Penny Pincher--just noticed your E/W doubles thread.

Many of those races where not BOG.
Only looked at one and the fav was 1/4,
all Betfred's BOGs are competitive races,usually handicaps.

What's the advantage in talking the early price?

Aren't there any punters groups or any other options where donations can be made towards the legal costs of anyone wanting to take on the bookies in a test case over this kind of thing?

If it got enough publicity and a few tens of thousands donated £1 each it would soon add up and any positive outcome would hopefully see a law change to benefit all. A kind of class action thing if you like?

the bald coooonnntt wont want the bad publicity, he will pay up the wonky nosed high trousered ****

The bookmaker will take bets according to certain terms and conditions. As long as these T&Cs are stated, then it's an open and shut case really.

So many things the banks are now paying fines for where well covered in their T&C.

You have a situation that two people can walk up to the counter and offer the same bet to the bookmaker
and 100% of the time he'll accept one persons bet and refuse the other.

Yes, I know the point you are making JML.

I certainly wouldn't go to court on that basis, sure loser imo.

My own stance on this is 'I don't go where I'm not wanted'.

So, if a bookie restricted me then, straightaway, I wouldn't try to have another penny of business with him.
I actually don't bet with bookies, all my betting is done on the exchange, which for all its failings, has an integrity attached to it imo. This is down to the completeness of the matching software which (when working!) is quite impressive.

So, I think I'll leave the discussion to the punters who have an axe to grind. Thanks for your replies, ima, most interesting as usual.

I'm afraid that you BOGOF example hasn't been thought through fully. I've seen BOGOFs where exclusion terms and conditions are attached (e.g. only 4 bottles per customer) and if a local restaurant owner was seen to be taking advantage of BOGOFs on a regular basis (clearing the shelves), then I'm sure that the manager would have to have a word.

surely the point the poster is making is that the bookies are discriminating against certain customers - yes I see supermarket offers where there is a limit of 6 per customers but it is the same for every customer. In the bookies they are saying to Mr Loser that you can have £200 on a bet but Mr Winner is only allowed £20 at sp

As for t&c's these aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I worked at a blue chip company and some of the things in our t&cs were illegal under competition law so we wouldn't have a leg to stand on if challenged in court. The judge would have just laughed at us.

I also wouldn't take court action on the discrimination.

But if Penny Pincher placed a bet accourding to their
T&C and they then refused to pay,I wouldn't hesitate
making a claim through the small claims court.

IMO the letter they sent Penny Pincher contradicts
their T&C.

did the op get hold of paul yet  ?

that's correct gnasher and paddy power BOG also

ima_mazed66

But you would have to back a winner first...

Over the weekend I spoke to a relative who was a barrister for 30 years, they looked at the email I had from Fred. They told me it was 100% invalid, they said it was akin to me emailing them and saying from now on I want double the SP on all of my bets and expecting them to accept it. I would have to accept their offer of SP only for the email to have any legal effect, which clearly I haven't. They have the right to not accept bets, they have the right to tell me I can only have SP at the time of placing the bet (contract acceptance) but they do not have the right to change the contract IF they accept it.

ima_mazed66 27 Nov 15 12:24 Joined: 12 Oct 09 | Topic/replies: 8,899 | Blogger: ima_mazed66's blog
That brings up another point that I think is ridiculous regarding the same bookie treating their own customers differently within its own company.

I remember years ago backing a winner in a H1lls shop up near Blackfrairs where my horse got thrown out but I still went to collect because my local H1lls paid out on the double result, but was told by the Blackfriar's staff that they didn't and the only reason my local one did was there was probably a rival bookie nearby who also did.

This was actually true as there was a Betfr3d up the road but as soon as that closed down then H1lls withdrew it, but you could have the ridiculous scenario of 2 H1lls punters placing the same bet but in different shops where one gets paid out on his demoted horse and the other doesn't.

Not sure that you are aware of the real World fella but that goes on all the time.It is called competition and that is what should drive the business.My local semi-indie takes its prices from that firm of maggots and clueless chancers "super-soccer (!)" and is three doors down from a hills shop that puts the papers up without the form.They go triple the odds one winner in a lucky 15 GUARANTEED EARLY PRICES as opposed to the usual double.You take your chance as hills will price up each horse a couple of ticks higher.The odds of getting one winner outweigh the better early price and the guaranteed odds seal it.Incidentally the hills shop offer triple the odds sp only...Whoever is in charge of that operation should seek help.

I'm aware of what competition is Homeforteat but if a punter uses his local branch of a particular bookie chain and they offer the double result, I doubt when they have displays saying as much that they state they are only doing so purely because a nearby rival also does, yet if that same punter used one of their branches he wasn't familar with, it's not that much of a stretch to think that he might be under the impression that all branches of that particular chain offer it, seeing as he already knows his regular branch does. Or maybe you expect him to go around doing a survey of all other bookies in a non-familiar area just to double check? So, what were you saying abut the real world again?

Plus just to again show how ridiculous it is that the same company has two different sets of rules under the same circumstances, punter A is out and about so goes into a north London branch of A N Other bookie and his horses wins but gets thrown out by he's OK as they pay the double result there, so next morning goes into his local south London branch of A N Other bookie to collect his bet and is paid out. Punter B in the same race puts his bet on at that same south London branch of A N Other bookie but that one doesn't offer the double result, he watches the race and sees his horse win but get thrown out but isn't concerned because he will collect his winnings the next day at his local north London branch, except that very same north London branch that pay on the double result won't actually pay him out, because the south London branch he placed his bet with don't do the double result, despite having paid out punter A on behalf of the north London branch because they do.

Just returning serve 11kv.

I would have thought the point was fairly obvious considering it's been made several times now and that is that I think it's ridiculous that the same company has a different set of rules and treats its customers totally different under the very same circumstances. Just because something has always been the case, doesn't make it right.

You wouldn't have a chain of pubs where one said the minimum age to get in was 18, in another it was 21 and yet another it was 25.

Wrong. You don't have anything to offer.