Guardian/Obserber article re getting on with bookmakers

Interesting but nothing most of us on here didn't already know...Mafia Granny

The most significant factor is that the matter is slowly beginning to creep into public consciousness.

Most of the (British) public have an inherent sense of fairness. They will not react well when the matter becomes common knowledge.

No fan of Salmond but I hope he makes some progress.

Give it time, Ramruma, parispike is correct imo.

@saddo -- thing is, FOBTs are crucial for two reasons: 1) their profits mean bookies can be trigger happy closing accounts; but from the point of view of public consciousness, is 2) FOBTs are seen as a scourge that take money from addicts and leave babies to starve.

And that (2) is a problem because for most of the public, punters not being able to get a bet accepted will be seen as a good thing.

I agree with saddo.

As I have said many times on here, and everyone is no doubt very tired of me saying, the one Achilles heel the bookmaking industry have is that their businesses are founded on total lies - and, for all their 'fair play' PR nonsense, the perception that winning is not actually allowed is kryptonite to their businesses, imho.

This is exactly why they spend millions of pounds a year in advertising and sponsorship they don't actually need to make it as difficult as possible for the racing and betting media to tell the truth...

10-4, I'll get me rig out.

Closing winning accounts has now become industry practice as many on here are no doubt aware. Being rational you could accept that they have to have some sort of risk process in place but the level that it's triggered at is so low. That and the blokey PR spin that all are welcome and it's a battle of wits. Either take the bets (even at a moderately low level) or stop with the lie that you're some sort of tradition bookmaker. The massive safety net of FOBT's means they have no wish to take punters on who have half a clue even for small stakes. Just be honest that this is what you do as at the minute they want it both ways.

The odds compilers at these firms are truly clueless when they don't have betfair to guide them.

If bookies were forced to accept a bet of £50 on anything, then there wouldn't be anything left to bet on.

fair enough about getting on at the bookies but theres quite clearly no one else who wants to make a book early and lay bets on here at any where near the bookies early prices for more than £2.

and people go on about arbers but there really isnt any  coz the bookies cut there prices to keep below and when i do see arbs there there for ages .like what would be considered a massive arb on largisimo was 5/2 with 3 bookies and 3.1 on here for ages and u had to invest about 6k to win 150.

the bookies set there prices they should want to take bets thats meant to be there job but there just petrefied it might go under on here for a second which means nothing as its just traders on here putting the big bets down unless its a massive plunge and the price will just collapse

people who back with the bookies to trade of arnt arbers there way of betting is just backing horses they think are overpriced to try trade.so there really isnt millions of arbers ruining it for people at all and people backing to trade carnt be looked down on and the main arbers are the bookies so its madness them whinging at supposed arbers.

"The Ladbrooks Life"..The Professor thinks he has all the numbers figured out but he can't get his bet on because we've restricted him to winning £20.

Agreed

the bookies don't have to be total slaves to the exchange, they can choose what prices they offer, just because someone is offering £2 at 3.0 it doesn't mean bookies have to offer the same price for amount x

I think if bookies had to accept £50 stakes it would have an interesting knock on affect on the exchange as well.

Of course, if the bookmakers used the exchanges properly, they'd never need to close a winning account because they'd be making a profit on everything. But they're not because as others have noted their technically inept.

min stake or liability yeah

the two that seem to limit me the most often are the sportsbook and corals

then they should perhaps run a book properly rather than rely on the exchange, after all bookmakers have existed a lot longer than the exchange

They should but they prefer to take bets from losing customers only and make a big chunk of their profits from the FOBTs etc.

Magic__Daps:

Then what they would do is employ proper odds compilers and play the event rather than the player (you know like a bookmaker should). It's funny how before exchanges in my local Lads they would take numerous 3 to 4 figure bets FROM ANYONE. That was how they MADE A DECENT PROFIT.

Not laying early prices on every single race every day they didn't.

There seem to be a lot of newbies on this thread and elsewhere with no idea how bookmakers and betting shops operated pre-Betfair. Early prices were restricted to a maximum of half a dozen difficult and decent-grade handicaps per day. Of course they sometimes laid bets of a few hundred on those races without the Betfair tissue to guide punters.

If you want bookmakers to return to laying those kinds of sums, then you'll have to get used to the idea that all those races about which you moan they currently only lay a fiver will, just as before, no longer have any prices available at all until first show.

If you want bookmakers to return to laying those kinds of sums, then you'll have to get used to the idea that all those races about which you moan they currently only lay a fiver will, just as before, no longer have any prices available at all until first show.



Good, ricks will still be there but we might get a bit on before they suss.