There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 117 comments are related to the topic:
Less the 30 FOBT's BUT Berwick’s FOBT's rake in £30m
Less the 30 FOBT's BUT Berwick’s FOBT's rake in £30m
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 117
|
By:
Does Clive want the professional FOBTplayer do have his stakes limited??
|
|
By:
15. Termination of Account
15.1. We reserve the right to close your account at any time. Is this the sort of thing you have in mind Rcing? Fairly clear I think, if you don't agree don't open the account. "Your parasitic bosses might object to this level of PR" Perhaps they wouldn't have their staff using photos of themselves then? Thanks though for confirming my lunatic fringe observation so quickly and completely for the benefit of Ranadar! |
|
By:
*to have
|
|
By:
Betting transactions are individual legal entities. There is no need to tell people how previous transactions may affect the acceptance of future contracts.
There is no contractual link that requires either side to accept a bet and nor should there be unless you are also happy for your bookmaker to ring you up and demand that you have a bet on a race that you don't want to bet on. |
|
By:
all the rules and regulations of each bookmaker are there in there t&c to protect the bookmaker and the customer , also so that if any discrepancies of bets placed appear it is easy to point to the t&c .
so why should the customer not be warned or made known of the fact that " if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted or closed " in your opinion banks ? |
|
By:
The termination of account stuff is not quite explicit as to why though is it Clive? Do you think the likes of bad blokes would invoke the clause in respect of a proven long term loser
|
|
By:
Perhaps they wouldn't have their staff using photos of themselves then? Thanks though for confirming my lunatic fringe observation so quickly and completely for the benefit of Ranadar!
So, you used a photo of Mr Williams just on incite us "lunatic fringe", then ? Ok, I believe you David, sorry Clive. I notice Mr Williams hasn't tweeted much lately. Perhaps his bosses have curtailed that little enterprise ? What do you think, David, sorry Clive ? |
|
By:
What about offer and acceptance banks? Baddies or Hillies offer me a price via their website or advert and then wont lay it...... Yet at the same time their PR man is spouting nonsense about how they've laid the self same price to lose ten squill ion......
|
|
By:
Do you think the likes of bad blokes would invoke the clause in respect of a proven long term loser
Is that a serious question? |
|
By:
My apologies, I assumed we all understood bookmakers exist to make profit.
If people can't accept that a bookmaker can decide who they transact with and on what terms then they should try and find a bookmaker who doesn't have the power to close accounts within their T&Cs. Anyone who signs up to an account with such a clause should not then complain when the bookmaker chooses to use a clause that they have openly shared with you. |
|
By:
clive , give us a few examples of why accounts would be closed .
|
|
By:
clive & banks, why don't you just be honest and state what everyone thinks anyway.
that you really don't care about who loses what on these machines. that no matter how much they lose you think it is entirely their own fault. that the bookmakers should be entitled to maximise their profits any way they see fit. all the rest of your nonsense it is just spin. |
|
By:
I've no reason to spin anything.
|
|
By:
There is such a thing as the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Merely by signing a contract does not prevent a party seeking via legal action to overturn a part or all of the contract if it can be held to be unfair. In judging what is unfair the relative strengths of the parties involved will be a consideration.
Might be interesting to see outcome has challenge has especially if the likes of Clive can produce no other scenarios than winning where the clause is invoked..... |
|
By:
My apologies, I assumed we all understood bookmakers exist to make profit.
Don't bookmakers assume that punters would like to make a profit also ? It would seem you exist to make a profit at whatever cost. If the feckless suffer, why should you care, eh Clive ? If people can't accept that a bookmaker can decide who they transact with and on what terms then they should try and find a bookmaker who doesn't have the power to close accounts within their T&Cs. Unfortunately, there are no bookmakers who behave accordingly as well you know. The cartel, that is now British bookmaking, ensures that the same rules are spread evenly. Anyone who signs up to an account with such a clause should not then complain when the bookmaker chooses to use a clause that they have openly shared with you. I'm not complaining, I've just had to get clever. That's why I've had to use aliases to get a bet on. And you give me free bets every time I do !! Is this really a successful business model ? Muppets. |
|
By:
Poor English above (typing on I Pad!) but you'll get the gist...
|
|
By:
Bookmakers have historically made profits despite the presence of winning punters.....
|
|
By:
true paris but bookmakers have historically been run by bookmakers not accountants as is now the case.
|
|
By:
Parispike the UCTA is not relevant as an account is merely a collection of stand alone contracts. UCTA deals with the construct of contracts that have been agreed. It does not address the availability of contracts.
A betting account does not require either side to enter into a contract against their wish. |
|
By:
Betting shops have changed a hell of a lot since they were legalised in the 60s. It's not so long ago though, that it was an offence for staff to encourage or entice someone to bet - on anything. No tea or coffee, no clear windows. Now, a lot of the changes have been for the better, but these days we are at the stage where staff are sent into the customer area expressly to encourage and entice customers - not to back a horse or greyhound or football team - but to chance their luck on FOBTs. That fact is a huge giveaway, i.e., the companies concerned know that the machines are addictive, and they want people to become addicted. It is as simple as that, and it is unarguably immoral.
|
|
By:
"Is this really a successful business model ? Muppets."
According to the latest results of the big operators, it seems the business model is very successful. For the avoidance of doubt I have never given you a free bet, as I don't work for a bookmakers. If I change my photo to Santa will you believe I wear a red coat? |
|
By:
I thought this thread was about FOBTs, not the matter that bookmakers justify an unfair practice by quoting terms and conditions, and contract law.
It's pretty pointless discussion really. They believe they're allowed to cheat simply because there's a clause that says we don't want your business if you win. That'll never change. Expressing our view, that FOBTs are simply wrong, still has a chance to make a change because they don't make the law, government does. They do bribe MPs though. I forgot about that one. We're in sh*t creek ! |
|
By:
terms & conditions are not water tight by any means. a court can deem them unreasonable.
if you could be bothered going to the bother of challenging the right to close an account at any time for any reason i suspect you may get somewhere. it may well be deemed unreasonable for a company engaged in betting to close your account just because you are better than them at it. when put like that it seems very unfair indeed and should surely be made clear to prospective customers? a business can say the management reserves the right to refuse entry but you can't then turn people away for any reason you feel like. it has to be on reasonable grounds. |
|
By:
If I change my photo to Santa will you believe I wear a red coat?
Only if the red coat is in the photo, Clive. Having said that, I don't think there is anything you could say, that any reasonable person would believe. So what do you do for a living, Clive ? As professions go, I'm trying to think if there's anything lower in the social ladder than a bookmaker. Perhaps, an MP ? A terrorist ? |
|
By:
With regard to account closures, I've had accounts closed not because of winning, but because of how I lose. If they even suspect you're capable of applying an edge over them, they close you down. That's the part that's akin to cheating.
|
|
By:
hang on a mo WTF i have known many decent bookmakers over the years that understood the game they were in and the inherent risks.
clive is a lackie of the risk averse corporate betting industry. not the same thing at all |
|
By:
With regard to account closures, I've had accounts closed not because of winning, but because of how I lose. If they even suspect you're capable of applying an edge over them, they close you down. That's the part that's akin to cheating.
Snap ! Just simply getting the price available, win or lose, is tantamount to bookmaker heresy, and they think it deserves closing down ? Like I said earlier, a great business model. Ladbrokes actually closed one account down before I made a bet. They must have employed Mystic Meg ? I sussed out how they did it, and managed to get around it with my next account, though. |
|
By:
Again condition 15 seems very clear to me..
15. Termination of Account 15.1. We reserve the right to close your account at any time. If you don't like it, don't open an account with them. WFT - I think you'll find this thread is more about account management then FOBTs. When the thread's author is done scanning his google alerts for the latest FOBT cuttings in the Bognor Advertiser, i'm sure he'll be happy to confirm his true motives. |
|
By:
Clive isn't an accountant, is he ?
He once accused someone else, on another thread, of being a paedophile. Is an accountant worse ? |
|
By:
you have to say , clive has a sense of humour judging by his avatar .
clive , regarding condition 15 , if i am placing bets with a bookmaker and i win a few bets and they close my account , what have i done wrong ? |
|
By:
Addiction ,crack cocaine,what on earth are some posters on about.
I am only too aware that FOBTs were christened the "crack cocaine of gambling",which has to be a complete load of tosh.Once a person smokes their first rock of crack,then they are in serious trouble. Not so with FOBTs as many can play,and walk away,and don't get serious withdrawal symptoms,or serious cravings.Yes,there will be some that keep coming back for more,as in ALL forms of gambling,but to compare the machines with an extremely addictive drug,which will ensnare nearly all that try it is both incorrect,and highly inaccurate. There is no proof needed that crack cocaine is a dangerous drug,but comparing a chemical substance,with a pursuit that involves neither drugs,alcohol,or anything else that can distort a person's rationale is just nonsense. Many people can play for small amounts and walk away,again showing that the theory about being "highly addictive", like a drug,is just a theory. When these threads were first started I questioned the concern for this type of gambling,and still do. Regarding the one off examples of businesses going down the pan,or a home being lost,that has,and always will happen,whenever gambling has been concerned. |
|
By:
the question is whether 15.1 is reasonable or not.
they should at least have to give a reason. next time they close one claim they did it for some sort of discriminatory reason. i'm sure they would have to give a reason then |
|
By:
unbiased do you think everyone that smokes crack becomes addicted?
 how stupid are you ffs??? |
|
By:
Rcing - I'm not suggesting in such a scenario the bookie is right but it is their choice, and the T&Cs make it clear they can do it. A cursory glance at their results shows any suggestion this approach is negatively effecting their profitability is not correct.
|
|
By:
.Once a person smokes their first rock of crack,then they are in serious trouble how would you know ?
would you say the same about cigarettes ? nicotine is more addictive , yet i know many people that smoke when they are having a few beers in the pub , but not when they are at home . |
|
By:
Not so with FOBTs as many can play,and walk away,and don't get serious withdrawal symptoms,or serious cravings
Strange choice of name, given your views. "many" can play and walk away, but not all. Many can refuse crack cocaine when offered, some don't. There is evidence, I'm not sure if it's "empirical", of people who become addicted that have never gambled on anything else. |
|
By:
Northanlite,no need for abbreviated swearing in order to express your annoyance.Yes,crack is one of the most addictive drugs out on the street.Perhaps you weren't aware of that fact.
|
|
By:
I'm not suggesting in such a scenario the bookie is right but it is their choice
if " if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted or closed " was in the t&c i would know why my account was closed which is fair enough . why should i not be warned that this might happen ? |
|
By:
WFT,you can see from my posts that I will only post FACTS.Re. my user name,that was given to me years ago,for being able to see all sides of a situation.Studying law being a great help,obviously.
The problem is trying to explain to people that have preconceived ideas about something,that they may be wrong. |
|
By:
"The Berwick constituency currently has 29 FOBTs, spread around eight licensed bookies. The Gambling Act 2005 limits each betting shop to a maximum of just four FOBTs. A total of £30,338,187 was gambled in 2011/12"
8 shops x 4 = 32 but only 29 FOBTs Which fools don't have the 4 machines allowed? At over £1m gambled per machine |