365, I found them extremely good in my dealings with them, the staff were beyond exceptionally helpful and nice, from opening the account I was up a good few bob and then was down to losing two grand, when over a period of one week in particular, I had very bad live video issues, which were down to them by their own admission and I closed the account. There might be more to the initial story than what’s revealed in the article. Nobody will know until an outcome is known.
Punters are idiots, that Horsebettorforum account survey was only replied to by I think around 850 people, punters mouth off, but when it comes to the crunch, do nothing, couldn’t even be bothered to take 5 minutes to fill out an online form. No wonder “bookies” walk all over us.
There are no "Systems".
@ Horse Punter
Thank you for your reply.
Pity the UK didn’t take the same tack as the Irish government with regards to FOBT’s
okjoe,
Bookmakers like things to be on their own terms. They like to have the odds in their favour and the vast majority of the time, they get their own way. However, there are a few circumstances in which punters have an advantage over their adversaries, and each way betting can provide that rare opportunity.
Dirty/snide/thieving each way bets can be found in races were there is generally a strong favourite (usually odds on), and a second and maybe third favourite with only small chance of upsetting the market leaders but a very good chance of filling the places. The rest of the field are usually big prices i.e. 14/1 bar.
Bookies hate these races. Why? Because they cannot set different odds for the win terms and the place terms. They have to set one price and then the place odds are determined by the each way terms for that race. This can create some excellent value in the place market.
Remember joe, you’re doing nothing wrong here, but in their eyes, you’re filth, because of your unwillingness to just, lie down and give them your money. Imagine going into Tesco’s and buying a packet of Cornflakes there every week because they are the cheapest or taking advantage of a two for one offer, only for the person on the checkout to turn around one day and label you as a “dirty/filthy customer” and tell you to never return. How many zeros would be on your settlement cheque after you’ve won your court case against them. Not so with our “bookie” friends, they make and are allowed to make their own laws.
There are no "Systems".
If a punter only has bets which favour the punter (eg only each way when the percentages favour each way betting) he/she will soon get their accounts closed. Bookies have to react this way. With BOG and many other offers there’s not enough profit margin to let non-risk takers keep their accounts.
When I first started betting in the 1980’s there was the big 4 bookies plus a load of miniscule independents, only a few races a week priced up on Early Odds, no BOG, no NRNB, no special enticing offers and most importantly no exchanges. Bookmakers profit margins on horse racing are smaller than they used to be, needing to compete to get trade. Increased competition means better prices and offers, but this in turn (unfortunately for many of us) means they can not afford to keep as many winning punters on. If he/she bets exclusively or semi-exclusively on certain types of market which are known to favour punters; expect the account to be closed. If a punter bets exclusively/semi exclusively on Pricewise or some other known winning tipster’s tips, he/she will get their accounts closed or severely limited. I was also told by an ex-bookies rep Stan James close accounts if the punter beats the SP by (on average) more than 20%; in many cases even if a losing account, closing them before they become winning accounts.
It is not like purchasing cornflakes, because the cost of a two for one cornflakes offer is a known £1.75 a go. The cost of a bookmaker taking a single bet from a winning punter depends entirely on stake and price taken – could be hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or more.
You can’t have it both ways, you can’t have both excellent value bets and no knock backs.
So the question that should be asked is:
A) Do you want excellent value bets and as a consequence put up with being refused/limited bets/accounts (if you’re any good at punting)?
Or
B) Do you want a return to the days of far fewer knock backs and being able to get on easily but as a consequence far less value bets and therefore more difficult to show a profit?
Actually, option B is not really an option when there are exchanges around. With bookmakers needing to compete with exchanges, sadly they have no option but to carry on with option A.
Value Is EverythingIf bookmakers were made to take bets from anyone then I suspect they would not bet on horse racing. Not enough money in it for them.
Value Is Everythingi prefer t be allowed a few bob on than all these gimmicks,BOG, money back as a free bet if your horse shytes before the race etc.Just let us have a bet
Regarding the original piece, are we being told the full story here? Despite rumours to the contrary, bookmakers are sensitive to negative publicity and as reported, this would take fully ten seconds for a magistrate to find for the plaintiff. If the punter involved is resorting to the threat of legal action to force Bet365 to release her funds and the company has no defence to that, then it is disgraceful behaviour by them.
If Bet365 are willing to go to court (and it doesn’t say they are) then they must have some reasoning behind such action.
It would be interesting to hear a follow-up from Greg Wood
Mike
It might be a tad early for a follow up given that the original article only appeared a week ago.
While bookmakers may be sensitive to negative publicity, it’s not often they receive it when they should, as a lot involved in horse racing (RUK, ATR, Racing Post, BHA, Racing journalists etc are on their payroll.
Bet 365 would not be aware of Greg Wood breaking ground till after the event, often cases like this are ignored and obviously if Bet 365 paid up the day after the article appeared it might not reflect well on Bet 365, they might think it’s best to string it out for a while, as though as some part of “justified” investigation.
Through poor regulation and the pathetic racing media, bookmakers are allowed to get away with murder, no doubt encouraged by other “punters” stating “There’s no smoke without fire” or “Are we being told the full story here” etc.
By all accounts this tactic from bookmakers is widespread with Betway and Betbright other reported culprits.
Bookmakers rules now state, Thou shalt not win and if by some fluke you manage to do so we shall make it is difficult as possible for you to get your hands on your money.
I would love the case to get to court but can’t see it happening, can you?
“…Those traders they have aren’t the brightest, I was looking at a horse at the start the other day, he threw the jockey off twice and wouldn’t go in the stalls twice, any fool could see he wasn’t going to take part but those thick traders thought his behaviour would increase his chances of running and winning, because they cut his price, they must have felt foolish a minute later when he was withdrawn and then had to cut all the others prices. …”
It doesn’t matter who said it, but surely this is clever rather than stupid.
If the price shortens then the deduction is higher, meaning less payout. Or have I got it my ass and elbow mixed up?
It doesn’t matter who said it, but surely this is clever rather than stupid.
If the price shortens then the deduction is higher, meaning less payout. Or have I got it my ass and elbow mixed up?
One of the oldest tricks in the book isn’t it?
It might be a tad early for a follow up given that the original article only appeared a week ago.
Yes, I was meaning I hope that Mr Wood keeps us informed of further developments when they occur.
Mike
It doesn’t matter who said it, but surely this is clever rather than stupid.
If the price shortens then the deduction is higher, meaning less payout. Or have I got it my ass and elbow mixed up?
One of the oldest tricks in the book isn’t it?
I wouldn’t class it as either clever or stupid, more just another bookmakers scam and as you say been going on for years.
What have the regulators or racing media said or done about it over the years? Very very little, they may as well condone it.
I’m surprised LostSoldier3 has never commented on this particular scam seeing how much he craves fair play.
Dave Yates wasted his column in the Mirror last Saturday on an issue of very little interest to the vast majority, why does he never delve into any of the many regular bookmaker scams or issues?
Maybe he’s influenced by being on Ladbroke’s payroll.Dave Yates wasted his column in the Mirror last Saturday on an issue of very little interest to the vast majority, why does he never delve into any of the many regular bookmaker scams or issues?
I get the feeling that any similarities between Dave Yates and John Pilger are probably coincidental.
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.