- This topic has 115 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In a scummy AW race it’s likely to be bet to a few % over but I’d be surprised if Hills (or another of the half decent firms) were betting 128% in a 10 runner race tbh. Unless of course, as said, it’s a scummy AW race, a claimer, seller, bad each way race or similar – for a 10 runner handicap I’d confidently expect the percentage to be a lot nearer 120%. In fact not much bigger than about 124% worse case.
I don’t pretend to be in the Patrick Veitch league, but I acheived another small personal milestone today with the receipt of this email.
Dear Sir/Madam
Following a review of your account we have decided that we no longer wish to offer you a sports betting service.
Unless we specifically inform you in writing, William Hill Plc and its subsidiaries are not prepared to operate any sports betting facilities with you. This would also apply to an account in someone else’s name used on your behalf.
Any bets inadvertently accepted after closure will be made void, irrespective of whether they win or lose, however, any outstanding ante-post or other unsettled bets accepted prior to closure will stand.
Finally, may we assure you that this decision has been taken only after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play other William Hill products – ie Poker, Casino, Games and Bingo.
Yours sincerely
William Hill PLC
Now I just need to read Mr V’s book to see how he manages to get 40 grand on when I struggle with a tiny percentage of that!
Or I could start playing bingo, as they helpfully suggest….
Almost everyone recieves that e-mail Carvills, from the sportsbook that’s little more than a front for a numbers racket.
Still, Bruce Millington assures us that we have the best bookies in the world and nobody would argue with that….and get published.
Nothing wrong with running a business the way a business is meant to be run Glenn.
If a timber firm can’t make money out of you would you expect them to keep supplying you with timber?
The same with bookmakers.
I disagree with BM on most things – but having the best bookmakers and betting service in the world is one thing I agree with him.
William Hills Clarence Square Western Rd Brighton according to a relative who is the manager there tells me the machines take 3 times what betting on horses does.
Last Friday when here was just French racing they took 320.00 on that but 4,562.00 from the machines.
As many will confirm try and ask for a few hundred on a 6/1 shot and is a 1.01 chance you will get knocked back.
No restrictions what you can lose in the machines though.
Well done, carvills.
What I would like to know is how "a man walked into a High Street betting shop and put £20,000 on Underpriced Favourite for the Derby" when you often can’t get more than £50 on an early-price race without being knocked back.
And I would like to know how the media outlets that report such stories manage to establish that they are fact rather than bookmaker-inspired fiction.
I’m sure Hills would lay a stranger £20,000 on an underpriced favourite in the Derby (the key word in the sentence being "underpriced"…)
Nice one Denis. I was mad keen to read the book until the voice of the bookmakers started to promote it so heavily…..will wait for the paperback version.
Wasn’t there another ¨Pro¨ flogging a book on RUK a few weeks ago, the same bloke works for Ladbrokes
I don’t pretend to be in the Patrick Veitch league, but I acheived another small personal milestone today with the receipt of this email.
Dear Sir/Madam
Following a review of your account we have decided that we no longer wish to offer you a sports betting service.
Unless we specifically inform you in writing, William Hill Plc and its subsidiaries are not prepared to operate any sports betting facilities with you. This would also apply to an account in someone else’s name used on your behalf.
Any bets inadvertently accepted after closure will be made void, irrespective of whether they win or lose, however, any outstanding ante-post or other unsettled bets accepted prior to closure will stand.
Finally, may we assure you that this decision has been taken only after careful consideration and that it does not affect your ability to play other William Hill products – ie Poker, Casino, Games and Bingo.
Yours sincerely
William Hill PLC
Now I just need to read Mr V’s book to see how he manages to get 40 grand on when I struggle with a tiny percentage of that!
Or I could start playing bingo, as they helpfully suggest….
Personally I think this is something for Panorama or Tonight with Trevor McDonald myself, bookmakers are happy to take money off unsuccessful punters and IMO shouldnt be able to single out successful punters as non customers.
I had a similar thing with betterbet last year, however I never recieved any such letter (they just refuse to let me have more than 2-4 quid on horses). IMO the whole thing reeks to high heaven and gets a shortage of publicity.
Who would want to start betting if they knew that the whole system is rigged to beat you.
Skybet have a PR man who used to work on ATR, he asked the Racing Post to keep his new position to themselves for the final few months of his tenure at ATR – conflict of interests?
Good point well raised Seagull – racing needs to do what it can to make sure people bet on the racing. Shops have to take a certain amount on "sports betting" compared to the machines so they aren’t classed as a casino and aren’t licensed as such mind but the big firms will take as much on football coupons in the shop as they will on horses on a Saturday.
I’m sure Hills would lay a stranger £20,000 on an underpriced favourite in the Derby (the key word in the sentence being "underpriced"…)
No, the key word is stranger.
Anyone that has an established record as anything other than a problem gambler will not have £1 accepted, let alone £20k. Re-read Carvill’s letter above if you need clarification: no bets of any type, underpriced or not, will be accepted.
They are clearly playing the man and not the ball as you suggest.
bookmakers are happy to take money off unsuccessful punters and IMO shouldnt be able to single out successful punters as non customers.
While I understand this Bulwark you have to look at it from a slightly different angle IMO.
If you’re playing poker regularly on a poker web site and let’s say you have a taste for heads up cash games – given that you would have got to know other regular players, who would you prefer to put your money down against out of;
a) A fish who you consistently beat
b) A solid player who regularly beats you ?Of course it’s a no brainer and to revert back to horse racing, if you were a small independant bookmaker responsible for compiling your own book would you be happy taking bets from somebody who you deem to be a better form reader / odds compiler ?
Given that the choice is yours – as the layer – I imagine not.
Okay, it seems more unacceptable when it’s a large, faceless coorporation doing the knockback but the principle still stands.
Still seems petty given the sometimes modest stakes though I agree.
Lee
The most insulting part of that email is the ‘Dear Sir or Madam’.
At least when Hills closed my account they’d taken the trouble to establish my gender!
Par for the course, I’m afraid, carvills.
The firm in question seems to be running scared at present, and yet the delightful Mr Hood still pops up regularly on our screens with his interesting tales of lumpy sums laid.
Perhaps it’s time for a new code of conduct for bookmakers’ reps?
"We took a bet of £10k at 10/1 from one of our favourite problem gamblers."
"We were happy to lay £5k from a well-known loser."
If you’re playing poker regularly on a poker web site and let’s say you have a taste for heads up cash games – given that you would have got to know other regular players, who would you prefer to put your money down against out of;
a) A fish who you consistently beat
b) A solid player who regularly beats you ?I can see your point lee, but in that situation, if I was someone who made money out of playing poker, I wouldnt refuse to play anyone, regardless of whether they regularly beat me or not.
Surely the point of betting as I have always seen it, is that the bookmakers price up a race and take money on various horses from punters who chose to play what they wish and at the end of the race those who backed the winner make a profit and most of the time so too do the bookmakers from all the losing selections.
IMO the fact that Bookmakers wont take bets from people who regularly (or they percieve to) make profit, is not publicised enough.
Basically what they are saying is come and have a bet and if you are a loser we’ll keep taking your bets, if not then no more bets. Basically IMO it is unethical that they are allowed to exploit problem gamblers up and down the country and cancel out those who regularly make profit out of the equation.
When I started backing horses I knew noting about this underhand tactic, and I would like to see it tackled in an ethical sense. IMO the only way to do that is to make it public.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.