General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
This could be the most important piece of legislation for punters in years as a Madrid court last week that account restrictions were a form of discrimination and detrimental to consumers.
Show More
we can but hope Clydebank...will pay for a nice 4 bedder for me. 
if unrestricted accounts were enforced by law,
bet365 would go skint
or
bet365 would stop pricing up races
or
bet365 would be online virtual races and online casino.....nothing else
bet365 would go skint
or
bet365 would stop pricing up races
or
bet365 would be online virtual races and online casino.....nothing else
There is a difference between restricting an account to say take out 250 or 500, its another thing restricting an account to win a tenner like 62p on a 16/1 shot, it doesn't have to be all or nothing, as it stands being restricted to " nothing " needs to change.
They wouldn't go skint at all. Doubt it would make that much difference with a few pricing changes. All they'd need to do is shorten the odds once it was bet once by a marked account to say 50% or more of the max take out and change bad ew terms. That way only the one marked account gets the best price (like Pinnacle) It might even save the industry money.
Could this be the next PPI?
A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. What could be more unfair than you are only allowed to bet if you are a loser?
A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. What could be more unfair than you are only allowed to bet if you are a loser?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539