General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
28 Jan 10
20:10
Joined:
Date Joined:
16 Jan 09
The Magician (100) 28 Jan 21:05
As many know I have been in a continuous battle with Betfair to disclose the details of insiders/rule-breakers/cor-rupt individuals that have matched my bets.
Today after more than a month of considering my latest request Betfair made the ground breaking decision to for the first time in their 10 year history to disclose to one punter the identity of a punter taking the other side of their bet.
In brief Betfair today confirmed that my back bets on a horse called Man of Gwent, where indeed matched by the horses owner (or at least by the owners account) which the BHA concluded he controlled.
Firstly I must congratulate Betfair for making this decision and finally giving the cor-rupt/insiders/rule-breakers one less place to hide.
The background of the case can be seen here;
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/bha-owner-leighton-brookes-warned-off-for-three-years/661028/
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=090840
Betfair wrote...
[i]
As many know I have been in a continuous battle with Betfair to disclose the details of insiders/rule-breakers/cor-rupt individuals that have matched my bets.
Today after more than a month of considering my latest request Betfair made the ground breaking decision to for the first time in their 10 year history to disclose to one punter the identity of a punter taking the other side of their bet.
In brief Betfair today confirmed that my back bets on a horse called Man of Gwent, where indeed matched by the horses owner (or at least by the owners account) which the BHA concluded he controlled.
Firstly I must congratulate Betfair for making this decision and finally giving the cor-rupt/insiders/rule-breakers one less place to hide.
The background of the case can be seen here;
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/bha-owner-leighton-brookes-warned-off-for-three-years/661028/
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/disciplinary/disciplinaryDetail.asp?item=090840
Betfair wrote...
[i]
Show More
Very well done, and best of luck. It's amazing what a flexing of legal muscle can achieve.
I seem to remember reading Betfair testimony to a Select Committee where they explained that, in reality, they were a conventional bookmaker who happened to use advanced technology to perfectly manage their risk. 'Peer to peer' betting was just marketing speak, and in reality they were the counterparty to every bet.
I'm assuming the Gambling Commission will share that view, and treat your bet as being with Betfair. Because otherwise - if your bet was with Leighton Brookes - it would be unlicensed bookmaking (and presumably illegal).
So on what grounds do you expect the GC to void a bet made in good faith between two innocent parties?
I'm not knocking your plans - just curious.
I'm assuming the Gambling Commission will share that view, and treat your bet as being with Betfair. Because otherwise - if your bet was with Leighton Brookes - it would be unlicensed bookmaking (and presumably illegal).
So on what grounds do you expect the GC to void a bet made in good faith between two innocent parties?
I'm not knocking your plans - just curious.
Does the guy not have a legal right to lay any horse even if its his own against anybody on here.
I know he can't do it under the Racing board rules but there not the law of the land.
As long as he didn't attempt to commit fr@ud and ran the horse on his merits I can't really see any court telling the guy to refund his winning lay.
But I'm just guessing....What is the story under the courts not the jockey club does anyone know?
I know he can't do it under the Racing board rules but there not the law of the land.
As long as he didn't attempt to commit fr@ud and ran the horse on his merits I can't really see any court telling the guy to refund his winning lay.
But I'm just guessing....What is the story under the courts not the jockey club does anyone know?
JPL....We seem to be on similar tracks..... I don't know is that good or bad. :^0
I seem to remember reading Betfair testimony to a Select Committee where they explained that, in reality, they were a conventional bookmaker who happened to use advanced technology to perfectly manage their risk. 'Peer to peer' betting was just marketing speak, and in reality they were the counterparty to every bet.
Exactly what I was thinking. Any legal ruling that undermined this set up could have very serious consequences for exchange betting. I can understand the annoyance at a che@t getting away with it- but isn't there a bigger picture to bear in mind here? Wouldn't it be a bit silly to undermine the entire legal basis of exchange betting (which most of us think is bloody brilliant) for the sake of chasing down a pathetic small time pr1ck an a couple of hundred quid?
Exactly what I was thinking. Any legal ruling that undermined this set up could have very serious consequences for exchange betting. I can understand the annoyance at a che@t getting away with it- but isn't there a bigger picture to bear in mind here? Wouldn't it be a bit silly to undermine the entire legal basis of exchange betting (which most of us think is bloody brilliant) for the sake of chasing down a pathetic small time pr1ck an a couple of hundred quid?
Magician - I've just had a look at the Gambling Act, and I fear you may be on to a loser with the GC. Quite apart from the issue of who the other party to your bet is, it looks like they can void a bet "only during the period of six months beginning with the day on which the result of the bet is determined".
Sounds much like the story in the papers this morning about those climate scientists at East Anglia who broke the FoI act. The Information Commissioner can't do anything about it because more than six months have passed, but it's not possible to complain to the Information Commissioner until other routes have been exhausted (which takes more than six months). Catch 22!
Sounds much like the story in the papers this morning about those climate scientists at East Anglia who broke the FoI act. The Information Commissioner can't do anything about it because more than six months have passed, but it's not possible to complain to the Information Commissioner until other routes have been exhausted (which takes more than six months). Catch 22!
Horses are pretty unpredictable beasts even when trainers don't think a ertain horse can run well it still sometimes wins. My question is if the horses had won would you have kept the money, probably you got better than expected odds matched anyway, would you be trying to give the money back to Betfair or would you have kept it?
if your bet was with Leighton Brookes - it would be unlicensed bookmaking (and presumably illegal).
I'm sceptical about this. If two men make a bet in a pub, is one of them a bookmaker?
I'm sceptical about this. If two men make a bet in a pub, is one of them a bookmaker?
Moon Light - IANAL, but the Gambling Act allows private and non-commercial betting. A bet in a pub might fall into that category.
But (agreeing with aye robot) I don't think you could realistically claim that exchange betting with anonymous strangers over the internet falls under those provisions - which is presumably why BF claim to be the counterparty to all our bets for legal purposes.
But (agreeing with aye robot) I don't think you could realistically claim that exchange betting with anonymous strangers over the internet falls under those provisions - which is presumably why BF claim to be the counterparty to all our bets for legal purposes.
IANALB surely technically, under BF's logic, they rather than you have a claim against LB, as they are the counterparty to his bet?
In another statement, Betfair claim to be a bookmaker, explaining that THEY match the bets, that punters don't match against each other. This seems to contradict that statement, or rather digs that little hole a little deeper.
good point from No Moves. the judgement relates to the guy of laying his own horse, which is no good, but not of affecting the result in any way
congratulations on this great result
On 10 Sep 2008 in the 21.20 race at Kempton I think I backed this horse heavily in the place market, and I lost £3299 on this race in the place market on this race.
Do you think the owner might have laid in the place market as well?
On 10 Sep 2008 in the 21.20 race at Kempton I think I backed this horse heavily in the place market, and I lost £3299 on this race in the place market on this race.
Do you think the owner might have laid in the place market as well?
Certainly BF claim to be the bookmaker. The issue is what constitutes making a book.
I think there is a valid point that BF have claimed to Parliament that they match the bets and hedge them. They have got themselves in a fine mess.
The Gambling Act may have been influenced by nefarious bookies, who have been trying to spread the lie that laying is bookmaking, as opposed to the real bookmaking features of holding customer funds, advertising a book of prices, and systematically extracting a profit by means either of overround or other charging schemes.
I think there is a valid point that BF have claimed to Parliament that they match the bets and hedge them. They have got themselves in a fine mess.
The Gambling Act may have been influenced by nefarious bookies, who have been trying to spread the lie that laying is bookmaking, as opposed to the real bookmaking features of holding customer funds, advertising a book of prices, and systematically extracting a profit by means either of overround or other charging schemes.
great thread
shame about Deltas typical cynical post .. his only interest is to agitate forumites .. they tell him how it really is ... and he runs off to get them banned by betfair ..
shame about Deltas typical cynical post .. his only interest is to agitate forumites .. they tell him how it really is ... and he runs off to get them banned by betfair ..
MOON LIGHT....What is wrong in law of a owner laying his own horse? Especially one that ran on its merits that day.
Sure BHA forbid it. But I don't see how any court could have a problem with it. All it was is somebody betting the owner his horse WOULD win today and the owner betting that it wouldn't.
As long as he didn't try to make sure it didn't win he just betting on his opinion or some extra information he might have that somebody elses might not have known.
Sure thats what lots of us think we're doing everyday betting against a guy who we think has less information than us.
So I don't understand why you think Betfair is in trouble or who you think they are in trouble with.
Since it was more than likely Betfair who told the BHA the owner matched a bet on his horse that he wouldn't win.
Sure BHA forbid it. But I don't see how any court could have a problem with it. All it was is somebody betting the owner his horse WOULD win today and the owner betting that it wouldn't.
As long as he didn't try to make sure it didn't win he just betting on his opinion or some extra information he might have that somebody elses might not have known.
Sure thats what lots of us think we're doing everyday betting against a guy who we think has less information than us.
So I don't understand why you think Betfair is in trouble or who you think they are in trouble with.
Since it was more than likely Betfair who told the BHA the owner matched a bet on his horse that he wouldn't win.
Does this mean that if I have ever lost money on a "next manager" market I can cry too?
It seems ridiculous to me that someone would bet on a horse race and not expect those with better information to be betting against them. Even if the guy concerned no longer lays his own horses, there will probably be people out there who tell their friends when horses aren't in good form.
It seems ridiculous to me that someone would bet on a horse race and not expect those with better information to be betting against them. Even if the guy concerned no longer lays his own horses, there will probably be people out there who tell their friends when horses aren't in good form.
On behalf of the many punters who are on the wrong side of such corruption every racing day of the year, well done - and thanks, Magician.
Excellent result Magician, well done.
I believe the owner of the horse has **ed here but whats to say that he backed his horse many weeks before the race at generous odds and then layed off his own horse on betfair at lesser odds to guarantee a profitt whatever the result of the race or to minimise a loss
There was a scandal in the Sixties with famous footballers betting against their own teams. I can't remember the details, but they were harshly dealt with.
It's incredibly naive to assume that if an owner is betting against his own animal that it will have no effect on the running of it.
Suppose he thinks it has no chance. Why not withdraw it from the race and save money?
Because he has laid it of course.
It's incredibly naive to assume that if an owner is betting against his own animal that it will have no effect on the running of it.
Suppose he thinks it has no chance. Why not withdraw it from the race and save money?
Because he has laid it of course.
whats to say that he backed his horse many weeks before the race at generous odds
There is no reason at all to think that he did this.
There is no reason at all to think that he did this.
truly laughable the people on here who think betting on your own horses either way is ok, whether that's because you have noticed it running nicely on the gallops and make it a smidge shorter than the market, or have given explicit instructions to the jockey to hold it up and under no circs let it win
once you let owners bet in any manner on their horse (or on the selections around it) it's an absolute cast iron cert they will be stealing money from the market sooner or later, that's just human nature to ** your fellow man provided you think the risks of detection are relatively small
once you let owners bet in any manner on their horse (or on the selections around it) it's an absolute cast iron cert they will be stealing money from the market sooner or later, that's just human nature to ** your fellow man provided you think the risks of detection are relatively small
"It's just human nature to ** your fellow man". It may be your nature , but it's not everyones.
Moon Light
3 sheffield wednesday players got life bans in 60's
recently some players did same and only got a few month bans -possibyr Bury (how times change)
dont think players were charged with not trying only betting against own team
similarly owners rarely charged with fixing races only laying (make your own mind up what instructions were given to jockey)
3 sheffield wednesday players got life bans in 60's
recently some players did same and only got a few month bans -possibyr Bury (how times change)
dont think players were charged with not trying only betting against own team
similarly owners rarely charged with fixing races only laying (make your own mind up what instructions were given to jockey)
hardly big lays ?? you would of thought he would of gone for more knowing it was losing !
imho, it's in everyone's nature artie, including yours. whether you submit to doing it is another matter
i actually like to think i'm pretty squeaky clean, but if i went through every single deed in my entire life there would doubtless be plenty of things there which would put that claim to shame. and i would contest that the same is true of at least 99% of human beings, almost everyone thinks they are morally better than they actually are
someone who makes money on here snatching others funds by virtue of having faster pictures for example - nobody who does it seems to think there's anything wrong with it. nobody who has it done to them seems to think there's anything right about it
everyone believes their way of winning is "fair" and will often look on others methods as "unfair" which is why we get repetitive arguments which go round in circles for years on end about how this punter only wins by doing such and such, that's so wrong, etc
(flies round $hite, market maker advantage, blazer wearing ferengi, hide the queue, hide the queue!)
i actually like to think i'm pretty squeaky clean, but if i went through every single deed in my entire life there would doubtless be plenty of things there which would put that claim to shame. and i would contest that the same is true of at least 99% of human beings, almost everyone thinks they are morally better than they actually are
someone who makes money on here snatching others funds by virtue of having faster pictures for example - nobody who does it seems to think there's anything wrong with it. nobody who has it done to them seems to think there's anything right about it
everyone believes their way of winning is "fair" and will often look on others methods as "unfair" which is why we get repetitive arguments which go round in circles for years on end about how this punter only wins by doing such and such, that's so wrong, etc
(flies round $hite, market maker advantage, blazer wearing ferengi, hide the queue, hide the queue!)
Chosen® 29 Jan 05:08
On behalf of the many punters who are on the wrong side of such corruption every racing day of the year, well done - and thanks, Magician.
What about all the punters who find themselves inadvertently on the right side of such corruption?
Can Magician even be sure that his net position is negative as a result of owners laying (and, by implication, nobbling) their horses?
Obviously the practice would not exist in an ideal world, but I agree with many on this thread who point out the serious difficulties it poses for Betfair. Perhaps it would be easier to accept that a small amount of it happens and add it to the long list of imponderable variables that effect the running of horses?
On behalf of the many punters who are on the wrong side of such corruption every racing day of the year, well done - and thanks, Magician.
What about all the punters who find themselves inadvertently on the right side of such corruption?
Can Magician even be sure that his net position is negative as a result of owners laying (and, by implication, nobbling) their horses?
Obviously the practice would not exist in an ideal world, but I agree with many on this thread who point out the serious difficulties it poses for Betfair. Perhaps it would be easier to accept that a small amount of it happens and add it to the long list of imponderable variables that effect the running of horses?
that certainly would be easier, no question
in fact it reminds me of this quote:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
in fact it reminds me of this quote:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
"What about all the punters who inadvertently find themselves on the right side of this corruption ?" Good question.
Obviously there will be far more people who lose due to corruption then who benefit from it (or some people lose far more than others gain) , unless you think the ill gotten gains come out of thin air :|
The whole episode of betfair arguing that they are different entities depending on who / which body they are in front of is HUGELY concerning imo. At the very least it's deliberately misleading people. At worst....well, I'd better leave it there....
The whole episode of betfair arguing that they are different entities depending on who / which body they are in front of is HUGELY concerning imo. At the very least it's deliberately misleading people. At worst....well, I'd better leave it there....
Is it really that different to an owner knowing that a horse is far better than the publicly available information suggests and backing it? Surely the only difference is one of degree, in the sense that horses can be nobbled with greater certainty than they can be got to win.
JLP66
I have the same concern regarding the 6 month claus in the gambling act. but the GC have wider powers to void bets beyound this time limit.... I just think it is less likely they will use them.
When you consider it is not uncommon for the Nic Coward led BHA to take 3-4 years to concluded corruptions cases... and this (simple) case took more than six months... the BHA is really still a major fly in the ointment
I have the same concern regarding the 6 month claus in the gambling act. but the GC have wider powers to void bets beyound this time limit.... I just think it is less likely they will use them.
When you consider it is not uncommon for the Nic Coward led BHA to take 3-4 years to concluded corruptions cases... and this (simple) case took more than six months... the BHA is really still a major fly in the ointment
Is it really that different to an owner knowing that a horse is far better than the publicly available information suggests and backing it? Surely the only difference is one of degree, in the sense that horses can be nobbled with greater certainty than they can be got to win.
This is truly dire nonsense. Will people argue anything at all on here?
Trying to get your horse to win is legitimate. Trying to stop it from winning is very naughty.
I accept that the former case depends upon how the owner's horse turns out to be better than the public know. If it is due to previous nobbling, that too is sinister. If it is due to legitimate improvement, there's nothing wrong with it.
This is truly dire nonsense. Will people argue anything at all on here?
Trying to get your horse to win is legitimate. Trying to stop it from winning is very naughty.
I accept that the former case depends upon how the owner's horse turns out to be better than the public know. If it is due to previous nobbling, that too is sinister. If it is due to legitimate improvement, there's nothing wrong with it.
Go back to very start.
What is the purpose of horse racing? Why do people race horses? Why did people start racing horses?
If we understand that then we can make a better judgement.
What is the purpose of horse racing? Why do people race horses? Why did people start racing horses?
If we understand that then we can make a better judgement.
This is truly dire nonsense. Will people argue anything at all on here?
Trying to get your horse to win is legitimate. Trying to stop it from winning is very naughty.
I accept that the former case depends upon how the owner's horse turns out to be better than the public know. If it is due to previous nobbling, that too is sinister. If it is due to legitimate improvement, there's nothing wrong with it.
I am not saying that either case is acceptable, they are both forms of what might best be called "insider dealing", the difference being the ease with which the desired result can be obtained.
In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too.
Trying to get your horse to win is legitimate. Trying to stop it from winning is very naughty.
I accept that the former case depends upon how the owner's horse turns out to be better than the public know. If it is due to previous nobbling, that too is sinister. If it is due to legitimate improvement, there's nothing wrong with it.
I am not saying that either case is acceptable, they are both forms of what might best be called "insider dealing", the difference being the ease with which the desired result can be obtained.
In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too.
Well done Magician, I wish you luck with your future aims.
thanks hazel...
but only step one....
now need to recover my money... now that befair have confirmed Brookes took it
Betfair have resited me for years on this topic - but finally gave in....
the rest of the industry/regulatory bodies of racing will defend the rule breakers even more agressively I fear...
but ultimately I will win this battle.... I have too... I am correct, and as such the industry cannot resist fiarness indefinantly
but only step one....
now need to recover my money... now that befair have confirmed Brookes took it
Betfair have resited me for years on this topic - but finally gave in....
the rest of the industry/regulatory bodies of racing will defend the rule breakers even more agressively I fear...
but ultimately I will win this battle.... I have too... I am correct, and as such the industry cannot resist fiarness indefinantly
In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too.
I don't see a parallel with the financial world, where employees (the officers) are forbidden from using inside info to profit at the expense of the shareholders (the owners).
There is a case for making trainers declare their bets to the owners. I have seen posts on here by people claiming that trainers had gambled their horse without their knowledge, or told them only when the price was gone. That would be analogous.
I can see no prospect of banning owners from gambling their horses. That would be suicidal imo, as most people who own horses have been betting on the nags for a long time, and would find the idea of not betting on their own one most peculiar.
I don't see a parallel with the financial world, where employees (the officers) are forbidden from using inside info to profit at the expense of the shareholders (the owners).
There is a case for making trainers declare their bets to the owners. I have seen posts on here by people claiming that trainers had gambled their horse without their knowledge, or told them only when the price was gone. That would be analogous.
I can see no prospect of banning owners from gambling their horses. That would be suicidal imo, as most people who own horses have been betting on the nags for a long time, and would find the idea of not betting on their own one most peculiar.
This touches on one of the undelightful ironies of the modern world.
The class war is nowadays between the owners (who are usually the public, via pension funds and insurance funds) and privileged employees, the officers, with the employee as exploiter.
I haven't seen this topic much discussed by the political ieologues of either Left or Right, they predominantly continue to analyse the 19th-century world in my experience.
The class war is nowadays between the owners (who are usually the public, via pension funds and insurance funds) and privileged employees, the officers, with the employee as exploiter.
I haven't seen this topic much discussed by the political ieologues of either Left or Right, they predominantly continue to analyse the 19th-century world in my experience.
Part of the problem is that the owners are actually represented en bloc by middlemen (the fund managers) who have more affinity with the employees than the owners whose interests they are paid to assert. Hence the futility of the recent exhortations of shareholders of banks to exercise more control over the bonuses paid to staff. Most of the fund managers are ex-investment bankers, who have to believe the myth that large bonuses must be paid to attract and retain "talent" because it is the only justification for their own personal success.
But we digress...
But we digress...
are we assuming here that owners know what trainers are doing with their horses
are we assuming the owner 'pulled' the horse up himself
maybe the owner was trying to recoup training costs the only way possible lol
his wrong of course was that ... it is against the 'rules of racing' ownership clauses .. thus the 3 years
any mention of any other impropriety ?
are we assuming the owner 'pulled' the horse up himself
maybe the owner was trying to recoup training costs the only way possible lol
his wrong of course was that ... it is against the 'rules of racing' ownership clauses .. thus the 3 years
any mention of any other impropriety ?
Well done Magician and Betfair.
Good luck with your future efforts on this Magician.
Good luck with your future efforts on this Magician.
well done magician.
I was just wondering how betfair could tell your bet was matched by this chap at that exact moment?
Did your bot tell you the horse was not trying?
it does not matter if a horse drift unless the owner is laying.
I was just wondering how betfair could tell your bet was matched by this chap at that exact moment?
Did your bot tell you the horse was not trying?
it does not matter if a horse drift unless the owner is laying.
The impropriety that can be detected is the lay bet. that can be proved.
Other jiggery-pokery is often virtually impossible to establish, excuses are readily available.
Other jiggery-pokery is often virtually impossible to establish, excuses are readily available.
I traded a rubber company shares. Then the FSA enquired of my broker about my motives for buying shares. It was not difficult to bat away.
"groundbreaking" decision or their hand was forced. Bad publicity this for the bf model, imho.
Magician. You recently won the Scoop 6. If you were to discover that a one of your winning horses only won because its main opposition in the race were not trying, would you feel it was wrong to keep the money, and would you give it back?
Well done Magician.
Regarding this comment:
Moon Light 30 Jan 00:33
In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too.
I don't see a parallel with the financial world, where employees (the officers) are forbidden from using inside info to profit at the expense of the shareholders (the owners).
[...]
Do you remember the case of the guy who worked for the BBC and knew the results for one of the reality shows and made tens of thousands putting bets on it. He was then allowed to keep the winnings and did not receive punishment from the BBC and he didn't do anything illegal.
It would be good if this was made illegal as it is obviously grossly unfair that some are allowed to act on this. The attitude of "if you're going to gamble it's your own fault", should not be allowed to prevail.
Regarding this comment:
Moon Light 30 Jan 00:33
In finance there are strict rules about share transactions made by company officers, buy or sell. In the same spirit, if connections are to be prohibited from laying their horses perhaps they should be prohibited from backing them too.
I don't see a parallel with the financial world, where employees (the officers) are forbidden from using inside info to profit at the expense of the shareholders (the owners).
[...]
Do you remember the case of the guy who worked for the BBC and knew the results for one of the reality shows and made tens of thousands putting bets on it. He was then allowed to keep the winnings and did not receive punishment from the BBC and he didn't do anything illegal.
It would be good if this was made illegal as it is obviously grossly unfair that some are allowed to act on this. The attitude of "if you're going to gamble it's your own fault", should not be allowed to prevail.
I quite agree, Investor.
There's a lot of snobbery involved in the distinction between "high finance" and gambling.
There's a lot of snobbery involved in the distinction between "high finance" and gambling.
What about all the punters who inadvertently find themselves on the right side of this corruption ?" Good question.
On the contrary, it's totally irrelevant. It's like saying the firms rebuilding the twin towers shouldn't be allowed to profit from it or that those who planned the bombing should get away with it because someone else profited from their act.
Surely the point is, if the corrupt aren't allowed to keep their ill-gottens then we wouldn't have to even discuss such side effects.
On the contrary, it's totally irrelevant. It's like saying the firms rebuilding the twin towers shouldn't be allowed to profit from it or that those who planned the bombing should get away with it because someone else profited from their act.
Surely the point is, if the corrupt aren't allowed to keep their ill-gottens then we wouldn't have to even discuss such side effects.
Moon Light 30 Jan 18:37
There's a lot of snobbery involved in the distinction between "high finance" and gambling.
"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling."
-Ambrose Bierce
There's a lot of snobbery involved in the distinction between "high finance" and gambling.
"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling."
-Ambrose Bierce
I really like that one Eldrick. Saw it used in an article on Ed Thorp a few days ago. Stuck in my mind, so true.
should be made illegal.
dentist sent to prison for 6 years for insider trading
and chap at bbc keeps his money
dentist sent to prison for 6 years for insider trading
and chap at bbc keeps his money
There's one law for the rich and another for the poor. Betfair's city boys go along with that. They even attempted to justify that guy keeping the money and the total lack of protection for their customers until djsunset set the tabloids on them.
If I lived in London and had a horse who was favourite running up in Hamilton. I wouldn't see anything wrong in it to lay my horse. I be just doing it so I wouldn't be out of pocket if something happened to it in the race and he got beaten.
To me it would be just the same as a guy on here greening up his betting book. It wouldn't be for any sinister reason. It would be just I personally couldn't afford to send him and the team up to Hamilton and end up been out of pocket for my visit.
While if he does win I not only collect the prize money but the horse would be more valueable as well.
So any pay out to a punter from me I would have felt was worth it.
Funny thing is I'm actually thinking of buying a horse so be warned. :^0
To me it would be just the same as a guy on here greening up his betting book. It wouldn't be for any sinister reason. It would be just I personally couldn't afford to send him and the team up to Hamilton and end up been out of pocket for my visit.
While if he does win I not only collect the prize money but the horse would be more valueable as well.
So any pay out to a punter from me I would have felt was worth it.
Funny thing is I'm actually thinking of buying a horse so be warned. :^0
i've said this before and I'll say it again.
the smart gambling owners names are nowhere near the paperwork on their horses. Only the stupid get caught.....the guy being chased here a) doesn't give 2 hoots about racing + so being warned off is no bother and b) is (I believe) plenty rich enough not to worry about having to give back the fifty quid or whatever it was....
it's potentially more far reaching that this are betfair a bookmaker or not debate is being dragged back out for me.
the smart gambling owners names are nowhere near the paperwork on their horses. Only the stupid get caught.....the guy being chased here a) doesn't give 2 hoots about racing + so being warned off is no bother and b) is (I believe) plenty rich enough not to worry about having to give back the fifty quid or whatever it was....
it's potentially more far reaching that this are betfair a bookmaker or not debate is being dragged back out for me.
I'm actually thinking of buying a horse so be warned.
You're the one who will be warned if you're not careful! :^0
You're the one who will be warned if you're not careful! :^0
Telephone lines for the reality shows involved are supplied by BT but operated by service provider Harvest Media.
"We are urgently investigating this," a BT spokesman said.
The gang, which made wagers from computers in the London area, are believed to have started their scam at last year's BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards.
Members of the ring are thought to be in their early 30s and well-educated.
The group began by placing small bets but those amounts grew as they kept winning.
They also tried to hide their tracks by intentionally losing small amounts of money on other bets.
early 30's and well educated
that would rule out most people on this forum
haha
"We are urgently investigating this," a BT spokesman said.
The gang, which made wagers from computers in the London area, are believed to have started their scam at last year's BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards.
Members of the ring are thought to be in their early 30s and well-educated.
The group began by placing small bets but those amounts grew as they kept winning.
They also tried to hide their tracks by intentionally losing small amounts of money on other bets.
early 30's and well educated
that would rule out most people on this forum
haha
Jonny
more and more this will be fround upon - bad PR for all involved even if not illegal
more and more this will be fround upon - bad PR for all involved even if not illegal
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539