Because nick, lets say you bet the smart punter a reasonable amount at say 2.00, how do you use that to your advantage when it firms into 1.90 elsewhere? Its ok if he bets with you 1st.

The on course bookie must bet to lose a certain amount, what do the so called super pros do? They manipulate the market to where they're getting under 100%, hence on course bookies are a dying breed.

Many years ago the smart bookies outweighed the smart punters, but the pendulum has well and truly swung the other way now.

I see what you're saying Mr Snake, but i don't like exercises in futility and thats what i feel it is. Also the the amount of time, effort and thought you're putting into it could be detrimental to your main pursuit which is backing a winner

Mr spy,

Whilst backing a winner is my primary goal, it's going to be pretty difficult to do that without any bookmakers willing to take my bet. That is where I feel we're heading.
Many of the Betfair markets are too thin for me to get set and the commission on some wagers makes it impossible to do better than the good old bookie. Plus, much of the time the Betfair price is unders because the markets are thin and the prices move on rumour, much like a stockmarket.
I have to try and defend my livelihood. That is all I am doing.

Where are they getting on? Do tell...

"To accept defeat in the face of enormous odds is an English mentality"..I was kind of with you until that, but you`ve pi$$ed me off.

Some facts.

You mention public opinion...the vast majority of the public dont give a rats a$$ about a handful of people who cant get on at a bookies.

Whether its right or wrong, how many people are actually affected by what bookies do. You are clued up, purely by being on here shows that, as are most who come on here, and how many people are signing up to this crusade. Its miniscule compared to the number of people who dont get cut by bookies.

Bookies arent a charity and raison d`etre is to win money, and you expect them to say, ok we win off customer a, but customer b takes our pants down, but lets keep them both going.

With the plethora of sports and markets, and the amount of information available for the clued up guys who specialize, its not difficult to get an edge, sometimes a big edge. Its simpler to identify these people and cut them, than to pay for specialists in every sport. In the old days it was very different.

The amount of bets that fly in - remember online bookies have the world as their shop not just Australia - mean that the guys watching the bets cant possibly keep up with whats happening everywhere, and with hundreds of bets piling in on all the leagues, sports and markets, its simpler to cut the sharp punters rather than
be proactive or even reactive.

The model is successful, look at the figures, and the tax they will provide for Govts means the Govts are highly unlikely to do anything about it, and anyway, when have Govts worried about what happens to a few people when theres a decent income stream to milk.

The bottom line is, a bet is an agreement between two parties, why should one party be able to force the other party to do something they dont want to do, and this is the one thing you will struggle to beat. Whether its fair or not,  whether some people get treated better than others, or some get on what they want and others can bet to win only $5. What law can be drafted to force a bookie to take a bet it doesnt want to take. Even if they could would the Govt have to start setting levels for each sport or each market for each sport, its inconceivable.

There, these are some of the arguments that you have to counter, and that we have encountered for years, and I`m sorry to have to play devils advocate. The system has evolved to what it is in Europe and it is what it is. Good luck in your quest, threads like this dont occur on here very often now in the forum, they used to.
I will follow what happens with interest.

By the way, what about English (British) mentality in the Second World War....

King Mug,

Beautifully put. Nothing more to add.

This nirvana you're talking about...Gordon Gecko moved there. That's where he disappeared to

thye bet early on sandown tronight ...got gutted.

gomes 5.5 into 3.3,bubba's dream 3.1 into 1.85 and roy trease 3.6 into 1.85 amongst others

this is how i feel it is Pounf..........In Australia we can change gambling legislation, with popular opinion and enough shouting, and more than often the State Government will change in favour of better deals and protection for the punter, simply because of the adverse publicity that can surround the gambling industry and how the media can be worked into a fenzy regarding "problem gambling". Gambling is a very sensitive issue in this country, elections and polli's are elected on the back of gambling issue's. So if enough noise is made about the greed and the unfair behaviour of the bookies something will be done.
There is one simple solution for the NT State government to do.....and that is to put in place minimum bet limits for the corp's.......... I just want to know where i stand when i open an account with them. Also by setting minimum bet limits they also eliminate the complains of accounts being closed in regard to winners.
Now what those limits are will be the million$ question, so let me shock u at what was on the table some time ago before the NT gov for minimum bets (i will stand to be corrected)
Greyhounds and Trots fixed odds: to win $200
Horse Racing fixed odds; to win 500-800
Sportsbetting fixed odds; to win 800-1000
So if this was stated in their rules and regulations when you sign on, that would also mean that no accounts could be closed without breaking some other code of conduct rule, and everyone would know what to expect.
I feel this is where the talking must start with the Gambling Authorities and Regulators.
Afterall Australia are the heaviest gamblers in the world, we turnover more that 100billion on pokies, and 30 billion on racing then put on that casino's, lotto,bingo and what ever. So this industry needs to be fair, it must show a clean and favourable personna and the governments have no qualms what soever of introducing legislation in favour of the punter.

One Simple cry; WHEN I SIGN ON AS A CLIENT, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE MINIMUM BET THE BOOKMAKER IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT.

i think it makes sense

i dont understand, why was there a difference?

Ok, so the unibet xml feed gave the first set, but that was off unibet.com. the second set of numbers was off unibet.com.au

oh i see....got ya, well just goes to show what a competitive market the australians have, and thats what we want to keep

crazy they even have draws quote in their line and head to head markets ..........the UK bookies are thiefs

That's pretty much why I launched this campaign now. If we don't do something soon it will be too late.
If Eskander and a couple of others sell out there'll be nobody left.

The bottom line is, a bet is an agreement between two parties, why should one party be able to force the other party to do something they dont want to do, and this is the one thing you will struggle to beat. Whether its fair or not,  whether some people get treated better than others, or some get on what they want and others can bet to win only $5. What law can be drafted to force a bookie to take a bet it doesnt want to take. Even if they could would the Govt have to start setting levels for each sport or each market for each sport, its inconceivable.

How is it forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do?  The bookies in all senses are salesmen, selling bets.  Their odds, are the prices they are offering to sell at.  The customer isn't trying to force them to sell at a price they haven't already offered.  They just want the chance to buy it at the current offer.  Just like the online books have to do.  They offer a price, knowing what their potential liability will be if people take that price, and are forced to sell, at a price both are happy with.


Nobody is forcing these corps to bet on every sport in the world.  And I hardly think that degenerate gamblers are that bad they want to bet on Syberian soccer leagues just for the hell of it.

Personally, if I was to start a corp, I would run it with **** market %, and sit it off BF prices.  How hard is it really?  Bet to a minimum of 1k for race markets, 2k for metro markets.  Then keep an eye on the markets.
Seriously how hard is it?  Never ban anybody.  Quite easy for me to sit here and pick off Sportingbet arbs, but they can't keep my account open because they simply get a feed of on course prices and don't monitor the markets?    What kind of bookmaker does that?  That isn't bookmaking, that is a funnel for money to go into, because they can simply ban the people that can monitor the markets.

The simple fact is this.  There is not going to be an influx of money on any runner at one time, unless they have the price wrong.
Not to mention that you can quite easily program your odds to drop if you have taken money on a runner, to the point where even milliseconds the bet on all following will get the message, price has dropped, do you want to continue.
That is automated, that isn't dropping peoples liabilities and then keeping the same price, or rejecting them and winding the odds out, that is a bookmaker system, that lets everybody on, for the same liability, with a book % reflective of the current odds, and current exposure.
You don't need to bet on Syberian soccer, just do the races.  Then expand to something else.

I know there is a company out there doing (or I think they are from what I have heard?) something very similar.  All they do is cricket betting, and they actively monitor the markets, and change the markets based on what is happening.  They are specialist market makers (in the sense that they are running a book based on current events), and they aim to let everybody on (whether they do or not, not sure).

The reason these corps are barring people, is more to do with a ridiculous overexposure of markets, so much so they cannot possibly have an opinion on the odds they are offering on a huge proportion of them.  In fact, I think it would be fair to suggest that most of the corps could not even tell you how most of the markets were framed.

RVL and others are the ones that need to approve these companies to bet on their racing. They should be the ones that need to enforce a minumum bet imo.

Not sure about sports though.

Depends on the situation really.  If they can get 10 times more activity by giving rebates, and still make money, they make more money.  But them making money on 1 transaction does not mean you lose money.

Opened up a 365 account a month or so ago. They have now closed the account on the basis that it was 'uneconomical'. I had 33 bets, each and every single one of them was a loser. I'd hate to see what would happen if you backed a winner.

Yes more info needed, were you backing firmers, were your bets small, in the hundreds or in the thousands?
They won't accomodate those backing firmers, or large bets even if you're losing, the potential liability is too great.

Maybe hes using the martingale staking system, so they had no choice but to close him down as they wouldn't have been able to settle had the next one got up