Gambling Commission - Is this value for money ???????

you'll shortly be paying near on £600 to your local council for your prem licence - they also seem to be there once - carry out a load of 'tick boxes' and advise you similar

In my area, they're applying to govt to increase it, because they say it costs them more to 'administer'

Worlds gone crazy

I pay the same, to be fair to them it must take up a hell of a lot of time to cash the cheque, and make sure i've got no smoking signs up.

To think when the idea of a GC was first mooted we thought they would clear up horse racing for us.

The only thing they've cleaned up is long succession of restuarant plates.

Unreal they can charge that. With turftv and sis costs you have no chance really. Shocking state of affairs.

Gonna give it another 12 months, but I reckon this time next year I could be sat in the corner of a workin mens club, where me only expense will be the pen behind me ear.

were u at Wollver yes maine for independent meeting ?

No I didn't go, did you go?

I think it's all a bit too late to be honest, and I remember being urged to sign up for turf tv ( which I did'nt at  the time) by people at the meeting which has backfired . I've read the report in the post and think Howard Chisolm hit the nail on the head when he said we would make more money with no horseracing.

no never went
very difficult trading times 20k for sis/turf too much
without machines wd not be viable

Your spot on. I was just thinking of having audio only, which would save about 18k, you could still have all the big meeting on terrestrial. Use teletext for shows/early prices, you wouldn't lose any morning trade and would still kop for all football bets. You would save £1500 a year on your fkin paper bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Forgot to ad SIS have pulled the plug on audio only, it's all or nothing, great help they are eh.

Maineroad, i'm writing something about the independents struggle, can you email me at gamblingpr@hotmail.com as the Gamb Comm stuff is interesting. Cheers.

The GC are one of the biggest wastes of time and money that ive ever seen, talk about a Gravy train............

deffo jobs for the boys stuff

Diploire, please don't forget to mention that chains with 200+ shops pay £107 per shop for their operating licence whereas a Indy pays £1646 as 'the larger chains are easier to regulate'. I see my Compliance Manager about once a year, he will check that all the machines have their Gamcare stickers on and the the 'Staying in Control' leaflets can be seen under the 3" of dust they have accumulated.
Can anyone tell me a positive of the Gambling Commission, as I can't think of one. The Gaming Board where much better to deal with and a lot cheaper !

To be honest Potteries we've done it to death but it doesn't make a difference. They'll always argue that they have to visit/collect fees from each independent whereas the multiples need less visits and fees are collected centrally without hassle etc. That's why the IBA are so keen to get the co-operative on the road.

How does one join the IBA ?

It's through Joe Phillips of Cheshire Racing, thought they had a website but can't find it.

Mainroad...Is that true about audio only being scrapped because thats all i have at moment. If they take that away they might as well take the f**king keys.

Flem; I think you are ok if thats what you already have. I don't think they will allow anyone who takes the full service to cancel the pictures and just have audio, so you will be ok, but it will stop anyone else trying audio only.

just been thru the options of 'reducing' the SIS content, and was told 'audio' is not avaiable as an option

The things I was offered to drop, only made a max 10% saving, so was left with either keep or drop altogether!

One solution to consider is if your shop is adjacent to a pub or 'another' shop/unit -  to agree a 'fee' for the owner to buy Sky and show ATR whenever races are on -  your customers will only be mildly put out, but the savings could be well worthwhile (I know Ascot is the anomoly, but some of it is on terr. TV anyway)

Surely your not allowed to show atr/ruk in the betting shop!

flem

read it again - its not in the betting shop

A while back i was on their website and read a profile of one of their employees,she stated how proud she was of the fact that nobody within the organisation was recruited from any gaming background.If that is true i do feel for you independents dealing with the jumped up pen pushers.

Norton you are spot all the members of the gambling commission know nothing about gambling/bookmaking.

one advert for a compliance officer said must be able to work from home, but no knowledge of betting and gaming needed?

The top man at the gambling commission thinks a round robin is a fat bird, a heinz is a tin o beans, and a dundee shuffle is a scottish dance.

To think when the idea of a GC was first mooted we thought they would clear up horse racing for us.

The only thing they've cleaned up is long succession of restuarant plates.

is this your big government epiphany?

perhaps you lot should get in touch with the government cuts consultation. they are looking for things to axe......

Not paid for by the taxpayer so they won`t be on the hit list I`m afraid.

You are correct in saying that they didn't recruit any one from the gambling industry.  I was told this by the the guy who was deciding whether I should get a operating license or not - his previous job - a milkman !!

The Gambling Commission are also checking that bookmakers aren't serving under-age people, with the threat of closure for those who continue to fail to ask people for proof of age...

That's fail "Think 21", by the way. I think I'm right in saying that they can't send anyone younger than 18 into the shop, which means that you can fail, despite technically having not failed. What a farce. I strongly feel that they're trying to tackle a problem which simply doesn't exist.

A pointless quango.

With the number of independents going to the wall (est. 30 a month) as costs continue to rise, then the poor old GC (and local auths) are quickly going to realise their 'income' will be falling by £2K+ per shop

So, in their infinite wisdom, they will probably keep the 'big boys' fees at £190 and the indies that are left, will be charged 3 or 4K per year!!

repeat - worlds gone crazy

With every Independent that closes about 100k a year goes out of the economy, but they don't seemed bothered.

I think I'm right in saying that they can't send anyone younger than 18 into the shop

They are allowed to send under 18`s into shops.

The betting industry has been self regulated for over 40 years. Now we have to pay £1700 a year to someone to regulate it.

Banks

how is the GC allowed to send a minor into a LBO.
Surely it is breaking the law ?

Banks

how is the GC allowed to send a minor into a LBO.
Surely it is breaking the law ?

This was raised before when they did their under age checks. Apparently there is a section of the gambling act that specifically allows them to send in under 18`s for the purpose of carrying out age checks.

slightly immoral
cheers tho b

Not paid for by the taxpayer so they won`t be on the hit list I`m afraid.

are you suggesting they actually manage to break even after all their pointless expenses? have you taken account of all the tax they lose out on as bookies go out of business because they don't fancy paying the charges, the displacement of their employees from taxed and gainful employment elsewhere and their pension arrangements?

Regulators in the UK all have one thing in common. They exist to enable big business to crush their competitors and fleece their customers.

At least the GC are open about it, their fee structure is so in favour of the major chains there cannot be any doubt about it. Look how many independents are going out of business. What have the GC ever done for a punter? Gambling "fair and open" LOL. On this site there isn't a day goes by without someone matching bets on something that has already finished.

Look how many smaller building societies have gone under while the FSA have been "regulating". This while the larger banks have had their casino bets funded by taxpayers!

Look at pubs. BREWERIES limited to having a maximum of 2,000 pubs. So, they "sold" pubs to property companies who put the beer supply out to tender. Guess which breweries "won" the tender.

The costs of running a betting shop are an absolute joke. With a profit of appox £150k on the betting/fobs, you are maybe looking at £30-40k left after you take off all the costs of running it and the various fees. You would probably have to be working near on all the time in there yourself as well to achieve that. Not worth the hassle really.

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!

If you want to make a dispute against a bookie or exchange don't bother - they will just side with them

Check the stats in their annual report. They have made more rulings in favour of punters than ever before.

It is also worth noting that most cases they receive are ridiculous and skew the figures.

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.

Banks

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

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.

as maine said waste of time GC was a wellregulated industry anyway

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.

Banks Joined: 18 May 10
Replies: 330 13 Aug 10 09:07   

Check the stats in their annual report. They have made more rulings in favour of punters than ever before.

Any of those against an exchange would you know?

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.

Had a case last year about poor market specification in the market rules - they didn't specify which set of figures would be used to settle the market, while officially regulated figures were available for this market. Although they couldn't deny this IBAS claimed they were happy to allow the decision to settle based on figures not named in the market rules - what is the point if IBAS don't care?

I also wrote a lengthy letter to them, was assured I would get a response to all my points...they haven't bothered to reply 7 months later.

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?

Top TV program Xmas Day - they used overnight figures to settle even though this was not stated in the market rules, while BARB produce a list of final official figures for each program.

IBAS were happy that we could 'guess' overnight figures would be used. Needless to say I disagreed!

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

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

Why on earth would they want to do that? Sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Any large multiple in any industry is likely to be able to out compete a independant operator. It is simple market forces. Might be unpalatable if you are a small operator in any business but hardly sinister.

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.

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.

Not sure I agree. What charges are you referring to? Apart from GC/LA fees what else is there that you feel is unfair? Surely the picture costs are far more of an issue.

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

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

So essentially what you are saying is that bookmakers should pay no tax on anything?

You need to be a little more realistic. I`m sure plenty of people would rather not pay PAYE for example.

Most small bookmakers also pay little or no levy due to the threshold.

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.

maine road - you give too much away on here - you sound like your at your wits end, so probably dont care

banks - one last time, i agree with you on 'market forces' - but market forces should be the same for all involved in any sector of a market. Here, you have blatant discrimination - highlighted in the GC fees above, yet you dont seem to accept the obvious!

Perhaps if you were a lone trader in any market and you had to provide over 8 times the licence fee paid by the largest operators in that market, you may have a different view

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.

Have you met the senior people there? What are they like?

Hi,

Check out this link http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ashforth+Profile%3A+Loved+and+loathed%3B+Outsp... 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

Feck

Even if this is proven to be true (ie. deliberately reducing the dividend) then whats the penalty a Govt regulator going to give a Govt owned bookmaker?  Revoke their licence? Close all on course offices?

I too feel 'human error' is not the cause, but feel the reply As I am sure you will understand it won’t normally be possible to provide you with specific feedback on any action taken. indicates a whitewash coming on

Yet when they have a minor success against a supplier, its splashed all over the press

i

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.

They're a total joke birch. Their "inquiry" into betfair's ir markets suggests they don't even have people who are capable of understanding the problems far less doing anything about them. The best I can hope for is that The Guardian takes up the story again and at least causes both the GC and the tote a bit of embarrassment.

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

birch, one of their people contacted me by phone after I contacted the GC and started prattling on about "geteways" and how one of these gateways hadn't relayed the running on tickets for the last leg due to this "human error". I've no idea what these gateways are but to me it suggests the data is split between them and therefore more open to manipulation. I'm not saying any wrongdoing did take place but there's only one way they'll remove any doubts in the future. This isn't the first time I've contacted the tote about not showing first leg break downs. On the first occassion they didn't show any willing to update their systems but they at least appear to be going down that road now.

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"?

I wouldn't say those percentages were similar.

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.

If you followed the stats from leg 1, then this 'gateway' cannot have been included until after leg 5

It shouldnt be 'cloak and dagger' for them to explain this, so all punters know how they operate the market, when a 'gateway' is included late - perhaps if they put out a 'policy' statement it would remove the suspicion.

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 bookmaker who can't pay

The GC didn`t make gambling debts enforceable.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/
contractsprof_blog/2007/09/
gambling-debts-.html

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

Apologies. They were both born out of the same review which was supposedly going to give punters extra protection.