Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
18 Apr 12
15:48
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
by Renee Israel http://www.gamblingkingz.com
A war of words between rival UK bookmakers is being played out in the national media, with William Hill being accused of using excessive marketing hype to draw attention to itself.
William Hill, the gambling and sports betting giant, rattled its competitors when it claimed that a £500,000 bet to win £100,000 was made by one of its punters on the hurdler Big Buck's during the recent Grand National Festival at Aintree.
William Hill said that the bet - which will go down as the biggest single wager taken in its 78 year history - was made by one of its clients with a credit card in the South of England. The bet was placed in a High Street betting shop.
According to The Daily Mail(article below), William Hill is only providing selective information about the wager, a move which has earned the wrath of rival groups who are accusing the group are excessive and perhaps doubtful hype.
In addition, the competition is grumbling over William Hill's claims that it believes £1 billion will be wagered through the groups land and online facilities during the FA Cup semi finals, as well as National Week.
David Stevens of Coral gambling group was open about what his company felt about William Hill's claims. "One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it's pursuing," he said. "At least the rest of us have semblance of truth in what we claim."
Ladbrokes bookmaker also slammed Will Hill, with company spokesman, David Williams saying: "This is irresponsible, it's out of hand!"
But despite William Hill rattling rival bookmakers, the betting group was firm in its stance, and backed its claims by providing the Daily Mail with a copy of the 1/5 odds-on betting slip of the mysterious South England Aintree punter.
"We're the leading bookmaker," said Kate Miller of William Hill. "We don't have to make things up and have audited accounts."
-------------------
Daily Mail
Believe the hype? You bet, say Hills
By Charles Sale Daily Mail
William Hill are providing only selective information about the extraordinary £500,000 bet to win £100,000 on record-breaking hurdler Big Buck’s, which is being viewed with disbelief by rival firms.
Other bookies, not averse to excessive hype themselves, are outraged by the extra yards Hills went to gain publicity during the Grand National meeting by making allegedly overly-ambitious claims about their share of the market.
These include not only the disputed Big Buck’s bet last Thursday, which Hills will only say was struck by one of their clients via a credit card in a High Street betting shop in the south of England, but also the Hills estimation that £1billion would be wagered with them during FA Cup semi-finals and National week.
Ladbrokes’ David Williams said: ‘This is irresponsible; it’s got out of hand.’ David Stevens of Coral, added: ‘One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it’s pursuing. At least the rest of us have a semblance of truth in what we claim.’
William Hill’s Kate Miller, who had a scanned copy of the 1-5 odds-on betting slip supplied by the company’s trading chief on her laptop, said: ‘We’re the leading bookmaker. We don’t have to make things up and have audited accounts.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2130220/Charles-Sale-Believe-hype-You-bet-say-Hills.html#ixzz1sP49eNok
A war of words between rival UK bookmakers is being played out in the national media, with William Hill being accused of using excessive marketing hype to draw attention to itself.
William Hill, the gambling and sports betting giant, rattled its competitors when it claimed that a £500,000 bet to win £100,000 was made by one of its punters on the hurdler Big Buck's during the recent Grand National Festival at Aintree.
William Hill said that the bet - which will go down as the biggest single wager taken in its 78 year history - was made by one of its clients with a credit card in the South of England. The bet was placed in a High Street betting shop.
According to The Daily Mail(article below), William Hill is only providing selective information about the wager, a move which has earned the wrath of rival groups who are accusing the group are excessive and perhaps doubtful hype.
In addition, the competition is grumbling over William Hill's claims that it believes £1 billion will be wagered through the groups land and online facilities during the FA Cup semi finals, as well as National Week.
David Stevens of Coral gambling group was open about what his company felt about William Hill's claims. "One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it's pursuing," he said. "At least the rest of us have semblance of truth in what we claim."
Ladbrokes bookmaker also slammed Will Hill, with company spokesman, David Williams saying: "This is irresponsible, it's out of hand!"
But despite William Hill rattling rival bookmakers, the betting group was firm in its stance, and backed its claims by providing the Daily Mail with a copy of the 1/5 odds-on betting slip of the mysterious South England Aintree punter.
"We're the leading bookmaker," said Kate Miller of William Hill. "We don't have to make things up and have audited accounts."
-------------------
Daily Mail
Believe the hype? You bet, say Hills
By Charles Sale Daily Mail
William Hill are providing only selective information about the extraordinary £500,000 bet to win £100,000 on record-breaking hurdler Big Buck’s, which is being viewed with disbelief by rival firms.
Other bookies, not averse to excessive hype themselves, are outraged by the extra yards Hills went to gain publicity during the Grand National meeting by making allegedly overly-ambitious claims about their share of the market.
These include not only the disputed Big Buck’s bet last Thursday, which Hills will only say was struck by one of their clients via a credit card in a High Street betting shop in the south of England, but also the Hills estimation that £1billion would be wagered with them during FA Cup semi-finals and National week.
Ladbrokes’ David Williams said: ‘This is irresponsible; it’s got out of hand.’ David Stevens of Coral, added: ‘One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it’s pursuing. At least the rest of us have a semblance of truth in what we claim.’
William Hill’s Kate Miller, who had a scanned copy of the 1-5 odds-on betting slip supplied by the company’s trading chief on her laptop, said: ‘We’re the leading bookmaker. We don’t have to make things up and have audited accounts.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2130220/Charles-Sale-Believe-hype-You-bet-say-Hills.html#ixzz1sP49eNok
Show More
if as has already been stated a credit card was used for this
transaction then a 2.5% cash advance would have been imposed
on the customers account i believe !! this would have cost the
client approx £12500
had he used a debit card then no fee applies generally
no brainer imo
transaction then a 2.5% cash advance would have been imposed
on the customers account i believe !! this would have cost the
client approx £12500
had he used a debit card then no fee applies generally
no brainer imo
zilzal, has said everything that needs to be said about this....lying is ok, but exaggerated lying , well its just not cricket,..
its not even important whether the bet was placed or not. lets say it was? who gives a flying fook. u still wont get a ton on a 3/1 shot if u wanted. the article is pointless as if to brag at the large wagers theyre laying when EVERYONE knows the average punter cant get 2 bananas to a banana.
fook them!
fook them!
British bookmaker's push for Nevada gaming license delayed
18 April 2012
by Chris Sieroty http://www.casinocitytimes.com
ENGLAND AND NEVADA -- Is William Hill PLC's $53 million investment in Nevada in trouble?
No. But the British bookmaker's efforts to gain a Nevada gaming license have been delayed, despite previous expectations that regulators would vote in May. The company is seeking a license after last year's announcement that it will acquire three sports betting companies in Las Vegas.
Nevada gaming regulators were expected to consider William Hill's license application next month, but it has not been included on the May agenda.
The Guardian newspaper in London reports the application was delayed while the Nevada Gaming Control Board takes a closer look at two issues -- Robin Chhabra, William Hill's head of strategy and corporate development, and the company's ties to Playtech in Israel.
Chhabra, who was responsible for the Nevada acquisitions, is a former equity analyst who was fined approximately $150,000 by the Financial Services Authority after he "passed confidential information" to a friend, The Guardian reported.
Chhabra is not expected to have a management role with the new acquisitions.
Nevada regulators are also interested in the company's business ties to Playtech, the Israeli online gambling company that is a joint venture with William Hill online. Playtech is 40 percent owned by its founder, Teddy Sagi, a Tel Aviv-born businessman who was convicted of fraud and bribery in 1996.
Control Board Chairman Mark Lipparelli was unavailable for comment Tuesday.
William Hill in April 2011 agreed to buy American Wagering Inc., the parent of Leroy's Horse & Sports Place sports books and kiosks, for $18 million.
John English, American Wagering's senior vice president of business development and public affairs, said it is "not uncommon for licensing delays to happen."
"This is part of the normal process and proves the Gaming Control Board is taking their time and being thorough," English said by telephone from Miami. "We expect William Hill to be a great asset to Nevada."
The company also purchased Club Cal Neva Satellite Race and Sports book division in Northern Nevada for $21 million and Brandywine Bookmaking LLC, which operates Lucky's sports books, for $14.25 million.
Brandywine Bookmaking President and CEO Joe Asher declined to comment.
David G. Schwartz, director the University of Nevada, Las Vegas' Center for Gaming Research, said William Hill's reputation in Nevada depends a lot on what it will do when it's licensed.
He said the bookmaker is buying three companies that are already successful and have proven track records.
William Hill has always said licensing would take 12 to 18 months. In February, it told shareholders the licensing process in Nevada was expected to be completed by this summer .
To be licensed in Nevada, the state's three-member Gaming Control Board must first approve William Hill's application, and then final approval by the five-member Nevada Gaming Commission.
The delay was not expected to affect William Hill's profitability. The company reported revenues of $1.81 billion last year, a 6 percent increase from the $1.71 billion reported in 2010. William Hill reported an after-tax profit of $233.4 million.
"Our strategic focus continues to be on developing our products to enhance the customer experience, on broadening and strengthening our channels to maximize our customer reach and on developing the business internationally," William Hill Chief Executive Officer Ralph Topping told shareholders in late February.
Obtaining a Nevada gaming license is considered strategically important, as state regulators recently approved online poker regulations for play within the state. Twenty-six companies had applied for a Nevada online gaming license as of March 26. The first online poker licenses are expected to be approved in June.
18 April 2012
by Chris Sieroty http://www.casinocitytimes.com
ENGLAND AND NEVADA -- Is William Hill PLC's $53 million investment in Nevada in trouble?
No. But the British bookmaker's efforts to gain a Nevada gaming license have been delayed, despite previous expectations that regulators would vote in May. The company is seeking a license after last year's announcement that it will acquire three sports betting companies in Las Vegas.
Nevada gaming regulators were expected to consider William Hill's license application next month, but it has not been included on the May agenda.
The Guardian newspaper in London reports the application was delayed while the Nevada Gaming Control Board takes a closer look at two issues -- Robin Chhabra, William Hill's head of strategy and corporate development, and the company's ties to Playtech in Israel.
Chhabra, who was responsible for the Nevada acquisitions, is a former equity analyst who was fined approximately $150,000 by the Financial Services Authority after he "passed confidential information" to a friend, The Guardian reported.
Chhabra is not expected to have a management role with the new acquisitions.
Nevada regulators are also interested in the company's business ties to Playtech, the Israeli online gambling company that is a joint venture with William Hill online. Playtech is 40 percent owned by its founder, Teddy Sagi, a Tel Aviv-born businessman who was convicted of fraud and bribery in 1996.
Control Board Chairman Mark Lipparelli was unavailable for comment Tuesday.
William Hill in April 2011 agreed to buy American Wagering Inc., the parent of Leroy's Horse & Sports Place sports books and kiosks, for $18 million.
John English, American Wagering's senior vice president of business development and public affairs, said it is "not uncommon for licensing delays to happen."
"This is part of the normal process and proves the Gaming Control Board is taking their time and being thorough," English said by telephone from Miami. "We expect William Hill to be a great asset to Nevada."
The company also purchased Club Cal Neva Satellite Race and Sports book division in Northern Nevada for $21 million and Brandywine Bookmaking LLC, which operates Lucky's sports books, for $14.25 million.
Brandywine Bookmaking President and CEO Joe Asher declined to comment.
David G. Schwartz, director the University of Nevada, Las Vegas' Center for Gaming Research, said William Hill's reputation in Nevada depends a lot on what it will do when it's licensed.
He said the bookmaker is buying three companies that are already successful and have proven track records.
William Hill has always said licensing would take 12 to 18 months. In February, it told shareholders the licensing process in Nevada was expected to be completed by this summer .
To be licensed in Nevada, the state's three-member Gaming Control Board must first approve William Hill's application, and then final approval by the five-member Nevada Gaming Commission.
The delay was not expected to affect William Hill's profitability. The company reported revenues of $1.81 billion last year, a 6 percent increase from the $1.71 billion reported in 2010. William Hill reported an after-tax profit of $233.4 million.
"Our strategic focus continues to be on developing our products to enhance the customer experience, on broadening and strengthening our channels to maximize our customer reach and on developing the business internationally," William Hill Chief Executive Officer Ralph Topping told shareholders in late February.
Obtaining a Nevada gaming license is considered strategically important, as state regulators recently approved online poker regulations for play within the state. Twenty-six companies had applied for a Nevada online gaming license as of March 26. The first online poker licenses are expected to be approved in June.
didnt parrot and co show a laddies betting slip showing a 50 grand bet on synchronised at 12 to 1, thats even harder to believe
if true i,d assume thats a slip showing laddies layed 50 grand to everyone at 12,s
A commercial PR person's job is to mislead people - nothing else...
AS AN ONCOURSE BOOKMAKER I CAN INFORM EVERYONE THAT THESE WAGERS ACTUALY DO EXSIST,AT WOVERHAMPTON ON MONDAY I TOOK TWO 500K CASH WAGERS BOTH OF WHICH WON THE LAST ONE BEING ON THE FAV IN THE LAST WHICH WAS BACKED DOWN FROM 9/2 TO 5/2FAV,THE GENTLEMAN WHO PLACED THE WAGERS HAD AN UNCANNY RESEMBLANCE TO LORD LUCAN,AS I WAS PAYING HIM OUT HE TOLD ME HE WAS GETTING A HORSE READY FOR A SELLER AT WOLVS CALLED RAG REHS THAT WOULD DEFINATLY WIN.
nevada...hmmm..mob...hmmm hills....they will lose more than 53 million in nevada
do they really think they can just waltz into america....wonder what tony soprano would do to them
do they really think they can just waltz into america....wonder what tony soprano would do to them
credit due atleast hills do have a go with p.p and baldy,ladcrooks are gone just check there prices always under every horses and corals should sell cakes thats all they are good for
theres the black amex credit card,you need 500k in the bank to get it ,so it could be true.
There is probably not one single person on earth who has a credit card limit of half a million pounds.
This story is as believable as the loch ness monster.
This story is as believable as the loch ness monster.
Typical duplicity by a high street bookmaker, on the one hand claiming punters can easily place big bets in shops and in reality most consistent winners being limited or even barred from their outlets, have they thought of going into government?
you have to admire the energy and money put into "spin"
What next - people will be saying punters on here have exagerated their stakes and wins before you know it!
The logistics of this are laughable.
Lets just say for one minute this chap did have a credit limit of 500 big ones.
If he went to the counter and asked for this bet it would take ages ( an hour or 2 ) to verify this guys identity and all that hoo haa.
A financial company would not allow this to happen.
Lets just say for one minute this chap did have a credit limit of 500 big ones.
If he went to the counter and asked for this bet it would take ages ( an hour or 2 ) to verify this guys identity and all that hoo haa.
A financial company would not allow this to happen.
IT WASNT A PERSON U FOOL,IT WAS THE LOCH NESS MONSTER WHO PUT THE BET ON!
appartently he tried on line but got offered 1.26e.w
William Hill Sports turnover for 2011 courtesy of William Hills PLC annual accounts.
is In Shop £2.605bn
Online £1.664bn
= £4.269bn
If Turnover was split equally (This is not the case but there will not be massive variation month to month.
Daily £11.7 million
Weekly £82 million
Monthly £355 million
William Hill have done wonders it seems. A good weekend might see turnover of £40 million but William Hill expected turnover to be 2500% higher then normal.
Bookies reps are not accountants but this is quite a stretch and is them believing people are idiots.
is In Shop £2.605bn
Online £1.664bn
= £4.269bn
If Turnover was split equally (This is not the case but there will not be massive variation month to month.
Daily £11.7 million
Weekly £82 million
Monthly £355 million
William Hill have done wonders it seems. A good weekend might see turnover of £40 million but William Hill expected turnover to be 2500% higher then normal.
Bookies reps are not accountants but this is quite a stretch and is them believing people are idiots.
Who's to say that William hill did not place the bet themselves producing maximum publicity for no risk.
There's zero chance any credit card company's fraud detection software would allow a transaction of this size to go through to a bookmaker...
The bet is not impossible, I've seen a guy place £70k on a 2/5 shot. I know as well that a number of Ladbrokes in London in previous years would receive visitors from the Middle East who would place 6 figure bets.
The bet is not impossible, I've seen a guy place £70k on a 2/5 shot. I know as well that a number of Ladbrokes in London in previous years would receive visitors from the Middle East who would place 6 figure bets.
They've got sure-fire regular profits being pumped out of fobts, why would they bother taking bets like that?
Anonymous punter puts on a horse bet to take out 100k - no problem
Joe Public putting a bet on the gee gees to take out 1k - don't be ridiculous.
Joe Public putting a bet on the gee gees to take out 1k - don't be ridiculous.
The bet was real the ammount is correct , was placed by a william hill employee on a william hill company debit/credit card, simples
Hills think its great publicity, I think it makes them look pathetic when they fail to take a half decent bet from almost anyone.
Who took Terry Ramsden's bets in the 80s ? They make this alledged bet look like peanuts.
If you're going to lie, get the story straight. First of all it as a cash punter, then a credit card customer and now a bloke with a bag full of notes. You would struggle to get £250k into a carrier bag, even if it was all £50 notes.
was just gonna make the same point Harry. the bet was originally reported as a CASH bet (which i believe is debit or reddies).
Unless this is Chinese whispers
Unless this is Chinese whispers
the 500k BB was an outstanding bet. Most know he should have been 1-20. the field was absolute turd
Have Ladbrokes not made similar but less lavish claims recently despite the fact they restrict bets? William Hill are easily the best bookie out there right now. Had no problem getting reasonable bets on with them despite having a profitable account with them over the last 6 months. While I appreciate they might restrict me at some stage in the future they at least try to take a bet unlike Coral's and **** who continue to restrict prices and the amount you can put on. Glad to see some bookie still has an interest in horse racing. I don't doubt Hills do very very well out of the mug machines but most bookies look more like a home for roulette-loving tramps than somewhere you can have a bit of craic about the nags.
Is the same hills where im ptl ALL BETS so just to take the piss i do £1 union jacks and the robot phones them through to leeds.
Or are there two hills
Or are there two hills
harry2.1 19 Apr 12 00:35
If you're going to lie, get the story straight. First of all it as a cash punter, then a credit card customer and now a bloke with a bag full of notes. You would struggle to get £250k into a carrier bag, even if it was all £50 notes.
I have just checked that, you are right Harry, I can only get 370k in a regular Tesco's carrier
If you're going to lie, get the story straight. First of all it as a cash punter, then a credit card customer and now a bloke with a bag full of notes. You would struggle to get £250k into a carrier bag, even if it was all £50 notes.
I have just checked that, you are right Harry, I can only get 370k in a regular Tesco's carrier
Safc1973
19 Apr 12 04:49 Joined: 23 Aug 10 | Topic/replies: 5 | Blogger: Safc1973's blog
Have Ladbrokes not made similar but less lavish claims recently despite the fact they restrict bets? William Hill are easily the best bookie out there right now. Had no problem getting reasonable bets on with them despite having a profitable account with them over the last 6 months. While I appreciate they might restrict me at some stage in the future they at least try to take a bet unlike Coral's and **** who continue to restrict prices and the amount you can put on. Glad to see some bookie still has an interest in horse racing. I don't doubt Hills do very very well out of the mug machines but most bookies look more like a home for roulette-loving tramps than somewhere you can have a bit of craic about the nags.
PLANT ALERT.. PLANT ALERT... PLANT ALERT...
Hills have even got 24/7 PR.5 REPLIES IN 20 MONTHS. You should be ashamed of yourself.Creep back into that bunker !!
19 Apr 12 04:49 Joined: 23 Aug 10 | Topic/replies: 5 | Blogger: Safc1973's blog
Have Ladbrokes not made similar but less lavish claims recently despite the fact they restrict bets? William Hill are easily the best bookie out there right now. Had no problem getting reasonable bets on with them despite having a profitable account with them over the last 6 months. While I appreciate they might restrict me at some stage in the future they at least try to take a bet unlike Coral's and **** who continue to restrict prices and the amount you can put on. Glad to see some bookie still has an interest in horse racing. I don't doubt Hills do very very well out of the mug machines but most bookies look more like a home for roulette-loving tramps than somewhere you can have a bit of craic about the nags.
PLANT ALERT.. PLANT ALERT... PLANT ALERT...
Hills have even got 24/7 PR.5 REPLIES IN 20 MONTHS. You should be ashamed of yourself.Creep back into that bunker !!
William Hill are easily the best bookie out there right now
Which area do you manage then?
Which area do you manage then?
So let me get this straight, a big bookie claims big bucks was bet on big bucks but the other big bookies claim the books look too big and the said bookie is bigging the books up too look big.
And all this after a punting stable lad who actually did win on big bucks getting no recognition from the bookmaker he won it from at all, and the big firm swerved the positive PR possible in favour of not looking like the odd bookmaker out taking bets from a possible winning customer as most are restricted and barred in reality by the betting industry accept firms that don't take customers on directly at risk.
And all this after a punting stable lad who actually did win on big bucks getting no recognition from the bookmaker he won it from at all, and the big firm swerved the positive PR possible in favour of not looking like the odd bookmaker out taking bets from a possible winning customer as most are restricted and barred in reality by the betting industry accept firms that don't take customers on directly at risk.
Is Trevor007 the only person who thinks the BBC are equally to blame for this nonsense?
If anything the BBC are even more culpable than Hills for allowing this type of premeditated bookmaker advertisement (which is against broadcasting regulations) to air in the first place. It appears the BBC will believe absolutely anything they are told (Frankel etc) without obtaining verification of the facts. The BBC should hold an internal enquiry into the individual who sanctions these 'make believe' advertisements on behalf of bookmakers and whether or not they are receiving 'gifts' of any nature to do so...
If anything the BBC are even more culpable than Hills for allowing this type of premeditated bookmaker advertisement (which is against broadcasting regulations) to air in the first place. It appears the BBC will believe absolutely anything they are told (Frankel etc) without obtaining verification of the facts. The BBC should hold an internal enquiry into the individual who sanctions these 'make believe' advertisements on behalf of bookmakers and whether or not they are receiving 'gifts' of any nature to do so...
Is it any wonder that the masses are slowly losing faith in traditional Bookmakers who blush, avoid and hide at the mere mention of the word winner!
If anything the BBC are even more culpable than Hills for allowing this type of premeditated bookmaker advertisement (which is against broadcasting regulations) to air in the first place.
Correct.
And also correct on the Frankel point.
Correct.
And also correct on the Frankel point.
Well as they are no longer covering Racing, it's a mute point..
The fact the Big firms look too the exchanges to see how much is being bet on what is proof enough that its not going on in the high street shops who prefer mechanical bettors playing virtual electronic gamess , bookmakers havent got the bottle anymore!
Boys and girls too the left and men and women too the right!
To be fair BF advertising is probably even more disingenuous unless you are happy to bet in pennies.
guinness2dear
19 Apr 12 11:55 Joined: 19 Jan 07 | Topic/replies: 6,539 | Blogger: guinness2dear's blog
Well as they are no longer covering Racing, it's a mute point..
Perhaps, but this sort of product placement is becoming more commonplace on the BBC and needs to be stamped out. Don't forget we still have the Derby meeting and Royal Ascot coming up and as many punters can't get a £20 bet on with these firms this pathetic and distasteful practice needs to stop before then.
Agree with RUK, considering it is a subscription channel their constant toadying toward nearly all the bookmaker reps is nothing short of disgraceful and casts doubt on the integrity and impartiality of those both in front and behind the camera. I understand they will often forgo coverage of the build up to a race just to wheel on rep after rep spouting trash and lies. 'Rancid' is the word that best describes the situation and I for one will never subscribe to such a channel.
19 Apr 12 11:55 Joined: 19 Jan 07 | Topic/replies: 6,539 | Blogger: guinness2dear's blog
Well as they are no longer covering Racing, it's a mute point..
Perhaps, but this sort of product placement is becoming more commonplace on the BBC and needs to be stamped out. Don't forget we still have the Derby meeting and Royal Ascot coming up and as many punters can't get a £20 bet on with these firms this pathetic and distasteful practice needs to stop before then.
Agree with RUK, considering it is a subscription channel their constant toadying toward nearly all the bookmaker reps is nothing short of disgraceful and casts doubt on the integrity and impartiality of those both in front and behind the camera. I understand they will often forgo coverage of the build up to a race just to wheel on rep after rep spouting trash and lies. 'Rancid' is the word that best describes the situation and I for one will never subscribe to such a channel.
I somehow doubt the BBC will stop it now Avi..
I used to subscribe, i stopped last summer. The steady flow of REP-tiles was quite nauseating..
I used to subscribe, i stopped last summer. The steady flow of REP-tiles was quite nauseating..
i tried to place a 200 pound bet on a horse in william hills in white chapel and there was nearly a riot as the shop girl insisted on ringing head office to confirm the bet and took ages, the race was off and she said it was too late now,it won and i never went near a william hill again,its paddy power in whitechapel for me now,there is no fairness or protection in england for punters just unfair people like william hills and ladbrokes and coral and tote,,,
It's a shame Guinness2. I subscribed to RUK in the early days and there was barely a mention of a specific bookmaker and you used to see nearly all the build up to a race. RUK was worth every penny back then. Is it really necessary for racing broadcasters to dumb down their coverage and alienate true racing fans? We all know why they do it (the gravy) but eventually at the rate they're going there won't be enough to go round - hope they starve...
When I worked at bills a well-known punter wanted £200k on a double that worked out around even money... trading dept said he could have £5k... They don't lay big bets.
I'm afraid RUK is now just another media outlet for the spivs.
This deal came to effect in Feb...
Racing UK, the leading independent subscription-based TV channel operator which boasts over 50,000 subscribers, has announced that it has signed partnership deals with four top-rated UK bookmakers.
Racing UK has signed one year deals with Coral, Ladbrokes, Sky Bet and William Hill that will see them become what has been billed as "premium partners" to the racing channel.
The partnership deals, which will come into effect from the beginning of next month and run for a course of twelve months, will see each of the four UK bookmakers receive "significant sponsorship exposure", according to Racing UK.
This deal came to effect in Feb...
Racing UK, the leading independent subscription-based TV channel operator which boasts over 50,000 subscribers, has announced that it has signed partnership deals with four top-rated UK bookmakers.
Racing UK has signed one year deals with Coral, Ladbrokes, Sky Bet and William Hill that will see them become what has been billed as "premium partners" to the racing channel.
The partnership deals, which will come into effect from the beginning of next month and run for a course of twelve months, will see each of the four UK bookmakers receive "significant sponsorship exposure", according to Racing UK.
Thanks for posting that Guinness2, not being a subscriber I was unaware of this deal. I implore all of the '50000 subscribers (yeah right)' to have a good think about whether you should continue to subscribe to RUK.
Unfortunately a handful of users shelling out £20 a month doesn't provide enough revenue to run a TV channel. Same reason why the RP is as it is.
Which is less than the total profit for RMG ie nowhere near enough to have no bookmaker funding.
They managed it for 6 years without spivs help..
So what's changed ? Less subscribers ? That doesn't add up because you say that 50,000 isn't enough to run it..
So what's changed ? Less subscribers ? That doesn't add up because you say that 50,000 isn't enough to run it..
The product placment that occurs in return for a fee on RUK is absolutely 100% against OFCOM regulations...
We know the bet is complete BS , but i cant imagine anyone stupid enough to have half a million on a horse ridden by that jockey. He finds laying straight in bed very difficult.
the games up i had the bet, all in cash all in £10 notes,then arb it, got a cool £40.000 for nothing,when i went to collect,i had to waite for while security checked it,in the meantime i was offerd free tea,cake,quality street,i declined a free £5 on the fobt. i was told i can have £1.000.000 on any horse, any price,win or eachway.i need advice should i waite for bucks next time or have a pop at frankel,or another your help will be much apreciated........now where,s my tablet,s
Bookies elbowing each other in race for the moral high ground
The post-Grand National Silly Billy Stakes could prove a most watchable event, and it's good of the bookmakers to put something back into the sport of kings
Marina Hyde guardian.co.uk,
Perhaps it's too soon for racing to provide yet another spectacle from which many moralists may feel bound to look away. But those of us long since lost to the gutter will find much to enjoy in a battle – currently raging – for the very soul of bookmaking public relations. I'm sorry, you may be spluttering. The what? And in truth, it is not the most unreasonable of queries. The idea that bookmakers even have a reflection in mirrors is fanciful enough – the idea that the aspect of their business that marries up with spin-doctoring possesses a soul will be a leap too far for many.
But I am grateful to the Daily Mail for alerting me to an apparently escalating feud between the spokespersons of various bookies. The straw that caused the screens to be erected around the camel seems to have been William Hill's boast about what the firm claims is the biggest single bet it has taken in its history. Details of the wager are being strictly rationed – suspiciously so, say some – but the bookmaker's account has a chap walking into a high street branch somewhere in the south of England, and using a credit card to stake £500,000 to win £100,000 on the irksomely punctuated Big Buck's in the Liverpool Hurdle on the opening day of last week's Grand National meeting. Big Buck's came in, and Hills issued a typically restrained press release telling the tale, and concluding that "investors will surely soon begin recommending him as the cornerstone of any portfolio". (And obviously, when they say "surely", what they mean is they've stopped taking bets on the possibility.)
Just another bit of gambling puffery, you may think – but it seems to have sent William Hill's rivals into quite a temper. "One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it's pursuing," fumes the Coral spokesman, who seems keen to join in the most convincing fit of morality since Casablanca's Captain Renault declares himself to be "Shocked! Shocked!" to find that gambling is going on in the gambling den he frequents. As Coral's man goes on: "At least the rest of us have a semblance of truth in what we claim."
You'll have appreciated that openly conceded "semblance of truth", which sets the bar about five foot lower than any Aintree fence. But I hope you won't appreciate it quite as much as the intervention from Ladbrokes's David Williams, who also seems to believe the tale to be a fabrication. "This is irresponsible," David fumes. "It's got out of hand."
Well, hasn't it just? I know just what he means – if bookies carry on this way, the public may even be moved to question their sacred trust in them. (Incidentally, here is David glossing Neptune Collonges's National win in the Sunday Telegraph: "The result could scarcely have been any better. Neptune Collonges slipped off most radars, and most of the cheers at Aintree came from the bookies." And here he is on the same subject in the Sun, which tipped Neptune Collonges: "Sun readers clobbered us. It should have been a glorious result for us and the whole industry but your man has ruined it. This will go down as one of the greatest pieces of tipping in racing history.")
At some level you have to salute these most tireless of publicists, who presumably only say anything that will get them in the papers precisely because it always gets them in the papers.
Consider all the publicity they get out of cultural comings-and-goings developments on which no one really bets. Years ago, on the Guardian's diary column, we were struck by the unquestioning column inches bookies were getting out of confected stories about the book on who was going to replace the retiring Jimmy Young on his Radio 2 show. The way they told it, you'd think punters up and down the land were hotfooting it to betting shops and, instead of feeding £20 notes into the touch-screen crack pipes that are the roulette machines, were marching up to the counter and declaring: "I'll have £1,000 on that nice Jeremy Vine for The JY Prog, please."
In order to assess this fantastical sounding market, we telephoned William Hill's publicist, the estimable Graham Sharpe, and informed him that we wished to place £50,000 on Vine taking over. There was a pause on the line, before Graham appeared simultaneously to attempt to buy time and call our bluff, effectively saying that if we wanted to nip into our local branch and show staff the colour of our money, he was sure they'd consider accepting the bet. Course they would. (If memory serves, the market was suspended minutes thereafter.)
On the one hand, the spectacle of a load of bookies elbowing each other as they scramble for what they imagine to be their industry's moral high ground is a bit like one of those arguments between Big Brother contestants in which one calls another stupid. But on the other, it's a most watchable piece of sport, and it's good of them to put something back. I for one would like to see the Silly Billy Stakes continue, and ideally develop into a market of its own. All it needs is for one bookmaker's spokesperson to offer me odds on which of their rivals will make the biggest arse of themselves, and I invite enterprising parties to get in touch accordingly.
The post-Grand National Silly Billy Stakes could prove a most watchable event, and it's good of the bookmakers to put something back into the sport of kings
Marina Hyde guardian.co.uk,
Perhaps it's too soon for racing to provide yet another spectacle from which many moralists may feel bound to look away. But those of us long since lost to the gutter will find much to enjoy in a battle – currently raging – for the very soul of bookmaking public relations. I'm sorry, you may be spluttering. The what? And in truth, it is not the most unreasonable of queries. The idea that bookmakers even have a reflection in mirrors is fanciful enough – the idea that the aspect of their business that marries up with spin-doctoring possesses a soul will be a leap too far for many.
But I am grateful to the Daily Mail for alerting me to an apparently escalating feud between the spokespersons of various bookies. The straw that caused the screens to be erected around the camel seems to have been William Hill's boast about what the firm claims is the biggest single bet it has taken in its history. Details of the wager are being strictly rationed – suspiciously so, say some – but the bookmaker's account has a chap walking into a high street branch somewhere in the south of England, and using a credit card to stake £500,000 to win £100,000 on the irksomely punctuated Big Buck's in the Liverpool Hurdle on the opening day of last week's Grand National meeting. Big Buck's came in, and Hills issued a typically restrained press release telling the tale, and concluding that "investors will surely soon begin recommending him as the cornerstone of any portfolio". (And obviously, when they say "surely", what they mean is they've stopped taking bets on the possibility.)
Just another bit of gambling puffery, you may think – but it seems to have sent William Hill's rivals into quite a temper. "One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it's pursuing," fumes the Coral spokesman, who seems keen to join in the most convincing fit of morality since Casablanca's Captain Renault declares himself to be "Shocked! Shocked!" to find that gambling is going on in the gambling den he frequents. As Coral's man goes on: "At least the rest of us have a semblance of truth in what we claim."
You'll have appreciated that openly conceded "semblance of truth", which sets the bar about five foot lower than any Aintree fence. But I hope you won't appreciate it quite as much as the intervention from Ladbrokes's David Williams, who also seems to believe the tale to be a fabrication. "This is irresponsible," David fumes. "It's got out of hand."
Well, hasn't it just? I know just what he means – if bookies carry on this way, the public may even be moved to question their sacred trust in them. (Incidentally, here is David glossing Neptune Collonges's National win in the Sunday Telegraph: "The result could scarcely have been any better. Neptune Collonges slipped off most radars, and most of the cheers at Aintree came from the bookies." And here he is on the same subject in the Sun, which tipped Neptune Collonges: "Sun readers clobbered us. It should have been a glorious result for us and the whole industry but your man has ruined it. This will go down as one of the greatest pieces of tipping in racing history.")
At some level you have to salute these most tireless of publicists, who presumably only say anything that will get them in the papers precisely because it always gets them in the papers.
Consider all the publicity they get out of cultural comings-and-goings developments on which no one really bets. Years ago, on the Guardian's diary column, we were struck by the unquestioning column inches bookies were getting out of confected stories about the book on who was going to replace the retiring Jimmy Young on his Radio 2 show. The way they told it, you'd think punters up and down the land were hotfooting it to betting shops and, instead of feeding £20 notes into the touch-screen crack pipes that are the roulette machines, were marching up to the counter and declaring: "I'll have £1,000 on that nice Jeremy Vine for The JY Prog, please."
In order to assess this fantastical sounding market, we telephoned William Hill's publicist, the estimable Graham Sharpe, and informed him that we wished to place £50,000 on Vine taking over. There was a pause on the line, before Graham appeared simultaneously to attempt to buy time and call our bluff, effectively saying that if we wanted to nip into our local branch and show staff the colour of our money, he was sure they'd consider accepting the bet. Course they would. (If memory serves, the market was suspended minutes thereafter.)
On the one hand, the spectacle of a load of bookies elbowing each other as they scramble for what they imagine to be their industry's moral high ground is a bit like one of those arguments between Big Brother contestants in which one calls another stupid. But on the other, it's a most watchable piece of sport, and it's good of them to put something back. I for one would like to see the Silly Billy Stakes continue, and ideally develop into a market of its own. All it needs is for one bookmaker's spokesperson to offer me odds on which of their rivals will make the biggest arse of themselves, and I invite enterprising parties to get in touch accordingly.
The straw that caused the screens to be erected around the camel
I wonder if Marina Hyde is aware that most of the time William Hill won't even take a £50 bet, let alone a £500,000 one.
The most I can have online on any horse currently racing, and indeed any horse yet to be born, with William Hil is £0.00...
The most I can have online on any horse currently racing, and indeed any horse yet to be born, with William Hil is £0.00...
biggest single wager taken in its 78 year history
really? surely patrick veitch has staked more
really? surely patrick veitch has staked more
Incidentally, here is David glossing Neptune Collonges's National win in the Sunday Telegraph: "The result could scarcely have been any better. Neptune Collonges slipped off most radars, and most of the cheers at Aintree came from the bookies." And here he is on the same subject in the Sun, which tipped Neptune Collonges: "Sun readers clobbered us. It should have been a glorious result for us and the whole industry but your man has ruined it. This will go down as one of the greatest pieces of tipping in racing history."
Enough said.
Enough said.
did they take the 1.5 % commision on the credit card payment lol
Marina has David Williams bang to rights. I would love to be a fly on the wall if they ever met, I think he would just curl up on the floor like a hedgehog rather than face the inevitable intellectual mauling he would receive...
What's scary when you are one of these PR frauds, is that ultimately, the truth is an occupational hazard.
Look in the mirror, and your role in life is to be a professional liar...
Look in the mirror, and your role in life is to be a professional liar...
LADBROKES Website
Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said: “Horse racing has never been so glamorous and the odds suggest female punters betting on the Grand National are going to go through the roof.”
She added: “Betting on Coleen’s outfit is becoming as prestigious a market as the colour of the Queen’s hat at Royal Ascot!”
As Nan Taylor would say "Whatta lot of old s***"
Jessica Bridge of Ladbrokes said: “Horse racing has never been so glamorous and the odds suggest female punters betting on the Grand National are going to go through the roof.”
She added: “Betting on Coleen’s outfit is becoming as prestigious a market as the colour of the Queen’s hat at Royal Ascot!”
As Nan Taylor would say "Whatta lot of old s***"
They're all from the Alastair Campbell school of googlies..
irishracing.com
THE ROONEYS will give racing a massive publicity boost this year according to Ladbrokes.
Following Wayne's latest equine purchases and in conjunction with Coleen's glamorous trips to the racecourse the bookies predict their involvement in the sport will trigger a frenzy of interest - which could cost them millions if his string of horses find their way to the winning post first.
Pippy & Tomway now join Switcharooney as the three set to run in his pink and white colours and as he adds to his stock the odds of the Manchester United striker one day taking out a training licence of his own are cut to 25/1 (from 50/1)
It's 33/1 any of his horses land a Group One contest this summer, and 40/1 he manages to get a winner at Royal Ascot.
Alex Donohue of Ladbrokes said: "The Rooneys look set to thrust the sport firmly into the limelight. His goals do enough damage but a big race win will hit the bookies for millions."
Ladbrokes latest betting
Wayne Rooney racing specials
To beat a horse owned by Michael Owen or Sir Alex Ferguson into second this year - 16/1
To win at Royal Ascot this year - 40/1
To win a Group One this year - 33/1
Wayne or Coleen Rooney to have taken out a training licence by 2030 - 25/1 (from 50/1)
Wayne Rooney to score and reveal a t shirt with a picture of the horse this season - 16/1
Pictures to be published of Wayne Rooney riding any horse this year 4/1
Wayne Rooney to take out a trainers licence before 2050 - 6/1
Wayne Rooney to parade the horse(s) at Old Trafford at any time this year - 100/1
The horse(s) to have a hair transplant at any time - 250/1
THE ROONEYS will give racing a massive publicity boost this year according to Ladbrokes.
Following Wayne's latest equine purchases and in conjunction with Coleen's glamorous trips to the racecourse the bookies predict their involvement in the sport will trigger a frenzy of interest - which could cost them millions if his string of horses find their way to the winning post first.
Pippy & Tomway now join Switcharooney as the three set to run in his pink and white colours and as he adds to his stock the odds of the Manchester United striker one day taking out a training licence of his own are cut to 25/1 (from 50/1)
It's 33/1 any of his horses land a Group One contest this summer, and 40/1 he manages to get a winner at Royal Ascot.
Alex Donohue of Ladbrokes said: "The Rooneys look set to thrust the sport firmly into the limelight. His goals do enough damage but a big race win will hit the bookies for millions."
Ladbrokes latest betting
Wayne Rooney racing specials
To beat a horse owned by Michael Owen or Sir Alex Ferguson into second this year - 16/1
To win at Royal Ascot this year - 40/1
To win a Group One this year - 33/1
Wayne or Coleen Rooney to have taken out a training licence by 2030 - 25/1 (from 50/1)
Wayne Rooney to score and reveal a t shirt with a picture of the horse this season - 16/1
Pictures to be published of Wayne Rooney riding any horse this year 4/1
Wayne Rooney to take out a trainers licence before 2050 - 6/1
Wayne Rooney to parade the horse(s) at Old Trafford at any time this year - 100/1
The horse(s) to have a hair transplant at any time - 250/1
She added: “Betting on Coleen’s outfit is becoming as prestigious a market as the colour of the Queen’s hat at Royal Ascot!”
If you're a complete f*ckwit perhaps.
If you're a complete f*ckwit perhaps.
"Enough is enough. After punters began trying to get £1000 bets on Kyle Walker to win Young PFA Player of Year we've closed the market," said William Hill media relations director Graham Sharpe on Twitter.
This is the firm that takes £500,000 Bets
This is the firm that takes £500,000 Bets
does any body actually bets on these Young PFA Player of Year events
they do if they know gordon taylor as the result is already known
does any body actually bets on these Young PFA Player of Year events
They do, but you can't get two bananas to a banana on it. Same goes with the markets for Football Transfers that Slybet are so fond of.
They do, but you can't get two bananas to a banana on it. Same goes with the markets for Football Transfers that Slybet are so fond of.
Premier League - Scam fear over PFA young player award
Bookmakers fear they could be the victims of a betting sting after large sums were placed on outsider Kyle Walker to win PFA Young Player of the Year.
The Tottenham full-back opened as a 33-1 rank outsider for the award but a string of big bets saw him move quickly to 5-6 favourite before most of the high street bookies closed the market.
"Enough is enough. After punters began trying to get £1000 bets on Kyle Walker to win Young PFA Player of Year we've closed the market," said William Hill media relations director Graham Sharpe on Twitter.
"Forgive me for being cynical, but I can't help but think the already decided outcome of Young PFA Player of the Year may have been 'leaked'!"
Walker is arguably the lowest profile name on the young player shortlist which also contains Manchester City star striker Sergio Aguero, who was also nominated for the senior award, and Walker's team-mate, Gareth Bale, who won the senior award last season.
Other high street bookmakers confirmed they were getting similar requests to put money on Walker before closing their books.
“We did close the book. It’s just about us exercising caution,” Alex Donohue of Ladbrokes was quoted as saying in the Mirror; Paddy Power's Darren Haines added: "There were unexpected lumpy bets on Kyle Walker and we closed the betting.”
Also on the shortlist for the award are Manchester United's Danny Welbeck, Chelsea's Daniel Sturridge and Arsenal's Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.
Bookmakers fear they could be the victims of a betting sting after large sums were placed on outsider Kyle Walker to win PFA Young Player of the Year.
The Tottenham full-back opened as a 33-1 rank outsider for the award but a string of big bets saw him move quickly to 5-6 favourite before most of the high street bookies closed the market.
"Enough is enough. After punters began trying to get £1000 bets on Kyle Walker to win Young PFA Player of Year we've closed the market," said William Hill media relations director Graham Sharpe on Twitter.
"Forgive me for being cynical, but I can't help but think the already decided outcome of Young PFA Player of the Year may have been 'leaked'!"
Walker is arguably the lowest profile name on the young player shortlist which also contains Manchester City star striker Sergio Aguero, who was also nominated for the senior award, and Walker's team-mate, Gareth Bale, who won the senior award last season.
Other high street bookmakers confirmed they were getting similar requests to put money on Walker before closing their books.
“We did close the book. It’s just about us exercising caution,” Alex Donohue of Ladbrokes was quoted as saying in the Mirror; Paddy Power's Darren Haines added: "There were unexpected lumpy bets on Kyle Walker and we closed the betting.”
Also on the shortlist for the award are Manchester United's Danny Welbeck, Chelsea's Daniel Sturridge and Arsenal's Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.
So in the bookies eyes, 'scam' = 'punters know more than us' apparently.
Whats the point in having bookmakers if punters can actually win must be a common thread at many a high street firms internal discussions.
"They dont like it MR mannering, they don't it up em sir, they dont like that cold steel "
"They dont like it MR mannering, they don't it up em sir, they dont like that cold steel "
If you are silly enough to walk into firms that want to take you on at risk, at their odds and under their rules, under conditions that suit additive gambling stlye betting tehn you desrve everything you get when you can take punters on at risk on exchanges where winning is allowed, as it should be legally and in your own sweet time with no presuation to be treated unfairly by staff or pressured into additve gambling via controlled events and conditions.
The only truoble you are likely to meet apart from bad results on an exchange are the few bad eggs on the forums but these can be ignored with a peg on the virtual nose.
surely everyone who watches football made walker second favourite after aguero and took the 33/1. i forgot to stake the £66 i intended to because i was distracted by wigan going 2-0 up vs arsenal :(
Great article by Marina. Funny that it took The Guardian to be the first to comment on this sham and not the daily trade paper who could have echoed what we've all been saying years on here.
What are the odds of that! Bookie diagnoses baby's life-threatening condition after father pops in to place Grand National bet
Hospital doctors misdiagnosed baby Amelia with gastric reflux
Bookie recognised symptoms of pyloric stenosis that had affected her baby a decade before
A father who visited his local bookies to put a bet on the Grand National found his luck was in - after the bookie diagnosed his baby's life-threatening condition.
Mark Parsisson popped into his local William Hill to place a bet on the popular horse racing event, with little Amelia, who was unwell.
He got chatting to the cashier Vicky Leonard, who immediately recognised the symptoms, and wrote the condition down for him on a betting slip.
Doctors at the Royal Bolton Hospital, Greater Manchester, had twice told Amelia's parents that her vomiting and incessant crying was caused by a common problem called gastric reflux, which can usually be eased by more frequent feeds and extra burping.
But Amelia was in fact suffering from - a rare the narrowing of the opening from the stomach into the small intestine - that could have left her fatally dehydrated.
Vicky recognised the disease because her own daughter, now 11, had suffered with it as a baby. The condition causes severe projectile vomiting and typically occurs in babies aged two to six weeks.
Mr Parsisson did some quick research on the internet then took Amelia straight to Manchester Children’s Hospital, where she was correctly diagnosed with the condition.
Amelia Grace quickly underwent a 40-minute operation which fixed the problem.
Now the sales manager, who lives with his wife Jane, 32, and son Jake, 8, from Bolton has started legal action against the Royal Bolton Hospital.
Doctors at the hospital diagnosed gastric reflux when Amelia Grace was aged two weeks and seven weeks.
Mr Parsisson said: 'She was in pain constantly, crying all the time. We have been stuffing her with medication that she has not needed for nine weeks.
'I just feel that we were pacified for being over-protective parents when our baby was on the verge of death.
'I want to make other parents aware of this. I am just so relieved, we went through a journey from hell.'
When Ms Leonard, 35, heard Amelia Grace’s symptoms she said she knew exactly what was wrong with her.
'It was bizarre, he was explaining what was going on with his baby and it was like he was saying what had happened to me,' she said.
'I had the exact same problems with my daughter when she was two weeks old, it was just hell.'
Pyloric stenosis affects about one in every 350 babies, usually boys.
It prevents the baby digesting milk and causes them to vomit, which can lead to severe dehydration and in some cases, death.
Royal Bolton Hospital bosses defended the diagnosis, saying babies with pyloric stenosis usually lose weight as well as the other symptoms.
In pyloric stenosis, the muscles in the lower part of the stomach enlarge, narrowing the opening of the pylorus and eventually preventing food from moving from the stomach to the intestine
Head of communications Heather Edwards said: 'If a baby is only displaying vomiting without being dehydrated and losing weight this is more likely to be a different diagnosis such as gastric reflux.
'We’re very sorry if Mr Parsisson feels that staff did not explain this to him fully and also that he did not feel they were taking his concerns seriously.
'Meanwhile we’re pleased to hear that little Amelia is well and hope she continues to make good progress.'
And Mr Parsisson's flutter paid off as well. He put a fiver each way on Sunnyhillboy, who came in a very close second.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2129604/What-odds-Bookie-diagnoses...
Hospital doctors misdiagnosed baby Amelia with gastric reflux
Bookie recognised symptoms of pyloric stenosis that had affected her baby a decade before
A father who visited his local bookies to put a bet on the Grand National found his luck was in - after the bookie diagnosed his baby's life-threatening condition.
Mark Parsisson popped into his local William Hill to place a bet on the popular horse racing event, with little Amelia, who was unwell.
He got chatting to the cashier Vicky Leonard, who immediately recognised the symptoms, and wrote the condition down for him on a betting slip.
Doctors at the Royal Bolton Hospital, Greater Manchester, had twice told Amelia's parents that her vomiting and incessant crying was caused by a common problem called gastric reflux, which can usually be eased by more frequent feeds and extra burping.
But Amelia was in fact suffering from - a rare the narrowing of the opening from the stomach into the small intestine - that could have left her fatally dehydrated.
Vicky recognised the disease because her own daughter, now 11, had suffered with it as a baby. The condition causes severe projectile vomiting and typically occurs in babies aged two to six weeks.
Mr Parsisson did some quick research on the internet then took Amelia straight to Manchester Children’s Hospital, where she was correctly diagnosed with the condition.
Amelia Grace quickly underwent a 40-minute operation which fixed the problem.
Now the sales manager, who lives with his wife Jane, 32, and son Jake, 8, from Bolton has started legal action against the Royal Bolton Hospital.
Doctors at the hospital diagnosed gastric reflux when Amelia Grace was aged two weeks and seven weeks.
Mr Parsisson said: 'She was in pain constantly, crying all the time. We have been stuffing her with medication that she has not needed for nine weeks.
'I just feel that we were pacified for being over-protective parents when our baby was on the verge of death.
'I want to make other parents aware of this. I am just so relieved, we went through a journey from hell.'
When Ms Leonard, 35, heard Amelia Grace’s symptoms she said she knew exactly what was wrong with her.
'It was bizarre, he was explaining what was going on with his baby and it was like he was saying what had happened to me,' she said.
'I had the exact same problems with my daughter when she was two weeks old, it was just hell.'
Pyloric stenosis affects about one in every 350 babies, usually boys.
It prevents the baby digesting milk and causes them to vomit, which can lead to severe dehydration and in some cases, death.
Royal Bolton Hospital bosses defended the diagnosis, saying babies with pyloric stenosis usually lose weight as well as the other symptoms.
In pyloric stenosis, the muscles in the lower part of the stomach enlarge, narrowing the opening of the pylorus and eventually preventing food from moving from the stomach to the intestine
Head of communications Heather Edwards said: 'If a baby is only displaying vomiting without being dehydrated and losing weight this is more likely to be a different diagnosis such as gastric reflux.
'We’re very sorry if Mr Parsisson feels that staff did not explain this to him fully and also that he did not feel they were taking his concerns seriously.
'Meanwhile we’re pleased to hear that little Amelia is well and hope she continues to make good progress.'
And Mr Parsisson's flutter paid off as well. He put a fiver each way on Sunnyhillboy, who came in a very close second.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2129604/What-odds-Bookie-diagnoses...
http://www.highstreetsfirst.org
Mayoral candidates support the aims of High Streets First
We went to a hustings on Wednesday night at St James's Church in Piccadilly, where we asked the Mayoral candidates what they thought of the campaign.
Green candidate Jenny Jones said: "Betting is a mug's game and the bookie will always win and I totally support what you're saying."
Boris Johnson said: "We certainly should be making it easier for councils to block them (bookmakers) - they're not only spreading false hope, they're reducing the economic vitality of high streets. Bookmakers are a spiritual narcotic that breed false hope and it's a terrible thing to see." http://bit.ly/HXPOlS
Ken Livingstone said: "Local councils should determine the mix of shops on the high street. Betting shops are preying on the poorest and most vulnerable in the community."
Ken recently produced a report stating his intention to give local councils more power to limit the number of betting shops, which you can read here. PDF FORM http://bit.ly/I7pt2t
Brian Paddick said: "Proliferation of betting shops on our high streets are exploitation of the poor. The more you allow those shops to set up, the more they can take from the people who are least able to afford it. Betting shops employ very clever lawyers who can overcome any objection that the local council or police put forward to their application and we need a change in the law."
Mayoral candidates support the aims of High Streets First
We went to a hustings on Wednesday night at St James's Church in Piccadilly, where we asked the Mayoral candidates what they thought of the campaign.
Green candidate Jenny Jones said: "Betting is a mug's game and the bookie will always win and I totally support what you're saying."
Boris Johnson said: "We certainly should be making it easier for councils to block them (bookmakers) - they're not only spreading false hope, they're reducing the economic vitality of high streets. Bookmakers are a spiritual narcotic that breed false hope and it's a terrible thing to see." http://bit.ly/HXPOlS
Ken Livingstone said: "Local councils should determine the mix of shops on the high street. Betting shops are preying on the poorest and most vulnerable in the community."
Ken recently produced a report stating his intention to give local councils more power to limit the number of betting shops, which you can read here. PDF FORM http://bit.ly/I7pt2t
Brian Paddick said: "Proliferation of betting shops on our high streets are exploitation of the poor. The more you allow those shops to set up, the more they can take from the people who are least able to afford it. Betting shops employ very clever lawyers who can overcome any objection that the local council or police put forward to their application and we need a change in the law."
it was me i wanted a nifty on to knick a tenner, but me zero key got stuck and heyho 100K richer now
I'm sure the Gambling Commission will come down hard on the Hills shop and as their company policy dictates, Ms Leonard will no doubt be instantly sacked for allowing an underage child onto the premises.
I'm sure the Gambling Commission will come down hard on the Hills shop and as their company policy dictates, Ms Leonard will no doubt be instantly sacked for allowing an underage child onto the premises.
Beat me to it
Beat me to it
Any chance of any actual British Racing 'journalist' investigating this alleged 500k bet story in full?
Alun, they are all, in one way or another, relient on the bookmaking industry for their living - every last one of them...
hard to believe they'd take that bet - wouldn't take take 5 quid at 1/5 from me.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539