Why are there still any online bookmakers?

If you are a judge at a specific sport. For example Greyhound racing then the prices on here are usually much worse (For the buzzers) than what price the bookies on track go. Thus its more profitable to use the online firms or shops.

Obviously the liquidity on here for some sports is also poor so people use the shops / online firms for those.

Also people moaning about the PC and 2 pound bots will use the firms for a lot of their business if they can still get on with them.

Some people don't like paying 5% commission on their winning bets.

Thanks, Jack, but that's not exactly what I had in mind. I'm not asking why do punters still punt with

the bookies. Rather, I don't understand why are bookies still out there. Greyhound racong averages

about 120%(?) books per race. Are there really that many opportunities at the bookies that make it

worth betting there? Second, no online bookmaker could survive on unpopular sports bets alone...

Third, the PC payers are the cream beating the game solidly enough to be denied action.

a) Commission here makes the odds often worse than they look
b) Betfair confuses a lot of people (yes, really!)
c) Accas/Multiples as you say. (Which is what a lot of mugs chase, to the delight of the bookies)
d) people like set odds and some consistency. Scares people when they see odds changing every minute they don't know what's going on.

Betfair will always be slightly more 'geek friendly' compared to the general online bookies. Plus people like a name that's "on the high-street", brand loyalty is a surprisingly strong phenomenon.

Besides, many punters don't really care so much about what odds they get or even understand they're being ripped off so much, they just want to place bets and have them come in, they're actually quite price insensitive hence bookmakers have tiny odds on score-casts and other multiples without the punters really thinking it through.

Oh, and commission.

Someone who places a tenner at 10-1 and has to pay a fiver back in commission feels "robbed" of that fiver, it hurts them.

Psychologically that person is happier placing at 9-1 and keeping all of 90 than they are getting 100 and losing 5 to commission. (Obviously side by side they would pick to take the latter, but if observed over 2 separate events which they didn't really link they'd be more "satisfied" internally with the former).

Yes, our brains are NOT designed to deal with this stuff. Brains have evolved slowly over hundreds of thousands of years, they've simply not caught up to deal with this. We are risk averse and loss averse creatures. Losses, even small losses, hurt us a lot more than even moderate gains.

Greyhound racing averages about 120%(?) books per race. Are there really that many opportunities at the bookies that make it worth betting there?

Id personally say closer to 130-140% mark for bags races in the shops. For me personally I need to use the online books and shops. This week I have bet a dog at 3/1 with the books which was never bigger than 7/4 plus comission on here. The eventual SP was evens.

As a previous poster mentioned the brand loyalty some people have to the books is shocking to say the least.

bookies make most of their profits on th fobt's .lotto fruit machines etc they also offer credit accts.the old school still like their cash in their hands type of betting also the banter with the drunk who came in to keep warm is appealing to some

Wow, I'd like to respond to everybody but it'll take a while, lol.

ror, I agree that commission sometimes rewards slightly worse odds, especially on massively

odds-on favs. But I would agrue that a huge percentage, definitely over 75% of people going

after the best price, are clients who bookies don't want anything to do with, b/c they are winners.

You have a good point in b), c) and d). "Geek friendly", never though about it, might be true. But

this has been around for a very long time now, certainly long enough for anybody to get used to

it. And it's not like they aren't heavily advetising either. I'm not from the UK, but I'd imagine that

there are ads about them everywhere. They are sponsors of

Barca and ManU, two of the most successful football teams in the world, supported

mainly(percentagewise) by glory hunters, the perfect bf clients imo.

Concerning the odds, I used to be like that, I didn't really care about the odds(started at B&M).

But with time, I started noticing the ads of online bookmakers, and went a long way to be able to

deposit online. One of the first things together with moving out was to create a bf account, I

guess I needed some time before finding out about the existance of Betfair. 21 months from

introduction to betting to bf account. But Betfair has been around for a looong time now. Surely,

people would have opened accounts to see what it's like. Why go back if you're already here? Only

possiblereasoning is your 'scared' argument, which I think applies to quite a small percentage of

punters, i.e. the ones that would NEVER adopt Betfair under any circustances, and those wouldn't

bet online in the first place imo.

The commision is something I never thought about. But think about the green colour! That has a

positive psycological affect which would actually outweight the affetcs of having to pay commission

imo. We have coined the term 'to green out', either we or it was used by traders previously, but

you get my point.

As a previous poster mentioned the brand loyalty some people have to the books is shocking to say the least.

Seriously? I don't understand why you'd be loyal to an online bookie. Maybe: 'I'm lucky on B3t365, unlucky on Betfair'?

NAGS TO RICHES 11 Apr 20:56
bookies make most of their profits on th fobt's .lotto fruit machines etc they also offer credit accts.the old school still like their cash in their hands type of betting also the banter with the drunk who came in to keep warm is appealing to some


You're most likely right, except the question is about ONLINE bookmakers. And as for online FOBTs,

Betfair, I'll give them that, they are trying really hard to drain all the mug money they can: casiono,

arcade, exchange games, you name it, they have it.

If you're a loser who has no difficulty getting on with bookmakers what would you rather do?

1) Place your bet in a oner with a bookmaker with tatts r4, double result and maybe best odds guaranteed

or

2) Spend an hour trying to drip feed your bet on to betfair whilst watching a game of £2 leap frog among bots after which you'll maybe get hit by an unjust reduction factor or disqualification.

With 2) you might end up with better odds but by fk you'll have earned them. Betfair's failure to tackle these early markets issues is nothing short of crazy.

There's another factor besides the price insensitivity of mugs and the commission people tend to forget, and that factor apülies for smart punters as well. There are some bookies that often actually offer better odds and obviously better "liquidity" than Betfair does, even on football (soccer) games and on American sports by a country mile. A lot of times you'll find better odds on PInnacle Sports or some Asian bookies like 188bet or 12bet for example, and better yet - at least Pinny doesn't even limit you either.

But especially if you bet big on early prices, Betfair just doesn't cut it.

There are bookmakers that run 101.5 overrounds to baseball for instance. Betfair can't compete on those markets,.

Lack of liquidity (which feck alluded to regarding horse racing) for other sports, especially in running. NFL for example, you will always get a better price and bigger bet with the firms.

they must have a lot of faith in their compilers Lori :0

online bookmakers exist because they have the best odds 95% of the time (possibly excluding dogs/horses about which I have no idea) - people use betfair because:

1) They are lazy;
2) They trade;
3) They do not have the funds to spread around dozens of books;
4) Habit

The answer is the same as the one to the question 'Why before BETFAIR did punters not search around for the nest price on a bet?' A lot of Punters are lazy - people get into the habit of going down to their local bookmaker and spending some money. In fact, a betting shop manager that I know tells me that his shop's biggest earners are the slot machines that they have installed - apparently they make thousands each week. Now where's the sense in that?

Because people like me still rely on online bookies for income (sign up bonuses, arbing, reload, what if, low risk casino offers). Some smaller books out there only have customers like that, at least until they go bust that is,

Ok, I failed to explain that had the British/Irish bookies in mind, and

not the American/Asian ones. Before bf get a foothold in those areas

of the world, there is little point talking about liquidity on the related

markets. But if there is no liquidity on here for a football match, say third tier divisions in Finland in August, I cannot

imagine that there would be enough money for the bookies out there

for it to be a reason of their existance. Early prices on the horses might

be it but I wonder how big the market is for that.

Betfair HAD a foothold in American sports and chucked it away fwiw.

If betfair was run by gamblers for gamblers rather than by ex city boys for parasites and **s, the thread heading would be a valid question.

AGAIN, I am talking about ONLINE bookies, not B&M. The FOBTs and slots argument is inapplicable here.

A lot of you guys bring up shopping for the best price. But isn't this a

characteristic of winning punters? Also, doesn't it lead to a

ban/limitation if the bookie realises that you are consistantly getting

better prices than the SP?

I am NOT looking for reasons why smart punters wouldn't solely play on

bf. I am aware of the fact that you can get more at better odds

sometimes. But taking advantage of that leads to swift bans, doesn't it?

I guess people like names they can trust.

For reasons that are quite unfathomable, the likes of billies, crooks and joes have good reputations. Ask people about BF and they think it's some dodgy internet site.

So, here is a list of all the solid arguments that were mentioned so far and my take on them:

1. Poor liquidity on some markets: I doubt online bookies can support themselves throught that. They would mainly attract informed, smart punters anyway. (Not talking about American sports.)

2. Betfair has a more complex interface than online bookies: that's true but bf's been around long enough so that almost every potential customer would have opened an account, and used it for their betting by now.

3. Commission feels like stealing: my green colour argument, as explained earlier.

4. No early liqudity on horse racing: the best argument so far.

5. Being able to lump a bigger bet in one bit with the bookies as opposed to here when liquidity is low: If you are price incencitive, just accept the lower prices on offer and you're OK imo.

6. Punters shop around for the best odds which are often found elsewhere: this leads to bans and limitations so I don't think it helps the BOOKIES' bottom line.

7. better odds/value on mug bets, accums, e/w, fcs etc.: that was my starting point.

8. Loyalty to well-established names: Again, I'm not from the UK, you guys know better than me about that, but based on my experience, you could be right. Still, this loyalty would materialise in going to the shop, and not the ONLINE bookie.

kef4o, you're overestimating the amount of price sensitive/winning punters. For the majority of punters it's just a bit of fun they can't be arsed searching for prices and brand loyalty counts for alot, even punters on here won't search for best prices when they could easily beat BF prices with all the BOG / double result offers out there.

For the average Joe this sites too complicated they just want to stick a bet on not drip feed it in or monitor it to see it's all taken. They don't care if the odds change when they submit the bet they'll just accept lower odds/stakes and carry on. They'll probably do a few free bet offers to start and then just stick with whichever site's easiest for them.

9. Betfair doesn't attract 'for fun' punters strong enough, people just want to get on and that's it: I guess I do overestimate the number of winning and especially price sensitive punters out there, Ghetto Joe. I gues it's b/c, besides this forum, I only have one betting buddy, nobody else has a genuine interest. And people on here constantly argue about value and prices, which has uplifted my idea of the general punter.

And finally, Number 10: It's all about the casino games, and there are more than enough people out there who play them.

I sort of figured it out I guess. And I think that everybody will agree. Based on the FOBTs/slots revenues in B&Ms, I conclude that the modern bookie's goal is to lure you in, and make you play casino games. Sportsbetting is nowadays nothing more than a fishing rod. I mean, just look at bf's interface:

Home Sports Football Horse Racing, so far so good, all around useful tabs for quick navigation. Moreover, Sports has secondary tabs, which I also find good ideas. But then:

Casino, with ** red capsed 'NEW!'. Wtf is the exclamation mark for? And how long are they going to keep it up like that? It**es me off to no end.

This is followed by Poker, which has the WORST software in the world, so I guess they don't really care about it.

Next come Exchange Games and Arcade. What? I thought Arcade WAS a part of casiono by definition. And Exchange Games apparently deserve a tab as they are unique number generators that no other company has.

There is no tab for Financials... I guess it's too long of a word, and it might have to substitute Exchange games. But, come on now, bf know which one has a better potential to make money for them...

I'm sure plenty of people would rather bet online with a name they recognise from the high street. I'm also sure many people find a traditional bookmaker site easier to comprehend.

For bets like the forecast & tricast (horse racing), I can't ever see betfair being competitive with online bookmakers.

If I were aware of Betfair since the moment it was introduced, I'd have predicted that all the

bookmakers would have stopped operating due to Betfair's masive, unique edge, and I'd give them

four more years of existance at maximum. But that's not the case. If somebody asked me why that is

the best answer I'd be able to muster up would be that bookies might offer better odds for

accumulators.

Anybody care to explain this to me? I feel like I'm missing something fairly obvious.


Let's say you are a mug (high-roller at that)

Here's a few scenarios for you:

You lose a million quid at betfair. You get down to 2% commission, just about, and betfair take you out to lunch, at a cheapish restaurant. They might give you some tickets to a cricket match, bog standard seats, or a day out at the races, depending on what your poison is.

You lose a million quid at sadblokes. They take you god knows where, holiday for the family in the dominican, expenses paid, etc, you get the picture.


Alternatively:

You like to have an interest bet on the horses each day. A lucky 15. You can't work out how to put it on on here, it seems a bit complex; and the local baldy or similar offers treble odds one winner (or even quadruple) and guaranteed prices (which, as it happens, offers far more value than multis on here, even if you wouldn't know value if it hit you in the face).



Or:

On your first deposit, you click on a market and notice there's no money there apart from two offers on the two outcomes. You can back both it seems at 1.01 for 100 quid. Not understanding fully you saddle on in and back an even money shot at 1.01. You are lucky enough to win your bet, but don't understand why your profit is only 95p. You don't come back.



Or:

You like to watch at the races in the afternoon. As you submit your bet on a horse that looks like it is going well, to you, your ask of 3.0 for £20 gets matched, and when you look, its actually matched at 1000! What's going on! Then sure enough, 1.5 seconds later, the horse falls at the next fence. Hmmmmm, you think.



There's a million reasons why mugs are so much better off elsewhere. I swear the only thing that keeps the losers going on here is the belief, rightly or wrongly, that they can become one of the winners with enough hard work/discipline/the right staking plan/etc. So much nicer to be a loser at the bookies. Imagine, you could bet what you wanted with bet 0.365p, or slybet! It would actually matter more when there was money on it!



P.S. Bookies MIGHT offer better odds for accumulators?

There's a reason why you never see any betfair promo material for how "great" their accas are. They are horrendous - because they are laying them.

I've very occasionally wanted to hedge an outright posi on a footie double or treble and never found Bf to be top price but they've always been better than average.

Do Bookmakers cater for Layers.?

I often ask what combination of circs wd be best for me playing on the horses. The answer wd be for horse racing to become massively more popular and for price-insensitive punters to flock to bf.

But after ten years or so of waiting I can see that this isn't going to happen.

The site is too complicated, bf sp has not taken off (partly b/c it has not been marketed through sponsorships of terrestrial television) and conventional bm s can offer all the sweeteners to casual punters that everyone has mentioned (r4, double result, place offers etc etc)

I think now I wd prefer a large-volume low takeout toat or twenty or so rolling aliases for shopping round in mid-morning w/ the books.