There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
04 Jan 16
21:23
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Oct 11
Sorry if I have missed it but can someone clarify what they have achieved?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 217
|
By:
An easy wage and some decent lunches I would think.
|
|
By:
TBf they are not paid. I tweeted them opining that imo the single issue upon which they would be judged was that of restrictions (to ludicrously low liabilities I mean) and account closures.
It is after all a punters forum and that surely is the most important issue to any punter - the ability to get on to at least a reasonable amount? That may be unfair and they may feel there are other matters of moment but they all pale into insignificance against that - if the ordinary but serious punter can't get a bet on unless they lose at the required rate what future does the game have as a betting medium? As the late Phil Bull said the punter has to feel it is possible to win even if they, individually, can't.... I wish them well but do not hold out much hope. |
|
By:
A concern of mine has always been potential conflicts of interest.
I was recently involved in a twitter thread when the issue of Tanya Stevenson being on the payroll of Baldfred was raised. We were quoted, by the HBF tweeter, the Wikipedia definition of "Payroll". To rely on what in in effect legal semantics to suggest that TS is not really on the payroll of Baldy is deeply disturbing imo. To defend suggestions of conflict of interest on such a narrow and legalistic interpretation indicates to me a lack of judgement and detachment from reality. I'm afraid the credibility of the HBF has nosedived after that. |
|
By:
like Rory not being at Stan James anymore ...
|
|
By:
AS the 'Punters Forum' is a BHA 'initiative' - but led by a former BOOKMAKER Managing Director(Retail) - you can interpret that in whatever way you choose.
Horseracing Bettors Forum The British Horseracing Authority has launched a Horseracing Bettors Forum, which will allow people who bet on British Racing to provide the BHA with constructive suggestions about how the sport can develop and change, for the benefit of the betting public. The purpose of the Forum is to deliver proposals and recommendations to the BHA and the BHA Racing and Betting Group for developments to British Racing that would be of benefit to the wider community that bets on British Racing. It will also consider any proposals provided to it by the BHA for feedback on how they would be received by people betting on British Racing. Chaired by Simon Rowlands, the Forum will meet on a quarterly basis and discuss topics such as the Fixture List and race programme, data and information provided to those betting on British Racing, the Betting products available on the sport and any other innovations that the Forum believes would be of benefit to British Racing. FORUM NEWS 27 November 2015: Notes from the second Horseracing Bettors Forum meeting A number of individuals from within bookmaking had already indicated a willingness to speak with HBF regarding concerns about account closures/restrictions and other betting issues, and it was with this in mind that HBF intends to engage with the betting industry in a spirit of sharing ideas and of obtaining clarity. This includes: attempting to establish the true magnitude of the issue of account closure/restrictions; and making specific recommendations regarding greater flexibility in applying restrictions. HBF will persevere in its attempts to establish contact with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Racing and Bloodstock. Reacting to a request for consideration from BHA, HBF will be placing on record that it does not favour any significant further increases in the fixture list, that it would like to see a greater geographical spread on given race days, and that it would like to see Sunday afternoons and Thursday evenings bolstered in particular. However, it is aware of the limitations of the BHA’s powers in this area and will also seek further confirmation from the British horseracing betting public around these matters. A representative of IBAS gave a short presentation and Q&A session. Clarification around methodologies and protocols was sought and given. It was felt that there are some areas in which IBAS and HBF could co-operate, such as in submissions to the UK Gambling Commission. There will be a new IBAS website in 2016 which should give better access to the public and visibility about rulings. HBF intends surveying some of the British horseracing betting public it seeks to represent in the New Year, now that it has acquired a better idea of the issues and possible resolutions involved. HBF does not have the resources or authority to consider individual cases of concern raised with it by the public (non-triers, horses deemed not to have started etc) but will establish a register of these and pass them on to the relevant bodies on a regular and formal basis. The next HBF meeting will be at the BHA offices on the afternoon of Monday, 29 February 2016. The public is encouraged to contact HBF by e-mail (bettingforum@britishhorseracing.com) and through Twitter (@HbfBritain). |
|
By:
parispike 04 Jan 16 21:44 It is after all a punters forum and that surely is the most important issue to any punter - the ability to get on to at least a reasonable amount?
That may be unfair and they may feel there are other matters of moment but they all pale into insignificance against that - if the ordinary but serious punter can't get a bet on unless they lose at the required rate what future does the game have as a betting medium? As the late Phil Bull said the punter has to feel it is possible to win even if they, individually, can't.... They might tell you that you can get a substantial bet on the exchanges with no fear of future restrictions. |
|
By:
sparrow.
I might. Emphasis on might.If the liquidity is there at the price I want. My position is very simple. If a bookmaker wants to advertise a price they should be obligated to lay it to a reasonable amount to anyone. Not an unlimited amount but an amount that might vary by time to the event and perceived status of the race. If they don't want to advertise a price that's fine. An unreasonable expectation in what is supposed to be a fair and transparent industry? |
|
By:
The liquidity on the exchange will only be there at around 15 minutes before the off. But you are of course quite right about the off course bookmakers and personally I gave up with them more than 10 years ago.
|
|
By:
Because you had too sparrow, because you had to. Whatever they'd have given up on you if you showed any semblance of knowledge and/or discipline (which I'm sure you have).
|
|
By:
I gave up with them as soon as I realised I could bet place only, parispike. Until then most of my bets were EW with bookmakers and the way I play made it a no brainer really. I will admit to a lack of discipline at times but overall it has benefited me.
|
|
By:
Tbf they have recognized and stated that the prime area of concern is account restrictions and have started talks with the bookmakers on this subject.Nothing is going to happen quickly in this respect but the more publicity gained then the better the chance.
I understand concerns RE perceived conflict of interest but my thoughts are that we backers should support them and show some interest.It is our collective apathy which helps enable the bookmakers to continue this poor practice.? I note another members mention of illegal exchanging of customer's details if correct something which should be of concern to all of us, as individuals its unlikely we could get this sorted but the HBF would be better placed to investigate. I do not know if any of their members read this forum perhaps they should but we also have the option of contacting them (they seek this) and the more of us who do then then the better the chance of a result. |
|
By:
Of course we should support them greenhill and I do, but I cannot help but be concerned that they defend conflicts of interest in a purely legalistic way. Whilst TS may not be on the "payroll" of Baldfred it is clear she is remunerated by them.In such a position how can we, punters, be confident she will be fighting our, not their, quarter? We can't.
I reference TS not to attack her personally but because she is a known example within the HBF. There may be others. |
|
By:
Hi parispike i agree your point and concerns i also suspect that time will out RE transparency and agendas with individual HBF members but the more we as punters engage with them then the better the chance that the whole creation does not decline into just a cosmetic exercise.?At this early stage I wish to believe that it has the makings.
|
|
By:
It is after all a punters forum and that surely is the most important issue to any punter - the ability to get on to at least a reasonable amount?
Well no it's not, it only applies to a few. You're only speaking for yourself and a few others. I'm sure that few punters care about bookmaker's limits restricting them. Surely bookmaker's profits are determined by the size of the market? So they don't want restrict the size of the market, but simply protect themselves from bets that will unbalance their books. Furthermore I can't see how large bets can be good for the game, especially if inside information is involved. Surely that simply encourages shady practises? |
|
By:
I would disagree slightly there Dr Crippen, I think it probably impacts more people than you think but take your general point. It would certainly be in my top three whinges, along with backing horses that are given extremely quiet rides and nothing is said or done (prob my No.1) and most racecourses' inability to provide me with a reasonably priced pint of real ale.
Maybe Tarn's could pick up the latter point? Anyone know if she likes a beer? |
|
By:
The Headmaster thank you for your reply.
Regarding the non triers. They have been and always will be a hazard for the punter. We just have to live with them. |
|
By:
We do not know the numbers or percentage of backers who currently suffer restrictions what is clear is that those numbers while still a minority are increasing.This sends a message to all backers.HBF have stated its their intention to discover the full extent and should they succeed it will make for an interesting read.
RE large or reasonable size bet i can see the argument from both sides of the fence but surely there can be no justification when people are limited to pennies at advertised prices. |
|
By:
I cannot see how restrictions affect "a few" as not many people I know can get bets on.
Regarding the percentages of closed accounts, most do not close them entirely therefore keeps their figures higher for operating accounts. Percentage of restricted accounts would be interesting, assuming that the books share ONLY betting accounts as I would guess there are many only casino/games accounts and would add them all in to actually flaw the restriction numbers. |
|
By:
Yep - 8oyles insist that my account is not closed although I cannot get a penny on with them. It is not 'closed', apparently, because I am at liberty to play their casino games.
So maybe percentage of restricted accounts against all 'active' accounts that have had a bet on horse racing in the last fortnight? Something like that anyway. |
|
By:
Someone from the HBF posted on here a while ago, asking posters to reply (on the forum) about their experiences of having their accounts being closed/restricted, but he said he only wanted 'a rough idea of the extent of the problem', and didn't want the names of bookmakers mentioned.
I found that disappointing. I would have thought he/they would have wanted a full and as complete a picture as possible of the extent of the problem, and, perhaps, whether some major bookmakers were more guilty of it than others. Of course, it perhaps would be necessary to mention names of bookmakers in correspondence direct to the HBF rather than on a public forum, but that could have been specified in his post on here. He did not, as far as I can recall, come back on the thread and say/ask any more in response to the replies he got, some of which were quite detailed. |
|
By:
He also said if they wouldn't listen at all he would just leave - but did say he would report it as that if he did leave. In fairness to him he sounded quite punter friendly and optimistic, but it won't take long banging your head against a brick wall before he will just say nothing or walk imo. I personally don't see the forum going anywhere but as it stands will give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
|
|
By:
Ah yes...the other thing he specified was accounts closed/restricted in the last 12 months. Well I gave up betting with traditional accounts years ago, and haven't felt inclined to try again, so are my experiences not relevant, or of no interest? I'm sure there are plenty like me. Are we not relevent members of the punter community?
|
|
By:
What is the user name of the HBF member mentioned i would like to read the thread.PS I think some good points being made above.
|
|
By:
The Twitter handle is @hbf
|
|
By:
Sorry @HbfBritain
|
|
By:
I have been involved in twitter discussions with the HBF as well. This quarters topic is quite rightly about account restrictions.
However, Last quarters meeting in September was primarily around SP returns and overrounds. What outcome has there been from these discussions. Is it just a talking shop? |
|
By:
I think it's far too early for people to be making assumptions about the effectiveness of HBF, and whilst I can appreciate the concerns of those who question the impartiality of several of the Forum's members, it is surely only fair to judge them after they've had a chance to make a difference.
As far as I'm aware, there have only been two meetings so far, and although it's fair to say we have not yet heard any news of ground breaking achievements, I suspect that the foundations have been put in place to enable progress to be made in the future. Rome wasn't built in a day, and I find it disappointing that so many have been so swift in their dismissal of something which may yet prove to be of benefit to many of us. |
|
By:
Dr Crippen 05 Jan 16 11:21
It is after all a punters forum and that surely is the most important issue to any punter - the ability to get on to at least a reasonable amount? Well no it's not, it only applies to a few. You're only speaking for yourself and a few others. I'm sure that few punters care about bookmaker's limits restricting them. Surely bookmaker's profits are determined by the size of the market? So they don't want restrict the size of the market, but simply protect themselves from bets that will unbalance their books. Furthermore I can't see how large bets can be good for the game, especially if inside information is involved. Surely that simply encourages shady practises? This is what genuine punters are up against. If Bookmakers don't want to lay at advertised odds......THEN DON'T PRICE UP!!!! |
|
By:
Not dismissed in this quarter; rather a sense of concern based on of a lifetime of experience!
|
|
By:
Happy to give it a chance but not sure what a 3 hour meeting once a quarter can achieve.
There needs to be subgroups and working parties setup to progress things IN BETWEEN meetings with SPRC, bookmakers, Gambling Committee, etc as there is never time to review and try to forward an issue at the next meeting, it is just on to the next. The terms of reference seem to be very brief and give no visibility if any of the above goes on or not. |
|
By:
greenhill - I can't remember his name, but it was neither Tanya, nor Simon Rowlands, nor Matt Bisogno. It was one of the others, peobably known for running a website, or having previously been on focus groups or some such.
|
|
By:
i know steve tilley was mentioned on here on one of the early threads, maybe aug/sept last yr, has some connection to olias if i am thinking of the right person
|
|
By:
I don't really get Twitter or feel comfortable using it and looking at the HRB account there does not appear to be much interest so i have e mailed them drawing their attention to this thread and suggesting that some good points have been raised.I hope that some of them feel able to read it and perhaps respond.
I agree with member Paul Haighs above post lets give them the chance and our support. |
|
By:
This is what genuine punters are up against.
What's genuine punter? Someone who simply agrees with you? If Bookmakers don't want to lay at advertised odds......THEN DON'T PRICE UP!!!! This is silly. Advertised odds are a snapshot of the price at a certain time, and like share prices, they fluctuate depending on the demand for them. Any genuine punter should realise that |
|
By:
The problem Dr Crippen is that the odds fluctuate without the demand on them being facilitated!!
All sensible serious (genuine) punters know that odds fluctuate based on demand. What's wrong is that the present position allows the off course books to adjust them without actually laying the prices they create and advertise to any reasonable amount of money. It's a scam and everyone knows it. |
|
By:
Parispike,
How is it a scam? No one is being tricked into taking anything except what they are offered when they try to strike the bet, punters either take the price or leave it. |
|
By:
I and others can't take it ffs!!
|
|
By:
If some people feel strongly about not being able to get on at advertised prises then I suggest they leave them alone.
|
|
By:
The frustration for many is when the bet is refused but the price remains,this is not market forces but discrimination.?
|