DISGRACEFUL STATE OF BOOKMAKING IN THE UK

The only conclusion frog is that it was to do with the stake

Freds/Tote are scared to death of taking on money on horses full stop.  Only advice I can give is if you do want to bet with them don't bet on the horses.

Freds wont take bets on any sport. Utterly rancid company

logroller,

Before the UK/Irish took over the Australian firms what size bets did the likes of sportsbet and iasbet take?

Iasbet cut me to pennies after two winning win singles at odds on for Brazil to win in Confederation Cup matches last summer. Just seems odd behaviour given the amounts bet on the matches and the level of information available to everyone.

I read in Alan Tripp's book that he cut winning players at his Vanuatu operation so I find it hard to believe his son did not do the same at Sportsbet.

Is tripp allowed to publically state that?
Would it not put him in breach of his license?

Can only quote from 'Beating the Odds' that was written about Alan Tripp by Nichola Garvey:

'
1998

Traditionally, on-course bookies controlled the flow of smarties' bets by balancing the odds against the amount of money laid against the horse. In other words, you could take a bet from a smartie and then manage your book so that your financial exposure was minimised.

SP bookmakers had a different approach. They wanted to service the social punter and they didn't want him to bet elsewhere. Alan's mantra was to build loyalty, and he did that by not changing the odds he offered. Most bookies would shorten their odds, but Alan's approach was that if, occassionally, he had to reduce the liability he would bet back with another bookie and leave the price as it was. He didn't want the next client to have the disadvantage of shorter odds. His was a service provider's rather than a genuine bookie's mentality.

The trouble was that the smarties regularly won and so had unbelievably favourable odds. Week after week the same clients were winning...... and the losses were costing Alan hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars a week.

.....

Alan decided that he had had enough. There was no other option..... He started imposing limits - certain clients could only win certain amounts. With others, he started closing accounts, simply refusing the business of certain punters.'

I guess the model of the service provider is different to that of a bookie.

You cannot have a winning horseracing account w/ any of the recreational books. I've been through well over 30, all the UK and most of the Oz firms, in every case never placing a bet if I could have had it better on an exchange.

For a while the phone lines were willing to 'buy' my info./judgement off me cheaply but even that came to an end.

It's still a lot easier to beat bm s in the mornings than it is to win on bf, so for anyone with a serious interest placers are the way to go.

Frog

I was betting regularly with IAS, when it was owned and operated by Mark Read.

I would have averaged winning $20k a year for four years or so, betting mainly on trifectas and quinellas. Never once was a bet queried. In fact, Read had a reputation for not barring punters.

Three months after he sold out to Paddy Power, my account was closed.

frog..............late 90's before the UK invasion, between the 6-12 nationwide betting operators all privately owned you could get more than $100k on a head to head footy match, even when it was regarded so called "educated money", now Sportsbet on a footy game bet me up until the day of the game $25 on a line or single and maybe 800$ on game day, before paddy came along they might bet u 10k to 15k if it suited but always 5k.

Horse racing different kettle of fish.

The most annoying thing in all of this is that the bookies either don't take any bet off you at the odds, or give you a smaller stake, yet still maintain the price. I've always found this behaviour most strange and flies in the face of what bookmaking should be about. 

Why not lay a bet to set amount?  If "shrewdies" take the price, then clip the odds. If they keep taking the new price, clip the odds further.

Strangely, Pinnacle seem to be running a very successful business on small margins operating in exactly the traditional way bookmaking was intended and apparently have the sharpist lines in the business.  You always know in advance what they will give you at the price and if you have the limit on then the price changes and you can go in for more if you want.

Why can't the likes of PP, VC, Fred and the other clown shoe wearers from the big top operate in the same way?

BM's started to change their behaviour towards horse players back in the 90's so this topic has been around since then at least.

In no special order,I will speculate that these have been the key changes & reasons why the situation has occred and will only get worse for genuine horse backers.

1. The withdrawal of credit.Credit accounts allowed players to leverage their banks especially with regard to A/P bets where settlement was after the event. A/P was deemed a PR success for BM's but at the price of more than a few successful winning accounts. Consequently, A/P markets are virtually dead - why have cash tied up for 6 months or more. Even worse for layers on exchanges where only a few - live - horses will be backed. The best marketing move that BF could make would be to provide credit facilities for larger players.

2. Closure of winning accounts.Using the Pareto theory, BM's identified those players who were taking money off them and decided that they could do without them. When exchanges came along this process accelerated so that anybody who who had accounts closed was forced to migrate to exchnges.

3. Closure of "live" moneyn extension of 2. Anyone seen to be backing "shorteners" got the same treatment.

4. "Off-Shore" Moves Continuation of focus on cost minimisation.

5. "Football & other Sports" growth Horse racing highly sensitive to insiders, therefore risk increased. Exchanges pulled SP's down, reduced profit. Football grew rapidly, less risk of inside money. Bm's could take larger amounts without being open to taking a  caning.

6. "FOBTS"Labour Govt. helped turn High Street BM's into minin-casiinos, with low manpower costs, no risks, which took money away from more labour intensive, higher risk horseracing.

7. Systems Management/Central control Now possible for Bm's to monitor bets taken in real time, significantly improve risk management

8. Employment of Quants.Like investnent banks/hedgies, BM's have takken on high power maths graduates to improve odds setting, financial controls

9. Exchanges the perfect odds compiling source far superior for large scale market control than individual odds compilers who could always be more easily beaten by knowledgeable players.

It's a brave new world now for sure.No surprise then even players with losing accounts may not be wanted.

Sandown,

Agree with all the various points but it still defies any logic. If you have all the bet controls and risk limits in place why would you be quicker than ever to close accounts? You can monitor far more effectively and use that information to your advantage.

With the advent of all the algorithms/quants that are now used in conjunction with exchange prices it can lead me to only two conclusions;

1 - The odds compilers (Risk assessors) are now simply not fit for purpose. If they were any good they would go and work for themselves. Maybe the bookmakers realise this and hence so reliant on point 2. Can an odds compiler these days really get any job satisfaction from what they do? Having seen the odds compilers at close quarters at a company who would regard themselves as relevant I am not surprised the industry is in such a state. I do feel sorry for them though as so much of this comes from senior management who are just bean counters.

2 - The bookmakers are literally only interested in casino products/FOBTs. I did not realise that we were going to get mini casinos all around the UK. I am sure this was not the intention when they were originally brought in but is the way it has ended up. Lets hope that the government actually wakes up to this huge problem and restricts FOBTs appropriately.

One further thing I would add is that bookmakers have created this situation. They would ban arbers and those taking the best prices. All it means is that they will open more accounts in others names and it is then a viscous circle to where we are at now where accounts get closed ridiculously quickly. I have no time specifically for arbers but given the resources available to bookmakers these days it is just really poor bookmaking from them that has them worried about it. They really should take a leaf out of Pinnacles book. If a bookmaker offers a price they should be willing to lay it without recourse. If they are not then don't offer the price. Its not that tough surely...

Tom

The logic behind this is that  BM's have become financial institutions and are run more like investment banks/hedge funds than the old traditional BM model.

Incidently, contrary to the general view view re. barney Curleys latest coup, I doubt very much that the BM's loss ran into "millions". Their risk management systems are just too good to allow that to happen now. Certainly as far as the large B's are concerned . Still, the perception is good PR.

What is interesting is alot of what the online bookie make is swallowed by marketing and technology costs. £100m a year on marketing and £60m+ a year on tech seems common place.

At the other end of the market you had Betfair exchange (is it around 1.2% of total matched used to be gross profit). Much smaller advertising costs because of word of mouth and great PR from their disruptive technology.

You also have Pinnacle (no figures available) and IBCBET with a reported 0.67% margin on $45bn turnover. IBCBET is all through agents without any advertsing as far as I can see. Both these firms tell you exactly what you can bet at the current price and its available to anyone. They try to make a market and balance the action as a proper bookmaker.

.....

The question is which model is best? Is all the extra costs associated with live steaming and 1000s of football matches a week really worth it? Are the huge advertising budgets really going to carry on bringing in new punters? Is the money punters are losing just pooring into the coffers of tech companies making new games and advertising agencies (both of which are giving diminishing returns)?

.....

From December 2014 it looks a near certainty that the 15% gross profits tax is coming in for UK punters. Also the firms will have to pay racing about 10% gross profits (on racing bets) if they come back to UK. This makes the issue of gross margin very interesting. A bookmaker using prices to attract business with a lower advertising/tech budget should be in a better position IF enough punters care about price.

For example imagine a bookie with £3bn a year turnover and a gross margin of 10% for UK customers. Very good website. Lots of advertising. Lots of accounts restricted and banned.:

Gross Win £300m
Gross Profits Tax £45m
Gross Profit racing £30m

Gross Win After GPT £225m

Marketing Costs £100m
Tech Costs £60m
Operational Costs £40m

Profit £25m


Second bookie runs at a lower margin as way to attract business. Very streamlined. No video. Simple website and mobile aps. £3bn turnover and gross margin of 2%.

Gross Win £60m
Gross Profits Tax £9m
Gross Profit racing 6m

Gross Win After GPT £45m

Marketing Costs £2m
Tech Costs £5m (including the trading algorithms for automated pricing)
Operational Costs £2m

Profit £36m

I guess the general point is that a gross profit tax regime encourages a low margin high turnover approach like the original betfair, IBC and pinny.

I get the impression that Pinnacle feel they can run their model because they have the best compilers. They also use the information they get from winning accounts very shrewdly. By banning no clients they get the pick of that information.

Everyone goes on about Pinnacle, Sbobet is just as good.

Disagree Yomomma. If I wanted to get even £10k on a football match I can do so easily at Pinnacle. Might just be my account but really struggle at Sbobet. Obviously the limits vary throughout the week but that's my experience.

They don't restrict accounts so limits are the same for everyone. They have higher max bets for the handicaps than for the match odds. The limits start fairly low when they first publish the odds and are biggest closest to kick off times.

Say for the Real Madrid match tonight v Atletico, the max bet Real Madrid -0.5 at the moment is £11,112(GBP).

Discussion of  this subject on RUK now

Nice to see something like this being aired in public on RUK

I think the moral of this story is clear : There is only one real bookie out there.

Someone above asked why no-one else is doing it like Pinny and I too would like to know why. Why is it that in the whole flking world only one company will actually stand a real bet and trust their judgément the way bookies always did ?
Internet changed the game?

I don't think the corp bookies mind standing a bet, on the contrary, its who that bet is from that is the main criteria

Anyone able to summarise what was said on RUK about the subject?

There were numerous emails in from various people (Hislop said it was the biggest response they had ever had) most of which talked about restrictions or getting knocked back both online and in shops.

Mellish himself recognised that he was only still able to get on most of the time due to his position in the media.  He was not shocked to hear so many stories about people with closed accounts and admitted that he himself had resorted to friends bank accounts at times as a means to get on.

Hislop also had a good email in from a woman who said it was more difficult if you were female to get on as you were seen as a "beard" ie just a front to a husband/boyfriend/friend who was obviously male.  THe point being that no woman could ever be successful of her own back so the bets must be for somebody else.

In summary it was recognised that the practice was widespread and was just not great customer service at any level and that BM's should have to lay to a set liability regardless of where the money came from.  Hislop thought that might be tough seeing as some don't even have odds compliliers these days but Mellish thought given technology bookies should be on top of both online and shop liabilities and be able to adjust the book accordingly fairly automatically.

I didn't listen intently to all the discussion as was having a few horse and dog bets myself at the time but the above is the jist of what I got out of the show.

Is it legal if a Bookmaker close your account if you have a losing account?

Or is there something you can do against it?

bestchamp---yes it is legal
And billyhill will stop you withdrawing your winnings but will still let you bet,my pal has had his account ran this way for nearly 6 mounths now.So really its a case of you can lose,but if you win you can not withdraw.when he speaks to them all he gets is ,you are under investigation.we will let you know when the investigation is complete.6 mounths now with over 5 grand sat in account,how long would you think it will take.

I cannot think of any practices that are illegal with regards to paying up, not restricting accounts, not taking a bet etc.

I get the feeling that in the next decade or so things will change dramatically. You only have to look at online forex and stock trading to see where things will head in terms of margin. Betfair almost got there but lost their nerve at the last minute.

8%-10% gross win on online bets is not going to happen long term. Anyone that follows the industry can see that real sports betting is the driver of all these firms with games and casinos added on. The poker fade is dying. In the end it comes back to sports betting. Dynamic new uncertain events occurring on a daily basis.

I don't see how you can force a BM to take a bet to a set limit, certainly not to any given price, unless that limit is practically meaningless. In practice, price is the only mechanism that can control supply and demand, and market forces control the extent to which BM's are competitive.

By closing accounts directly or indirectly by limiting stakes to pence, BM's can manage their risks. Horse racing is just not an attractive sport compared to those where inside information is negligible, or chance is dominant. BM's have found more lucrative ways to profit than through betting on horses a. Horse racing is now primarily the shop window, the glamorous way still to attract business and to gain relatively cheap PR. The name of the game is to persuade punters attracted by racing to migrate to other more profitable, less risky bets.

Exchanges and pari-mutel models work but both need massive liquidity to offer a slick product. The original BF concept was truly revolutionary and but for the desire to go public (understandable for Black et al to "cash out") BF might have carried all before them. It might have been possible for BF to have become the biggest player in the horse/sports betting market instead of being stuck below the 10% threshold.

of course you can force a bookie to take a bet to a set limit

the fact is racing does not need bookies.  Hong Kong racing works fine without a bookie in sight

If bookies don't want to play fair you get rid of them.  They won't be missed

of course you can force a bookie to take a bet to a set limit

You can make it part of the licence as in Australia for on-course BM's but the UK is dominated by off-course BM's. Any limit would have to be very low.


If bookies don't want to play fair you get rid of them.

How? They are legal corporate entities.

Hong Kong racing works fine without a bookie in sight

Exactly.

Sandown,

What you can do is incentivise them to take a bet as part of their licence and re FOBTS. Ie If you are willing to allow people to play an FOBT machine for £50 a spin then you have to be obliged to lay a stake of £50. If the bookies are worried about the prices they offer then they can change them...

Just because they are legal entities does not mean that they should be allowed to keep their bookmaking licences if they employ some of the underhand practices that we all know about. Yes bookmakers can restrict anyone they like but I am not sure when they were given their licences that it was anticipated that it would be such a widescale crackdown. Why not just introduce a rule that says accounts that are losing cannot be restricted/closed...or something similar.

It needs the Gambling Commission to actually stand up and be counted. Given who funds it lets not hold our breath.

Tom

If the powers that be can't force banks to lend money then I can't see any reason why/how BM's can be made to lay a bet that they don't want too offer.

It's always been a bookmaking practice to lay bets to people not just to prices eg Top of the card punters who they know play big and are guessers.They have always just taken part of the bet if they wish. It's just now that with players being identified through the BM's can always claim links between accounts.

In truth, I have no ideas to offer other than hoping that BF come to their senses and allow big players to continue to play at a level that generates liquidity by not threatening the PC. The people that they are after are really the big traders/bot players yet they have sought to encourage exactly this kind of a plyaer over the years so strategically tBF are all over the place. Maybe Laddies/Quack might ride tio the rescue.

If there was no BF/Quack then I couldn't have a bet other than on the course and there must be hundreds if not thousands just like me, so all hope lies with the exchanges.

As an aber and depending on which way my bets won either on betfair or with the bookies, I have many accounts closed Betfred, being one of them.
Two lessons here, bookies dont like arbers and certainly dont like winning accounts, they prefer mugs.

i have been betting a long time and have had most accounts restricted but can get on with s james , hills and to an extent vc. does this mean i a mug ?

fdsgfarger. in reply I dont suggest your a mug.
Your accounts are probably losing with stan, hills and vc and they dont suspect you as an arber. therfore your accounts are not restriced or closed.
In respect to all your other accounts, you were either winning or they sussed you were arbing, hence closure of accounts, which happenned to myself.

Actually thiers a third reason why your account with a bookie is restricted or closed. Always getting best price in the market.

always get best price but prob def losing with s james as had some v bad drunk late nite bets as they were 1 of the first to let u bet 24 hrs. hills are strange had 1 big winning day 10 years ago backed 20 horses 15 won all singles beating the price but e mailed me last year and can get on ever since including ew, vc i used to play poker with so they giv me leeway but thet stopped givin me 15% losses back 5 yrs ago but will still let me on. find it hard to win on horses now so any ideas how i can take advantage of these accounts

also can get 15% of losses back with party poker

fdsg    As I suggested your losing with stan and vc so keep your accounts open.

You can take advantage of this by arbing with them when the appropriate price presents itself, patience is key.

fdsg    please read my post close by Paddy Power fecked me off.

still quite hard to find decent arbing opps with commision, often s james are out of line in the early hrs and i do take advantage, think they may hav 1 big player skewing things. hav read ur post and others and was just wondering how to kill these accounts b4 they restricted

fdsg    There are books on arbing outhere and I dont mind helping.

i do understand the concept , just sayin it is hard to find the right opportunities to make it worthwhile closing these accounts. is there another way ?    or is everyone arbing cos they know which way the price is gonna go so makin it more trading?

fdsg   Yes there are good traders who profit on price fluctuation.
I profit from simple arbing where I get a price which is out of line and laying it gaurenteeing a small profit. Whatever happens to the price after that I dont care.

u must be playin with v small margins , wot sports do u arb on ?

I am playing small margins I cant divulge my markets which wouldnt do me any favours.

fair enough but i presume not horses ?

sometimes horses although rare and you gotta be quick as the bookies soon react or fair catches up or both.

fdsg    It may surprise you that the bookies have systems that when account holders ring up to place a bet, accounts are put in catagaries (seriously) with alarm lights set.
First colour is accept all bets.
Second colour is accept up to a certain limit.
Third is refer all bets to trader.
When the third happens if accepted see what happens to the price soon as you put the phone down.

They take a dim view of winning accounts, arbers and consistent best price takers,hence limits closure.

fdsg    It may surprise you that the bookies have systems that when account holders ring up to place a bet, accounts are put in catagaries (seriously) with alarm lights set.
First colour is accept all bets.
Second colour is accept up to a certain limit.
Third is refer all bets to trader.
When the third happens if accepted see what happens to the price soon as you put the phone down.

They take a dim view of winning accounts, arbers and consistent best price takers,hence limits closure.

yes i was an x customer with another account and probably others as hav had many accounts restricted, my point is i hav these accounts which i can get on for whatever reason but still cant seem to beat em which i hav to others, always gettin top price for fair stakes although these hav diminished over time. just lookin for advice on the way forward . ur advice is just to be patient and arb ?

When I gamble I loose overall and takes all my hard earned gains through arbing and more.
When I arb I win allbeit small.
If I could have stuck with arbing and not got distracted from my goal I would be an extremely rich man.
I have been distracted in the past with poker, exchange games and betting blind on american racing etc racking up losses.
There is no magic wand or a system that will make you rich over night.
Anyone who tells you so is playing on your gullibilty.
If your happy to make small profits consistently theres only one way......arbing.
Everything else fails, believe me ive been there.
There are books on arbing.
My son is a manager of a bookies I taught him from scratch.

there is obviously value betting but i cant seem to work that out

value betting is where you are getting better odds than YOU feel the odds should be.
A indicaor would if a selection was generally priced at say 10/1 and you ask and get say 20s on betfair you have value.
You could either hope the selection win with great value or try to lay it off at less than 20s garenteeing a profit.
Another way is to offer poor value by laying to short in the hope someone takes the bait eg lay 1.7 general price evens.

fds - if you have the balls for it, take the best prices that you can get with the bookies and let them ride rather than arbing them out.  Let BF be your guide and back things with Hills, VC and SJ that are shorter on here.  I believe it is still the case that most arbers win at the books and lose on BF so that tells you all you need to know about which side of the bet is best to keep.  There will be a lot of volatility with this approach so it may not suit you, but should be a winner in the long term.

yes i think thats the way to go, will start small as on a bit of a losing run. is it best to back horses early or just before to of?

You'll bet the market more on early prices

I agree with TheVis in respect to backing selections higher at hills,stan and vc at higher odds than betfair as you have arbs and on a winner allbeit small profit.
I disagree with TheVis with his belief that arbers win at the books and lose on betfair,its simply mixed.
That is why fdsg you have some bookie accounts still open and others closed.

I also agree with TheVis that your more likely to get an arb on early prices than late as the markets will correct themselves.

Sandown, if there's any hope w/ the High St. chains it's through regulation at a governmental level. The threat shd be some conditionality in how they can run FOBTs (how many per shop, stake limits, turnover time of bets etc.) dependent on whether they allow punters to bet on the horses.

But I don't really see what the motivation of govt. is to force this. If the punter wins, money is implicitly lost to the Exchequer through gpt and the winner having to work less in a job or self-employment.

Frog, one wd think that winners were a cost to the internet books and marketers were a cost. But no one at a bookie will ever see it this way. The marketers are part of the company and constantly jockeying to justify their jobs. And even an investor wd rather see a large number in the gross profits line, then a lot of deductions for wages, overheads, adverts etc., than a smaller profits number and smaller list of costs.

TheVis, other things equal, arbing and collecting the expectation on yr bets as a flat sum is the best way to grow yr bankroll. Let's say that I have 25k as my bankroll set aside for my bets. One bookie are out of line w/ the exchange market on horses in two races. If I can get a £100 win double on at 233-1, it's likely I can lay it off on here in the separate races for much less, as the first winner will force down the price of the second selection.

The reasons not to do this are 1) to do with managing comm. and avoiding charges when this becomes relevant; 2) to avoid accnt. closures, tho' w/ many books running a losing multiple strategy can keep you under the radar for a while; 3) if you have some kind of pricing edge, in addition to arbing, esp. if it's more substantial than arbing.

When I'm going through a losing run or have had a big loss, I'll take every arb out there, opening up new accnts. for psychological reasons as much as anything else--to get me back into the habit of winning.

with early morn prices the liquidity on here is low so take lots of low limit arbs ?

if you can get lots i would be very surprised but whatever u can get do it

askaril1

The threat shd be some conditionality in how they can run FOBTs (how many per shop, stake limits, turnover time of bets etc.) dependent on whether they allow punters to bet on the horses.

Can't see any govt. interfering with free markets in this way. If they tried, surely BM's would have a strong legal case against such interference? As you say, what's govt's motivation in any event?

FOBT's are very addictive - in Las Vegas 20 years ago they accounted for 75% of turnover vs 25% for tables/sportsbooks, whereas 20 yrs before that the split was the converse - and BM's are no doubt wetting themselves over how lucky they are (and how foolish the Lsabour govt was) to have such a money-spinner with no risk.

garner, in the early am the liquidity is low on here and any money in the bm s generally has the effect of shortening a horse's price. It's never the end of the world if you can't take both ends of the arb at the same point in time.

When the price goes against you, you're staring at a loss, but in most cases doing a 'stop loss and reverse' is going to make you even more money. The horse (when a good form chance and apparently generous price) is drifting for a reason. Playing early gives you time to make decisions, and you just need to identify yr price movements early enough.

Time has an implied cash value and info. has an implied cash value.

sandown, gambling is a regulated industry and depends for its social legitimacy on being regulated. If a law gave councils the power to restrict the number of FOBTs per shop, it's very difficult to see what redress the gambling industry wd have.

But I can't see things changing for the better for winning price-takers and arbers. People are either sympathetic to gambling or not. The second lot tend to think winning gamblers get something for nothing and shd pay their fair dues in terms of tax, getting a job etc. The first lot are often gamblers themselves and thus the people who lose to winners and arbers. So we get no sympathy from them.

askaril1

Agree with that. It's the conditionality/link with horse bets I don't see happening.

There is no direct link but the hope has to be that by restricting FOBTs bookmakers have to start taking the business of bookmaking seriously again...the easy money will have been significantly reduced.

Tom

Maybe so , but do you see any chance sometime soon that BM's will reverse their 20yr + policy of closing accounts/restricting stakes to nominal sums? For L/T successful opinion players?

No I don't but what has happened is that the account closures/restrictions are occuring more quickly than they ever have. The show on Racing UK last week showed that. I have had some accounts closed within two bets. Losing bets as well. There was nothing to link those accounts with anyone else. I have tried all sorts of different methods to keep accounts open and there appears to be little in the way of patterns. The only trends I can spot is accounts in ladies names get closed significantly more quickly than a mans account, if you place any significant stake (albeit a winner or loser) or if you beat sp your accounts will suffer quickly.

If bookmakers keep closing the accounts of people who are not necessarily that shrewd or have inside information etc than there has to be L/T problems for them. I suspect even now that they are having to spend more money per account opened than ever before. Given the technology they have re being able to monitor accounts they don't need to be so hasty. It is either laziness or sheer incompetence on their behalf. I suspect given the nature of those in charge now that it is the latter.

Tom

The ruthless behaviour of BM's re closing/restricting accounts, and the widespread nature of this, suggests to me that it is more than likely that BM's have/are giving up on horse racing players except for the out and out losers. In the past, horse racing was all there was and they had to make do with that. Today, that's not the case. Why, otherwise, would  firms like VC for example give up their on-course business? Why would on-course firms close accounts of cash on-course players? Why close accounts on-line after just a few bets, especially if they are losing bets? It doesn't make sense unless you accept the rational explanation that they do not want the business. They have better, more profitable markets offering less risk, guaranteed profit, lower running costs.Sad, but true, I think. Apart from the air-time that they get from sponsoring races, which is cheap advertising, they shunt people in through the door marked "horseracing, divert them through the door marked "FOBTS", and spit out through the door marked "exit" any which look savvy whether they are or not, but who look as though they might be.

Hate to say it but if you're going to make it obvious you're going to get blocked pretty quickly.

Perhaps you should consider not only using a bookie when they're industry best price, maybe cutting the margin on the bets you want to break even, maybe throw in a multiple with a bunch of selections.  Put yourselves in your shoes and see how easy it is to spot yourself as a winner.

FOBTs and online casinos of course - those online casinos (and bingo games) must be absolutely raping money from a large segment of customers.

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?

BMW not BMW ffs

Oh ffs

BM

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.

why not just stop the pretence and allow units with fobt only, no bookmaking services required .?

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 ......

The facade

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.

i understand that paris

opening it up would prove it


then proper regulation could be carried out

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.

like ya music barry ,even now, after all these years stay away from betting it will make you poor lol.

He's still just keeping his nose in front, mikenz.

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

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?

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.

At least course bookies are there to lay bets on horse racing.

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.

some of them seemed to be arbing when last i went racing

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.

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!

Crapstow has always had one of the weaker rings, in fairness.

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.

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.

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.

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.