Got my pumps from asda £8 bloody quid they where
If carlsberg done sundays then this is a great start

As it is Sunday I thank the Lord that one no longer has to visit betting shops and encounter this sort of ill-educated person.

Corb so remind me of any fact or argument relative to your bosses loser only policy that counters any argument i have made.Also remind me of any of any proof(non bookmaker)of the so called facts you are fed by your propaganda department.

I think any neutral person would see clearly,that it is the truth that on account or internet(and rapidly spreading to the shops)bookmakers will only take bets from punters who lose and lose regularly.As a valid extension to the original argument,bookmakers have adopted this  policy because of the guaranteed income from their government licensed crack cocaine FOBTs.

This time try to keep to the argument,if you keep spinning off to non relevant(and non proven)arguments about internet users demographics or BF opening a sports book.You will continue to show that you are incapable of keeping up with the argument and yet again make a complete muppet of yourself.

REMEMBER CORB KEEP TO THE ARGUMENT............

Strawberry a restriction to £1-50 when a punter asks for £50 is not a restriction but a refusal to bet with this punter.Reasonable restrictions are understandable but only taking money from punters and giving them no chance to get it back is not.

toronto44 29 Apr 12 12:12 
Strawberry a restriction to £1-50 when a punter asks for £50 is not a restriction but a refusal to bet with this punter.Reasonable restrictions are understandable but only taking money from punters and giving them no chance to get it back is not.


this highlights how naive and your (very) basic lack of understanding....do you think that the other end of the phone is just dreaming up said amount to annoy the punter? you ve no concept of the practicality of restrictions with a company that has a huge customer base.

Your stuck in the 70s with that tired old school mug punter mentality.

No arguments again then Corb!!!!

If you are fed with anything that is relevant to the arguments i look forward to showing them to be the usual bookmaker spin.

Again my happiness or whether i am blinkered in my arguments is irrelevant.Again Corb try to follow the relevant argument,any fool can just keep spouting random fed propaganda.

even just picking holes in what you post says something deeply disturbing about your character....

Corb you are spinning all over the place again.Try to keep focused....if you want to start another thread about internet gambling or BF proposed sportsbook,then if i have time i will answer your bosses arguments on those.

In answer to the one relevant point you do make.I or other people have never suggested that they pick pointless tiny restrictions randomly to annoy punters.They do it to drive away any punter who does not bet in a way to lose and lose on a regular basis.The practicality for a bookmaking company is to only take money in but to refuse to give it out.

Far from being stuck in the 70s i am talking about what is happening right now.To you as a bookmaker then,is a shrewd punter one who understands that he must keep feeding you his money and a mug one who tries to look for value.Strange inbred nasty little world your bookmaker world is corb.

Oar as hoody sayed . . . WE LAY THE EVENT NOT THE PERSON . . . GET READY

AISLE GET MY ABACUS

Yes it is pointless corb,you have not made one relevant argument that i have not answered and disproved concerning bookmakers loser only policy because your masters have no defence for it.

In all your other fed propaganda,you have failed to show any non bookmaker proof for and is just a smokescreen to try to disguise fact and avoid the argument that bookmakers now only bet with proven losers on account or internet.

From countless posts on here bookmakers have no concern for the event or keeping a rounded book when refusing(£1-50 is refusing)bets.I have never said an emplyee refuses a bet just for the sake of it.They do it under orders, to filter their client base to a loser only one.Again i have had to repeat a basic argument because you failed to understand my previous answers.

So i have answered and disproved every every point relevant on the relevant subject.I refuse to be side tracked by the rest of your pointless bookmaker PR.As before if you want to start another thread about any of these issues which are not relevant to this postif i have time i will once again show you for the bookmakers mouthpiece you are,

A friend of mine was restricted with ladcrooks to a tenner on horses, yesterday he wanted £24 on a footie team @ 5/6
They offered him a tenner
He laughed down the phone, the operative replied " does that mean no bet sir "

From countless posts on here bookmakers have no concern for the event or keeping a rounded book when refusing(£1-50 is refusing)bets.I have never said an emplyee refuses a bet just for the sake of it.They do it under orders, to filter their client base to a loser only one.Again i have had to repeat a basic argument because you failed to understand my previous answers.

garbage. as is the rest of your post.

Your neglecting reality now.

From countless posts on here bookmakers have no concern for the event or keeping a rounded book when refusing(£1-50 is refusing)bets.I have never said an emplyee refuses a bet just for the sake of it.They do it under orders, to filter their client base to a loser only one.Again i have had to repeat a basic argument because you failed to understand my previous answers.


you still dont get it, despite being told.... set limits, set markets. its simple to understand. this is basic stuff and your really only presenting a basic, one eyed view of it as always.

Work to do now corb...be back later,maybe by then you will have made a relevant argument

STOOGE NO 3 STRAWBERRY....arguments not insults please

This morning . . . . . . 10am went to collect £367.50 from hills . . . "Cant pay you until we open the safe at 11am" . . . Ok no probs il have it on spurs at 4/9 . . . ptled it . . . you can have £45 fooking quid at 4/9 on a premiership match.

HILLS CANT PAY WONT LAY

and hes off.....

big grime left to hold the fort telling us war stories of his epic battles with the high street bookmaking fraternity.

Keep smashing em up big grime.

To be fair if the anti bookmaking lobby is going to rely on the likes of toronto to lead the way then I think they can pretty much do what they like with impunity.

I read a quote once (unattributed) which went something along the lines of "the most violent element in society is ignorance". I suspect they may have had the likes of toronto in mind when penning this.

I've read most of this thread - I've read most  of it several times before because the same arguments are regurgitated on different threads with other bookmakers in the frame on a weekly/daily basis.

I don't get it to be honest - bookmaking is a business - asking them to accomodate customers who win persistently in the long term is like asking Tesco to confiscate the sweets,crisps,biscuits and cakes from the 20 stone lard @rses when they wobble up to the check out.

There are loads of betting options: Tote, Spreads, exchanges so mix it up - try and hit the bookies hard when you think you've found one, go into the shops with cash, bet on course win only.

Why would anybody with a scintilla of common sense put money in an FOBT owned and run by a High Street bookmaker? Our rivals as punters are each other as much as the bookies.

It's about being grown up and accepting responsibility - why moan on here about something you probably can't influence? Try and work around any restrictions.

ReaseHeath your comment that "our rivals are each other as much as the bookies" is absolutely spot on however the less enlightened ones on here appear to not understand that concept.

As a punter I need to beat other punters not the bookmakers. The bookmakers are merely the conduit I use to achieve this.