- This topic has 46 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yet he and his company are quite happy for people to put several hundreds pounds a week in each of their FOBT’s – What a ****!
And racing has to rely on ***** like these for an income, there’s no hope.
Bit short sighted seeing as he is one of the nominated jockeys in the St Patricks Day Derby at the Cheltenham Festival and will be needing people to sponsor him and help him raise £5000 for charity.
Go easy on Simon. He’s only talking bollox on behalf of his employer. He’s paid to do it.
That’s a very instructive two pages from the bookmakers in their rag today. Their basically screaming at us the kind of races they hate.
Take note and open an exchange account.
And thank you Sweet Jesus for sending us down the exchanges.
Amen.
Not very good public relations to call the public names is it?
With PR like that who needs Betfair?
Silly man
I’m not keen on him.
He promised everyone on the universe they could have £20 at evens on Sprinter Sacre for his Champion Chase win. I kept reading on various forums that people were only being allowed a tenner and different amounts. A ploy to attract new customers as the horse went off 1/4 however the site went
BANG
after the race and was down for 2 days.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
I’m not keen on calling people bare faced liars but Clare does tell an awful lot of untruths.
At least he sticks to his view!
Simon Clare @SiClare
Feb 21
@ggillies1 Wouldn’t be a bookmaker in business if had to take every bet from these lazy parasites. No skill, no effort yet expect to be laid
On ATR laughing at a jockey falling off a horse around the bend.
pr!ck.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
The first rule of PR is that you put your client’s case forward in a positive light. You do not tell patent untruths that make your client a laughing stock. Rule 2 is you never insult your customers.
Simon Clare in the Community has now claimed that Corals use PLT Permission To Lay ie call in a trader on a bet for only 1% of bets asked for.
The majority of those 1% are accepted as bets. Yes they really accept 99.5% of all the bets folks ask for without question.
The queues outside Corals were a quarter of a mile long today and their website crashed with so much new trade. Yes, you can make up any fantasy you like but producing credible evidence is another country.The Sprinter Sacre debacle was before my time with the site, but it’s wrong to suggest any sort of foul play there. The offer was so popular that the website simply couldn’t handle the traffic, which was obviously short-sighted and PR suicide, but certainly not planned to put the public away at all. The bad press, disgruntled customers and lost revenue in the biggest turnover days of the racing year would have outweighed any negligible benefits of ducking out of that promotion.
As mentioned in the press releases following Coral’s 2013/14 financial year figures, the ‘Sprinter Sacre Gate’ downtime was the trigger for massive investment in the site to improve reliability, usability and content. Judging by this year’s online figures, that seems to be paying dividends. There was also no downtime at all during this year’s big Cheltenham Festival offer (4/1 Quevega for new customers).
I don’t want to go into depth on PTL, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that 99.5% is an unrealistic figure.
I don’t want to go into depth on PTL, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that 99.5% is an unrealistic figure.
Does that figure include people who no longer bet with them because they wont lay a bet?
How is he allowed to go on RUK/ATR with his so called pricebombs where all customers are apparently allowed £20 at the price but then are not allowed to place the bet by being reduced to some ridiculous amount.
The bloke is a bare faced liar and Corals are a micky mouse firm.
I would suggest they are the parasites rather than the customers.
I don’t know this guy but a lot of the bookie PR fellows are alright and they are being paid to do a job.
But I agree THEY (the firms themselves) are the real parasites (there must be a stronger word). They position themselves on some kind of moral high ground and as grand crusaders of the ring, boasting at the big meetings of the six figure bets. In reality they are trimming stakes from even the smallest staking customers who look as if they have the slightest clue what they are doing.Eddie is right, if the 99.5% figure is correct it is only because the people whose bets they would query give up quickly.
The topic of ‘late shortening’ has also long been a bugbear of mine.
I have long been a supporter of the suggestion that SPs should be derived from the ring (as now) but then normalised to provide a ‘standard’ over-round depending on the number of runners. Machine payouts are governed in this way (they have to display the payout %) and I see no reason why racing returns should be different.
The bigger firms are all sharp practice merchants and some aspects of their business need looking into in more detail and correcting (such as SPs and advertising of promos which are then not honoured).
This what Clare was quoted as saying in the article in the Post on Friday:
What has changed in the last decade is the arrival of a new breed of punter who use the fluid nature of exchange prices to pinpoint fixed-odds prices with bookmakers that have effectively suddenly become unprofitable or overbroke.
"This betting strategy requires no skill or knowledge, and will guarantee a certain profit over time, and every day tens of thousands of individuals are trying to pick off bookmakers in this way.
"However, it is no surprise that there isn’t a bookmaker in the world who won’t heavily restrict such customers, and they are easy to identify as they are all following exactly the same parasitic strategy.
With PMU you solve all the bookie problems at one stroke
Get on as much as you like , when you like , and help the sport at the same time
will anybody ever see that ….the bookie parasites have to go
in my opinion etc
You could even have a dual system ….bookies and a PMU ….I would be confident that the punters would see the light pretty quickly
Get on as much as you like , when you like
You can already do that at SP, on Betfair or at Betfair SP except the odds are much greater.
Even betting at SP (and who does that nowadays?) produces better returns than the Tote under around 8-1.
Mike
This what Clare was quoted as saying in the article in the Post on Friday:
What has changed in the last decade is the arrival of a new breed of punter who use the fluid nature of exchange prices to pinpoint fixed-odds prices with bookmakers that have effectively suddenly become unprofitable or overbroke.
"This betting strategy requires no skill or knowledge, and will guarantee a certain profit over time, and every day tens of thousands of individuals are trying to pick off bookmakers in this way.
"However, it is no surprise that there isn’t a bookmaker in the world who won’t heavily restrict such customers, and they are easy to identify as they are all following exactly the same parasitic strategy.
Thanks Alan.
Simon Clare is right insomuch as the hardcore arbers and bot-runners are just looking for narrow margins and have no particular interest in racing or skill at the game. (This is certainly not true of skilled arbers and layers). They are just (frequently automated) price snipers. His description of them as parasites is entirely accurate.
However, his assertion that there are ‘tens of thousands’ of such people picking off prices is ridiculous. There may be a few, but as Clare himself describes them as ‘easy to identify’ later in his comments, he is grossly exaggerating the danger they pose to bookmakers.
What annoys regular punters is not being layed to moderate stakes on occasional best prices. Clare uses the the existence of the first group to tarnish the reputation of the latter, implying they are the same. Bookmakers must be held to a code of practice here. They should be forced to lay advertised prices to a certain stake up to a certain time. Otherwise the publishing of such prices is in effect dishonest.
If this leads them to swerve certain races when pricing up, then so be it.
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.