Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 106 comments are related to the topic:
aintree bookmakers

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 106
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:06
hold your head in shame, you are a disgrace.

for betting 1/5th odds in the National IS going too far. Whether you agree with the practice (as endorsed FULLY by the Gambling Commission) or not, you cannot call someone a "disgrace" on a public forum over it.
By:
Mully
When: 13 Apr 10 21:07
Is there a "union" or "association" for Bookmakers? If bad eggs were operating within my industry or field of work and tarnishing it's reputation then I'd want the powers that be to lean on them and get them to clean up their act.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:09
as long as you display the terms you are offering you are within the laws of the gambling commission
By:
Racecourse Regular
When: 13 Apr 10 21:12
still a grey area as to if it is morally acceptable despite what you are allowed or not allowed to do
By:
wumpkins
When: 13 Apr 10 21:12
surely a quarter the odds first four in the grand national is not too much to ask for any bookie
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:13
if the police say its legal to drive at 100 mph its legal end of
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:15
it is however illegal to make someone go 1/4 odds first four
By:
Mully
When: 13 Apr 10 21:16
gambling commission shafts the punter then?
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:17
the gambling commission has taken the coorect avenue in law
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:17
The Bookmakers' Associations have asked the Gambling Commission to reconsider its decision to allow a free for all on EW terms but they will not. It would apparently be a restraint of trade & likely frowned upon by the OFT. I believe something voluntary, rather than imposed is being worked on though.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:18
wont ever happen wassy its a monopoly
By:
Mully
When: 13 Apr 10 21:19
The same OFT that allows Banks to charge whatever account penalties they want.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:20
anyone who objected would do you for restraint of trade
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:21
If the bookmakers feel strongly enough about the 1/6th the odds merchants they can set up a voluntary code of conduct. If you sign up to certain minimum standards you can display a "Gold Standard" on your joint or similar. Very obvious to the public who the decent bookmakers are then.
By:
campion
When: 13 Apr 10 21:21
Do you not agree slanderous comment surely is when you are telling an untruth. I WAS NOT AT AINTREE BUT I AM ONLY RELAYING WHAT HAS BEEN RELAYED TO THE FORUM. I WOULD BE AMAZED IF I WAS DEEMED AS TREATING THESE PEOPLE UNFAIRLY, IF THEY DID NOT BEHAVE IN THE ADVERTISED MANNER I WOULD CERTAINLY APOLOGIZE, IF THEY DID THEY DESERVE ALL THE FLACK THEY ARE GETTING.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:21
when i did economics the on course market was quoted as a pure market :)
By:
sean rua
When: 13 Apr 10 21:22
Although, as an on-course punter, I obviously preferthe best terms I can get, I honestly think more good would be done if
you " named and shamed" all the unlicensed layers on btfr who regularly lay known non-triers ( known to them, that is).

Despite all the talk about "transparency", I haven't seen any official list of names of those guilty of what is the real turn-off that's responsible for the loss of public interest in the game.

Balance things up a bit, imo.
By:
king kong
When: 13 Apr 10 21:24
Do you not agree slanderous comment surely is when you are telling an untruth. I WAS NOT AT AINTREE BUT I AM ONLY RELAYING WHAT HAS BEEN RELAYED TO THE FORUM. I WOULD BE AMAZED IF I WAS DEEMED AS TREATING THESE PEOPLE UNFAIRLY, IF THEY DID NOT BEHAVE IN THE ADVERTISED MANNER I WOULD CERTAINLY APOLOGIZE, IF THEY DID THEY DESERVE ALL THE FLACK THEY ARE GETTING.

Spot on there Campion.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:25
wouldnt want to test it in law
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:25
Campion - you cannot call someone a disgrace for acting within the law of the land and the terms of his betting licence. You clearly dont agree with the practice but to call someone a disgrace over it is slandering his good name.
By:
campion
When: 13 Apr 10 21:25
why bbc2
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:28
the bookies in question have committed no offence hence you are on dangerous ground
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:28
Having looked at the definition of slander, its more likely defamation or libel. Its certainly not something I'd be doing on a public forum.
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:29
I'm surprised betfair haven't taken this thread down actually.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:29
i fully expect betfair will cull this fred
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:29
wassy you are reading my script
By:
wumpkins
When: 13 Apr 10 21:30
the grand national is the biggest betting race of the nh season, aintree racecourse should implement a condition in their policy that every on course bookie should bet 1/4 odds first four i.e no 1/4 first four no badge!
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:30
against the law my friend
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:31
Beat me to it this time bbc :D
By:
campion
When: 13 Apr 10 21:32
Never mentioned any offence, just feel that public are hard enough to get to the races asit is, we all know we get them at the festivals ,what about the other 300 days.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:32
iam going dont like playing the adge role :)
By:
Anaglogs Daughter
When: 13 Apr 10 21:34
Cant blame all the bookies after all they do have it tough when they are explaining to an inibreated woman for ten minutes thet there is no odds for her preference of wager of the horse of the policewoman on duty.
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:38
Anaglogs - I don't expect sympathy but it really is a difficult meeting. I had a headache literally for two days afterwards. The sheer volume of noise from 35,000 scouse women talking **e at full volume while you are trying to work has to be experienced to believe. Only today am I feeling "normal" again.
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:39
***** = sh it e
By:
IanP
When: 13 Apr 10 21:41
The Tatts rules are being rewritten and will include a clause that oncourse bookmakers can vary the standard each way terms as long as they are clearly displayed. The existing ew terms will remain the standard terms.
By:
MaxED
When: 13 Apr 10 21:41
WHY WOULD ANYONE BET WITH THESE PEOPLE IF THEY ARE OFFERING THE PUBLIC SUCH BAD TERMS SURELY SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT.BE PATIENT AND THEY WILL SURELY WITHER AND DIE
By:
campion
When: 13 Apr 10 21:42
Wasnot respect your advice and will let the subject die but we all want some sort of recognition as fair minded people.
By:
wasnot
When: 13 Apr 10 21:45
I understand that campion but it is all about how you go about it. Having repeated goes at someone with influence at the Gambling Commission is the only way anything will change.
By:
Anaglogs Daughter
When: 13 Apr 10 21:46
Its ok for the burger vans to go from £2 for *****at a horrible frozen wet day at a point to point to £6 at a lovely warm Aintree but dare a bookmaker decide only to pay a 1/5th on the grand National after spending the winter freezing his gonads off for the staff to go home with more money then him. . .Good job Pierpoint isnt still around or he'd have a queue at the aintree gallows.
By:
bbc2
When: 13 Apr 10 21:46
;) dont hold your breath
Page 2 of 3  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com