Tarnya, Rory and Tony Calvin the BETTORS savers

Great post, Steve, fills me with a bit more confidence reading it, being the sceptic I've become regarding punters' interests and their non representation over the years in the face of utter contempt from the off course bookmaking fraternity.

Steven.

A common theme on here is the general frustration that nothing will change until the BHA realises that there are are hardcore group of punters out there who are genuinely passionate about the sport and for whom it is their main interest in life. The perception is that the type of punters they (and off course bookies) want are the £10 - £20 Jack the lad type characters who just want a bit of fun, heaven forbid they have an actual opinion. We have a great product in the racing in this country with the unique mixture of courses just one of the things that makes it so different. Solving the puzzle of the form book and backing your opinion with cash is a great way to spend your time and if you apply yourself you can become highly knowledgeable and extremely good. The highly knowledgeable group are racings core base and they are also the ones that go racing a lot more. Who is going to replace them as the shortermism of churning out the same low level dross is hardly bringing in the next generation. This core group is also further disenfranchised by not even being able to get a modicum amount on the horses they wish to back due to draconian restrictions. The message needs to get out there that the BHA wants to engage with the next (and present) generation of "fans" and this means not slavishly going along with what the bookies reps say the punters want. These bookies care for their share price and nothing else. A higher quality product spread more evenly over the week would be a start as would making it a terms of bookies licenses that they have to stand a horse for a certain amount to a punter. Get the next generation engaged with a better product and at least give them hope that there interest will be rewarded rather than closed down at the first sign of promise. Take a 20 year view not the current short term approach.

"former Stan James spokesman Rory Jiwani"

Not read the whole thread for obvious reasons but what is that liar doing on any representative body..

And what is his new full time job..

hi steve,could you tell us your forum name before today

hi steve,could you tell us your forum name before today

Tony Calvin knows feck all and Neil Channing has not won a hand of cards since the Old King was in power..

Never heard of Jason Brautigam but he must have been in charge of closing more accounts than nobet£3.65 so what does he bring to the table apart from gravey..

As for Tanya I have a ten year old child that knows more about the game...

thebeg

see above

"These are people whose passion for the sport, and betting, will lead to them giving up their time on a semi-regular basis to represent the betting public for no remuneration - that is greatly appreciated and to be applauded."

Absolute rubbish - a collection of chancers,losers,liars and gravy trainers that will be on obvious expenses..

You could not make it up...

Homefortea. At no stage so far have expenses been mentioned. If I am going to be paid expenses it will be a pleasant surprise. I work full time and using my holiday time to go to these meetings. If I am paid expenses I am more than happy to publish them here so you can see if they are reasonable or not.
As to your other epithets I don't fit any of those either :-)

I agree with first line of your post. If racing is considered a "loser" sport then people will back on football, reality TV whatever. The whole horse race industry will then be seriously stuffed.

Hopefully if we're both still here in three years I'll be able to come back to you and say this is what we did and I'm sure you'll be quick enough to tell me if it's the square root of feck all and I'm sure you'll be the first to admit you were wrong if we have actually achieved something.

As the BHA has no power over the off- course bookmaking industry, people would be right to be sceptical of all or any of the proposed reforms that come from the bettors forum. In fact a cynic might say Nick Rust's brainchild is merely a sop to deflect attention from his own bookmaking background and the criticism it received in some quarters. I personally believe the bettors forum will achieve nothing of note because it will not be able to exert any worthwhile leverage on the off-course firms, and the obvious bug bears of restrictions and account closures will continue whatever.

stevetilley - homefortea has an often expressed history of being somewhat excitable.

^^
Totally agree , it's just tokenism some of them are already gravy train passengers , little or nothing will come of it as we've had initiatives like this before that have achieved nothing , the sport is in slow decline and will continue that way ....
good luck Steve ......

Steven - with your political background I have high hopes that you will be the one to step forward and carry the fight!  The dear departed Paul Bittar came to the BHA talking the kind of game that briefly suggested change was possible, soon enough he was shackled and couldn't find the exit quick enough - I don't envy you the frustrations you will endure.  A thread on here is a good idea, I assume contacting you via private message is ok too?  Thank-you for engaging with everyone on here, best of luck.

we've had initiatives like this before that have achieved nothing

what were they, grey shark? cant recall them

Didn't Barney Curley try to - or intimate as such - a Punters organisation a few years ago?

Never got off the ground , though - unlike ...

NAPP - National Association for Protection of Punters

Ran for about 10 years - ending around the turn of the Century.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/racing-punters-war-waged-with-a-slingshot-1282364.html

Greg Wood  - Thursday 09 January 1997

Less than 24 hours earlier, many of racing's great and good had donned black tie and ball gowns to dance the night away at a West End hotel, but there was rather less standing on ceremony yesterday as representatives of the people who, ultimately, foot the bill for many of the turf's smartest functions gathered to meet the press in a pub near Victoria station.

When the National Association for the Protection of Punters was formed several years ago, there were many who hoped they would quietly fade away.
Yet thanks to the efforts of people like Michael Singer, the chairman and, in effect, a full-time, unpaid worker for the organisation, NAPP is still doing what it can for everyone who is backing in Britain.
Funded only by subscriptions (pounds 10 per annum), Singer and his companions face up to the bookies' lobbying organisations with their telephone-number budgets and attempt to highlight the scandalous lack of protection available to customers of one of the country's major industries.

By now, NAPP's activists are well used to official indifference, but even so, a letter sent to the organisation on 20 December by Rodney Brack, the chief executive of the Levy Board, was little short of an insult. The Levy Board is the organisation which administers the pounds 50m raised each year from deductions within the punters' betting "tax".

Brack was responding to a letter from Singer, dated more than two months earlier, requesting a meeting to discuss Levy Board funding for an organisation to represent the interests of punters.
After all, as the NAPP chairman pointed out, "this year's Annual Report shows that the Bookmakers Committee received funding to the amount of £266,000.
How bookmakers can receive this money when punters, who pay the Levy, receive absolutely nothing . . . continues to be a matter of grave concern."

Brack's response was extraordinary. "I have consulted with the main representative organisations within the bookmaking industry [and] . . . none of them supported the idea." To which a true punter's only response must be: I bet they didn't. Not, at least, while Singer and his companions are overwhelmed by complaints from backers, who are not even required to join the organisation before their problems are investigated. "There are so many queries and problems," Singer says, "but we are increasingly forced to put things on the back-burner."

You will achieve the total sum of feck all Steve Tilley whoever you may be..

The sooner there is an inquiry along the lines of the many Banking Investigations the better..

Punters have been mis-sold a product..

They are not allowed to win and so all losers should have their stakes refunded and be compensated ..

Never mind "terms and conditions" the Banks could not hide behind them so why should the alleged "bookmakers"...

what were they, grey shark? cant recall them

Duncan , onlooker just saved me the trouble , then of course there was 'Racing for change' that had similar hopes and dreams of broadening the appeal of racing therefore encouraging more people into the sport and increase betting turnover etc. etc.


Racing For Change, the industry-wide body seeking to modernise racing and widen its appeal, today reveals an initial list of 10 trial measures designed to bring "positive change for the sport and its customers". All 10 will be implemented in the first half of 2010.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jan/05/racing-for-change-decimal-odds

Onlooker thanks for that, nothing is ever completely new I'll have a looka at that and what happened. There's something about those who don't learn from the past being condemned to repeat it.
I must admit I hadn't thought of the punters organisation getting funding from the Levy board.

Our first meeting is on Sept 4th so I'll keep you all posted afterwards.

steve, why has it taken you until 19.08.15 to join this forum iyo ...

grey shark, Racing For Change entirely different from setting up a Punter-driven forum...was essentially all about the marketing of the sport with ideas generated by 'the suits'

NAPP had a purely betting-based remit...whilst the ability to get on, take prices, accounts not closed is (understandably) at the forefront for most on here, this Forum has a broader scope than that

This thread is a shining example of why the bookmakers will always have the edge over punters, as punters are in the main a bunch of negative, selfish, cynical begrudgers that will never be capable of banding together for the greater good of their interest group. How this new committee could be spun as anything but a potentially good thing for punters is mind blowing. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn't achieve what is hoped, what harm? At least these people are giving up their time free of charge to try and achieve something positive, rather than the bunch of ****** on here like homefortea that will spew his bitter bile on any suggestion from anyone rather than put some effort into making things better. Give them a chance and stop being so sour, or alternatively get off your **** and give up your own time to set up a representative group for punters.

Joe, the problem is that, unequivocally, the more punters lose, the more money the BHA get - 'the Levy' is tied directly to the bookmaking industry's profitability, not turnover.

So ask yourself this. Why would a commercial animal like Rust, who's been hard nosed enough to get to the top of a company like Ladbrokes, want to do anything that assists punters, if the direct result of this is that the organisation he's now running will end up getting less money?

If you can think of anything at all, other than that this is a pretty woeful attempt at PR misdirection, or that the real agenda of this 'betting forum' is to work out how to remove even more of our money, then you are a far better man than me...

Isn't it obvious, millhouse? The aim is to increase turnover by making the sport more attractive to bet on. The vast majority will lose in the long term, that isn't the doing of Nick Rust or the bookmakers, that is bad punters making bad decisions based on bad judgement. There is more competition than ever for the betting pie and racing has lost ground to sports and casino games by sitting on it's arse for too long. Rust seems to have realised this and is taking steps such as this to try and regain lost ground by finding ways to make betting on racing more attractive and this betting forum is a means to find out what it is that punters want changed. Of course, you can spin a thirst for greater turnover on racing as meaning more profits for bookmakers and losses for punters, but I spin it as more interest in and a brighter financial future for the sport.

But Joe, turnover means nothing - it's the profitability of the bookmakers that counts.

So the purpose of this forum is not to make life better for punters, it's to understand how to get more money out them - which is undoubtedly why contemptible bookmaker glove puppets like Jiwani and Stevenson are doing some pro bono gravy slurping...

Profitability might be the bottom line, but that is directly related to turnover in such a high-volume market. More turnover, more profit, less turnover, less profit.

The purpose of the forum is to find out what punters want to change in order for them to bet more. That will be a good thing for the punters that know what they are doing, and losing punters will keep on losing regardless. Why focus on the negative? Only good can come from this, IMO.

The purpose of the forum is to find out what punters want to change in order for them to bet more.

That's what I was saying above Joe.

Rust has clearly taken a look around, seen that the idiots at Racing For Change have squandered endless amounts of money trying to increase attendances, and thought that his best bet is to get even further into bed with the bookmakers and their bottom lines.

The problem is, and this is where he may well have shot himself massively in the foot, imho, is that punters are now so poorly treated as consumers of this industry that people have started to think this forum is actually about punter protection, when the truth is that it's actually about how Rust and his bookmaker partners can get his hands on even more of our money.

If anything good does come of it, it will be in the negative publicity Rust and the BHA get when the punters who've volunteered to be a part of this charade realise what the real agenda is, and publically start to walk away, imho...

Joe, you are wasting your time...i thought i was cynical but millhouse is by a huge margin the most cynical human being i have ever encountered to the point of paranoia...you will not find any light and shade here

But you are failing to see the positive common ground here. If the forum succeeds in bringing about positive change in how the sport in run that makes the game more attractive to punters, that is a good thing for punters! By your logic, the best thing for punters would be if betting was banned altogether, as that would stop punters losing their money. The majority will lose, that is just reality, but if we want a healthy sport, changes need to be made to make racing more attractive and this is a positive step in that direction.

Duncan, history is the best window to the future, and this industry has been happily shafting punters for decades now - nothing is going to change now a former Ladbrokes Board Level Executive is steering the ship.

If it makes you happy to think I'm doing anything other than calling it as I see it, then that's fine with me...

millhouse ppl that are naive about the past tend to fall into 2 categories, unsuccessful and exceptionally successful, its bimodal with the cynics in between

its like ppl starting up betting knowing that they have a 97% chance of being unsuccessful thinking, whats the point? and being defeated before they start

yes i agree racing is by definition fighting a losing battle, but the rate of decline has to be addressed and to listen to your customers is something successful companies do and is long long over due in racing, even if it only halts the decline by a little it will have been worth it, its a bet to nothing isnt it?

Haven't read it all but just off here The Anorak and Magician would offer a punters view,would they give up their time for a few quid exes?

I was choking with derision when Rust was appointed, however as its the BHA what should i expect from the Bookmakers Honourable Assistance?  Certainly nothing for the punter. An increased fixture list, more needless tuppenny ha'penny races, less competitive e/w fields and a red card for beating SP regularly regardless of how they run.  At least they recognise the well is running dry and now we have had the first big amalgamation on the High St, how many will follow suit?  Less punters equals less business and less dough to share around but hey the BHA think Racing is healthy enough to shoehorn more fixtures into an already saturated mediocre programme.  Who am I to quibble with the experts? A long standing punter who feels disillusionment with the BHA, needless overwatering on the grounds of equine safety, a High St scared to take a bet and other issues I can't be arsed to list.

funny that at Election time you couldnt move on here for people toasting the Tory victory as a great day for the Free Market and how they should now get rid of all the barriers that get in the way of the market. Here we have the racecourses and bookmakers aiming to maximise their profits for shareholders in the face of an impotent governing body and no-one seems to like it one little bit 

Rider 03 Jun 01

but the rate of decline has to be addressed and to listen to your customers is something successful companies do

you mean like betfair listen to their customers ........

grey shark, ppl have a choice of sports to bet on now this represents competition for the betting pound so the BHA now need to listen to why the next generation are betting on football etc and not racing

betfair did listen to their customers early on, particularly when they had flutter as competition but since then they have grown to unfortunately have an effective monopoly (they bought flutter), i expect their success from this strong position and poor customer service to contiue until a major competitor emerges, which might be some time

What will the Bettors Forum actually achieve? It sounds like they have no real powers to suggest change, rather it just sounds like its been set up to act as a marketing tool to gain feedback for bookmakers on how they can gain more "losing punters" to bet on racing.
For example I looked up the youngest guy on the forum and he runs a website that is basically a portal for bookmakers. The more losing punters sign up through his site the more commission he makes. How can this guy not be on the bookmakers side right from the start? As for most of the rest, they have done well out of the bookmaking industry and I don't expect any of them to get a fair deal for punters. Maybe, Steve will be able to have some positive input in regards to how punters are treated by racing as a whole? My bet is that his voice will be drowned out by the bigger "names" with an agenda that very much sides with the bookmakers and their interests.

Joe Mac you really are the horses a  rse.

And with that many posts I suspect you may even be the great ex-Ladbrokes knocker Nick Rust himself...

The point is that a successful punter is barred.FULL STOP.

So why would any of the media savvy kids of today want to bet on horses especially as 48 hour decs have all but killed the game...

Joe Mac you really are the horses a  rse.

And with that many posts I suspect you may even be the great ex-Ladbrokes knocker Nick Rust himself...

The point is that a successful punter is barred.FULL STOP.

So why would any of the media savvy kids of today want to bet on horses especially as 48 hour decs have all but killed the game...

Hold on I have just re-read some of those on the "unpaid" Forum..

Tanya and Rory who have both been on the telly not for their knowledge but diversity..

That pair would not have been given a job marking the Board in the halcyon days of UK betting shops when winners were encouraged so that the many losers would pile in..

Happy Days...

copied from other thread for ease



prufrock 21 Aug 15 22:02
 
In answer to the original poster, I did. I had input from a couple of people at the BHA, but they at no stage vetoed any of my decisions. I stand by my assertion of confidence in the members of the Forum. There was no point in choosing eight identical individuals - be they pro-punters, betting-shop punters, TV "personalities", or Betfair forumites - however "good" such individuals were. That would not be a way to get a range of opinions. It was, I believe, important that not every last one of them was totally anonymous. The Forum aims to be engaged with its public.

I also stand by my assertion that all those who applied showed merit, though the ease with which one or two of have gone from offering their support for this enterprise to slating it from the sidelines suggests we might have had a lucky escape. The one way to guarantee inclusion on the Forum would have been to have demonstrated a long-term commitment to punters' "rights", delivered publicly, coherently and constructively over a period of time.

I can also confirm, for the umpteenth time, that no-one on the Forum gets paid. We will give up our time for no consideration. Reasonable travel expenses will be reimbursed - under £100 to attend a meeting in London in my case - but taking a day off work, which is likely to cost an individual much more, comes with the territory. The Forum members have all shown remarkably willing in this respect.

As mentioned above, the Forum aims to be engaged with its public. You can get in touch with it via Twitter and by e-mail. Some of us will also drop in here from time to time.

On this visit, how about making some constructive suggestions to me as to which items should be discussed at early meetings of HBF? Nothing is off the table, though there is evidently little point in grandstanding about an issue you do not have a hope in Hell of getting implemented. That's what the Betfair forum is for, after all :-)

SDR

1 thing that seems to be off the the table is stevetilley history on here,i wonder why that is councillor,ask your questions but awkward ones will be ignored

@thebeg I have remarkably little recent history on betfair mainly because I found I could make more money spread betting on horses than on betfair. However the betfair forums contain a large number of people with strong opinions so I felt it sensible to introduce myself and listen.

interested to hear you making money on spreads, i've not done a spread bet for about 10 years as was restricted to small stakes (ig), continually price nudged (si) and found them a waste of time in the end

Until every alleged "bookmaker" that is licensed to bet in the UK is obliged by law to lay EVERY client to win a certain amount (say a trifling £1000) per event then you on the alleged Forum will be a laughing stock.

Already from what I see you have taken on the Liberal elite who are clueless and will do nothing to advance the cause of the punter.If you have to take "the day off work" what are you doing representing the punters.You are representing the bookmakers you fool.

The amount of cash lying in dead punters accounts needs an investigation..

Perhaps the new "bettors forum" set up by King Knocker himself Nick Rust can address that..

Or probably not...

Dear Steve Tilley,

Good to see you engage with the Betfair forum.  You won't be able to please all the people all the time but good luck for trying.

I'm keen to find out the Bettors Forum objectives, timeline for change, and how you folks see these objectives being achieved.  I understand the first meeting is early September.  When will objectives be communicated to the general public? 

Also did everyone on the Forum apply to join?  Or were any of the panel "earmarked" for the Forum?  Do you feel the panel has the necessary range of knowledge to instigate change?

For me your primary objective should be as follows:

- amnesty for punters with closed or limited accounts.
- any punter to be able to get on at the advertised price for a minimum stake of £50, whether in shop, online or telephone.

Achieve this and you can get back to your day job within weeks as far as I'm concerned.

Good luck.

Steve, good luck with the forum, I'm certain you've the best intentions.

Even if you ignore some of the crap written on here ( please do ) the underlying theme is absolutely right. The average man on the street who knows a bit about racing and has a few quid in his pocket has virtually no chance of getting a decent bet on. My story will be typical.

I'm early 40's and been betting all my adult life. I lost money every year to decent stakes but still loved the game. About 4 years ago I decided to take my betting more seriously, read some books, recorded my bets and put a betting bank aside. I had accounts with the big names and opened about 8 other online betting accounts. I started doing better and had a few nice winners. Within weeks a number of the accounts were closed or restricted to pence. in my naivety I genuinely thought it was a mistake and rang some of the companies to rectify the error! With no joy of course. How could multi million t/o FTSE listed businesses be running scared of me because I'd picked up 1 or 2k? Now I can barely get a bet on. Coral are the only firm to entertain me online.

The recent Final Furlong podcast was spot on. I'm the man who wants £100 on a horse i fancy at 10-1 but can only get on £10. I work in an office, have no racing connections or inside knowledge, and am just passionate about horse racing. How long will that passion last?

^ serious stuff - took 11 years to post ...

what i would like to ask the forum,is why bookmakers would take a decent bet back in the 70s (most high st shops) with not much aggro,but nowdays,as said by many on here its a job to get on.Whats changed?

accountants took over running the firms, share holders wanted increase profit per annum, track ability [computers] of punters habits, and FOBTS

cheers delta

surely though there is market out there,for someone to lay decent bets to racing(boxing as well.lol) fans.They dont seem to trust their odds compilers either(thats if they still employ them)

agree sj - its no different to the insurance industry - if you dont want a risk/business you adjust your price on that segment so your uncompetitive and on the area your Odds compilers want the business you are very price competitive - its not turning business away, its just attracting the area you want and IF you have the quality of Odds compilers then jobs a good un, and therefore everyone should be able to bet to a known limit at the price offered - its not complicated its only numbers ..

what i would like to ask the forum,is why bookmakers would take a decent bet back in the 70s (most high st shops) with not much aggro,but nowdays,as said by many on here its a job to get on.Whats changed


The media, who should be exposing the lies, are now totally complicit, and as long as wholesale discrimination and misrepresentation never has any impact on their bets, are happy to keep quiet - so the bookmakers know they can act with total impunity.

It's so shameless now that most of the media also work for the bookmaking industry - including the contemptible Stevenson, who will be sitting on this committee while sending her invoices to multiple firms...

Did anyone esle pick up a slight change to 'Tarns' punditry since this line-up was announced?

Shouldn't the Forum members be asked to disclose any ties to any bookmakers.....to ensure no conflict of interest?

Oasisdreamer, it would be naïve beyond belief to think that this 'forum' isn't actively working with the bookmakers, imho...

For some on here,they have to pay 5% commission(or some commission),surely the bookies could be targeting this,saying lets lay decent bets and we can get all this market,or is that me just being nieve at 55

Me,if i were a bookie i would really be making that point NO 5% off your winnings here and we do take a bet

signed nieve old punter

Personally I think there probably ARE individuals on this forum who genuinely have the best of intentions and whose agenda IS to better the lot of the average punter.

HOWEVER the inclusion of the likes of Stevenson and, potentially, others who clearly has "interests" elsewhere gives me reason to wonder how, in practice, the forum will work out.....

does tayna work for a bookmakers then?

no 5% but betting to 120%

yeah fair point delta,but exchanges will still be here,so for larger punters they could pick and choose,knowing you could GET ON

Parispike, I've no doubt that the people who've volunteered did so with the best of intentions - what's going to be fascinating, imho, is what they do when they realise they are actually in a focus group designed to better facilitate the removal of punters' money...

good ide.
lets see how far it goes though.

if they keep restricting and barring the game will have less people following it.
you need to keep punters in even if some do win from it.

to have other punters thinking it can be a game you can win from is a good thing for the sport.

if bookmakers are worried by a selection of punters bets then reduce the odds on that selection for all.
stop playing the game weher you want to be seen to be offering best odds and then having to bar customers.

what kind of business bars their customers?
some stupid kind of business

also id like to see the gambling commision scrapped.
the accounts side of legislating transferred over to the fsa.

the legislation and monitoring handed over to a new organisation called betcomm.

betcomm should decide what is fair practise.

ie..advertising a price  but not letting everyone on should be illegal....
they should eb made to put max bet size on which includes everyone

G1 Jockey - the barring of successful punters benefits every last sector of this industry.

The BHA make more money when winning punters are removed.

The media platforms get more advertising and sponsorship spend when the bookmakers don't take bets from successful punters.

The media freeloaders get more side work when winning punters aren't removing money from the bookmakers' bottom lines.

The racecourses get more sponsorship the more profitable the bookmakers are able to make themselves by restricting winners.

Given the above, which is just basic commercial reality in an industry where the bookmaking industry have brilliantly engineered a whole ecosystem that revolves totally around their patronage, it's naïve in the extreme for us to think that fighting for warm punters to be able to get a bet on is going to be anywhere near the agenda of this complete charade, masquerading as a punters' 'forum'...

it does short term but longer term it drives people away from betting.

so all they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot.

well unless we all begin to change our betting habits and start betting on portman park or the fobts.

I completely agree, but post FOBTs, the bookmakers just want to devolve betting on horse racing to a similar lucky numbers experience - check out any Saturday televised card these days, and virtually every race is 8-1 the field...

pp the worst offfenders of late..tried 200 on an international high profile match yest at evs.offered 28.you would wonder why thet advertise prices on these events if the wont lay? then they have the fat one on tv with a stupid grin telling fables about what they laid etc..

Millhouse,

We have been through this. Punter's money finances racing. This comes from bookmakers. That is how it works. This is either from turnover or profit. If the bookies have to pay for a 'racing right' this will be paid for by the money they make off punters. Whatever way you look at it punters will pay.

If the amount of money bet on racing increass this is a win for racing and punters. This has to be the target. The bookies make money from whatever they take money on. Racing needs to get some market share back. Yes punters will lose money betting on racing. But if that comes from roulette and all the other rubbish the betting companies peddle that is good.

re: restrictions, all the evidence from NSW is that most restricted punters will lose in the long term. It just takes a while and bookies have to be less lazy setting prices.

Your solution of do nothing will just lead to racing losing more and more market share.

What solution, frog??

problem for racing is it is too reliant n other businesses (bookies) running the show for them.
their actions can have a knock on effect.

i think horseracing needs to have their own exchange and book system...at least get it started and then start to under cut the "franchises" as their client list grows....

be less reliant on others.
buy the fallers on the high street.

then start a strategy to build the game.

How does racing regain its market share with the dross on offer today.
At the time of writing only 2 races have 8 or more runners, at the end of a high quality week of racing it does nothing to encourage the average punter to bet, they look at the paper & say sod this and either walk away for the day on bet on the footy.
Far too many Sundays particularly at the end of a high profile week are like this and do not encourage the punters to continue betting.

millhouse
23 Aug 15 11:13
Joined: 09 Dec 03
| Topic/replies: 4,985 | Blogger: millhouse's blog
What solution, frog??


...


Your solution seems to be to have a go at anything that attempts to help racing. You have no real solution.

Well Derek , you asked politely and it appears that he has ignored you.

Frog, this idea that somehow we're all in this together and that we should all just get on with handing over our money to the bookmakers because that's what's good for racing is a total nonsense, I'm afraid.

It's not up to me to help racing. Like many of us on here, I'm a customer. It's racing's job to meet our needs.

So you'll therefore have to forgive me if racing's commercial priorities, linked directly to the profitability of third parties with no other agenda than to remove punters' money, leads me to suspect that racing's real interest in me as a customer is now entirely exploitative...

Feck me after reading that Aviboyd that has taken my breath away..

Literally..

I usually have a lot to say but ...wow..

What a bunch of no marks and chancers..

I cannot believe it and that Steven Tilley is on the gravytrain why...

has a post gone here?

^ hft - we have discussed racing issues on this forum for years.  We agree on many of these issues, particularly that the racing media and bookmakers are complicit in causing irreparable damage to the sport.

You may consider me naive but the difference between you and I is that I am willing to support anyone who may be in a position to initiate change for the better.  You however are a dispirited old cynic (in my opinion of course) who finds it impossible to support anyone and has absolutely nothing positive to say.  Everyday I am thankful that not everyone is like you, imagine the state mankind would be in if we all just sat around defeated before the fight actually began.  Of course if (or more likely when) the Bettors Forum fails I will use a public forum to unload on these people with both barrels, until that point they need support from those of us that are willing to fight for the preservation of the sport we love.  Cheers.

the first company they should discuss are the "SPORTSBOOK" on hear,a total joke of a "bookmaker"and im far from a big hitter.

Aviboyd yes I am a cynic and rightly so..

Those chancers that are on the new forum will do feck all..

There is only one thing that has to be discussed and that is GETTING ON..

Losing punters (known as mugs or even fish or marks) have never had it so good..

Guaranteed prices money back offers cashback etc means that the man off the street has never had it so good..

He can even go on that bookmaker sponsored organ "oddschecker" to get the best price..

What are the forum to discuss - the losing punter is treated like a Lord..

However if that mug comes close to breaking even he is shafted and restricted to peanuts and his identity shared amongst the cartel..

The former is disgraceful and the latter illegal and yet I have yet to hear of a prosecution..

Perhaps the new "forum" can let me know when the first alleged "bookmaker" prosecution for offences against the Data Protection Act will occur...

Dear Steve Tilley,

Do you intend engaging with this thread?  I put some questions to you on Page 3 of the thread.  Hopefully you can reply.

Thanks,

still waiting Frank Butcher..

Steve is a personal friend of mine, we ran a couple of betting conferences a couple of years ago and I am confident he will represent punters on this forum. I am less confident about one or two others on the group but not surprised. I also agree with earlier posters about increasing punter interest and betting. It is true that a large amount of racing is not going to excite you in the way a big race on Saturday afternoon will but they do interest me greatly and this is because I have discovered that there are two sides to my racing involvement. The first is when my mouth waters at the prospect of say Gleneagles taking on the derby winner with an unexposed 3yo in the mix (pity it did not happen) and then there is the analytical betting side of the game which matters little whether its high class or low class, its still a conundrum to be solved. Notice the three key ingredients there

1. Its a solvable puzzle
2. you can win and you will be allowed to win
3. All racing can be viewed from this investment perspective

How many times have you heard a pundit say that the card is not very inspiring today, he/she should be fired on the spot.

When we allow some punters to be winners they are far more likely to be visible and as a result they promote new and fresh interest from up and coming youngsters. We are living in an age of big data and its never been a better time to invest in betting markets.

^^^ "ground makes no difference"

Blocked and not before time.

OliasOfSunhillow 28 Aug 15 20:47 Joined: 05 Apr 12 | Topic/replies: 1,402 | Blogger: OliasOfSunhillow's blog

Who is this half-wit and who is paying for it's medication...

There have been many punters on here that have been banned and were entertaining..

How does this clown get a gig...

I suspect you are paying for my medication Homefortea

ttt - The Bettors forum

Anything changed - have the gravy trainers made a difference...

yes

Tony has taken 32red to be his own!

and Rory has left Stan James


only to return when it suits!

D'oh!

I'm new to this politics of betting thing but I do find it interesting that they've had a couple of meetings and have made some fairly strong comments about certain things, according to the brief abridged minutes they have released. More interestingly they have said that the one issue about which they were inundated and which far outweighed any other concern was people being restricted. Given this, the best they could do, this being the punters primary concern was to issue a statement which essentially said they would consult with the bookmaking industry and wouldn't comment further until they had exhausted this process.

Apart from enjoying my betting, if I have a field of expertise (being a qualified Barrister amongst other things) it is working out why lying baastards are lying to me and what this smells of to me in political terminology is kicking the issue into the long grass. I hope to be proven wrong but expect not to be for the reasons others have given previously.

I'm not exactly sure of the analogy I'm searching for but the bookmaking industry seems to be doing what the fishing industry did in the 70's in terms of exhausting supplies. They need to look at sustainability and a big part of that in racing is allowing for the fact that some people will win. I think the French call it something like, pour encourager les outres (forgive me, languages was never my thing).

The bright sparks within the bookmaking industry don't seem to be able to do basic maths. If you have an industry which is worth, for arguments sake, £500 billion a year because you have a small number of people who win and "deprive" you of £10 billion but then those people act as a beacon to others to say, "hey it can be done" then others will seek to do so. Build it and they will come. It's basic supermarket logic. They call them loss leaders.

If your every waking hour is designed to get your traders to weedle out anybody who has taken a price bigger than SP and thus you lose the huge amounts those people would end up giving you in the long run, plus eliminating the relatively small number who actually make it pay, you also douse the light from the beacons. So now you no longer loose that £10 billion you were doing. You only lose say £2 billion of that. Unfortunately as people see the chance of any success disappear over the horizon you now have a business model which instead of bringing in £500 billion actually brings in £100 billion the question is are you richer or poorer?

So here's a novel suggestion. Fire a lot of your traders. Save yourself a packet. Guarantee that when you put up a price you will lay that price to anybody for X amount.

Then make a virtue of necessity. You will have a relative few who will make money off you. Get them on the TV. On the racing programmes like ITV as it will be. Get them making out what suckers you are because if they can do it anybody can. The more Loadsamoney they are the more you will make.

If it isn't already too late that is how you grow the market and if it is too late then why are the BHA fannying around? Open their own exchange with all profits ploughed back in to racing or have some kind of paramutuel system.

Do we really need a glorified talking shop to spend the next two years deciding the best way to boil a egg?

Wonder how much they left on the table by restricting pricewise followers and arbers in 2015. Another big losing year for Tom, but most of them only take 25 quid bets.

The genius traders got him all wrong, used to lay bets of hundreds of pounds when Pricewise was winning regularly, now his results aren't as good and they're not even cashing in.

The old models don't work anymore. Betting shops were prepared to take bets, they'd win some, lose some, and over a person's adult life they'd expect to come out ahead. But that only really works if a punter is loyal to the same few local shops for all of his bets. They will let him stick around forever and back anything he likes if they are assured of his business and confident in their oddsmakers.

In a way, oddschecker has ruined all of that. Now lots of people only want to bet with a firm when they are top price on something. We're only using them if we can beat the odds, there's nothing in it for them. I have no loyalty to my local shop or favourite firm, I'll bet with whoever is offering best odds or best concession. I can't be surprised if they show no loyalty to me and bin my account.

The problem with all of this is that those within the game obviously get on what they want and are oblivious/ignorant to the fact that bookmakers are actively preventing punters from betting on horseracing.Betting on horseracing with bookmakers is what helps to fund the game through the levy and the interest of betting is what gets people through the gates of racecourses (admittedly pop concerts and booze have juiced the figures lately),but without having a bet it's just animals running in circles for most people.Until it's recognised and criticised publicly by someone with a bit of weight nothing will be done and we'll have to continue to put up with scraping round every day trying to get a few quid on whilst the likes of Birchy can get his £320 ew on 9-4 shots that go off 4-5.I'm not going to criticise the Bettors Forum until they've had a proper chance to get something done but ALMOST EVERYONE WINNERS AND LOSERS HAVE THEIR ACCOUNTS RESTRICTED TO UNUSABLE LEVELS IF NOT INVOLVED IN HORSERACING WHICH IS FACT!

Some excellent points made on here recently especially eternal optimist, do wonder if those on the panel will actually read them can only hope so, bit worrying Tanya on the panel thought she was in the pay of the bookmakers, not fan of Big Mac but would have liked to see him involved.

With regards to restrictions, what is the best we, as punters, can expect from any negotiations between the punters forum and bookmakers?
Unrestricted access to all? Never gonna happen
Guaranteed liability of £1k?  No chance.....£500? Nope........anything less would be pointless.

No, the bookies will never voluntarily enter into any sort of guaranteed liability to all, and so any negotiations are pointless. 

The best they could do is bring this issue into the open. Don't look to the spineless racing journalists to help, or to the dedicated racing channels, ( one of which is funded by punters yet refuses stand up for them, preferring instead to give endless airtime to odious bookies reps spouting nothing but ***** without fear of question ).

Get it into the mainstream press!!!!
How are they gonna do that???

I don't have that answer, but surely between all these worthy members they can come up with the solution over one of their all expenses paid sumptuous lunches?