- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
- Posts
Recently I spent a few hours with some of my novice/recreational racer friends and taught them how to setup a bookmaker online account, showed them how to read the form and place a bet with the many tools available, had them watch the race play out and then encouraged them to try doing it all on their own a couple of times. Amazingly a few of them have started betting on a regular basis, as they are enjoying the experience.
It might work with “friends”, but whenever I’ve tried with novice racegoers they seem to think “get a life; it’s just luck”. Joe Public have been told “nobody wins in the long run”, so they don’t think it’s worth studying “how to read the form”.
What did you tell these novices Kmarritt?
Value Is EverythingIn response to Gingertipsters question:
I am sure there are those that will always have the opinion “get a life; it’s just luck” and I certainly wouldn’t argue with that view. However, there are also those that are disinterested or scared to try based on some of the barriers I previously explained. All I did with my friends was to listen to their concerns and help them overcome them whilst making it clear that racing is not a get rich quick scheme.
Do you think if we picked 20 people from a random sample of the circa 4 million fringe/recreational bettors in the UK that all of them would tell us to “get a life;it’s just luck”? Or do you think we could convert at least 1 of them to see the light? As scaling those numbers up would be all it would take to hit the 200K target.
Ibracing, bookmaking is the only business I’ve known where some people believe they should retain as customers people who damage their profits. And believers in this don’t suggest it as a concession, most seem vitriolically in favour of it.
It’s almost like saying banks must expect to be robbed by a small percentage of those coming through the door. It has happened as long as banks have been in existence, therefore they should not only prepare for it, they should not complain when it happens.
Does it never occur to advocates of your approach that, taken to its ultimate, the bookmaking business would die?
Is there any other business that you believe should cater for people who damage its profits and therefore its future?
If you were a bookmaker, would you happily take bets from all these people?
Ibracing, bookmaking is the only business I’ve known where some people believe they should retain as customers people who damage their profits. And believers in this don’t suggest it as a concession, most seem vitriolically in favour of it.
It’s almost like saying banks must expect to be robbed by a small percentage of those coming through the door. It has happened as long as banks have been in existence, therefore they should not only prepare for it, they should not complain when it happens.
A far better analogy with banks is the free banking they offer. Banks have millions of customers that cost them money (current account users that don’t opt for other services, credit card users that routinely pay their balance in full etc etc). I don’t see banks trying to filter out these customers.
The same goes for just about any business I can think of. Do you think supermarkets make money from people who buy booze for less than the cost of the excise duty or budget airlines make a profit flying those punters that have paid a fiver for their seat?
Let’s be clear, in the current retail space bookmaker behaviour is deviant in chasing these customers away. The majority of businesses have customers that aren’t profitable and can identify such customers. None that I know of go to the same lengths in attempting to exclude such customers.
Don’t agree with the analogy Joe, we are not doing anything against the law by wanting to bet, so am not a bank robber. But agree with the sentiment of your post. Businesses can not be expected to sell their product to people who will do deep damage to their profits. Although do believe some winning punters should be accomodated, depends on how much bookmaker profits they’re taking.
Value Is EverythingAgreed, my banking analogy was illogical – that was the point. It is no less logical than these regular rants about bookmakers who ought to risk their businesses by knowingly accommodating punters who are likely to beat them. Doing that, from a director’s viewpoint, is illegal too. A director is legally bound to act in the best interests of shareholders.
TAFKAG, your points on banks and supermarkets have some merit, but the types of customers you mention do not see their relationship with banks in anything like the same light as winning punters see theirs with bookies. I’m sure that if any business could identify customers whose sole aim in every transaction was to damage their profits, they’d get rid of them as, indeed, they’d be obliged to do under the terms of their directorships.
I’m at some risk of derailing this thread now, and I should know better than to counter-rant. But I’m happy to continue on another thread if anyone wants to debate this further.
Ibracing, bookmaking is the only business I’ve known where some people believe they should retain as customers people who damage their profits. And believers in this don’t suggest it as a concession, most seem vitriolically in favour of it.
It’s almost like saying banks must expect to be robbed by a small percentage of those coming through the door. It has happened as long as banks have been in existence, therefore they should not only prepare for it, they should not complain when it happens.
Does it never occur to advocates of your approach that, taken to its ultimate, the bookmaking business would die?
Is there any other business that you believe should cater for people who damage its profits and therefore its future?
If you were a bookmaker, would you happily take bets from all these people?
Bookmaking is a business where where people are expected to bet and take money from bookmakers that’s the whole point of the business. Bookmakers aren’t selling products their product is the odds they are offering with the deliberate intention of the “buyer” to take the money. That is gambling. You don’y buy a national lottery ticket then when you win Camelot ban you from playing it.
Bookmakers simply by the nature of their business need to accommodate the people that win just as much as those who don’t. It is a duty that they do by means of what they do.
If they can’t make a profit then they pack it in like any other business would have to.
Bookmaking is a business where where people are expected to bet and take money from bookmakers that’s the whole point of the business. Bookmakers aren’t selling products their product is the odds they are offering with the deliberate intention of the “buyer” to take the money. That is gambling. You don’y buy a national lottery ticket then when you win Camelot ban you from playing it.
Bookmakers simply by the nature of their business need to accommodate the people that win just as much as those who don’t. It is a duty that they do by means of what they do.
If they can’t make a profit then they pack it in like any other business would have to.
Profitable sports gamblers are not “gamblers” at all IB, we are “investors”. Nobody “invests” in the National Lottery because it is a pure gamble.
In pre Exchange days bookmakers could accommodate more winning punters because over-rounds (profit margins) were bigger. With increased competition from Exchanges and more on line bookmakers they can no longer accommodate big losses from successful punters because of the small profit margin needed to attract punters. Therefore they have to close accounts.
Value Is Everything<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>IBRacing wrote:</div>
Bookmaking is a business where where people are expected to bet and take money from bookmakers that’s the whole point of the business. Bookmakers aren’t selling products their product is the odds they are offering with the deliberate intention of the “buyer” to take the money. That is gambling. You don’y buy a national lottery ticket then when you win Camelot ban you from playing it.Bookmakers simply by the nature of their business need to accommodate the people that win just as much as those who don’t. It is a duty that they do by means of what they do.
If they can’t make a profit then they pack it in like any other business would have to.
Profitable sports gamblers are not “gamblers” at all IB, we are “investors”. Nobody “invests” in the National Lottery because it is a pure gamble.
In pre Exchange days bookmakers could accommodate more winning punters because over-rounds (profit margins) were bigger. With increased competition from Exchanges and more on line bookmakers they can no longer accommodate big losses from successful punters because of the small profit margin needed to attract punters. Therefore they have to close accounts.
It is still officially gambling mate. I don’t like the term much more than you clearly don’t but it is still gambling.
They don’t have to close accounts all they need to do is create reasonable limits. I have no objection to that.
You’ll find a pretty good picture of what has changed over the last 20 years here:
From that link…
The modern punter has to adapt, accept that he will be factored and closed on a regular basis, and find other avenues to secure the price which he desires. It is pointless moaning about it (indeed some pro’s almost take pleasure in telling the world about it in an ego-boosting way).
The bookmakers are not there for anyone’s benefit other than their own. Once realising that and the type of punter they are after, then the pro-backer can adjust accordingly and find ways around it.
Spot on.
Bet365 latest pre-tax profits have risen by more than 44 per cent to £213.8 million – compared to £148 million – as the firm’s 2.9 million active users in 2013/14 wagered more than £26 billion.
There is no case that the £30K per year winning “pro-punter” is ever going to break Bet365.
There are only about 0.2% punters who make a basic living at it, even at Betfair prices.
So of Bet365 2.9 m clients 5800 are potential winners. If they profit on average by £15k each year then that costs £87M. Bet365 net profits fall to £117M a year.
In banning about 40% of “risky” punters practically all who will lose each year they have lost a potential increase of about £84M in profits. The £84M loss near enough cancels out the £87M risk of not banning punters.
However, each new punter costs £100 in advertisng to attract. So to replace 40% of 2.9M x 1.4 punters costs £162M in advertising. The risk model is now highly negative by a loss in potential profits of £165M. It is far better to have a model that accommodates all to a reasonable profit limit. That is what most succesful businesses do.Bet365 latest pre-tax profits have risen by more than 44 per cent to £213.8 million – compared to £148 million – as the firm’s 2.9 million active users in 2013/14 wagered more than £26 billion.
There is no case that the £30K per year winning “pro-punter” is ever going to break Bet365.
There are only about 0.2% punters who make a basic living at it, even at Betfair prices.
So of Bet365 2.9 m clients 5800 are potential winners. If they profit on average by £15k each year then that costs £87M. Bet365 net profits fall to £117M a year.
In banning about 40% of “risky” punters practically all who will lose each year they have lost a potential increase of about £84M in profits. The £84M loss near enough cancels out the £87M risk of not banning punters.
However, each new punter costs £100 in advertisng to attract. So to replace 40% of 2.9M x 1.4 punters costs £162M in advertising. The risk model is now highly negative by a loss in potential profits of £165M. It is far better to have a model that accommodates all to a reasonable profit limit. That is what most succesful businesses do.Spot on but that’s not what the ostriches on here want to hear though.
No better example than Bet365, they should really be done under the trades descriptions act describing themselves as bookmakers. The only betting they and other so called “bookmakers” are interested in on horse racing is no risk betting which is why so many punters who haven’t even won consistently get banned, restricted or whatever you call it.
That’s the way it is, why posters on here are in denial is a mystery, they’ve even been joined by the hopeless Rust.
The knock on effect of this will not be good for horse racing though, it can’t afford to be turning all these punters and their money away from the sport.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>robert99 wrote:</div>
Bet365 latest pre-tax profits have risen by more than 44 per cent to £213.8 million – compared to £148 million – as the firm’s 2.9 million active users in 2013/14 wagered more than £26 billion.There is no case that the £30K per year winning “pro-punter” is ever going to break Bet365.
There are only about 0.2% punters who make a basic living at it, even at Betfair prices.
So of Bet365 2.9 m clients 5800 are potential winners. If they profit on average by £15k each year then that costs £87M. Bet365 net profits fall to £117M a year.
In banning about 40% of “risky” punters practically all who will lose each year they have lost a potential increase of about £84M in profits. The £84M loss near enough cancels out the £87M risk of not banning punters.
However, each new punter costs £100 in advertisng to attract. So to replace 40% of 2.9M x 1.4 punters costs £162M in advertising. The risk model is now highly negative by a loss in potential profits of £165M. It is far better to have a model that accommodates all to a reasonable profit limit. That is what most succesful businesses do.Spot on but that’s not what the ostriches on here want to hear though.
No better example than Bet365, they should really be done under the trades descriptions act describing themselves as bookmakers. The only betting they and other so called “bookmakers” are interested in on horse racing is no risk betting which is why so many punters who haven’t even won consistently get banned, restricted or whatever you call it.
That’s the way it is, why posters on here are in denial is a mystery, they’ve even been joined by the hopeless Rust.
The knock on effect of this will not be good for horse racing though, it can’t afford to be turning all these punters and their money away from the sport.
Whether they admit it or not I think some people view being banned or restricted as a badge of honour and gain some sort of pride from it.
As previously stated if bookmakers deny people the chance to win, that is damn near to theft and it is morally wrong end of any story for bookmakers to ban winning punters.
As far as restrictions go I can understand that to an extent but even then it needs to be reasonable. if you get someone like Patrick Veitch hitting them for millions of course they need to protect themselves.
I do not understand why bookmakers do not create a rule and make it loud and clear to all punters that the maximum profit any one punter is allowed to make in one year is “x” pounds. Once “x” pounds is won, that punters account is to be suspended until the end of the year. That is far better than banning and far more morally decent and correct.
To gamble is to do just that – GAMBLE. Therefore both sides have to have a chance of winning. If bookmakers deny that the authorities should step in and take the matter out of their hands.
You can walk into any Corals shop today and they’ll lay you up to 5K per race at morning odds on any of the seven or eight races on Channel 4 this afternoon.
The main problem is they do not tell the shops that and the bet is refused.
If the shop can be persuaded to ring head office only then do they get told to lay it.
Do not mention price and it will be to SP which anyone can get large bets on at, any time.As Mr Clare says, with a very straight face:
“”The reality is that over 99 per cent of all bets offered up in our shops on horseracing are laid as requested,”
“We take roughly 1.5 million bets on horseracing a week and receive around 2,000 calls per week from shops for racing bets that need approval from the traders (0.13%) , the majority of which are laid.”In the real world every single bet above £10-20 is referred to traders who knock the bet or cut the price or offer SP only.
“The Racing Post recently ran a special two-day report on how some punters have faced stringent restrictions when trying to bet on racing, and Coral have reacted by introducing the guarantee.
Coral spokesman Simon Clare said: “We have listened and decided to take action by introducing this new customer-friendly guarantee in order to demonstrate our willingness to lay big bets on big races to each and every customer that wants one.”
The bookmaker claimed there will be no exceptions for the liability bet guarantee, with the only stipulations that the bets are placed after 9am on the day.
“The reality is that over 99 per cent of all bets offered up in our shops on horseracing are laid as requested,” said Clare.
“We take roughly 1.5 million bets on horseracing a week and receive around 2,000 calls per week from shops for racing bets that need approval from the traders, the majority of which are laid.
“The majority of those racing bets that are restricted in shops are those offered up on lower-grade midweek races, or those with an unprofitable shape for each-way betting purposes, and by customers that know more than the bookie (parasites according to Mr Clare) on those events or who are looking to exploit an obvious edge.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.