Can add in IBAS as a complete waste of space too.

If you want to make a dispute against a bookie or exchange don't bother - they will just side with them, regardless of how badly run the market was. In future I will simply harrass the market makers before placing a bet over their rules!

The costs of running a betting shop are an absolute joke.

If this means that many are not viable businesses then surely that is just market forces taking hold. It would be a highly precarious economy that favoured inefficient businesses.

I think the problem is that the world has moved on yet many businesses (not just bookmakers) struggle to accept this. People who are forced to close feel that they have been victims and want someone to blame rather than accept that technology has been the cause. How many businesses have died a death because of the internet? Previously unforseen competition has his all sectors of bricks and mortar business.

Yes agree with nearly all of that, but 'market forces' should not be mistaken for 'discrimination'  -  ie £190 per shop v. £1670 per shop

Is that not because it is done on a cost recovery basis eg Ladcrooks only have 1 licence not 2000 licences etc therefore cost per shop is far less than an indy? I think the gambling act makes it illegal to cross subsidise.

Capt; The bloke from the GC spent an hour telling me why I shouldn't allow anyone under 18 in. Too fkin right I don't want anyone under 18 in, they don't have any money, they draw all over the place, they hang around the door, etc etc, I might turn a blind eye to a 17 year old lottery millionaire but the rest of em can scarper.

Any of those against an exchange would you know?

If you check their annual reports you will see that the number of cases involving exchanges in tiny. I assume this is because the majority of the internet issues eg price laid in error etc can`t happen on the exchanges.

I would think that the rules for market settlement must constitute virtually all the exchange disputes that get sent to IBAS. I know that unexpected things can happen but the number of markets where the rules didn`t cover an eventuality seems pretty large to me.

Out of interest which market was your dispute about?

Banks

Is that not because it is done on a cost recovery basis eg Ladcrooks only have 1 licence not 2000 licences etc therefore cost per shop is far less than an indy? I think the gambling act makes it illegal to cross subsidise.

No, its done on a discriminatory basis to enable big businesses to push the indy into oblivion

It is nothing to do with "market forces". A lot of shops would actually be quite profitable if you removed all these charges and levies from the authorities. I don't see why these charges are necessary. Like I said, a shop could make 150k profit from bets, but only have 40k left after all the charges and other costs (these are actual real figures btw).

Why are there all these charges in this industry? It is a joke, and it is about time they came into the 21st century. Sooner or later, most of these shops will end up closing, and they will have no ones money to grab anymore.

PAYE, Amusement Licence Duty, VAT on FOBT profit, Betting Duty, Horse Race Levy, Cooperation Tax/Income Tax.

Banks my expenses are about 7k a month, so if I win 7k will I break even ?

No because I pay betting duty or Gross Profit Tax, on as it says my Gross Profit , so I have to pay £1050.

How can that be right paying tax on  a profit that you don't make.

In the good old days when the punter paid the tax, we collected it, then passed "some" of it on to the bogey man. My old fella and many more like him made more money doin that , than I will ever make now at the game.

Can always remember the "invisible till"" as he used to call it that used to come out at busy times.

The Gambling Commission is an embarrassing joke. Their "inspectors" visiting an independent shop I know well asked the owner "what is Portman Park?" on their first visit.

The most laughable aspect is that the reason the industry was burdened with this new regulator was to meet the 3 objectives outlined in the Budd report, to protect the vulnerable, ensure gambling is fair and open, and keep out crime.

In reality, a Gestapo of over zealous and ignorant enforcers now roam the country's ravaged independent betting sector trying to justify their salaries by issuing ludicrous edicts regarding the positioning of Gamcare leaflets etc. It is the archetypal examplet of a blinkered over powerful organisation requiring narrow-minded, box ticking compliance and form filling, rather than using common sense and practicality to achieve useful ends.

Best and most hilarious of all was how the Gambling Commission dealt with the biggest threat to the industry and the most important assault on its key objective - keeping crime out of gambling - since the body was set up when it emerged last year.

Remember, the Gambling Commission is squandering millions of pound each year on "licensing" and "regulating" the gaming industry - a job that was previously done by magistrates courts at a fraction of the cost, costing each bookmaker around £80 a year to run instead of more than £2000 per operator today.

So how did the Gambling Commission rise to the challenge of the biggest threat to its licensing objective since it was set up? Did it prove that perhaps, despite the doubters, it was doing something worthwhile to justify its extortionate fees and bloated payroll?

Last year, Italian police probing the tentacles of the Mafia and their money laundering activities found that the trail led abroad from Italian shores. During a raid on a Mafia clan in the town of Bari, Italian police found alleged mob activities centred on a Bari branch office of a mysterious company called "Paraidsebet.com".

This shady outfit was suspected of being at the heart of the Mafia's money laundering empire. Investigators immediately called in their English cop colleagues after discovering the HQ of this shadowy outfit was located nowhere else but in the money laundering capital of Hounslow, West Lodon. Yet following a raid staggered Brit investigators from the Serious and Organised Crime outfit were stunned to discover that the HQ of Paradisebet was, wait for it, the proud owner of a legal recognised brand new shiny Gambling Commission Operator licence - allowing the firm to proudly boast on its "legitimate" website that, just like Betfair, "licensed and regulated by the Gambling Commission".

Surely utterly bamboozling a clueless public sector regulator into allowing you to go "legit" and gain a licence is the dream of every Sopranos character since time immemorial! Well done the Gambling Commission! A few days later sheepish Gambling Commission officials announced that they would "suspend" the operator licence of this shining example of their diligence pending further enquiries - at this time Paradisebet was still listed on their roll of honour of licensed operators. No further comment would be made, they announced, until those enquiries were concluded. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have noticed no further comment on this particular licence holder ever since by the estemmed quango.

Just to add insult to injury - and perhaps highglight their untter naivety - the Gambling Commission put in another sterling effort towards its stated objective of "keeping crime out of gambling" by helpfully displaying the home addresses of midlands bookmakers for a number of years on its website, helpfully allowing armed robbers to carry out a spate of armed balaclava-wearing raids on on track vulnerable track bookmakers returning home with large sums of cash after a day at the races.

I notice from their website is that their latest idea is to set up a "confidentional intelligence" tip-off line. The propoganda attached to this supergrass charter boasts: "All calls are received by trained employees within the Intelligence department". For readers with long memories, this all seems to Roger Buffham & Raceguard for all words.


This beggars belief. I am sure ther are nice people trying their best to do a good job within it, but if ever there was an outfit that could quite literally be abolished over night with absolutely zero adverse consequences for ANYBODY except its direct employees, then surely the Gambling Commission led by its, in my opinion, utterly ineffectual "chairperson" Jenny Williams is it. Perhaps the funds saved by so doing could be redirected to saving "schoolsnospitals" from the doubtless verty imminent funding crisis they face.

Hi,

Check out this link http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ashforth+Profile%3A+Loved+and+loathed%3B+Outspoken+John+McCririck+clowns...-a060962018 and this section in particular

In 1979, McCririck hit the jackpot with "Totegate". On July 4, at Carlisle, Shine On, at 11-1, and Tinas Gold, at 20-1, finished first and second in an 18-runner handicap. The dual forecast paid 45p to a 10p stake.

Persistence enabled McCririck to establish that the Tote had developed a practice of putting winning off-course bets into the racecourse pool after the race result was known.

Further persistence persuaded a reluctant Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, to set up an independent inquiry from which Woodrow Wyatt, the Tote chairman, was lucky to escape with his job.

While it was 31 years ago, it would be naive to think it couldn't happen in the era of rip-off Britain at a time when faith in the "professional" classes that carry out "external" audits is rock bottom. There's only one way to ensure it can't happen and that's to show the running on tickets for any pool, any leg ASAP. If my laptop can calculate the running on totals for the 6th leg of a million ticket pool using a brute force algorithm in less than a second then why can't the tote's processor? Why are they holding these back?

If you don't think that's worthy of consideration then what exactly is it the GC do?

Regards

Feck   



From: The Gambling Commission 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:37 PM
To: 'Feck'
Subject: RE: Integrity of the Tote


Dear Mr Feck



Thank you for your email regarding the Tote Scoop 6



We have discussed the matter you refer to and the new system is said to be a few weeks a way from launch. A timeframe for when this will be available to customers has been requested.



It is not a requirement of the Tote to implement these changes but something they recognize will improve transparency and customer satisfaction. In regards to your correspondence with the Tote this is a matter you would be best advised to take up directly, with the Tote.  The processing of the Pools and dividends are subject to a number of external audits to ensure their integrity, from a regulatory point of view the Commission has seen no evidence to suggest there is any question of malpractice and cannot comment on every “theoretical” possibility put to us.



Yours sincerely



Davy Cowie

Gambling Commission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Feck [mailto:]
Sent: 06 August 2010 18:20
To: The Gambling Commission
Subject: Re: Integrity of the Tote



Hi,



In what way is it resolved? They told me they were installing a new system which would be up and running for the Derby (2 months ago) and they would then be able to update the totals quicker and show the running on tickets for the first leg. From what I can tell nothing has changed. No 1st leg totals were shown for yesterday's record jackpot which would theoretically give them the chance to stick in combos after the first race result was known. They also told me they would keep me up to date with what was happening but they haven't. You've not exactly scared the **** out of them.



Regards



Feck



From: The Gambling Commission

Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 1:17 PM

To: 'Feck'

Subject: RE: Integrity of the Tote



Dear Mr Feck



Thank you for your email regarding the Tote Scoop 6



I can inform you that Gambling Commission compliance managers held a meeting with the Tote in which this matter was discussed. In relation to your complaint; the tote informed the Commission that they have responded to yourself directly and the matter is now resolved. The Commission is currently satisfied with the approach taken.





Yours sincerely



Davy Cowie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Feck [mailto:]
Sent: 04 August 2010 10:03
To: The Gambling Commission
Subject: Re: Integrity of the Tote



Hi,



Did anything ever come of this?



Regards



Feck



From: The Gambling Commission

Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:27 PM

To: ''

Subject: RE: Integrity of the Tote



Dear Mr Feck



Thank you for your correspondence dated 23 May 2010 about a problem with the Tote and scoop 6.  The Commission will consider the issues that you raise in order to decide what, if any, further action is necessary.



The Commission will consider further investigation of the questions you raise if we consider they relate to a breach of our Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) or provide wider concerns relating to the three licensing objectives. These are to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure gambling remains fair and open and to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.



As I am sure you will understand it won’t normally be possible to provide you with specific feedback on any action taken.  Thank you for taking the time to contact us about your concerns.



Yours sincerely



Davy Cowie

Gambling Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Feck [mailto:]
Sent: 23 May 2010 13:25
To: The Gambling Commission
Subject: Integrity of the Tote



Hi,



8 days ago (15th May 2010) I placed a scoop 6 combination and as I had several place lines running I was keeping an eye on the scoop 6 running totals which can be viewed on the day at http://club.totesport.com/totepoolLiveInfo/Java/index.htm. The relative page at that site tells you how many tickets remain in the pool and how many of those are running on to each horse. On the day in question I was viewing the place totals for the last leg (leg 6) as the result came in. I calculated the total number of tickets on the three placed horses as 228 which should have meant a place dividend of over £800. Fifteen minutes later the page stated there had been 322 winning tickets and that the dividend would be £555.20 yet the running totals still suggested there were only 228 winning tickets. At that point I started a thread on the betfair forum (view at http://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/24057381/Scoop_6_place_dividend_looks_wrong

- there's also an article in the guardian that contains a summary of the affair http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/may/19/tote-scoop6-bet). Around 20 minutes after that thread appeared the totals suddenly changed so that the total number of tickets on the 3 placed horses totaled 322.



I wrote to the tote (twice) asking them to explain these discrepancies but have so far heard nothing. If you go to the following page http://www.scoop6.co.uk/results/15052010.htm you can view these discrepancies for yourself. Click on the 'Show how tickets ran' link for leg 5 and you'll notice the following - there are 944 winning tickets on the placed horses (note that the favourite was placed so the 134 tickets on the Fav are counted) but the 'Tickets remaining after this race' shows only 725. If you now click on 'Show how tickets ran' for the last leg you'll notice that the total number of tickets on all horses is 725 and the total number of tickets on the 3 placed horses is 228. That's exactly what was showing on the tote's own screen after the race was finished prior to the 'update' when 219 tickets were spread over the runners to make the totals agree with the tote's 322 winners. Of the original 725 tickets that were showing 31% (228) were winners, of the 219 that were added later 43% (94) were winners. Am I the only one that finds the differences in those percentages to be "statistically significant"?     



The tote told the guardian "the error came about when the ticket details were transmitted incorrectly after the fifth leg with some bets not being included through human error". While the totals in leg 5 suggest a mistake was made I just can't fathom how it could've occurred. I had previously complained to the tote before about their failure to show the totals for leg 1 until after the result was known as this cast doubts on the integrity of the bet (how are we to know that combinations that include the first winner aren't being inserted after the first winner is known?). The same applies to legs where there's a stewards enquiry as they don't update the total till after the weigh-in which sometimes means no updates for the following leg (why can't they show the figures 'subject to weigh-in'). Their reply to that particular complaint was that the bets came from various sources and there was sometimes a delay in receiving them. Does this mean they are still receiving bets after the result is known. If not, why can't they show the first leg totals after leg one. Consider the following.



Suppose a million lines have been placed on the scoop 6 and that (ridiculously) they've all been placed as single lines. The bet id, the unit stake and the numbers of the 6 selections for one line could be stored in 11 bytes. The entire one million lines could therefore be stored in 11 million bytes which is less than 11 MB. An 8 mbps home internet connection  could download all of that information in around 10 seconds. Using my £400 laptop I set up a test which used a MySQL table containing 1 million rows each of which had a bet id column, a unit stake column and 6 integer columns to store the numbers of the 6 selections (which I assigned randomly). I then ran a query that counted the number of running on tickets for the last leg based on 3 randomly selected places for each of the first 5 legs. The query took 0.8 secs to come up with the totals. When you consider in reality we're talking about very much less than 1 million lines (many lines placed as a combo can be stored in much less memory and be checked far quicker) and that once a combo or line is beat there's no need to check it again it's hard to see where the tote's problem lies. Put it this way, if they transmitted the few seconds worth of data to me, I could display the running on totals on a website for the first leg within seconds of receipt and for subsequent legs (subject to weigh in) within seconds of the previous leg's result. Once the data's received, all that's required is to input results correctly and a few seconds of processing power to cover all 6 leg updates.



So what's the tote's problem? The data arrives to them in dribs and drabs over a lengthy time period but, once it's there, we should only be talking about a few MB of data. Certainly they've got the jackpot, the placepots and individual race pools to look after and transmit at the same time but it's still not a lot of information. Why would their system not deal with a section of the information in the last leg of the scoop 6 in question. Why would "human error" result in a subgroup of lines not being available to the server? Have they got 6 Sinclair spectrum's that require manual input sharing the workload? If betfair had the tote hardware and software, would it crash because a volleyball game was being shown live? It all sounds dodgy to me. Are they allowing bets to be transmitted after results are known. Can bets withheld due to "human error" be altered? The only way the tote can know for sure is if they've got the few megabytes of data that make up all the lines in a pool in their possession when the first leg is only a few seconds old. If that's the case, how could the error under discussion possibly happen?



Make no mistake, this needs investigating because "human error" just doesn't do it for me. Personally I think the entire block of data that covers a pool should be available for download as soon as is possible and certainly before the first leg result is known. That way there would be no possibility of manipulation after the event.



Regards





Feck

Gambling Commission.....IBAS.....whitewash problems and dodgy practice.... - surely not?

We might as well be back in the days when bookies stood on a street corner.

Feck

Because of the initial 'fraud' that they perpetrated in 1979, I would doubt they would deliberately do this in this more technological age - However I dont believe the human error line either - What would be more realistic is that a segment of data didnt get to the Tote on time, when its arrived late they have taken the decision (rightly or wrongly) to put it in the pool (the % of winning tickets is similar) to save embarrassment to their associates and their winning customers

Im not saying this is right, but would answer your leg5 theory

IAsk them to explain the 'human error' and if they're still silent threaten

Incidentally, I also requested they show running on tickets subject to weigh in when there was a stewards as otherwise the same lack of transparency would exist. They couldn't even promise to do that so they're clearly not taking the issue as serious as they should.

The GC is the worst thing that ever happened to punters. By making gambling debts payable by law, it means that if a bookmaker allows someone credit way over their head the bookmaker can take everything they have including their home. Meanwhile the bookmaker who gets who can't pay can hide behind the bankruptcy law like every other white collar fraudster in the country. Betting without risk is what the bankruptcy law has given every businessman in the country.

The GC didn`t make gambling debts enforceable.

I was not saying that they aren`t enforceable just that it wasn`t the GC who brought in the change.