Would you be happy to forego some or all of your bonuses etc in return for keeping your accounts open and with the ability to bet at a reasonable level?
With account restrictions and closures more and more in the news lately we would like your opinions on whether you are happy with the status quo - or would you prefer to give up BOG etc in return for keeping your accounts open for longer?
- I am happy as things are, restrictions and account closures don't bother me
- I would be willing if necessary to give up some or all concessions if it meant I was not restricted or closed
- This topic has 41 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
- Posts
Introducing the HBF (Horserace Bettors Forum)
My name is Sean Trivass and I have asked permission from your administrators to introduce myself and the HBF to you all (for the majority who possibly don’t know who we are).
Formed in 2015 with the assistance of the BHA, the idea was for a punter friendly body who could look at and discuss issues that affect bettors throughout the United Kingdom, bring those issues to the attentions of the powers that be, and look to see if a solution can be found.
Sadly, thanks to a lack of media coverage (until recently) we have remained fairly anonymous – but (in my personal view), how can we claim to represent the punters interests if we are “second-guessing” their complaints and their wish-lists – I don’t think we can.
How many of you are aware that the declaration of wind-ops was largely down to the HBF – not too many at a guess, or accurate race measurements, or a reduction in non-runners (a fuller list of some of our “achievements” can be found here https://ukhbf.org/achievements/?
For those interested, we meet on a quarterly basis in person, but work continually behind the scenes between meetings looking to make the punters’ life that little bit easier – though we are all volunteers and sadly cannot deal with individual betting queries!
So, why am I here? Simple really, this is the biggest most populated racing forum, and I am after your opinions. When we have our annual survey I hope to post a link to it here and would beg as many of you as possible to fill it out and return it – that can only increase my faith that we are pulling in the direction YOU want – I am not here to represent me, I am here to represent the millions of bettors who enjoy a flutter now and then, big or small.
As the survey is a work in progress at present, I thought I would start by asking you all one simple question – one that continues to vex me personally, and with the potential for wide-ranging repercussions.
Recent quotes in the racing press suggest British punters have never had it so good thanks to enhanced odds, more places, best odds guaranteed, and other bonuses – but with the caveat that if you are a winning punter (surely the goal of us all?), you can expect to be restricted or have your account shut down.
Would you be happy to forego some or all of these bonuses if, in return, bookmakers were not allowed to close accounts (barring legal reasons), with the possibility of a Minimum Bet Liability (MBL) of, for example, laying to lose £500 per bet?
Finally, we are genuinely interested in your replies – we cannot guarantee any progress (if only), but if sufficient numbers take the time to answer, we can at least quote numbers to the bookmakers at future meetings in the hope they may see the light?
As I have said to former racing journalist colleagues in the past, anyone seeking to comment on the machinations of the bookmaking industry can seldom credibly do so without direct experience of it themselves.
Every racing journalist – and I’d add anyone else wanting to comment and campaign on this subject – should spend at least a week working as a guest in an off-course bookmakers’ trading room and in a similar capacity on a racecourse pitch.
Having been fortunate enough to have worked on both sides of the fence over the years, the misconceptions I see written are legion.
I get as frustrated as anyone by account closures or restrictions – I’ve endured at least a dozen – but I at least understand why.
Bookmakers cannot allow winning punters to operate freely as they would simply reinvest winnings and increase stake sizes exponentially until they bankrupted the bookmaker.
And the argument they make huge profits and thus can afford to tolerate winning punters is about as naive as it gets.
Why on Earth would they?
Who running a business in their right mind would?
I’d happily forgo the offers and freebies in return for an unrestricted account, but frankly I’m not the sort of punter bookmakers want – Bet365 closed me down after winning just eight grand off them.
If every Bet365 punter was like me Denise Coates wouldn’t have £7.70p to her name, never mind £7.7 billion.
The harsh fact is that, though betting internet forums would have you believe otherwise, the vast majority of punters lose.
Account restrictions are never an issue for the vast majority.
Bookmakers do not legally have to accept a bet off anyone – any displayed price is an “invitation to treat” and not a contractual offer.
I don’t see that changing in my lifetime and tbh even if it did fewer than 1% of punters would benefit from it.
Probably not the sort of reply that is being solicited here, but I think such debates are best grounded in reality if they are to be of value.
All the best with your endeavours, but your two poll options (and I have voted) could respectively be reworded thus:
Are you a losing punter long term?
or
Are you a winning punter long term?
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"It’d be good to have some visibility from some of the major bookmakers on how many accounts (as a % of accounts) have been restricted and how many (again as % of accounts) have been shut down over, say, the past 12 months. That’d give an indication of how big or otherwise the issue is. They are unlikely to do however.
It’s certainly an issue for anyone trying to play markets and bet types where the odds may be in the punter’s favour to a greater degree and is certainly an issue for any sharp players who may have an edge.
Lots of good content on various podcasts on the problem and how, at least to some extent, to get around it.
It will increasingly drive betting underground, people are already taking about a ‘betting black market’ being in existence.
I’d also say to the HBF to be careful with surveys. It’s difficult to come up with questions which are not leading in some way (even subconsciously) and is very difficult to avoid bias in terms of who answers the survey, particularly ones where the responses are voluntary.
I’d also suggest rather than taking on every issue that exists and trying to win a war there should be a very clear focus on one or two potentially winnable battles.
I think the HBF is a great initiative and despite being up against a racing industry which is notoriously slow to adopt change and a bookmaking industry which doesn’t really care what punters think (except in terms of marketing strategies to chisel every last pound out of them) you’ve already had some notable successes to the benefit of us poor old bettors down at the bottom of the racing food-chain.
Sean, I’d say be careful what you vote for here, very careful. You’re in serious danger of depriving all punters of valuable concessions, and, if these concessions are lost, the bookies will say ‘blame the HBF’. This particular survey wants dropping asap. I see no logic in conflating the issues mentioned, but the bookies will welcome it, pay lip service to keeping their side of it, then find another underhand method of account closing.
Perhaps it would be better to use what powers you have to canvass bookmakers and score them publicly on their approach to account closing. Surely one of the big bookmakers could stick out their neck with a promise that accounts will only be reviewed annually, and will only be subject to closure consideration if the punter has shown an overall profit (without outliers). If one of them gives you that agreement, then you could happily publicise them, and also know you’ve played a major part in protecting punters, racing, and the Levy.
Off topic, but I believe the most important thing you could campaign for is formal recognition of the HBF as a committee, not some voluntary forum. Punters put billions into the sport and should be very strongly represented within the BHA. You guys should all be salaried, with the top job very well paid. Otherwise, you (and we) will continue to be treated as mugs by Racing. If they won’t pay you, tell them to stick it. Stop being wooed by ego massagers who, as ever, ‘have no budget for salaries’. I know you get expenses, but they have been taking the mickey with all HBF volunteers since the formation of the HBF. As you can guess, it really makes me angry!
The last point is something I agree with strongly steeple.
Punters are the lifeblood of the industry. Not owners as the media would often tell us. I also completely disagree with Ian. There simply isn’t enough of a percentage of punters who are regular winners to ever truly place their overall profits at harm. The ante post markets on Cheltenham now indicate how they go about ensuring they’re at no real risk of going into it with risky liabilities. When you’ve got 20+ runner handicaps at the big summer festivals with 3/1 favs it’s abundantly clear very very few people are ever winning enough to trouble them. Some
Of the books at these festivals are 120% and would be even worse if left unchecked by the likes of the HBF.They’re a bunch of utter shysters and there should be something done about them closing the handful of accounts which are in long term profit.
‘Bookmakers do not legally have to accept a bet off anyone – any displayed price is an “invitation to treat” and not a contractual offer.’
For me it all comes down to this. Does anyone know of any mechanism in law that could be used to compel bookies to do business with anyone to any level? I would be very surprised if there is one. Is allowing Parliament to set a law interfering with a private business’ affairs in this way even a good idea?
You may of course do so voluntarily so if anyone wishes to set up a bookmaker that guarantees to lay any amount of money to anyone forever then please do and keep us up to date with your progress.
As for winning punters, they may not put overall profits at risk but why accommodate them as a bookie when you don’t have to? It’s literally throwing money away. It’s not like the old days when their info was considered worth the cost. They have endless databases of stats and astronomical computing power now.
There is one thing that punters could do en masse to send a message to the bookies but it’s trading at a solid 1000 ever to happen, the vast majority simply don’t care.
Richard’s a bright bloke with direct industry experience – Richard knows the score.
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"Thanks Ian, although my experience of the industry is mostly limited to observing punters in the shop so I can assure you my last paragraph is 100% correct. I doubt more than one or two out of a hundred shop punters could spot a 120% book, a 150% one or even a 90% one to save their lives.
I know little of what goes on behind the scenes so I’m making an educated guess on the rest.
I do not wish to sound negative, I prefer to think of it as realistic. All the best to Sean and the rest of the HBF with your endeavours.
T C said “Punters are the lifeblood of the industry. Not owners as the media would often tell us.”
Well here’s a punter who is also a long standing owner to tell him he’s talking rubbish. No owners means no horses to bet on.
I don’t how old you are, but racing survived perfectly well for almost two centuries after the first of the classics was run, without any input from bookmakers (and thus punters). Apart from the Tote that came along in the 1920’s there was no contribution to racing from the off course betting businesses. Only after betting shops were legalised in 1961 did the government introduce the Betting Levy Board, which was initially only intended to compensate racecourses for the fall in attendances that was expected to result from the opening of betting shops.
Flint of Sky Bet talking to a Lord’s committee back in 2018 said that 97% of punters were unrestricted and restrictions only affected 3% and stressed they were a business but happy to work with HBF. Yes some punters will write off losses for the thrill of the chase, others,amongst then groups of older men I met in bookmakers shops back in the 90s spoke of the friendship social thing and common interest and a way to offset the boredom of a. long day. I suspect the majority of the rest of the 97% want to have the problems of the 3%. Yes Flint was happy to work with the the HBF but how far – a chat ?
NAPP who did their best to be a voice for and try to protect punters being ripped off soon disappeared from their Victoria meeting place without even a whimper. No support – Most punters bet small and don’t care – some that lose a lot and bet big are just ashamed.
Bookies want punters to bet for fun (Laddies ads) and they have introduced measures to dissuade serious punters. Some of the bankbrokeciti sharp suited mob went to Betfair at the turn of millenium enjoying the stimulus of unrestricted betting. – then left when premium taxes were introduced.
I moved to the freer non restricted financial markets and got quite a following on forums being considered an expert. There are more people analysing financial markets – it’s quite hard to get an edge especially as a day trader and the alternative investment market (AIM) is replete with inside information and false flags. I found it just as stimulating as horse racing with the CEOs wearing suits rather than brown casuals and hats but spouting the same obfuscating rubbish in fact more so.The awful losses on the one armed crack machines have been laid to rest by limiting them to 200 penny stakes. The aspiring high stakes punter in the 3% club has nowhere to hide and no-one really represents winners – why ?
They don’t break up families.There is that lack of the collective Munch scream.
Too tired to edit…
p.s. Racing for me was just mathematics and I listened to no-one. In financial markets I made a big mistake and listened to the silky words of a CEO who inflated my ego. That wss around about six figure costly.
I hear what ID and Richard say but can these multi million pound businesses really not afford to accommodate the small amount of winning punters?
If the figure is the 3% quoted, how much of that population is making thousands of pounds in profit?
Bookmakers are closing or restricting accounts that are winning just a few hundred. Which is not that much money nowadays.
It’s a shame we never seem to hear from anyone on the trading/accountancy side of things. They can comment anonymously if they want.
If someone concerned only with the bottom line sees that winning punters are costing the business, say a million quid in a year, I imagine the conversation goes something like:
‘Do we have to take their bets?’
‘No.’
‘Well, what are you waiting for? Get rid and that’s a million quid in the bank.’I simply can’t see what anyone can do about it.
Also do we really need to turn this into another ‘us and them’ scenario, we’re all better than that aren’t we? No punters, no racing- correct. No owners, no racing- correct. There are numerous other people who are absolutely essential to keeping the show on the road too, even bookmakers.
It’s not a question of whether or not they can afford to do so, CAS, but whether or not it makes business sense to do so and many of these bookmaking companies are PLCs with shareholders to account to nowadays
Moreover the very best professional punters – and I’m talking about people far more talented than I am – are absolutely ruthless and definitely a lot more intelligent than anyone Denise Coates et al employs in the trading room.
Theee ruthless professionals will reinvest their winnings and increase their turnover exponentially until they bankrupt a bookmaker and then move off like scavengers to the next one – it’s actually only takes one with unlimited exponential access to your odds for this to happen.
It makes no sense for the bookmakers to pay the kind of astronomical six or seven figure salary required to have a professional like that in charge of their trading room and it makes far more business sense to employ the people they do and simply set the software to stop anyone who shows any sign whatsoever of being able to win long-term off them and restrict them before they can do any real damage to the balance sheet.
There is no legal obligation for bookmaker to accept a bet off anyone regardless of whether or not they displayed that price or not and as Richard so succinctly put it, anyone who thinks that it’s possible to run a successful bookmaking operation without closing down or restricting anyone is most welcome to try.
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"Another thought occurs, let’s say we can get to the point where bookies have to accommodate punters to a minimum level. What is to stop them setting their books to overrounds so unattractive that no self respecting serious punter would go anywhere near it? The sort of punters they want wouldn’t notice a thing. I’m sure they could at the very least subtly tinker with them by small percentages. That would affect absolutely everyone, is this a case of be careful what you wish for?
“The professional punters ruin it for everyone else,” a bookmaking friend once said to me.
By that he meant that if all puntees were recreational, bookmakers could actually be a lot more relaxed, and bet to far slimmer margins, safe in the knowledge that no one was ever gonna do any serious damage to them.
The reality is that bookmaking firms already feel they spend a disproportionate amount of their time dealing with a tiny part of the customer base, tiny but potentially very dangerous, terminally dangerous, in fact.
So they restrict the “wise guys,” as some refer to pro punters, and shoo them quietly out the door as quickly as possible.
And to be honest whether they’re a plc or privately owned they don’t just want to surrender profits to pro punters they might feel thry’ve worked hard (building websites, running them, marketing them) to accumulate off the rest of the client base.
The reality is that all bookmakers want is recreational punters who steadily lose sums they can sustainably afford to lose therefore don’t suddenly disappear but i instead provide the bookmaker with a steady income, day in, day out, week in, week out.
The punters have some fun but lose in the long run and the bookies make their living and everyone is happy.
Professional punters just disrupt that cosy environment in the eyes of the bookmakers and make it hard to offer concessions to the customers they value.
It’s like ASDA offering a free colour TV to the first customer through the door on a Monday morning, hoping that Ethel round the corner, who shops with them all the time, will get it, but some stranger (a random carpetbagger) who had heard about the offer, drives in from out of the town to win the colour TV and is never to be seen again until the next offer is made. .
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"Of course I accept all of the above. However, it gets ridiculous sometimes.
I was once knocked back in a small independent shop (when such places still existed) for a bet that would have cost them £250 if it had won. If they cannot afford that liability then they are in the wrong game.
Likewise, I remember Rishi Persad once saying he had a bet refused in a shop which was £25 each way on a 9/2 chance. His profit would have been less than £150.
What good reason did the shop have to refuse that bet? Perhaps someone recognised him from his television work and thought he had inside information – but even if he had he was hardly going to break the bank at Monte Carlo with that stake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.