Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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?
Show More
Anaglogs might beg to differ,more readers on here imvho.
you saying the Betfair forum has more readers than Guardian online? - that's a good one
More readers than them online + hardcopy and you can add the Racing Post in both spheres and still not get near the BF forum readership.
Not to mention you get more truth and fact per column inch on here and more exclusives.
Not to mention you get more truth and fact per column inch on here and more exclusives.
When I'm finished C&P it around all the forums GT it'll be touching a million 
Time to stop the betting shop casino machines spinning out of control
With bookmakers closing accounts of 'uneconomic punters' and focusing on fixed-odds gaming, racing must start fighting back
Greg Wood http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/nov/11/betting-shop-casino-machines
The Guardian, Sunday 11 November 2012
The people who own racehorses and the punters who bet on them might appear to be at opposite ends of the racing game, but the last week has offered a reminder of how similar the two can be in terms of their outlook and motivation.
On Thursday, the Horsemen's Group, which represents at least some owners, and the trainers, jockeys and stable staff they employ, managed to stave off bankruptcy, for now at least, and will be able to continue its campaign for better prize money, in particular at the middle and lower tiers of the sport where its most vocal members tend to operate.
At the other end of the sport, meanwhile, an increasingly significant issue for some punters – the closure of "uneconomic" betting accounts by bookmakers – has been charted by a long and unusually durable thread on Betfair's internet forum.
Some of its content is wildly overblown – "account restriction is discrimination", one contributor claims, "which if it were on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, would be unlawful" – but the anger is palpable. Smarter backers are finding it more difficult to get their bets on at all, never mind merely at advertised prices, and their frustration is growing.
What links these two apparently quite separate issues of racecourse prize funds and account restriction is that both are, essentially, about the price of fun. Racing is a leisure industry. It sells fun, and does so to two principal consumer groups: the owners, and the spectators (which includes both racegoers and off-course punters).
At one end of racing, a relatively small number of consumers pay a high price for their fun. At the other, a large number of consumers pay a lower price per individual, mainly via their losses on betting. There will be variations within each, of course, and there must be plenty of owners who, in terms of the money they pay as a percentage of their overall wealth, are putting in more than Sheikh Mohammed. And it is probably no coincidence that it is precisely these owners – who are rich, but not to the extent that there is no point trying to count it all – that tend to be most vocal in their support for the Horsemen's Group's tariffs for prize money.
But they are still, at heart, wealthy people complaining about the price of fun, while punters who claim to be restricted or closed down for winning too much are complaining that they can't have fun and get paid for it too. Fun is like any other product. Its consumers will always want it to be as cheap as possible, and if they can get it for free, so much the better.
No business can survive if its customers are in charge of pricing, however, which is why the self-interested demands of the Horsemen's Group will eventually need to be faced down. Where the punters are concerned, though, the situation is a little more complex.
Long-term winners have always faced a struggle to get their money on, though in the past, and before the rise of the internet and betting exchanges in particular, bookmakers were more prepared to accept "live" money from some of their clients as an indicator of the horses that should be kept onside. Most of the liability, after all, could be hedged quite easily.
Genuine winners, though, are a tiny fraction of the punting population, and necessarily so. What seems to have changed significantly over the last few years, though, is that betting firms have moved on from closing down punters who win too much, and are now regularly closing punters who do not lose enough too.
In part, this is because they can. Their customer base is increasingly online, and it is much easier to spot those clients who – with the help of odds-comparison sites – only bet at the top market price, and thus offer far less margin than punters of 20 years ago, who tended to stick to one bookie come what may. Automated systems are also likely to flag up these punters as possible "arbers", looking for a risk-free profit, and whether or not this is true, the first, and easiest, step is often to close them down anyway.
This is a concern, because these "uneconomic" punters, who may well be actual or future racegoers too, want to buy their fun from racing, but the bookmakers will not let them. Both online and on the high street, one-time bookmakers are moving out of betting and into pure, fixed-margin gambling, the most obvious sign of which is the roulette machines that now infest every British betting shop.
So far, racing has accepted the betting industry's claims that casino games are keeping shops open, and therefore maintain the flow of Levy money from racing punters too. In the long term, though, pure, fixed-margin gambling is racing's most serious competitor in the market.
If even losing punters are now being closed down as betting firms concentrate on gaming, it is time for racing to stop being so polite and start fighting back.
Don Foster, the MP for Bath, wants to reduce the maximum stake per spin on roulette machines from £100 to £2. Racing should lend him its full support
Time to stop the betting shop casino machines spinning out of control
With bookmakers closing accounts of 'uneconomic punters' and focusing on fixed-odds gaming, racing must start fighting back
Greg Wood http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/nov/11/betting-shop-casino-machines
The Guardian, Sunday 11 November 2012
The people who own racehorses and the punters who bet on them might appear to be at opposite ends of the racing game, but the last week has offered a reminder of how similar the two can be in terms of their outlook and motivation.
On Thursday, the Horsemen's Group, which represents at least some owners, and the trainers, jockeys and stable staff they employ, managed to stave off bankruptcy, for now at least, and will be able to continue its campaign for better prize money, in particular at the middle and lower tiers of the sport where its most vocal members tend to operate.
At the other end of the sport, meanwhile, an increasingly significant issue for some punters – the closure of "uneconomic" betting accounts by bookmakers – has been charted by a long and unusually durable thread on Betfair's internet forum.
Some of its content is wildly overblown – "account restriction is discrimination", one contributor claims, "which if it were on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, would be unlawful" – but the anger is palpable. Smarter backers are finding it more difficult to get their bets on at all, never mind merely at advertised prices, and their frustration is growing.
What links these two apparently quite separate issues of racecourse prize funds and account restriction is that both are, essentially, about the price of fun. Racing is a leisure industry. It sells fun, and does so to two principal consumer groups: the owners, and the spectators (which includes both racegoers and off-course punters).
At one end of racing, a relatively small number of consumers pay a high price for their fun. At the other, a large number of consumers pay a lower price per individual, mainly via their losses on betting. There will be variations within each, of course, and there must be plenty of owners who, in terms of the money they pay as a percentage of their overall wealth, are putting in more than Sheikh Mohammed. And it is probably no coincidence that it is precisely these owners – who are rich, but not to the extent that there is no point trying to count it all – that tend to be most vocal in their support for the Horsemen's Group's tariffs for prize money.
But they are still, at heart, wealthy people complaining about the price of fun, while punters who claim to be restricted or closed down for winning too much are complaining that they can't have fun and get paid for it too. Fun is like any other product. Its consumers will always want it to be as cheap as possible, and if they can get it for free, so much the better.
No business can survive if its customers are in charge of pricing, however, which is why the self-interested demands of the Horsemen's Group will eventually need to be faced down. Where the punters are concerned, though, the situation is a little more complex.
Long-term winners have always faced a struggle to get their money on, though in the past, and before the rise of the internet and betting exchanges in particular, bookmakers were more prepared to accept "live" money from some of their clients as an indicator of the horses that should be kept onside. Most of the liability, after all, could be hedged quite easily.
Genuine winners, though, are a tiny fraction of the punting population, and necessarily so. What seems to have changed significantly over the last few years, though, is that betting firms have moved on from closing down punters who win too much, and are now regularly closing punters who do not lose enough too.
In part, this is because they can. Their customer base is increasingly online, and it is much easier to spot those clients who – with the help of odds-comparison sites – only bet at the top market price, and thus offer far less margin than punters of 20 years ago, who tended to stick to one bookie come what may. Automated systems are also likely to flag up these punters as possible "arbers", looking for a risk-free profit, and whether or not this is true, the first, and easiest, step is often to close them down anyway.
This is a concern, because these "uneconomic" punters, who may well be actual or future racegoers too, want to buy their fun from racing, but the bookmakers will not let them. Both online and on the high street, one-time bookmakers are moving out of betting and into pure, fixed-margin gambling, the most obvious sign of which is the roulette machines that now infest every British betting shop.
So far, racing has accepted the betting industry's claims that casino games are keeping shops open, and therefore maintain the flow of Levy money from racing punters too. In the long term, though, pure, fixed-margin gambling is racing's most serious competitor in the market.
If even losing punters are now being closed down as betting firms concentrate on gaming, it is time for racing to stop being so polite and start fighting back.
Don Foster, the MP for Bath, wants to reduce the maximum stake per spin on roulette machines from £100 to £2. Racing should lend him its full support
OP - please drop me a line.
Have long thought a rigorous journalistic investigation of the disgraceful practices of the bookmaking industry is overdue, based on personal experience of account closures & restrictions.
Have long thought a rigorous journalistic investigation of the disgraceful practices of the bookmaking industry is overdue, based on personal experience of account closures & restrictions.
Good luck Paul. I applaud you for trying to raise awareness of the incredibly one sided relationships Bookmakers have with their clients. I have had a spate of recent restrictions placed on accounts with Bet 365 (closed), William Hill, Ladbrokes, Skybet, Corals and Blue Square and would hardly decribe myself as a judge. In all cases I have been a regular and, every other retail company, would describe a long serving loyal customer. I have strong suspicions that information about the non mug punter is being shared between bookmakers which as was noted in other trails is illegal. I'm sure some ex serving employees from trading rooms would know if my fears are justified. Don't give up Paul. There's an interesitng and revealing story in here for the media if apathy doesn't kill it!
Some of its content is wildly overblown – "account restriction is discrimination", one contributor claims, "which if it were on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, would be unlawful" – but the anger is palpable. Smarter backers are finding it more difficult to get their bets on at all, never mind merely at advertised prices, and their frustration is growing.
As the person who made this point I must say that I object to the point being desribed as "widely overblown." It seems aperfectly valid and rational point to make imo.
The bookmakers are using a technique called "profiling" and its use goes back a long way. Bookmakers have always tolerated "guessers" and even large players would be accommodated, still are I suppose, if they are deemed to know little. Betting against "whom" as opposed to solely "on prices" is a strategy, as is "going large" on big handicaps and betting to low risk on small field non-handicaps.
The B/M's are not being forced to take a bet which seems to be the main defence of the practice. They first offer up a price for a horse and the punter accepts or declines the offer. Occasionally the punter may ask for a price to a stake but in the main the B/M makes his offer first.
The price is a product just like any other product sold on the High Street. If any other retailer were to make a claim that he was selling X for price Y but when the shopper goes to make his purchase he finds that the retailer is only willing to sell a fraction of his stock at the offered price and the rest at a much less desirable price, the practice would soon be stamped on by the Trading Standards authority. Similarly, no-one would expect to stand in a queue and accept that the retailer will not sell to him (on grounds of "trading policy" only to see the person behind him be offered the deal he originally requested.
The acceptance by the public that B/M's are entitlement to pursue this practice is wrong, imo, and if enough voices were raised, enough letters to the press sent, then maybe, just maybe, this iniquitous practice could be put into the dustbin of history along with other restrictive practices.
As the person who made this point I must say that I object to the point being desribed as "widely overblown." It seems aperfectly valid and rational point to make imo.
The bookmakers are using a technique called "profiling" and its use goes back a long way. Bookmakers have always tolerated "guessers" and even large players would be accommodated, still are I suppose, if they are deemed to know little. Betting against "whom" as opposed to solely "on prices" is a strategy, as is "going large" on big handicaps and betting to low risk on small field non-handicaps.
The B/M's are not being forced to take a bet which seems to be the main defence of the practice. They first offer up a price for a horse and the punter accepts or declines the offer. Occasionally the punter may ask for a price to a stake but in the main the B/M makes his offer first.
The price is a product just like any other product sold on the High Street. If any other retailer were to make a claim that he was selling X for price Y but when the shopper goes to make his purchase he finds that the retailer is only willing to sell a fraction of his stock at the offered price and the rest at a much less desirable price, the practice would soon be stamped on by the Trading Standards authority. Similarly, no-one would expect to stand in a queue and accept that the retailer will not sell to him (on grounds of "trading policy" only to see the person behind him be offered the deal he originally requested.
The acceptance by the public that B/M's are entitlement to pursue this practice is wrong, imo, and if enough voices were raised, enough letters to the press sent, then maybe, just maybe, this iniquitous practice could be put into the dustbin of history along with other restrictive practices.
Hi Paul. I have sent you a couple of emails this morning about my experiences. Ladbrokes has recently closed my account after 20 years. It was a credit account so I was interested in the comments on here as I have ante-post bets outstanding.
I have closure letters dating back to 1983 but most closures have been in recent times. Sportingbet even closed me after a £20 IBAS victory (I won).
I have closure letters dating back to 1983 but most closures have been in recent times. Sportingbet even closed me after a £20 IBAS victory (I won).
Philip glass - I have replied to your email.
Sandown,the point you make is a valid one in my opinion. I think that those who disagree with your posting are probably those that have just come to accept that that's the way it works in this industry and you have to like it or lump it.
The time has come for that to be challenged.
Sandown,the point you make is a valid one in my opinion. I think that those who disagree with your posting are probably those that have just come to accept that that's the way it works in this industry and you have to like it or lump it.
The time has come for that to be challenged.
Paul,
I thought you'd "enjoy" my recent exchange with Blue Square! I guess the only chink of light was that they didn't restrict me for the bets I didn't place! Laughable. Read on..........
Peter
Dear Sir
I understand from speaking with a member of your CS team tonight that you have placed restrictions on my betting account, which I have held for nearly 12 years! Can you please confirm why you have made the decision to restrict the account at this time and the details of the restrictions?
Thank you for your e-mail.
The decision was made by our trading department and it was due to the bets you were placing.Should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thanks for choosing Blue Square.
Nick S
Customer Service Team
I thought you'd "enjoy" my recent exchange with Blue Square! I guess the only chink of light was that they didn't restrict me for the bets I didn't place! Laughable. Read on..........
Peter
Dear Sir
I understand from speaking with a member of your CS team tonight that you have placed restrictions on my betting account, which I have held for nearly 12 years! Can you please confirm why you have made the decision to restrict the account at this time and the details of the restrictions?
Thank you for your e-mail.
The decision was made by our trading department and it was due to the bets you were placing.Should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thanks for choosing Blue Square.
Nick S
Customer Service Team
Paul, i received an e-mail from blue sq who told me that would not be receiving any special offers, they were offering to customers and this was a trading decision and it was final,, considering i thought the account had been closed by them 4 years ago,i found this rather strange..
If the journalist gets his story right and gets good proof,which i'm sure he/she will, then this could slaughter the betting industry.
If the journalist gets his story right and gets good proof,which i'm sure he/she will, then this could slaughter the betting industry.
Paul i have had over a thousand ladbrokes accounts and can phsyically show the journalist on a day to day basis how they close accounts after very small amount of buisness. just because i am beating the price send me a message if u want my email/number
billybongo 12 Nov 12 18:13
Paul i have had over a thousand ladbrokes accounts
Paul i have had over a thousand ladbrokes accounts
TheVis
09 Nov 12 22:53
Joined:10 Feb 11 Topic/replies: 9,658 | Blogger: TheVis's blog
What annoys me the most about all this is if your selection is 5/1 and you can't bet on it, it is still 5/1 when you go to an unrestricted account and have a couple of hundred on. Why aren't the bookies laying the price to a set liability to whoever wants it and then cutting if they get filled in?
Pinnacle do this really well. You know what your limit is in advance (and often the limit is very high), you have your bet and if they see fit they change the odds. You can then go back in again at the revised price if you wish. It really is a scandal that the UK books can just keep the 5/1 there all day if they wish and only let the "right" customers take it.
Yep. That just about sums it up. Good post.
09 Nov 12 22:53
Joined:10 Feb 11 Topic/replies: 9,658 | Blogger: TheVis's blog
What annoys me the most about all this is if your selection is 5/1 and you can't bet on it, it is still 5/1 when you go to an unrestricted account and have a couple of hundred on. Why aren't the bookies laying the price to a set liability to whoever wants it and then cutting if they get filled in?
Pinnacle do this really well. You know what your limit is in advance (and often the limit is very high), you have your bet and if they see fit they change the odds. You can then go back in again at the revised price if you wish. It really is a scandal that the UK books can just keep the 5/1 there all day if they wish and only let the "right" customers take it.
Yep. That just about sums it up. Good post.
I used to have that scenario. Would bet on my old account under my name and get 10 on, then phone up in another persons named account and get the other £90 on no problem. 2 hours later it was still the same price.
Also I have noticed that coral won't even let me bet at sp once I have reached my max. How does that work????
Also I have noticed that coral won't even let me bet at sp once I have reached my max. How does that work????
Paul in regards to bets being void by bac after placing I had some dog bets that they tried to void after they had won. I have all the email correspondence with them denying they take bets at a well know bags track (bookmaker owned)
Haven't had the time to go through all the posts on this thread but I hope the article gets somewhere because laying limits are truely pathetic. Maybe opposing some licences would be a start, but here is my new all time low experience with Korals and some dog bets this morning.
WANTED:- £100 win Rei Doms Evra @ 10/3
and £50 double Judys Bloom @ 4/1 and Lemon Pluto @ 11/8
OFFERED:- NOTHING at those prices but I could have Rei Doms Evra @ 7/4 and the double @ 5/2 and 10/11 respectively.
What annoys me more than anything is that if I had been a punter who wanted fivers and tenners they'd have taken the bet without even ringing up, because I'm a medium punter and need P.T.L. I get NOTHING!!!!
The manager was really embarrassed but it's the traders who hide behind the telephones who get away with this. I will be ringing up Koral's customer services in a minute but will get the usual "can't discuss traders' decisions" answer.
WANTED:- £100 win Rei Doms Evra @ 10/3
and £50 double Judys Bloom @ 4/1 and Lemon Pluto @ 11/8
OFFERED:- NOTHING at those prices but I could have Rei Doms Evra @ 7/4 and the double @ 5/2 and 10/11 respectively.
What annoys me more than anything is that if I had been a punter who wanted fivers and tenners they'd have taken the bet without even ringing up, because I'm a medium punter and need P.T.L. I get NOTHING!!!!
The manager was really embarrassed but it's the traders who hide behind the telephones who get away with this. I will be ringing up Koral's customer services in a minute but will get the usual "can't discuss traders' decisions" answer.
laughingmike -
If you drop me an email at
betdisputeadvice@gmail.com
I would be interested in hearing more.
If you drop me an email at
betdisputeadvice@gmail.com
I would be interested in hearing more.
Paul, not much more to say and unfortunately don't keep records but I'm regularly having stakes reduced, but have never been offered NOTHING!!!!
Korals are BY FAR the worst of the big 3.
Wrote to Customer Services Manager last month when I had a £200 requested phone bet reduced to £12, sent it recorded delivery so I knew they got it and didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. I'll email you a copy of the letter I sent and let you know what Customer Services have to say re today but as I've said I don't actually keep records with regards to previous knockbacks.
Korals are BY FAR the worst of the big 3.
Wrote to Customer Services Manager last month when I had a £200 requested phone bet reduced to £12, sent it recorded delivery so I knew they got it and didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. I'll email you a copy of the letter I sent and let you know what Customer Services have to say re today but as I've said I don't actually keep records with regards to previous knockbacks.
New Ladbrokes account within 6 bets max bet allowed £0.00..
And its a loseing account so far off -£200, and no arbs before the arse clowns say so...
And its a loseing account so far off -£200, and no arbs before the arse clowns say so...
Sorry in fact am £279.15p, had 24 bets and now have a max bet allowed off £0.00
just had a live chat with them and will post that ,hope it may help
just had a live chat with them and will post that ,hope it may help
info: Thank you for using Ladbrokes Live Chat, a member of our Customer Services Team will be with you shortly.
If you require your username or password please click here to have it sent to you.
info: You are now chatting with Fern
Fern: Welcome to Ladbrokes Live Chat. How may I help you?
dean: can u please explain why the max bet i can get on any sports is £0.00p ?
Fern: Please let me know if you require further assistance
Fern: Apologies
Fern: For security purposes, please confirm your date of birth and postcode
dean: ******
dean: ******
Fern: Thank you
Fern: I'm sorry to learn of your frustration in placing bets. I can confirm that you are currently limited on the stakes you can place.
Fern: You can call our Telephone Betting service on 0800 777 888 where we will contact our liability department to try and accommodate your intended stake. Please note however that we can’t guarantee your bet will be accepted.
Fern: This is a well meaning attempt to provide a fair opportunity to all our customers by monitoring our liabilities and I can assure you that we do wish to attract customers to our service whether they win or lose.
Fern: Until we change this restriction you will need to call us to place a bet if you're unable to online. We periodically review all accounts and we may change your limit in the future but whilst I appreciate your obvious frustration, I’m unable to override it at this time
dean: lol
dean: so if i ring will u take a bet all not ?
dean: arnt u a bookmaker ?
Fern: If you call the bet could possibly be refered to our Trading Department again and they would make the decision from there.
dean: yes and we both know what they will say dont we
Fern: Is there anything else I can assist you with?
dean: yes
dean: am i still allowed to place bets on your casino and fruit machine games
Fern: Unfortunately we can not see that information from this side, I can transfer you through to the Casino Department if you wish
dean: no be fine am sure u wont ban me from there
Fern: Is there anything else I can assist you with?
dean: can you please tell me how much money am losing on this account
Fern: You have staked £1,141.00 and won £861.25
dean: so £279.75 losing...thanyou and can u please let me know how many bets ive place since with u ?
Fern: 24
dean: thankyou...really does make sence to let me bet a max off £0.00 dont you think ?
Fern: I can not comment on decisions made by our Trading Department I am afraid
dean: no surprise...ok no problems
dean: thanks for your help
Fern: You're welcome
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to deanmaps@fsmail.net at the end of your chat.
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to deanmaps@fsmail.net at the end of your chat.
dean: and why wont u let this transcript be sent to my email address ?
Fern: At the end of the chat, there is an option allowing for you to be sent the chat
dean: ok...so how do i do that
Fern: There will be an option and you follow the instructions.
dean: ok can we now please stop this chat as u have answer all my questions thankyou
Fern: Thank you for using Ladbrokes Live Chat, goodbye.
Fern: Have another question? Why not try using our online help for explanations on payment methods, bet types, sports rules and more!
Fern: Thank you for using Ladbrokes Live Chat, goodbye.
Fern: Have another question? Why not try using our online help for explanations on payment methods, bet types, sports rules and more!
If you require your username or password please click here to have it sent to you.
info: You are now chatting with Fern
Fern: Welcome to Ladbrokes Live Chat. How may I help you?
dean: can u please explain why the max bet i can get on any sports is £0.00p ?
Fern: Please let me know if you require further assistance
Fern: Apologies
Fern: For security purposes, please confirm your date of birth and postcode
dean: ******
dean: ******
Fern: Thank you
Fern: I'm sorry to learn of your frustration in placing bets. I can confirm that you are currently limited on the stakes you can place.
Fern: You can call our Telephone Betting service on 0800 777 888 where we will contact our liability department to try and accommodate your intended stake. Please note however that we can’t guarantee your bet will be accepted.
Fern: This is a well meaning attempt to provide a fair opportunity to all our customers by monitoring our liabilities and I can assure you that we do wish to attract customers to our service whether they win or lose.
Fern: Until we change this restriction you will need to call us to place a bet if you're unable to online. We periodically review all accounts and we may change your limit in the future but whilst I appreciate your obvious frustration, I’m unable to override it at this time
dean: lol
dean: so if i ring will u take a bet all not ?
dean: arnt u a bookmaker ?
Fern: If you call the bet could possibly be refered to our Trading Department again and they would make the decision from there.
dean: yes and we both know what they will say dont we
Fern: Is there anything else I can assist you with?
dean: yes
dean: am i still allowed to place bets on your casino and fruit machine games
Fern: Unfortunately we can not see that information from this side, I can transfer you through to the Casino Department if you wish
dean: no be fine am sure u wont ban me from there
Fern: Is there anything else I can assist you with?
dean: can you please tell me how much money am losing on this account
Fern: You have staked £1,141.00 and won £861.25
dean: so £279.75 losing...thanyou and can u please let me know how many bets ive place since with u ?
Fern: 24
dean: thankyou...really does make sence to let me bet a max off £0.00 dont you think ?
Fern: I can not comment on decisions made by our Trading Department I am afraid
dean: no surprise...ok no problems
dean: thanks for your help
Fern: You're welcome
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to deanmaps@fsmail.net at the end of your chat.
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to deanmaps@fsmail.net at the end of your chat.
dean: and why wont u let this transcript be sent to my email address ?
Fern: At the end of the chat, there is an option allowing for you to be sent the chat
dean: ok...so how do i do that
Fern: There will be an option and you follow the instructions.
dean: ok can we now please stop this chat as u have answer all my questions thankyou
Fern: Thank you for using Ladbrokes Live Chat, goodbye.
Fern: Have another question? Why not try using our online help for explanations on payment methods, bet types, sports rules and more!
Fern: Thank you for using Ladbrokes Live Chat, goodbye.
Fern: Have another question? Why not try using our online help for explanations on payment methods, bet types, sports rules and more!
Quite simply legislation needs to be brought in making it a condition of granting any licence to operate a bookmakers that any price quoted has to be fulfilled to a minimum of £500 take out AND no winning accounts to be shut. They are being allowed to get away with pure murder at the moment - its like going to Tescos because they advertise lots of decent prices, you go to the counter and buy the goods and get told no because you are a sensible shopper - whilst the mug next to you can have as many baked beans as they like cos they're way overpriced. I get accounts shut almost on a weekly basis - my only crime is having an oddschecker screen to take a competitive price - no arbing, not massive bets, just taking the prices that they are happy to quote. I swear you have to be a punting retard not to have accounts shut - if you bet sports you must consistently take under the prevailing trading price and ensure that you love losing a monkey a week on the slots. Its become a ridiculous industry with no toleration of winning accounts, mainly being operated by tax dodging cheats in alderney or gibraltar.
I have had an account with these for years, and all of a sudden I have been stopped placing anything more than a pound. Tried to place a fiver on a 10 virtual horse at Portman Park and go restricted, maybe think i'm best mates with one of the virtual jockeys?
THIS IS FROM ****
Welcome to **** live help. How can I help you?
Hi
Hi, how can I help?
Can you please find out why my bets are being restricted to a few pence? I have not backed any winners? Thanks
Having checked your recent attempts, it appears that the bets are being rejected by automatic risk controls that have been put in place by our trading department. This is not specific to your account but attributed to the market itself. Unfortunately we are not in a position to override any of these restrictions and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.
A couple of pound on a virtual? It doesnt make any sense?
The restrictions are a Trading decision and unfortunately we cannot override these.
I understand this but is there any point in having an acvount if you can only place pennies? They/you say they are automatic risk controls which I fully understand but all the bets are limited to a few pence, this has to be unique to me , if it was in place for everyone you would not have any turn over. I understand you are probably asked this question lots of times but something here is not making sense.
I understand your frustration however there is nothing I can do in relation to the restrictions you are meeting when placing your bets. These restrictions have been put in place by the Trading department who are responsible for the liability of the markets they offer.
Sonia £1 on a 10/1 is not a liability. I dont have a problem with anyone restricting bets, you are in it to make money, but I have not backed any winners, I would just like to know the reason the restriction have appeared all of a sudden?
These restrictions are not specific to your account but to the market or selection. As advised this is a Trading decision and cannot be overridden. I understand your frustration however this is all I can tell you at this time.
Ok I know there is nothing you can do but the answer you are coming up with honestly dont make sense, and is there any way you can relay that to the trader please. Does this mean that any football bets are also restricted, if they are there is no point in me wasting my time next time I want a football bet. Thanks.
Unfortunately I cannot advise which markets or selections have restrictions and which dont. I will certainly pass your feedback to the Traders in relation to this.
Ok by the way I am not some disgruntled punter I am a bookmakers with a shop and the whole this as I have said does not make sense, all I want is a resonable answer as to why its happening.
I understand your point and I do apologise that I am unable to give you any further information.
Ok cheers, it looks like the internet is going to put an awful lot of people out of a job, I have dealt on the phone with Boyles for years and years something somewhere is going very very wrong, good luck have a good night.
Goodbye, have a good evening!
THIS IS FROM ****
Welcome to **** live help. How can I help you?
Hi
Hi, how can I help?
Can you please find out why my bets are being restricted to a few pence? I have not backed any winners? Thanks
Having checked your recent attempts, it appears that the bets are being rejected by automatic risk controls that have been put in place by our trading department. This is not specific to your account but attributed to the market itself. Unfortunately we are not in a position to override any of these restrictions and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.
A couple of pound on a virtual? It doesnt make any sense?
The restrictions are a Trading decision and unfortunately we cannot override these.
I understand this but is there any point in having an acvount if you can only place pennies? They/you say they are automatic risk controls which I fully understand but all the bets are limited to a few pence, this has to be unique to me , if it was in place for everyone you would not have any turn over. I understand you are probably asked this question lots of times but something here is not making sense.
I understand your frustration however there is nothing I can do in relation to the restrictions you are meeting when placing your bets. These restrictions have been put in place by the Trading department who are responsible for the liability of the markets they offer.
Sonia £1 on a 10/1 is not a liability. I dont have a problem with anyone restricting bets, you are in it to make money, but I have not backed any winners, I would just like to know the reason the restriction have appeared all of a sudden?
These restrictions are not specific to your account but to the market or selection. As advised this is a Trading decision and cannot be overridden. I understand your frustration however this is all I can tell you at this time.
Ok I know there is nothing you can do but the answer you are coming up with honestly dont make sense, and is there any way you can relay that to the trader please. Does this mean that any football bets are also restricted, if they are there is no point in me wasting my time next time I want a football bet. Thanks.
Unfortunately I cannot advise which markets or selections have restrictions and which dont. I will certainly pass your feedback to the Traders in relation to this.
Ok by the way I am not some disgruntled punter I am a bookmakers with a shop and the whole this as I have said does not make sense, all I want is a resonable answer as to why its happening.
I understand your point and I do apologise that I am unable to give you any further information.
Ok cheers, it looks like the internet is going to put an awful lot of people out of a job, I have dealt on the phone with Boyles for years and years something somewhere is going very very wrong, good luck have a good night.
Goodbye, have a good evening!
Ososhot that basically sums up in layman's terms what the bookies are allowed to get away with.
Granting of licences should come with a legislative minimum lay so that bookies aren't just casino/FOBT providers.
Granting of licences should come with a legislative minimum lay so that bookies aren't just casino/FOBT providers.
I think basically a lot of these traders are getting paid a decent wage to do nothing.
If a bet is referred to them they just knock it back or reduce the stakes.
They dont want to be seen to make a mistake and lose their job so they just do nothing safe in the knowledge their company will turn a profit on FOBTs and online casinos.
When their companies didnt have the luxury of all this electronic crap these guys would have real decisions to make and manage risk.
If we can pressure the govt to get rid of these machines then they will have to take a bet on sports and racing again.
If a bet is referred to them they just knock it back or reduce the stakes.
They dont want to be seen to make a mistake and lose their job so they just do nothing safe in the knowledge their company will turn a profit on FOBTs and online casinos.
When their companies didnt have the luxury of all this electronic crap these guys would have real decisions to make and manage risk.
If we can pressure the govt to get rid of these machines then they will have to take a bet on sports and racing again.
I've been in an e-mail conversation with the Gambling Commission over the subject of bookmaker restrictions.I asked them to explain their position on this, given that they have the statement on their website, “to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly”.
After numerous e-mails, their position seems to be that it is "legal" for a bookmaker to refuse a bet (a contract according to them) to any customer as would any High Street business.
I told them that the question was not over legality, but over fairness, as is their duty. They don't really seem interested in fairness however.
Like other watchdogs, they seem toothless, and are there to protect the bookmakers, not their customers.
After numerous e-mails, their position seems to be that it is "legal" for a bookmaker to refuse a bet (a contract according to them) to any customer as would any High Street business.
I told them that the question was not over legality, but over fairness, as is their duty. They don't really seem interested in fairness however.
Like other watchdogs, they seem toothless, and are there to protect the bookmakers, not their customers.
WFT - I would be very interested to see that correspondence if you would be willing to share it. Could be extremely useful.
WFT - I would be very interested to see that correspondence if you would be willing to share it. Could be extremely useful.
Paul, I would be happy to share it. It's too big for posting here, but I can put it into a word document, and send it an an e-mail address of your choosing.
I've just had another e-mail from them stating.........
"That the bookmakers have the right to open and close accounts, thus deciding who they wish to bet with is, undoubted legal and I’m pleased to note that you accept that.
If you think that the law should be changed in this respect then can I suggest that you contact our sponsoring department, DCMS , or lobby your local MP as the Gambling Commission are not in a position to make changes to the law."
I've just had another e-mail from them stating.........
"That the bookmakers have the right to open and close accounts, thus deciding who they wish to bet with is, undoubted legal and I’m pleased to note that you accept that.
If you think that the law should be changed in this respect then can I suggest that you contact our sponsoring department, DCMS , or lobby your local MP as the Gambling Commission are not in a position to make changes to the law."
As millhouse mentioned earlier in the thread, the key issues is what they're allowed to get away with advertising.
A key theme in bookies advertising is how often they're 'top price on Premier League football' (for example). Except if you continue to take their top price, as the advertising is surely encouraging you to do, you get shut down.
A key theme in bookies advertising is how often they're 'top price on Premier League football' (for example). Except if you continue to take their top price, as the advertising is surely encouraging you to do, you get shut down.
"as the Gambling Commission are not in a position to make changes to the law"
The Gambling Commission are not in a position to do pretty much anything imv.
The Gambling Commission are not in a position to do pretty much anything imv.
Well Koral's customer services have got back to me after I rang to complain about not getting a bet this morning. They have said that any bet over £50 at Belle Vue is referred (Obviously a SKY SPORTS meeting makes no difference!!!) and that the prices at the time of the call were 5/2 and 10/11. If anyone in a Koral shop got the original Racing Post prices of 4/1 and 11/8 in a Koral shop this morning I would be interested to hear at what time and how much.
Is there a gap in market for a real bookmaker? If winning accounts are being shut down surely there is.
Are people being restricted mainly on early prices or for all bets?
Are people being restricted mainly on early prices or for all bets?
"Is there a gap in market for a real bookmaker?"
The answer, unfortunately, is no. There is a reason why all these major bookmakers close/restrict customers. If anyone attempted to buck the trend, all the "shrewd" customers would be betting with them, and their profit margin would be hit considerably. Despite what most of the population say, it is fairly easy to make a profit from betting, and bookmakers know this. This is why they all restrict, nobody wants to attract the shrewdies.
The answer, unfortunately, is no. There is a reason why all these major bookmakers close/restrict customers. If anyone attempted to buck the trend, all the "shrewd" customers would be betting with them, and their profit margin would be hit considerably. Despite what most of the population say, it is fairly easy to make a profit from betting, and bookmakers know this. This is why they all restrict, nobody wants to attract the shrewdies.
I met a couple of traders at a function a few weeks back and i have come to the conclusion that they are all Cowards who still live at home with there mums, w4ank a lot and give it the big'un by telling all and sundry that they're traders..Hoping people will think that they deal in millions, when all they do is 5hit themselves every time they have to make a decision involving 25 quid...TO55ers the lot of them.
The internet has made to many shrewd punters as we have clearly taught ourselves the things necessary to beat the bookies up. They are now more risk adverse than ever before and as the OP states if you demonstrate to a trader that you have the slightest b it of competence then your basically blacklisted and restricted in some way until they eventually refuse to take money from you in any amount for anything. I have been SP'd on horses in so many bookies and banned from Fred shops wherever they know me. How is that fair...I am just taking their prices. C U N T S
I'm going to send my black mate into shops, and see if they refuse or restrict him a bet that the other mugs in the shop can get on..Might use the Card that everyones scared of
Might use the Card that everyones scared of
Where do the banned , shrewd, punters go if their BM's accounts are closed? Here, of course, or on BD. So, instead of BF being seen originally as a major threat to them, BM's now know that they can offload their worst clustomers to their supposed enemy. And they in turn help BM's even further by providing them with the best tissue they have ever had. Laughing all the way to the bank.
Given that this is a peer to peer site, (albeit with many BM;s playing on here)no wonder that the site is difficult to win on.
Will any journasist, any MP, take up the cudgel on behalf of us? I doubt it although we must hope that someone will.
Given that this is a peer to peer site, (albeit with many BM;s playing on here)no wonder that the site is difficult to win on.
Will any journasist, any MP, take up the cudgel on behalf of us? I doubt it although we must hope that someone will.
betfair has ruined it for punters. it dictates a lot how the markets are traded and has created this supposed demon that is "the arb" which is a generic term for backing something that's too big rather than literally arbing the bet off. it's not right because your genuine punters (shrewd or not) get caught in the cross fire with all the bots and such like. i've been on both side of the fence and trading wise you are given a directive about how to trade from the top. obviously discretion needs to be used on each bet that comes but because of pressures both internally and from the people who are arbing/bots etc it becomes difficult to sift out the genuine from the not a lot of the time.
hugely frustrating not being able to get bets on, i am in that camp and am most definitely not an "arber" but it is unfortunately the way it is now it seems, unprofitable business would be controlled and eradicated in any company anywhere whether fair or not though, it just happens more with bookmakers due to the nature of what they are offering.
very interesting debate and intrigued to see how it pans out over time
hugely frustrating not being able to get bets on, i am in that camp and am most definitely not an "arber" but it is unfortunately the way it is now it seems, unprofitable business would be controlled and eradicated in any company anywhere whether fair or not though, it just happens more with bookmakers due to the nature of what they are offering.
very interesting debate and intrigued to see how it pans out over time
Sandown..........what cause m8?
A generation of key board warriors without a cause?
A generation of key board warriors without a cause?
Betfair is now the only place u can now get a bet..bookmakers if u can call them that ?,,nolonger take sporting bets..
Just want ****s to play there online games, all silly machines in shop
Just want ****s to play there online games, all silly machines in shop
When i worked on course in western Australia bookmakers were obliged to lay a bet to take out 1000 dollars if they had it on their board
We will LAY YOU to any money so stop whinging YSDCS?
FACT
FACT
to pilgrim pete thats not the case with betfair FIXED ODDS
cricket 1st test england 9-2 my max £2 FACT
cricket 1st test england 9-2 my max £2 FACT
WOW thats bad Duke, ive never tryed the fixed odds , always just use the exchange ..
Problem is not much moneys on it early doors, but only way to get a bet on...have been banned from all the bookmakers 8 times over, and yes got friends and familys to open accounts and used dif ips..
Problem is not much moneys on it early doors, but only way to get a bet on...have been banned from all the bookmakers 8 times over, and yes got friends and familys to open accounts and used dif ips..
theking486:- "Betfair has ruined it for punters". Utter rubbish.Betfair is the greatest thing since sliced bread.Back.Lay.Place only.Bet in running.Invariably better than industry prices.No restrictions.No account closures etc.etc.Fantastic.
Sorry, that was very poorly phrased! Has offered a brilliant array of choice of course, what I meant was betfair has bought on the problems listed on my previous post for punters rather than ruined punting generally 
"Is there a gap in market for a real bookmaker?"
Well, back to Pinnacle again. OK they don't cover all sports and certainly don't do the horses but for example the Thurs NFL game right now you can have over 6k on match odds - they are best priced on both teams, and 12.5k on the point spread. Wait to nearer KO and they will give you over 30k on the match odds and 12.5k on the point spread.
They tell you in advance how much they will give you at the price and they will lay that to you. How about this - if they take enough at a certain price they change their odds and/or the line and then you can go back in again. The nearer an event is to starting time the more you can have on.
This is how a proper bookmaker should work. It doesn't matter if I am Jimmy The Greek or Norman Noclue. I can still have a bet.
Well, back to Pinnacle again. OK they don't cover all sports and certainly don't do the horses but for example the Thurs NFL game right now you can have over 6k on match odds - they are best priced on both teams, and 12.5k on the point spread. Wait to nearer KO and they will give you over 30k on the match odds and 12.5k on the point spread.
They tell you in advance how much they will give you at the price and they will lay that to you. How about this - if they take enough at a certain price they change their odds and/or the line and then you can go back in again. The nearer an event is to starting time the more you can have on.
This is how a proper bookmaker should work. It doesn't matter if I am Jimmy The Greek or Norman Noclue. I can still have a bet.
One area being looked at is whether there should be a requirement for bookmakers to be more open and honest in their advertisements regarding the fact that they reserve the right to limit or refuse to take bets from you if you do not operate your account in a way which is to their liking.
No one lays early prices to anyone appart from to confirmed losers. You can see that from the 'free market' on Betfair. Also why would anyone lay board prices. If could be 4.1 for a few hundred with a £50 waiting at 4.0.... does that mean the bookies should lay it to lose thousands if the current track price is 4.0?? The markets are now too fast moving to expect to get a decent bet at board prices.
The answer is to have all the shops put all the money through a pool. Non price averse shop punters pay a commission to bookie to process the bet. Online customers pay less to bet directly into the pool with no middle man.
The answer is to have all the shops put all the money through a pool. Non price averse shop punters pay a commission to bookie to process the bet. Online customers pay less to bet directly into the pool with no middle man.
paul there is absolutely no way you could fit that kind of information in to an advert! would be a ten page essay detailing a host of complicated individual situations, it's not as black and white as yes you're a mug you can have a bet and no you win you can't, far more complex than that.
paul there is absolutely no way you could fit that kind of information in to an advert!
I'm pretty sure people made that argument against warnings on cigarette packets.
I'm pretty sure people made that argument against warnings on cigarette packets.
theking486
After each printed advert there would be a disclaimer..
"Winning punters not welcome and their accounts will effectively be closed"
The same could be stated in audio as in those finance ads..
Simple
After each printed advert there would be a disclaimer..
"Winning punters not welcome and their accounts will effectively be closed"
The same could be stated in audio as in those finance ads..
Simple
[i]the problem is that there is no ongoing contractual relationship between bookmaker and punter merely lots of individual stand alone contracts.
An account is simply a conduit to creating these stand alone contracts therefore your suggestion is not valid anymore than would be the case if a bookmaker insisted that you must continue to keep betting with him even if you were continually losing.
The simple truth is that a contract needs 2 willing parties.
from banned banks
if restrictions to a winning account is now a given , maybe any advert placed by a bookmaker should have in the small print the fact that
" if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted "
i asked banned banks whether he thought the above should be written into the bookmakers terms and conditions when signing up to an account , or/and it should be in the small print of any advert .
as he says , each individual bet is a contract which either party can refuse , but an account is a conduit to creating these stand alone contracts so " if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted " should be placed in the terms and conditions when a punter opens an account with any bookmaker
An account is simply a conduit to creating these stand alone contracts therefore your suggestion is not valid anymore than would be the case if a bookmaker insisted that you must continue to keep betting with him even if you were continually losing.
The simple truth is that a contract needs 2 willing parties.
from banned banks
if restrictions to a winning account is now a given , maybe any advert placed by a bookmaker should have in the small print the fact that
" if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted "
i asked banned banks whether he thought the above should be written into the bookmakers terms and conditions when signing up to an account , or/and it should be in the small print of any advert .
as he says , each individual bet is a contract which either party can refuse , but an account is a conduit to creating these stand alone contracts so " if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted " should be placed in the terms and conditions when a punter opens an account with any bookmaker
if you've heard of an internet book called bet way check these t&c out
15.3 No arbitrage
You are strictly prohibited from utilising Bet way and it systems to facilitate arbitrage through Currency Exchange transactions. Where Betway deems that you have deliberately used the systems for financial gain through arbitrage, any gains will be forfeited and deducted from your balance without warning or notification.
16.6 Irregular Play
Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming; equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular play include, but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of, 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to your account before the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should Betway deem that you have indulged in irregular game play, we reserve the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or to confiscate all of your winnings.
15.3 No arbitrage
You are strictly prohibited from utilising Bet way and it systems to facilitate arbitrage through Currency Exchange transactions. Where Betway deems that you have deliberately used the systems for financial gain through arbitrage, any gains will be forfeited and deducted from your balance without warning or notification.
16.6 Irregular Play
Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns. In the interests of fair gaming; equal, zero or low margin bets or hedge betting, shall all be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Other examples of irregular play include, but are not limited to, placing single bets equal to or in excess of, 30% or more of the value of the bonus credited to your account before the wagering requirements for that bonus have been met. Should Betway deem that you have indulged in irregular game play, we reserve the right to withhold any withdrawals and/or to confiscate all of your winnings.
theking486 • November 13, 2012 10:01 PM GMT
betfair has ruined it for punters. it dictates a lot how the markets are traded and has created this supposed demon that is "the arb" which is a generic term for backing something that's too big rather than literally arbing the bet off. it's not right because your genuine punters (shrewd or not) get caught in the cross fire with all the bots and such like. i've been on both side of the fence and trading wise you are given a directive about how to trade from the top. obviously discretion needs to be used on each bet that comes but because of pressures both internally and from the people who are arbing/bots etc it becomes difficult to sift out the genuine from the not a lot of the time.
hugely frustrating not being able to get bets on, i am in that camp and am most definitely not an "arber" but it is unfortunately the way it is now it seems, unprofitable business would be controlled and eradicated in any company anywhere whether fair or not though, it just happens more with bookmakers due to the nature of what they are offering.
very interesting debate and intrigued to see how it pans out over time
how the hell do the traders at pinnacle sbobet 188bet to name but 3 work then
i've never been restricted there, refused a bet there.they work on very small margins and are based in low tax countries and have gambling licences that cover the uk.but uk books have got up and left the uk and gone offshore to do the same thing as these books do, but restrict and close down uk punters. can someone explain to everyone, maybe a gambling commission employee preferably someone high up, or how about a member of parliament preferably someome involved in the gaming industry and finally lets have a word from mr done or mr chandler.come on lets have the truth what the hell are you doing.
betfair has ruined it for punters. it dictates a lot how the markets are traded and has created this supposed demon that is "the arb" which is a generic term for backing something that's too big rather than literally arbing the bet off. it's not right because your genuine punters (shrewd or not) get caught in the cross fire with all the bots and such like. i've been on both side of the fence and trading wise you are given a directive about how to trade from the top. obviously discretion needs to be used on each bet that comes but because of pressures both internally and from the people who are arbing/bots etc it becomes difficult to sift out the genuine from the not a lot of the time.
hugely frustrating not being able to get bets on, i am in that camp and am most definitely not an "arber" but it is unfortunately the way it is now it seems, unprofitable business would be controlled and eradicated in any company anywhere whether fair or not though, it just happens more with bookmakers due to the nature of what they are offering.
very interesting debate and intrigued to see how it pans out over time
how the hell do the traders at pinnacle sbobet 188bet to name but 3 work then
i've never been restricted there, refused a bet there.they work on very small margins and are based in low tax countries and have gambling licences that cover the uk.but uk books have got up and left the uk and gone offshore to do the same thing as these books do, but restrict and close down uk punters. can someone explain to everyone, maybe a gambling commission employee preferably someone high up, or how about a member of parliament preferably someome involved in the gaming industry and finally lets have a word from mr done or mr chandler.come on lets have the truth what the hell are you doing.
Have read through most of this thread and some good points raised. I've recently just had another a/c closed (well, heavily restricted) as the a/c was no longer 'economically viable' for them. It was not a particularly winning a/c and they had always previously accomodated my size of wager (I guess because of the variety of sports I would play and the nature and volume placed). You would think I would be the ideal customer for them. Short term high risk, but one which would ultimately lose most winnings back to them (unfortunately). Just prior to closure, I'd recently started playing some large early priced yankees (generally couple of hundred k exposue). Never hit all 4, but I guess the potential exposure and the fact that the SP was consistently being considerably beaten flagged the account and they pulled it.
I've no real gripe with the principal of them declining such bets here. As a bookmaker you are forced to offer a market on almost everything. As a punter you can pick and choose what markets you want to play - a massive advantage. However, as other users have mentioned, there seems little or no effort to play the market here at all and they just turn down trade from the trader instead. If you've taken a volume of money then lower your price and balance your book! It is quite simple, but the problem is that the systems in place are so automated now days that the average compiler or trader at such a firm isn't equipped with the skills to be able to do this. Instead they have a machine that tells them they've an exposure and they will just decline / restrict their way to anonymity. That then creates a scenaio where there's no benefit for firms to employ a more skilled trader / compiler and the role gets reduced to one that can be completed by monkeys - and they therefore in turn employ monkeys to fulfil the role.
As I say, I think they're entitled to turn down wagers, but they should really be looking to adjust their book and re-open in the first instance. It is massively frustrating as a punter - and ultimately flawed as a model - to be turned down for a wager that someone else would get accepted. However to take that further and fully restrict someone - not be allowed to trade at SP for instance - is beyond ridiculous and counter productive to any operators model.
If you're not prepared to lay a market, then dont offer it. In my scenario mentioned above, stop offering early prices the day before if you don't want to lay them. Or next best, cut the stakes you'll take. Don't just close the a/c of anyone who tries to utilise a function that you are publically advertising. There can be no benefit for them other than a cheep advertisment thrill for them to say 'we offer early prices the day before'. That is effectively false advertising and as other have users have mentioned previously, if they continue to operate in this manner then they will get stung. Of course they have the right to refuse to take an individual wager, but if that decision is taken on anything other than traditional 'money effecting price' reasons then the fact such decisions are possible needs to be more clearly disclosed in their dealings.
One final gripe too, having read some of the chat transcipts posted and been massively frustrated with what I have experienced in this respect. The current model of cusotmer service reps not being able to discuss or justify any of their firms decisions, yet the traders not being capable / willing / allowed to discuss with customers just creates scenarios of confusion and ultimately massive customer dissatisfaction. The process has become so functionalised that there is not one person who really has ownership anymore, allowing the buck to constantly be passed and any chance of meaningful or timely resolution lost in the abyss.
There does seem there is a gap in the market for a firm who plays this game by the numbers. You essentially have firms who would not lay you £50k at 4/6 the pair on a coin toss any more because a computer says both bets are above an exposure limit... Stupidity is prevailing and when almost all customers are unhappy, it will likely not take much for someone to steal the market to a degree here...
I do have a question for any spread punters out there. Are such issues occurring there too? Their model perhaps seems more geared up to react to volume of money via a line change rather than just declining the wager so I was just wondering if anyone has any experiences - positive or negative - with any of the leading spread firms?
I've no real gripe with the principal of them declining such bets here. As a bookmaker you are forced to offer a market on almost everything. As a punter you can pick and choose what markets you want to play - a massive advantage. However, as other users have mentioned, there seems little or no effort to play the market here at all and they just turn down trade from the trader instead. If you've taken a volume of money then lower your price and balance your book! It is quite simple, but the problem is that the systems in place are so automated now days that the average compiler or trader at such a firm isn't equipped with the skills to be able to do this. Instead they have a machine that tells them they've an exposure and they will just decline / restrict their way to anonymity. That then creates a scenaio where there's no benefit for firms to employ a more skilled trader / compiler and the role gets reduced to one that can be completed by monkeys - and they therefore in turn employ monkeys to fulfil the role.
As I say, I think they're entitled to turn down wagers, but they should really be looking to adjust their book and re-open in the first instance. It is massively frustrating as a punter - and ultimately flawed as a model - to be turned down for a wager that someone else would get accepted. However to take that further and fully restrict someone - not be allowed to trade at SP for instance - is beyond ridiculous and counter productive to any operators model.
If you're not prepared to lay a market, then dont offer it. In my scenario mentioned above, stop offering early prices the day before if you don't want to lay them. Or next best, cut the stakes you'll take. Don't just close the a/c of anyone who tries to utilise a function that you are publically advertising. There can be no benefit for them other than a cheep advertisment thrill for them to say 'we offer early prices the day before'. That is effectively false advertising and as other have users have mentioned previously, if they continue to operate in this manner then they will get stung. Of course they have the right to refuse to take an individual wager, but if that decision is taken on anything other than traditional 'money effecting price' reasons then the fact such decisions are possible needs to be more clearly disclosed in their dealings.
One final gripe too, having read some of the chat transcipts posted and been massively frustrated with what I have experienced in this respect. The current model of cusotmer service reps not being able to discuss or justify any of their firms decisions, yet the traders not being capable / willing / allowed to discuss with customers just creates scenarios of confusion and ultimately massive customer dissatisfaction. The process has become so functionalised that there is not one person who really has ownership anymore, allowing the buck to constantly be passed and any chance of meaningful or timely resolution lost in the abyss.
There does seem there is a gap in the market for a firm who plays this game by the numbers. You essentially have firms who would not lay you £50k at 4/6 the pair on a coin toss any more because a computer says both bets are above an exposure limit... Stupidity is prevailing and when almost all customers are unhappy, it will likely not take much for someone to steal the market to a degree here...
I do have a question for any spread punters out there. Are such issues occurring there too? Their model perhaps seems more geared up to react to volume of money via a line change rather than just declining the wager so I was just wondering if anyone has any experiences - positive or negative - with any of the leading spread firms?
Betfair in my opinion is as said in someone elses statement the best thing since sliced bread,its great.Bookmakers deserve nothing,they fill their shops with roulette machines,cartoon racing and numbers games,and make lots more money than they do on live racing.The beauty of roulette machines is they would let you empty your bank account in a day without picking up the phone to ask head office if for instance you wanted to put £2,000 lnto it ,no questions just put your credit card in here and away you go,and again.and again until it says sorry sir/madam your cards saying not enough funds left . I seen a guy lose £26,000 in a day on the roulette machine and in the same shop i saw a man get refused £200 on a 4/9 fav.That just lets me know that i do honestly DETEST bookmakers meaning betting shops.
maineroad, I had exactly the same discussion with **** when they first started restricting my bets. They told me it was a trading decision taken on the race and NOT on my account in particular.
Even when it started happening on every race I wanted to bet in I was fed the same tosh.
It seems they are unwilling to admit that any individual punters are being monitored / restricted / effectively having their accounts closed.
Even when it started happening on every race I wanted to bet in I was fed the same tosh.
It seems they are unwilling to admit that any individual punters are being monitored / restricted / effectively having their accounts closed.
Has anything come out of all this ? I haven't seen any big expose i.e. headlines in a major newspaper, or a Panorama program with Paul Kenyon being kicked in the goolies by Victor Chandler,or perhaps Watchdog with Ann Robinson doing the same to baldy Fred ?
Good question Artie, the answer to this goes all the way back to the romans im afraid
as when it comes down to governments having organized and reliable monetary collections
via tax incomes its always been a case of in respect of fair business practices and the effect
of certain business on the social fabric and local economies there policy is as follows.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
as when it comes down to governments having organized and reliable monetary collections
via tax incomes its always been a case of in respect of fair business practices and the effect
of certain business on the social fabric and local economies there policy is as follows.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
The best and only way to protest is to always use your favorite betting
company Betfair, long live the king
company Betfair, long live the king
Is there any firms out there that haven't restricted or closed accounts? I found Sky Bet, Boyles, and Sporting to be especially quick in closing of accounts.
Nobet £3.65 are the cause...
From an early stage (I was the first to be closed down !!) they treated any successful punters with contempt.The rancid Stoke firm then allegedly grew massive turnover and the rest followed suit.
Personally I do not think that anyone gets a bet on with them and maybe they are involved with something altogether more profitable than gambling.Those minimum wage earners in the Potteries must be given something to do as they are not taking bets !!
From an early stage (I was the first to be closed down !!) they treated any successful punters with contempt.The rancid Stoke firm then allegedly grew massive turnover and the rest followed suit.
Personally I do not think that anyone gets a bet on with them and maybe they are involved with something altogether more profitable than gambling.Those minimum wage earners in the Potteries must be given something to do as they are not taking bets !!
Good thread. I have been heavily restricted or barred in most shops in SE London so not a lot surprises me with the big firms. However last week was very surprised when placing a small bet at Jebel Ali and requested the show price of 3/1 to be told that I could only have sp. The local area manager had imposed a restriction on all international racing of SP only and to a maximum of £25. On querying this with the Jokers customer care, my initial query was met with "Jebel Ali - what's that? never heard of that". So I requested a supervisor, had to give a name and number for a call back. 2 calls and 6 hours later it was confirmed that the local area manager had indeed imposed this restriction on all shops in his area. I suggested that the Joes should really apply for a casino licence for their machines as they were certainly not bookmakers, and that maybe that should be tested before the licensing magistrates. My comments were to be passed on! Their name says it all - a joke
FOYSDC...........most of the punters are called Jebel Ali.hth
2004 called. It wants its thread back.
Paul Haigh, strewth. You sound so far behind the curve it hurts.
Millhouse, you're smarter than the stuff you've posted on this thread.
Amazed to see so many pompous posts about how bookmakers are operating against some kind of image they've misled people to believe. Did you really believe cigarettes turn you into Marlboro man? That Smirnoff makes you sexually attractive? That Lynx £1 a can deodorant turns you into Brad Pitt,...? Ffs.
The bookmakers model relies in winning off the punters who place bets against it. In the long term, it will only stay in business if it takes lots of mug losing money, and minimises shrewd winning money. Such is life. The exchanges should have been the answer, but for many self-inflicted reasons, they aren't.
Rant over. I'm off to do an expose on the Pope defecating in the woods.
Paul Haigh, strewth. You sound so far behind the curve it hurts.
Millhouse, you're smarter than the stuff you've posted on this thread.
Amazed to see so many pompous posts about how bookmakers are operating against some kind of image they've misled people to believe. Did you really believe cigarettes turn you into Marlboro man? That Smirnoff makes you sexually attractive? That Lynx £1 a can deodorant turns you into Brad Pitt,...? Ffs.
The bookmakers model relies in winning off the punters who place bets against it. In the long term, it will only stay in business if it takes lots of mug losing money, and minimises shrewd winning money. Such is life. The exchanges should have been the answer, but for many self-inflicted reasons, they aren't.
Rant over. I'm off to do an expose on the Pope defecating in the woods.
ballabrigs - I would suggest that the vast majority of the General Public are unaware that ALL winning punters are banned online and would be in the shops too if their identities could be checked.
This would suggest to me that there is ample scope for an investigation and expose...
We all know what the alleged "Bookmakers" model is and at present it seems to be killing off horse racing in the shops, and replacing it with other varieties of gambling product that have an in built house edge.To me this is Casino gambling and the High Street "Bookmakers" are treading on very thin ice because there may come a time when it will have to be licensed as such.....
This would suggest to me that there is ample scope for an investigation and expose...
We all know what the alleged "Bookmakers" model is and at present it seems to be killing off horse racing in the shops, and replacing it with other varieties of gambling product that have an in built house edge.To me this is Casino gambling and the High Street "Bookmakers" are treading on very thin ice because there may come a time when it will have to be licensed as such.....
Well this is a great topic.
One thing for sure is no-one lets you keep winning of them.
The spread firms when there were 5 trading stopped me before betfair was even thought about.
Traditional bookmakers,well its been a fair while since they laid a proper bet,now they just want mugs,wheather its horses dogs cartoons or the great machines.Any one with any clue about what there doing is restricted to ridiculas stakes or barred.I have beat the shops for more years than i can remember,still do but can not go into shops myself,just like plenty more on here.
Now after aprox 10 years BETFAIR is going the same route.
The pc tax is a disgrace and as wee all can see is efecting all the markets.
BETFAIRS turnover must be well down since the tax came in.
One thing for sure is no-one lets you keep winning of them.
The spread firms when there were 5 trading stopped me before betfair was even thought about.
Traditional bookmakers,well its been a fair while since they laid a proper bet,now they just want mugs,wheather its horses dogs cartoons or the great machines.Any one with any clue about what there doing is restricted to ridiculas stakes or barred.I have beat the shops for more years than i can remember,still do but can not go into shops myself,just like plenty more on here.
Now after aprox 10 years BETFAIR is going the same route.
The pc tax is a disgrace and as wee all can see is efecting all the markets.
BETFAIRS turnover must be well down since the tax came in.
Still no reply from P.Haigh.What's happening with the journalist's investigation ?
More to the point what has happened to artie...
Has he lost all sense of communication or is he really Stephen Hawking....
Has he lost all sense of communication or is he really Stephen Hawking....
CONER you are correct.There is no liquidity on here as regards the horses in the morning and so it is not worth having a bet on here and the "Bookmakers" are taking the rise with their false gambles....
i have lost hundreds of thousands over many years.yet ad a run in which i won about 6,000 off victor chandler. my account was closed for all time.
there shud be a tote monopoly nation wjde like in australia,hong kong etc.
You lucky person all along..
try my new website anymugsbannedbetwithme.com and you will be allowed a bet.....
try my new website anymugsbannedbetwithme.com and you will be allowed a bet.....
i once asked boyles for 500 antepost on a horse they quoted at 16 to 1. they refused it but shortly afterwards when i checked their site they had him up at 12 /1. 2 points below every one else.
betfair has deleted re company who denied te antepost bet.I challenge them and will produce evidence which shows witout any doubt te company concerned.
All Along............trot along you sad numpty.........Tote Monopoly in Australia?
I hope you dont play snap for real money........without a TAB.
I hope you dont play snap for real money........without a TAB.
bookies are legal but nearly all betting is via tote.the tote operates throughout the whole of australia forming massive pools.
gt mole should learn his facts otherwise crawl back into his hole.
Really Manxy and All along?
Where are you pair on on the Racing Post threads?
W&nkers.
Where are you pair on on the Racing Post threads?
W&nkers.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539