|
By:
FOBTs and online casinos of course - those online casinos (and bingo games) must be absolutely raping money from a large segment of customers.
|
|
By:
Agree with the sentiments expressed here.
I'm wondering whether the BMW liability systems or control mechanisms are what we assume them to be? I had an experience today where a horse was 3.05 on here to back at about 11 this morning. It was 2/1 with Bills online but to my surprise 9/4 in a shop of theirs that I had to go past on way back home. I got £160 on at 9/4. I'm struggling to see why there would be any reason why the price should differ via channel. Surely it's all part of the same "book". Any ideas? |
|
By:
BMW not BMW ffs
|
|
By:
Oh ffs
BM |
|
By:
Ive noticed a couple of discrepancies recently between Hills online and shops. No idea if they have changed the way information is supplied to different channels, but hadnt noticed anything until recently.
|
|
By:
why not just stop the pretence and allow units with fobt only, no bookmaking services required .?
|
|
By:
Because donny the sports book is their cover. Pure and simple. A FOBT only environment would be a de facto casino and would not be allowed. So they maintain be facade of being bookmakers because they have to ......
|
|
By:
The facade
|
|
By:
sandown, I agree w/ you that I don't see any link being put in place between whether a licensed premises is genuinely taking bets on sport and whether they're allowed to go on milking people w/ their FOBTs.
I think the argument cd be made. I noticed the Campaign for Fairer Ganbling has started saying recently, 'bookmakers have forgotten what a betting shop is' i.e. it's amenity for the community where punters bet an amount they're able to lose for an amount it wd mean something for them to win. Imv this line wd play well w/ the general public and politicians. However, there's already some kind of equilibrium between the the winning horseplayers / arbers and the shops in that the FOBTs keep a lot of shops open that wdn't otherwise be commercial. |
|
By:
i understand that paris
opening it up would prove it then proper regulation could be carried out |
|
By:
The negative perception of people who gamble doesn't help the argument - we're considered far worse than heavy drinkers, smokers, even recreational drug-takers and so evoking any empathy for a bettor is unlikely.
What is certain is that the big BM's are just sheep following whatever is working. I remember Hills famously in an internal memo saying how the advertising campaigns of PP & VC were really stupid and childish and they wouldn't resort to that. Of course, in reality they'd dress ol' Ralph Topping up in a chimp suit if they thought more people would have a 16 team multiple on the footy. It would be refreshing and a huge shift in culture for just one firm to come out and say - no closed accounts, everyone is welcome at a certain price. It would take balls but would pay dividends imo. |
|
By:
like ya music barry ,even now, after all these years stay away from betting it will make you poor lol.
|
|
By:
He's still just keeping his nose in front, mikenz.
|
|
By:
It would be refreshing and a huge shift in culture for just one firm to come out and say - no closed accounts, everyone is welcome at a certain price. It would take balls but would pay dividends imo
barry manilow, a bookmakers client ledger that is full of pro's and semi pro's will never pay dividends and is a sure way to the sh!thouse |
|
By:
Are on-course bookies in the U.K. obliged to accept bets up to a certain liability from all punters like they are in Australia?
|
|
By:
I think after the pitch reforms they used to put a notice of max liability. I believe that this is a no longer the case. Given that they could choose their max liability it was fairly meaningless.
|
|
By:
At least course bookies are there to lay bets on horse racing.
|
|
By:
Up to a point, loper.
One of the very last bets I tried to have on-course, at an evening meeting at Chepstow in 2005, saw me ask for £350 to £100 at a joint displaying a sign saying the bookmaker would lay bets up to a liability of £500. I was halved. Then the clerk, looking at his computer screen, shouted, "It's 4.3 on here!" Without a word the bookmaker grabbed the ticket from me, tore it up and handed me back my fifty quid. But to me the villain of the piece is not the bookmaker. It's this rancid site, which gives him the best tissue in the world for free. |
|
By:
some of them seemed to be arbing when last i went racing
|
|
By:
Few of them seemed not to be arbing, donny. For years I'd been treated with a degree of respect as a winning punter, or at least as a necessary evil - lay me £1,000 to £30, have it back with another book and that way find out what's hot.
Suddenly I just became a mug providing them with arbs. Which is why I had to buy a computer in Jan. 2005 and waste all those subsequent years of sunny afternoons sitting in front of it trying to get £8.57 on with Bet365 at 7/2, while drip-feeding £2 bets on here at 4.6. |
|
By:
Screaming,
we probably bumped into each other several times over the years rushing to take the same best prices! I spent many years in the ring and despite winning plenty on course was treated with respect by the vast majority of books many of whom I became friendly with. What they want is turnover, its their life blood. Unlike the off course books they didn't care who they laid as long as they could balance their book, i.e. proper bookmaking. I would either be accommodated to my whole stake or, alternatively, given a reasonable bet. Yes, there were a few bad eggs, but experience meant you got to know who to swerve. Like you I found my on course activities becoming increasingly unprofitable thanks to Betfair's invention. For me it meant that from the moment the books priced up the tissue was very accurate and ricks became a thing of the past. I now sit here at home every day playing inrunning, the only edge I have left. Meanwhile, my expanding waistline means that I will soon have to consider buying the expanding waisted Chums trousers as advertised on ATR! |
|
By:
Crapstow has always had one of the weaker rings, in fairness.
|
|
By:
loper
I struggle to see how you can make serious money backing in play with the picture delay and the delay of placing the bet. im not saying you cant do it, but it must be v.hard. the system is against you. |
|
By:
Dav, by definition there is no way of making money betting that isn't very hard. Not only do you have to be right and the person you're betting against wrong, but you have to overcome an overround and/or a commission too. That is very hard. If it were easy, everybody would be taking advantage and the odds and/or commission would immediately shift to reflect that.
The difficulties you describe with in-running are valid, but they're no harder than finding a pre-event rick with bookmakers now that they have access to the most accurate prices on the planet. Betfair is a gift to bookmakers beyond their dreams. Loper, you'll have known me on-course as Deaf Paul, so we were usually operating at different ends of the market and rarely in competition. The only accounts which haven't closed me down are Bet365 (severely restricted, but decent value and offers, particularly for televised racing, so still worth playing for pennies) and Spreadex (pointless for horse racing, but they're occasionally prepared to take a view and a fair bet on cricket and football, particularly in-running). Being quickly restricted to £0 with the ludicrous Betfair sportsbook was probably the biggest joke. The net result is most of my business now being done in the betting shops in the morning (Ladbrokes are accommodating, Betfred usually "You can have SP", Hills a bit of both). As I live out in the sticks 2 or 3 miles from most of the shops and don't drive, there's no danger of waistline problems. And I have a very fit dog now too. |
|
By:
Good to see you are still keeping your head above water, at least in betting terms, living where you do!
The 90s were a golden period for on course betting, with the abolition of betting tax and the introduction of betting exchanges only a future theoretical idea. I'm surprised that you only backed horses at over 50s, in the good old days there weren't many of those on the boards. |
|
By:
As a sports punter rather than racing punter I may see slightly different patterns of behaviour from the bookies, but generally it is always shoddy! Some things which happen just baffle me, and serve just to reinforce my opinion that the traders/compilers just have zero ability and confidence. For example I just tried to have a bet on a sports market which has been up at least 24 hours. Of course I tried to back it at the best price. It was standout but a perfectly legitimate price. Tbh it may not even have been value, but its a market I like to have a throwaway interest in. I was cut back to win £100. I declined. A minute later the price had been cut a point to the general market price. Why were they top price if they didnt want to lay it? They had plenty of opportunity to assess the market and change their minds about being top price, but instead they leave the market up for at least a day, then when someone shows an interest (they dont even have a bet) they change the price having laid nothing at a price which was good for many hours before. Why do they pay oddschecker £000s when they dont want to lay something which based on initial prices they should in theory have an opinion about. I find the whole thing very strange.
|