|
By:
Like I said, vote with you feet.
Walk away and stop trying to get on at early prices. If you know the advertised prices are only a guide, and you're unlikely to get on at that price then why bother with them? |
|
By:
Why advertise them?
They are not a "guide"; they are just not available to all despite the bookmaker claims to play the race not the punter. A matter that none of the media outlets seem prepared to make clear - despite ample opportunity to question their execrable reps. |
|
By:
I agree with Parispike, it is understood that prices are volatile and will fluctuate. If advertising they can only do what they are at that time and everyone must accept they are subject to change.
What is not acceptable is that the price has not moved and is available, it is not available to everyone. You give a share analogy, but anyone can buy or sell at the "current" price. I am sure that Tesco would not be allow to advertise bananas at a certain price in their window but when you went in they were a different price. |
|
By:
What are the foundations that have been put in place in this so called forum for punters yet the punters arnt really getting a say are they it's packed full of VIP twats who want to be seen busy and yet nothing will get done there doesn't seem to be any urgency in these matters cause theyr all full off theyr own crapppppppppp
|
|
By:
Swardean, what's the price of bananas being sold at Tesco got to do with bookmaking?
Tesco are running a book. |
|
By:
You do understand how a book works don't you?
|
|
By:
Dr Crippen - it's got everything to do with it.
|
|
By:
parispike,
How can it have anything to do with it? Tesco is operating a different industry. If Tesco get a run on bananas, can they lose money to keep selling them at the advertised price? Of course they can't. A bookie can't operate like retail market. |
|
By:
^^
Oh dear. Where to start? |
|
By:
Swardean, what's the price of bananas being sold at Tesco got to do with bookmaking?
If Tesco offer bananas at 79p per bunch, it will be 79p per bunch to EVERYONE You go in and buy 3 bunches and I can go in and get 3 bunches (unless its a special offer and it states 2 bunches per customer etc). With the books you can have a grand at the advertised price and all I am allowed is 86p. Your share price analogy is completely flawed as ANYONE can buy or sell shares, but with the books not everyone can have a bet with them. It's them who should be knowing how a book works and making it work is it not. |
|
By:
Your share price analogy is completely flawed
No it's not. I used share prices as an example of fluctuating prices. Not in the way that you suggest at all. Although a very large institution buying a large block of shares would find difficulty getting on at the current price. Large transactions in the share market are subject to negotiation. |
|
By:
Dr Crippen, agree they are different industries, but we are talking about the advertising of goods or services. If these goods (or services) are not available at the time of advertising they should not be allowed imo.
|
|
By:
If Tesco offer bananas at 79p per bunch, it will be 79p per bunch to EVERYONE
Tesco are running a shop. Bookies are running a book. You simply can't make a any meaningful comparison between the two regarding prices on offer. |
|
By:
FFS - one customer can walk in a books and have virtually what you want on at the advertised price, I ask for the same price and I get nothing or a pound. They DO NOT cut the price so it does not fluctuate, it has NOTHING to do with demand whatsoever. They WILL NOT take a bet from me, but the next person who walks in CAN HAVE the price that was declined to me for 20 times the stake I asked for. Do you understand how that's how it actually is at the moment...
|
|
By:
Bookmaker's prices can fluctuate by the minute or even seconds.
Tesco's prices are good for the day at least. Where is there any common ground there? |
|
By:
Yes they can and WE ALL KNOW THAT. The price is declined to many but it DOESN't change. There is no fluctuation, they offer it to some but not to others.
|
|
By:
Dr Crippen - you are not listening; they do NOT change the price after refusing me the price they offered to me!
|
|
By:
Magic__Daps
Take it up with the bookie manager. How can we know what's gone on between you and the bookies, that makes you a special case? |
|
By:
Same answer to parispike.
|
|
By:
Ye Gods. I give up.
|
|
By:
Absolutely clueless
|
|
By:
Yes M_D, you do appear to have a very poor grasp of the situation from any other view apart from your own.
|
|
By:
Here's an idea for the compulsive advertised price punters out there.
When you see a price advertised, simply take 10% or whatever off the top and expect to get that. Then you won't be disappointed. And for those whose bets are subject to any sort of restriction. I'm afraid I can't help you. |
|
By:
On a slightly different theme then, Dr Crippen, does it not strike you as nothing less than a moral outrage that someone can open an account with a bookmaker and, if he or she even looks like winning, get heavily restricted/shut down? Surely the whole point of the person opening the account in the first place is that he or she hopes they might win a little bit every now and again? It simply cannot be right - I would go so far as too say borderline unlawful - for bookmakers to have a thou shall not win attitude. Can it?
|
|
By:
Yes Headmaster, it's widely reported on here that bookies will restrict betting that comes from a winning account.
I doubt if it has ever been any different. So why use online bookmakers if they operate in that way? Simply don't use them. |
|
By:
Dr Crippen 06 Jan 16 13:52
Here's an idea for the compulsive advertised price punters out there. When you see a price advertised, simply take 10% or whatever off the top and expect to get that. Then you won't be disappointed. 410 kempton - Red Dragon 10/1 generally and 9/1 with a few, the worst by far is BF Sportsbook at 17/2, you would think they would let me have as much as possible at by far the worst price wouldn't you??? Your selections Odds Stake 16:10 Kemp 6th Jan BOG 100 Max £1.77 Delete Red Dragon Win EW Forecast / TricastStake per Bet It doesn't even need to be top prices, they won't take bets at bottom prices from certain people so your theory of demand is just wrong. |
|
By:
I agree with Crips as a matter of principle. There should be no discrimination laws. Allow the market to decide. If bookies restrict accounts then collectively the punter should boycott them. If they refuse to do so then they don't care enough. That's the bottom line. Everybody is trying to cut everybody elses throat and this is why we arrive at the position we do because you can't take a dog eat dog approach and then complain when a bigger dog eats you. Having said that as I pointed out on the other thread on this issue this is an example of very unenlightened practice by bookies. As I said:
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. |
|
By:
To clarify an issue which has been raised on the issue of discrimination I'm reasonably sure that doesn't apply in law.
|
|
By:
When it was first launched a chap on the HBF suggested he would post the expenses received by the members. Can't remember his name, and might have miissed it, but did he ever post the exes they receive?
|
|
By:
Eeternaloptimist, I agree with what you are saying apart from
"If bookies restrict accounts then collectively the punter should boycott them. If they refuse to do so then they don't care enough". The trouble with that is there is nobody that can start/voice any type of boycott (our racing media won't jump off the first class gravy train and say a bad word about any of them), plus if one punter can get on with no problem and that firm is top price they will not boycott them. Anyone who already hasn't got a hope in hell of getting on, has already in effect boycotted them. |
|
By:
I dont understand the bookie bashing.
The goal of these companies is to make profit. And if they would offer odds like the exchange it is impossible to make profit. And if all punters would be winners how would they make a profit so they need mug punters like Big Mart who back horses well below the real odds. |
|
By:
Eetemaloptimist your above well said and enables the problem.When i first started using on line bookmakers and could get on tbh i took little interest in the plight of those who spoke of being restricted.My attitude only changed when i experienced the same.Likewise receiving the PC on here.
All i would say is that those not currently affected might consider the message this sends and also what awaits them should they dare to start profiting from their efforts. As you rightly say collectively we could "encourage" some positive change but we have no spokesperson or organization to help in this.My hope is that the HRB group will become such and this is why i advocate giving them the chance and our support. I also hope this thread stays active because there are some very good points being made.The bookmakers will not wish this to happen which is reason enough to ensure otherwise. |
|
By:
Sorry my above should have been in response to Magic Daps most recent post.
|
|
By:
dom888 - they are a business and everyone will accept that. The trouble is they are banning mugs after a few bets as they guess that the mug knows what he/she is doing. This mug then tells others and they then do NOT bet on racing ever again (as what is the point if you are not allowed to win). Yes they will probably bet elsewhere or machines in arcades/pubs etc, but the massive longterm loser is horse racing as a sport.
Who will be going racing in 20-30 years time (bar the stag dos)? I am only 40 and know plenty of people/punters younger than me, chat to them about punting on racing and they wouldn't even entertain it. Why would they? They have heard all the stories of restrictions and closed accounts by me and others. A hell of a lot of punters cannot even get on at the bottom prices let alone the top ones, without using other family members and friends or wearing a false moustache into a shop. I would also bet money that a lot of these same punters are longterm losers - which overall means a longterm loss for racing. |
|
By:
Racing doesn't want 'savvy' punters - it wants mug punters. The muggier the better. That's why Derek Thompson is never short of work in the industry - because he appeals to mugs. The industry wants the punters that he appeals to, not the ones that he doesn't appeal to.
Punters aren't supposed to win - they are supposed to lose. They are supposed to supply the system with money to keep the industry going. They are not supposed to take money OUT of the system by making a profit. No other group in the industry wants winning punters - that's why no-one has the least bit of sympathy/interest in the bleatings of people who can't get on. You don't even have to be a winner to have your account marked, you just have to look as if you are not a mug. For instance, if you open an account with an online bookmaker, deposit £500, and don't use it for a month, your account will be marked, because that is not mug behaviour. |
|
By:
Some on here seem to think you have to be a winning punter to get restricted think we all know that is not the case, if you beat sp a few times but are losing they still ban you because the assume you are not mug
|
|
By:
That's a bit overly cynical, Ged. As has been mentioned before the mug punters need to have the dream that they can become winners or else there's no point betting. Even "mugs" aren't (necessarily) stupid.
|
|
By:
^ The infuriatingly awful, dumbed-down, Bookies ADVERTS - AIMED at the equally artificially excitable NON-Savvy mugs - are, "the dream that they can become winners."
The reality, is then attempting to get a bet on. |
|
By:
Everyone fails to mention or realise that the people with the most advantages as far as horseracing betting do get on i.e owners and trainers,who have knowledge not available to the likes of me and will be betting in larger amounts.Racing journalists tv pundits and others within sport (not just racing) will also get on what they want with no problems.I wouldn't be complaining if it was THE SAME FOR ALL AND THE DECISIONS NOT TO ACCEPT BETS WERE FINANCIAL but they're not.Can you imagine the likes the likes of Mick Easterby logging on to back one of his and getting the message £0.25 MAX @ 8-1.
|
|
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 "
Hi that' would be me. Apologies for not picking this up earlier. The HBF are well aware of account restrictions and are trying to get things rolling. To be frank it was easier to get the over round issue underway quicker and so we got that going. Speaking personally I have not forgotten about account restrictions and I am sure the other members of the HBF haven't. To respond to a point about the survey I did that was just to get me a feel for the problem. I am not attached or work for bookmakers so I need to catch up on these things (BTW what or who is olias, see above). The thing that seems to get people's goat most about this issue is the frustration of not knowing why your account is closed or restricted. Clearly some people do know why their accounts are restricted but a sizable number do not. I am not naive in that I know there are punters, possibly reading this, who would bend and break every rule going to get an extra profit on their account. However they are a minority. I can think of no other industry or service that stops it's customers from using their service with often no notice, no warning and invariably with no reason given. Personally I feel it is the inalienable right of any bookmaker to offer what ever price he likes to who ever he chooses and to deal with only people who he trusts. But I can see no advantage to a bookmaker from banning or restricting punters and not giving them the opportunity to rectify their ways. Take a hypothetical example.... Mr A, a novice punter, opens an account and starts to bet. He doesn't read the racing post and gets all his info from the internet. On his first week by coincidence he picks a Pricewise horse which wins. Next week he again picks a pricewise horse it's backed in from 16/1 to 8/1 it comes second and he picks up the EW at 16/1. Result his account is restricted as this firm has made a decision that anyone who trades on pricewise horses regularly will be cut back. If they had sent Mr A and email and said "we notice you appear to be following Pricewise and if you continue to do so we will restict your account" then Mr A could at least make sure his selections weren't Pricewise ones in future. Thus the relationship between him and the bookmaker could continue. Their way we have a disgruntled and bemused customer who doesn't know what he did "wrong". Finally in reference to some people who take issue with the fact that some members of the HBF work for or have worked for the betting industry or earn money from horse racing. Personally I have found that all the members of the HBF to be enthusiastic in putting the punters point of view forward and I can offer no supportive evidence to the conspiracy theorists who believe the HBF is a put up job. As I've said before I will soon shout if I do find something amiss. |