- This topic has 38 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Yes, a strong off course Tote monopoly and on course only bookmakers. What’s not to like? Or if pool betting doesn’t appeal, launch a state controlled exchange. No chance of it happening obviously.”
Despite the legal fluctuations over the years affecting betting shops or their equivalent, credit betting has always been legal. More accurately, it has never been legislated against. The racecourse (cash & credit) and the credit offices always took the serious money for any given race, at least from 1906-1961, and probably earlier.
Street bookmaking was banned in 1906, driving the business underground and making it more problematic for the small punter to get on. And yet they did manage to place their bets, local authorities and the law often turning a blind eye to the proceedings.
This system was clearly not best practice, but it worked, and without monopolies.
Seasider, I’ll have a word with Mr. Drakeford. I’m sure he has no desire to harbour undesirable English folk.
“I’m sure he has no desire to harbour undesirable English folk.”
That’s bad news for me – I’m considering going to Howick on Sunday.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Greg Wood has written about the Playtech deal in The Guardian:
Seasider, Yes that’s all fair comment. Credit accounts did incorporate a sort of “affordability check” didn’t they, you applied in writing (and if you could provide a reference from an existing bookmaker confirming your lack of punting prowess so much the better) and were granted a limit loosely commensurate with your ability to pay. No one seemed to have much of a problem with that as I recall.
With regard to “street bookies” , I was coming at this more from how the sport might benefit from extra funding rather than satisfying the off course demand from cash punters, not sure how much levy contribution the street corner merchants generated.
Salut,
Between the dawn of bookmaking in the early 19th century, and May 1961 when the Levy was introduced, bookmakers’ financial contributions to racing were practically zero. Equally they gave little to government during this time – a betting tax was introduced in 1926 but scrapped in 1930.
Clearly, street bookmakers or those working out of illegal premises couldn’t be taxed or levied even if that had been desired. As an underground activity the normal rules and regulations wouldn’t apply. If you want to tax somebody you have to find them first.
As an example of how prize money was made up around this time, between 1910 & 1920 about 60% was contributed by owners in entry fees and forfeits. The remaining 40% would have been supplied by the appropriate racecourse executive. It’s therefore tempting to wonder how much the sport would have been positively affected if, instead of banning off-course cash betting, government had allowed it to continue in licensed premises instead of deferring that decision for more than 100 years.
Just in case anyone was in any doubt about the intelligence of so many of our MPs, this article highlights their ignorance of even basic mathematics. Yet this crowd, at least half of whom cannot tell you what a £10 double on two even money chances would pay, are going to decide the future of gambling and by extension the financing of racing:
I’d be interested to know what the incorrect answers were for the coin toss question.
Of course the first thing you should be asking is ‘is the coin fair?’.
I would have got that wrong.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysIf the coin tosser is skilful enough, they could take you to the cleaners
Blackbeard to conquer the World
There is a shocking email from Coral to a customer doing the rounds on Twitter today.
If it’s genuine it looks like a punter made a deposit, had a bet, won, made a withdrawal request and payment was suspended and he was questioned about his reasons for withdrawal “after so little game play.”
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"They’re the absolute worst bunch these modern day bookmakers. Happy to watch people lose their hard earned money, families, homes and even lives in order to ensure their shareholders become richer and richer. B
There’s no such thing as enough for these blood-sucking vultures. Well actually there is, if they think you might turn a profit somewhere down the road then you can bet your ass they’ll have had enough of your custom. Might even ask for an affordability check!! Funny they never ask for those when you’re losing money.
F*** them.
“Might even ask for an affordability check!! Funny they never ask for those when you’re losing money.”
Well they will close you but only when they think they might end up getting into bother over money laundering/source of funds.
But if they do close you for that they’ll let the dust settle and invite you back after a few months, believe me !!!
Interesting article at The Guardian of how the “bookies” restrict accounts:
From that article, Bernard Henry’s case sounds typical. The guy has barely won but his account has been restricted simply because he beat the prices on a regular basis.
I had an account with a major bookmaker closed after three bets, despite them all losing. I was on horses whose prices contracted- and none of them were Pricewise selections- drastically, so they obviously came to the incorrect conclusion that I was “in the know”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.