There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
06 Nov 12
22:51
Joined:
Date Joined:
08 Aug 07
I have been contacted by a journalist regarding the way in which bookmakers restrict or refuse to take bets from customers, primarily on horse racing.
I have explained at length to him that bookmakers are no longer willing to accept bets from anybody who shows signs of being anything other than a mug punter.
He understands arbing, and why bookmakers won't entertain them, but is interested in the experiences of genuine punters who now find, in some cases after many years of betting with them, that firms have closed or heavily restricted their accounts.
This may, at long last, be what many people have been waiting for - an exposure on the reality of the betting industry today which is that winning money from bookmakers is not allowed.
The Gambling Commission's objective states that betting should be conducted in a fair and open manner, something which he is looking to prove is not the case. If you are not allowed to win, how is that fair?
I have explained at length to him that bookmakers are no longer willing to accept bets from anybody who shows signs of being anything other than a mug punter.
He understands arbing, and why bookmakers won't entertain them, but is interested in the experiences of genuine punters who now find, in some cases after many years of betting with them, that firms have closed or heavily restricted their accounts.
This may, at long last, be what many people have been waiting for - an exposure on the reality of the betting industry today which is that winning money from bookmakers is not allowed.
The Gambling Commission's objective states that betting should be conducted in a fair and open manner, something which he is looking to prove is not the case. If you are not allowed to win, how is that fair?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 367
|
By:
well done mate, could be a long thread
|
|
By:
Certainly sounds interesting. ARE YOU LISTING WI**IAM HI**!!!!
|
|
By:
Steve Palmer........Bet Detective?
 |
|
By:
FOBT's are the reason for accounts being closed/restricted, that's all that's to it.
If he looks at any of the majors annual reports, he will see that their stated way ahead/financial goals are more shop openings along with staff reductions. Only opening more shops to reap more FOBT profits. No risk on their behalf in massive FOBT profits as opposed to traditional taking of bets with less admin staff needed all round including telephone staff and traders etc. Less staff needed to man what shop then becomes, a mini casino, one person only needed to man shop. Bookmaking licence required to operate shop, so have to be seen to be taking some bets, so mass restricting of accounts as opposed to mass closing of accounts preferred, same as reduction in amounts accepted in over the counter cash bets, in order to give the impression that they are still bookies. Ask him to place say, a bet of 300 in a selection of bookies early morning, then get a plane to Dublin and place the same bets in the same shops over here, where there are no FOBT's, he'll soon realise then that it's FOBT's that have stopped them taking bets in the UK. |
|
By:
WALOFS Gandalf.
|
|
By:
he Gambling Commission's objective states that betting should be conducted in a fair and open manner, something which he is looking to prove is not the case.
Oh dear betfair. |
|
By:
Why do you say that Feck, seeing that you got banned from here and have to use another username to sneak back onto Betfair because you can only bet here, not exactly a great sign that you can get on in your UK bookies, seeing how you were a regular knocker of Betfair in your Feck N Eejit days.
"WALOFS" is that really the best response you have Feck? |
|
By:
Gandalf,the OP might as well have said "The Racing Post is investigating why shoplifting is frowned upon and why Woolworths went skint".
The pick and mix aka pick and nick proved to be unprofitable imvho? |
|
By:
Hiya Moley, hope you're well. Agreed and like I said, it's all out there in their own reports just what a cash cow these machines are. Risk free profits, massive profits that a traditional bookies could never provide and that can be boosted by lower staff and administration costs.
|
|
By:
I'm well m8,just cannot believe all the stuff I read on here visa vi bookies shops.Most of the posters have never had a knock back in their lives,other than being a fiver short of the ten required for a handjob from some grizzled old hound behind the local Tesco.
If they can post on here than surely they can bet on here? Bookies are the ****s of the past ffs.  |
|
By:
****s.ffs
Whorses?  |
|
By:
i wanted to do a 150 pound treble on here. max bet 50!! was on nfl
|
|
By:
If u want to pass him my way I have more info than u care to go thru. I have been a mug punter for years then a winning punter, albeit for small amounts really considering how many accounts I used to have. Just lost my William hill account this week. Now have 1 out of 40 still in use.
All the others are either closed or heavily restricted. |
|
By:
Forgot to mention, never arbed a horse in my life. Don't play the casino either.
|
|
By:
I'm restricted by Billy H, and I'm not an arber, I'm a position taker.
It's not even that I'm all that good, it's just that they've been longest about the wrong ones. Still unrestricted by most of the majors though, which isn't exactly a badge of honour. |
|
By:
siralex - It sounds like you are exactly the kind of person he is looking to talk to.
Arbers who are merely placing bets to sell them on here are of no interest to him, he is talking about genuine horse racing punters who merely choose to place a bet with a bookmaker who then refuses to accept it. In particular he is interested in what I have already discussed with him about the PR men claiming to have laid monster bets on TV, clearly to long term losers, but then refusing bets of a fraction of the size on the same horse at the same price to others, who they choose not to do business with. Not arbers. |
|
By:
I bet nowadays between 0 and 100 per horse. Tried to get £29 at 11/2 with will hill yesterday, max of £5 allowed. Have now found out it is £5 max on any horse.
I lost for 15 years and quite heavily too. I have managed to get back some of what I lost but no chance of getting it all back when with the exception of 1 bookie I can't get more than £10 on anywhere. They must be in collaboration as some accounts have been shut when I haven't even used them!!! |
|
By:
siralex - That's precisely what he is interested in.
This won't be a poorly researched couple of paragraphs in a tabloid, I can assure you of that. |
|
By:
The sharing of information by bookies may be another avenue for him to go down......this is of course,illegal
|
|
By:
*the sharing of information on punters*
|
|
By:
Pm me if u need to get more info.
|
|
By:
good luck with this. There are plenty of examples out there.
|
|
By:
siralex - Will be in touch, thanks.
Has anyone recently experienced the situation whereby a certain large bookmaker attempts to get back your bet receipt after you have paid for the bet because it has been voided by BAC? Have heard of this happening but need specific information as it's another area I've told him about. |
|
By:
Gandalf's post does make a lot of sense, and taking it a step further, perhaps their ulterior motive is to try and shepherd punters away from racing and towards the fobts.
Those punters who have money in their pockets but are restricted, when they go to the bookie websites, all they see are the casino games being heavily plugged. |
|
By:
Have restricted accounts only come in since FOBTs have been in bookies then?
|
|
By:
Gandalf, I say WALOFS because I had to give up on bookies because of closed accounts / restrictions (probably went through 6 friends debit cards and effectively shut down by all mainstream bookmakers and spread firms on every card) long before FOBT's appeared. It has nothing to do with FOBT's.
PH-TR, I'd be willing to pass on my experiences to your journalist mate but I haven't used bookmakers for about 6 or 7 years. |
|
By:
I agree with Gandalfs post the fobts are risk free for them,does anyone know the percentage they
work to per spin.the accepted norm for roulette in a casino is 2.7% I have been told that they work of a RNG? |
|
By:
If you bet more than £50 you will end up monitored then restricted after time.
Any online/mobile bet of £100 or more triggers 'big brother'and the process is quicker. My advice is to move around High Street Shops and steer clear from mobile and online bets. You are wasting your time with this to be honest. As soon as the bookmakers took on betfair as a real competitor the battle was won, it forced betfair to become more of a bookmaker than an exchange. it then gave them the opportunity to use their expertise against betfairs naivity. Thus they price up events pm for next day, apply false gambles and arbers struggle to lay back with the peanuts in betfair. The bookmakers always win, time to get used to it I am afraid, but betfair are to blame for sure. |
|
By:
I was also closed down on my own accounts pre-betfair so the arb excuse wouldn't wash either.
|
|
By:
ManOntheSpot - I appreciate your scepticism about the chances of this investigation achieving anything, but would respectfully beg to differ.
The central issue here is that bookmakers lure in new customers with the promise of concessions, free bets, guaranteed prices, cashback concessions, etc. simply to cherry pick the mug punters from the rest and only do business with these customers in the long run. I don't think anyone can dispute that they have the right to run their businesses however they choose to, but, crucially, they are required to conduct their businesses in a fair and open manner. The fact is that, essentially, you are not allowed to win money from a bookmaker, or indeed exhibit any sign of having half a clue about what you are betting on. Bookmakers may well be within their rights to refuse any individual's business, but to give off the impression that you are allowed to show a profit on the bets you place with them, when that's patently not true, is a clear contradiction of the Gambling Commission's stated objective in my opinion. |
|
By:
The thing is bookmakers will still take a big bet IF you are profiled as a definite mug punter, so if you are a non price sensitive high staking punter you will get on for sure, I know one firm that take bets of 20-50k from a few punters, but they are betting the wrong side of the betfair price more often than not, so in effect the bookies do not want arbers but want punters that are giving them the position to arb out themselves.
Everyone who bets anything of note will be monitored and profiled and if you have any clue at all you will be restricted sooner rather than later. Finally you may not be arbing but because they have software that gives them the betfair prices, if you place a genuine bet that is then smashed off the board or a bet that is tight to betfair at the time, you are done for . the game is finished online, maybe going round shops and staying under the limits might work for a while. |
|
By:
and RNG run from one of THEIR computers.
where there is money etc |
|
By:
her is a simple truth that blows the "we only stop arbers" bollox out the water.
if you go to an online account with BOG and back a stream of winners that all win at a bigger sp what is the first thing that happens, BOG is withdrawn! No way the selections could have been arbed by the punter and the bookies could easily have arbed the bet themselves, as they do, so surely no problem there??? continue to win, even taking prices but sp bgger and the account still gets closed or severly restricted. so in summery the bookies just don't want anyone turning a profit, or even looking like they may just not loose quickly enough. |
|
By:
this could have legs in the wider sphere especially in the climate of libor fixing etc
|
|
By:
Closing of accounts did go on before fobts, but presumably only winning accounts. If the stories on here are to be believed, it's not just proven winners who are having their accounts closed.
|
|
By:
As I stated earlier, the guy looking into this is very serious about investigating it thoroughly. One of my main concerns when I have spoken to him was that it needs to be done properly, with clear evidence.
I think it's fair to say that whenever gambling is featured in the mainstream media, it is generally poorly researched and often factually inaccurate. The people responsible are invariably not punters themselves and therefore don't have the knowledge to ask the right questions. That's most certainly not the case here. |
|
By:
obviously Paul, the trouble with "clear evidence" is that I'm sure like me most people who had their accounts closed did not keep print outs of their account statements and of course cannot now access the closed accounts.
|
|
By:
northanlite - I understand that, but I would imagine there are a fair few people out there who do still have detailed accounts, and/or closure letters, and I'm hoping they might be willing to share them.
|
|
By:
PaulH... 1) I have one closure letter of some interest as it details the way in which the firm concerned monitored my activity and why they believed they could not beat me. But 2)Unfortunately for us, this is probably no use to the "cause" because it is at least "open" in its reasoning and we are probably agreed (reluctantly) that the firms are able to choose to do business, as they maintain, with who they like.
3)It is as bad in the shops, in person, in my experience. Anyone who wins soon runs out of road (or friends). |