There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
19 Feb 16
11:25
Joined:
Date Joined:
01 Jul 10
It’s a Thursday morning in November and lifelong horseracing fan and punter Brian Sykes is logged onto a leading bookmaker’s site on his laptop. After poring over the form for a 10-runner novices hurdle at Market Rasen, the 59-year-old Yorkshireman plumps for an obvious choice, 5/2 favourite Western Miller. He punches in his stake – £15 to win – and clicks the ‘Bet Now’ button. Suddenly, a warning message flashes up informing him that the maximum he can stake on his chosen horse is £8.51. If he proceeds, his potential winnings tumble from £52.50 (including stake) to £29.78. He abandons his bet and stakes just £5.
Bet restrictions on racing are an all-too-familiar occurrence for Sykes after he took semi-retirement in 2014 with the intention of generating a little extra cash from betting on racing to modest stakes. “I enjoy a puzzle. Some people do crosswords – I try to work out 16-runner handicaps,” he says. However, he soon became exasperated with unravelling these sporting puzzles when his bets began to be restricted and he was accused of being a professional gambler who was privy to inside information. “Why would I bet £10 and £15 if I had inside information?” he says.
Sykes claims he staked £16,000 across 1,500 bets over a seven-month period, resulting in a negligible 0.2% profit. Yet half of his accounts were either restricted or closed. One firm shut his account after eight bets, despite the fact he was £120 in the red. They said half of his selections had shortened in price so they didn’t want his business. “I thought you had to be **** hot and had to win thousands before you had any restrictions at all. In three months I went from being someone who was an advocate of the betting industry to somebody who absolutely despises it. I now say to people, ‘don’t bother betting because they won’t let you win.’”
Having bets rejected and accounts closed used to be a badge of honour and very much par for the course for that rare breed – the professional racing gambler. Now, though, more and more disgruntled recreational bettors are flocking to social media channels and forums to protest that they struggle to place wagers on racing. The groundswell of frustration suggests that consistently backing ‘shorteners’ or top prices on Oddschecker, landing a big winner or demonstrating a certain degree racing betting nous are some sure-fire ways of eventually finding yourself persona non grata with certain operators.
Pete Ling runs independent gambling advice service Secret Betting Club, which boasts almost 1,000 members. He’s adamant that the situation is worsening for those that aren’t professional gamblers or arbitrageurs. “As a shrewd punter you kind of expect it and it’s a rite of passage – you win good money and have your account limited and then closed. Nowadays, it’s affecting more and more punters, and not even those who are winning. I’ve been contacted by people who have a few losing bets and had their accounts closed.” Back in 2013, he surveyed SBC members and discovered that racing bet limits and account closures were widespread. One operator heavily restricted or closed three out of four accounts held by members. Ling is poised to carry out a similar survey to gauge the state of the industry in 2016.
Bookmakers aren’t doing anything illegal here. They can refuse to do business with whomever they like. And just like any other company, the aim is to turn a profit. The industry leaders are multibillion-pound public corporations battling for business in a fiercely competitive market that has witnessed a slew of blockbuster M&A deals of late. Critics argue, though, that furnishing the City with positive results every quarter and appeasing shareholders is now the be-all and end-all, and that gambling on racing is far removed from when it was a battle of wits and minds between punter and that well-worn caricature of a fearless bookmaker with a mathematical brain as razor sharp as his suit.
Scott Ferguson, a betting consultant and member of the Horseracing Bettors Forum, a new body established by the British Horseracing Authority to represent the interests and views of racing bettors, says computers and accountants have taken over. “They have given licences to bookmakers, but they aren’t actually compelled to ‘book make’. They are just corporations run by bean counters and owned by hedge funds, so all they want to do is cut costs and increase revenue and profits. The best way to cut costs is to keep dumbing down the staff by automating all the systems and stop taking bets that may cause you to lose money.”
In the industry’s defence, racing has always been one of the most unpredictable and opaque sports to price up and trade. Markets, especially minor meetings on weekdays, can be especially volatile. Furthermore, layers often can’t rely on exchanges like Betfair and **** as a guide in the run up to races because there’s usually a dearth of liquidity until 15 minutes before the off. “They [operators] feel more vulnerable here,” says Ling, “not just from inside information, but from people who study form, especially when your racing department has been slashed from 30 traders to three or four.” Also, the costs continue to snowball for operators. As well as the cost of laying bets, there are expenses such as two racing channels (SIS and Turf TV), data rights, tax and the Levy. It’s easy to see why clued-up racing punters might be swatted away.
However, there are more sinister accusations swirling around, namely that bookmakers deploy sophisticated software to monitor and profile online customers. It’s alleged that some use tools like IE Snare – developed by Iovation to combat fraud and money laundering – to spy on their customers. IE Snare is able to monitor a computer’s behaviour and collect data, so it’s suggested, for instance, that if you are logged into an operator’s site then that firm can tell if you are also looking at odds comparison sites or tracking odds on the exchanges. “We have advised our members to be aware of it,” says Ling. “People have discovered IE Snare, but we don’t know how much bookmakers are tracking and profiling gamblers.”
Sykes, who wishes to see IE Snare made illegal, says he conducted a test whereby he intentionally wiped his laptop before opening an account with a leading bookmaker. He immediately found IE Snare running in the background. “IE Snare is not an ordinary cookie,” he says. “I have searched many sets of bookmakers’ terms and conditions and I have yet to see the words ‘IE Snare’ used anywhere, so why are they hiding it? I don’t think there is anything illegal in it, but they just don’t want people to know what they are doing. Most people would be appalled if they knew what was going on.”
Ultimately, though, the fear is that the so-called Sport of Kings will suffer if restrictions persist and dyed-in-the-wool punters desert racing. For instance, Channel 4 Racing’s viewing figures continue to slide, which could be partly attributed to Saturday-afternoon punters struggling to have a £25 or £50 flutter. Fifteen years ago, racing accounted for around 80% of shop turnover. Now more than half of the money a shop takes has been pumped into FOBTs, which are guaranteed cash cows for firms. Racing has taken a back seat as a betting product. “Bookmakers are alienating the core audience – the people who bet on racing week in week out,” says Ling. “I certainly can see more people not betting on racing, which will mean a knock-on effect of people attending race meetings, watching less racing on TV or buying fewer racing newspapers. I’m worried because racing and betting are intrinsically linked.”
In Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales, bookmakers are obliged to accept bets on thoroughbred races where they could lose a minimum of AUS$2,000, regardless of whether the customer is a professional or recreational bettor. Ferguson, who is a native Australian and also former head of education at Betfair (exchange), says that since the minimum bet limit’s introduction in 2014, it has been a boon for punters who can now avoid the rigmarole of having to open accounts in the names of friends and relatives. Perhaps understandably, not all layers were over the moon. “The old school bookmakers said ‘bring it on’ because they can still remember how to ‘book make’, but the European bookmakers were screaming blue murder,” says Ferguson.
Back in the UK, Coral took the decision a year ago to lay win bets up to a payout of £5,000 on all races screened on Channel 4. Although it only applies to bets placed in its shops, the move has been applauded as a step in the right direction. This aside, the consensus among many punters is that bookmakers are much more risk-averse nowadays, especially with racing. Finding winners should be the hard part, not trying to get a bet on to the stake requested, they protest.
Sykes echoes the frustrations of many: “Why would you want to spend two hours on a Friday night studying form and then go online Saturday morning asking for £5 each-way on a horse at 12/1 and they offer you £1.73? Why bother?” After 40 years of betting, almost exclusively on racing (on-course, in shops and, more recently, online) he’s become somewhat disillusioned with his hobby. “It’s got out of control. Not only do they want big losers, but if anybody hints at all that they might not lose a significant amount of money they’ll stop them betting.” As for Sykes' requested bet, Western Miller went off the 2/1 favourite but finished tailed off in fifth place. He saved himself £10.
THE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE
Gambling Insider contacted 10 leading bookmakers for their views on betting restrictions and account closures. Of these, three replied. William Hill said: “We operate in a competitive marketplace and want the freedom to offer good prices to our broad, recreational target audience. Managing our liabilities in this way enables us to give value back to our regular customers rather than it being sucked up by a few professionals.”
**** said it does not close accounts of customers who back best price or demonstrate an aptitude for betting on horses, though accounts are shut down where fraudulent behaviour is detected. Meanwhile, Ladbrokes said just 2% of accounts are restricted while fewer than 0.5% of bets on a typical day face restrictions. “Our strategy for growth is clear and revolves around growing recreational scale across our customer base and in order to deliver value to these customers we, like all bookmakers, have restrictions in place on some accounts.”
When asked specifically about IE Snare, Ladbrokes stressed that it wasn’t used. **** said: “We have extensive systems to protect the company against fraud or to detect inappropriate betting behaviour. As a matter of policy we don't comment on the specifics of our security procedures.”
The Association of British Bookmakers declined to comment specifically on bet restrictions and account closures, but added that each operator “makes their own decisions and has their own polices”. Meanwhile, the Gambling Commission said betting companies are expected to have clear and fair terms and conditions under which accounts can be closed or limited. “It is then up to the potential customers to consider those terms and conditions and decide whether they wish to do business with that operator,” a spokesman said.
Bet restrictions on racing are an all-too-familiar occurrence for Sykes after he took semi-retirement in 2014 with the intention of generating a little extra cash from betting on racing to modest stakes. “I enjoy a puzzle. Some people do crosswords – I try to work out 16-runner handicaps,” he says. However, he soon became exasperated with unravelling these sporting puzzles when his bets began to be restricted and he was accused of being a professional gambler who was privy to inside information. “Why would I bet £10 and £15 if I had inside information?” he says.
Sykes claims he staked £16,000 across 1,500 bets over a seven-month period, resulting in a negligible 0.2% profit. Yet half of his accounts were either restricted or closed. One firm shut his account after eight bets, despite the fact he was £120 in the red. They said half of his selections had shortened in price so they didn’t want his business. “I thought you had to be **** hot and had to win thousands before you had any restrictions at all. In three months I went from being someone who was an advocate of the betting industry to somebody who absolutely despises it. I now say to people, ‘don’t bother betting because they won’t let you win.’”
Having bets rejected and accounts closed used to be a badge of honour and very much par for the course for that rare breed – the professional racing gambler. Now, though, more and more disgruntled recreational bettors are flocking to social media channels and forums to protest that they struggle to place wagers on racing. The groundswell of frustration suggests that consistently backing ‘shorteners’ or top prices on Oddschecker, landing a big winner or demonstrating a certain degree racing betting nous are some sure-fire ways of eventually finding yourself persona non grata with certain operators.
Pete Ling runs independent gambling advice service Secret Betting Club, which boasts almost 1,000 members. He’s adamant that the situation is worsening for those that aren’t professional gamblers or arbitrageurs. “As a shrewd punter you kind of expect it and it’s a rite of passage – you win good money and have your account limited and then closed. Nowadays, it’s affecting more and more punters, and not even those who are winning. I’ve been contacted by people who have a few losing bets and had their accounts closed.” Back in 2013, he surveyed SBC members and discovered that racing bet limits and account closures were widespread. One operator heavily restricted or closed three out of four accounts held by members. Ling is poised to carry out a similar survey to gauge the state of the industry in 2016.
Bookmakers aren’t doing anything illegal here. They can refuse to do business with whomever they like. And just like any other company, the aim is to turn a profit. The industry leaders are multibillion-pound public corporations battling for business in a fiercely competitive market that has witnessed a slew of blockbuster M&A deals of late. Critics argue, though, that furnishing the City with positive results every quarter and appeasing shareholders is now the be-all and end-all, and that gambling on racing is far removed from when it was a battle of wits and minds between punter and that well-worn caricature of a fearless bookmaker with a mathematical brain as razor sharp as his suit.
Scott Ferguson, a betting consultant and member of the Horseracing Bettors Forum, a new body established by the British Horseracing Authority to represent the interests and views of racing bettors, says computers and accountants have taken over. “They have given licences to bookmakers, but they aren’t actually compelled to ‘book make’. They are just corporations run by bean counters and owned by hedge funds, so all they want to do is cut costs and increase revenue and profits. The best way to cut costs is to keep dumbing down the staff by automating all the systems and stop taking bets that may cause you to lose money.”
In the industry’s defence, racing has always been one of the most unpredictable and opaque sports to price up and trade. Markets, especially minor meetings on weekdays, can be especially volatile. Furthermore, layers often can’t rely on exchanges like Betfair and **** as a guide in the run up to races because there’s usually a dearth of liquidity until 15 minutes before the off. “They [operators] feel more vulnerable here,” says Ling, “not just from inside information, but from people who study form, especially when your racing department has been slashed from 30 traders to three or four.” Also, the costs continue to snowball for operators. As well as the cost of laying bets, there are expenses such as two racing channels (SIS and Turf TV), data rights, tax and the Levy. It’s easy to see why clued-up racing punters might be swatted away.
However, there are more sinister accusations swirling around, namely that bookmakers deploy sophisticated software to monitor and profile online customers. It’s alleged that some use tools like IE Snare – developed by Iovation to combat fraud and money laundering – to spy on their customers. IE Snare is able to monitor a computer’s behaviour and collect data, so it’s suggested, for instance, that if you are logged into an operator’s site then that firm can tell if you are also looking at odds comparison sites or tracking odds on the exchanges. “We have advised our members to be aware of it,” says Ling. “People have discovered IE Snare, but we don’t know how much bookmakers are tracking and profiling gamblers.”
Sykes, who wishes to see IE Snare made illegal, says he conducted a test whereby he intentionally wiped his laptop before opening an account with a leading bookmaker. He immediately found IE Snare running in the background. “IE Snare is not an ordinary cookie,” he says. “I have searched many sets of bookmakers’ terms and conditions and I have yet to see the words ‘IE Snare’ used anywhere, so why are they hiding it? I don’t think there is anything illegal in it, but they just don’t want people to know what they are doing. Most people would be appalled if they knew what was going on.”
Ultimately, though, the fear is that the so-called Sport of Kings will suffer if restrictions persist and dyed-in-the-wool punters desert racing. For instance, Channel 4 Racing’s viewing figures continue to slide, which could be partly attributed to Saturday-afternoon punters struggling to have a £25 or £50 flutter. Fifteen years ago, racing accounted for around 80% of shop turnover. Now more than half of the money a shop takes has been pumped into FOBTs, which are guaranteed cash cows for firms. Racing has taken a back seat as a betting product. “Bookmakers are alienating the core audience – the people who bet on racing week in week out,” says Ling. “I certainly can see more people not betting on racing, which will mean a knock-on effect of people attending race meetings, watching less racing on TV or buying fewer racing newspapers. I’m worried because racing and betting are intrinsically linked.”
In Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales, bookmakers are obliged to accept bets on thoroughbred races where they could lose a minimum of AUS$2,000, regardless of whether the customer is a professional or recreational bettor. Ferguson, who is a native Australian and also former head of education at Betfair (exchange), says that since the minimum bet limit’s introduction in 2014, it has been a boon for punters who can now avoid the rigmarole of having to open accounts in the names of friends and relatives. Perhaps understandably, not all layers were over the moon. “The old school bookmakers said ‘bring it on’ because they can still remember how to ‘book make’, but the European bookmakers were screaming blue murder,” says Ferguson.
Back in the UK, Coral took the decision a year ago to lay win bets up to a payout of £5,000 on all races screened on Channel 4. Although it only applies to bets placed in its shops, the move has been applauded as a step in the right direction. This aside, the consensus among many punters is that bookmakers are much more risk-averse nowadays, especially with racing. Finding winners should be the hard part, not trying to get a bet on to the stake requested, they protest.
Sykes echoes the frustrations of many: “Why would you want to spend two hours on a Friday night studying form and then go online Saturday morning asking for £5 each-way on a horse at 12/1 and they offer you £1.73? Why bother?” After 40 years of betting, almost exclusively on racing (on-course, in shops and, more recently, online) he’s become somewhat disillusioned with his hobby. “It’s got out of control. Not only do they want big losers, but if anybody hints at all that they might not lose a significant amount of money they’ll stop them betting.” As for Sykes' requested bet, Western Miller went off the 2/1 favourite but finished tailed off in fifth place. He saved himself £10.
THE INDUSTRY’S RESPONSE
Gambling Insider contacted 10 leading bookmakers for their views on betting restrictions and account closures. Of these, three replied. William Hill said: “We operate in a competitive marketplace and want the freedom to offer good prices to our broad, recreational target audience. Managing our liabilities in this way enables us to give value back to our regular customers rather than it being sucked up by a few professionals.”
**** said it does not close accounts of customers who back best price or demonstrate an aptitude for betting on horses, though accounts are shut down where fraudulent behaviour is detected. Meanwhile, Ladbrokes said just 2% of accounts are restricted while fewer than 0.5% of bets on a typical day face restrictions. “Our strategy for growth is clear and revolves around growing recreational scale across our customer base and in order to deliver value to these customers we, like all bookmakers, have restrictions in place on some accounts.”
When asked specifically about IE Snare, Ladbrokes stressed that it wasn’t used. **** said: “We have extensive systems to protect the company against fraud or to detect inappropriate betting behaviour. As a matter of policy we don't comment on the specifics of our security procedures.”
The Association of British Bookmakers declined to comment specifically on bet restrictions and account closures, but added that each operator “makes their own decisions and has their own polices”. Meanwhile, the Gambling Commission said betting companies are expected to have clear and fair terms and conditions under which accounts can be closed or limited. “It is then up to the potential customers to consider those terms and conditions and decide whether they wish to do business with that operator,” a spokesman said.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 66
|
By:
nothing new in this but not a bad piece.... ieSnare included..:-)
|
|
By:
No mention in the article of betting with exchanges or have I missed it.
|
|
By:
" Ladbrokes said just 2% of accounts are restricted while fewer than 0.5% of bets on a typical day face restrictions"
That has to be some king of joke surely  |
|
By:
here is a link to the HBF discussion on the matter of account restrictions, very short, IBAS rep mentioned etc etc
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/bha/horseracing-bettors-forum/# "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. |
|
By:
ATR seem oblivious to RUK stance re-twitter "At The Races @AtTheRaces 4m4 minutes ago
New account offer: Register with Paddy Power and get Silviniaco Conti at 12/1 to win the Ascot Chase tomorrow" Lambs to the slaughter and don't mean ATR |
|
By:
if every mp read that article it might help, if only to further increase taxation on FOBT s.
|
|
By:
They said half of his selections had shortened in price so they didn’t want his business.
 You could pick racecard numbers out of a hat and beat the SP more than half the time. They shorten nearly everything 10 minutes before a race. |
|
By:
fancy having the audacity to at least have a clue about what youre betting on eh
 |
|
By:
iovation the company behind iesnare is run by a crook. It is a disgrace that they are allowed anywhere near the gambling industry.
https://gregpiersoniovation.wordpress.com/ 2013/05/14/iovation-ceo-greg-pierson-named -by-haley-hintze-as-being-a-potential-superuser-on-ultimate-bet/ |
|
By:
have a look at a new website
justiceforpunters.org |
|
By:
Ladbrokes 2% walofs.
I would say 52%. |
|
By:
Unfortunately we are not in Australia but in Britain.
|
|
By:
2% of accounts are unrestricted while fewer than 0.5% of bets on a typical day do not face restrictions
|
|
By:
As usual the UK Gambling Commission's take on the matter is about as useful as a one armed trapeze artist with an itchy arse!
|
|
By:
Betfair sportsbook restrict heavily -and thats pre the new owners....
|
|
By:
The topic of restrictions and closures has gained far more coverage in the last few months with articles in national newspapers, a Radio 5 investigation and even a mention on the Coral's BBC programme, and it has made not one bit of difference to the bookies who continue their unfair practices as normal.
Our only hope is probably if the growing backlash against the machines leads to limits on stakes and a massive reduction in their profits, so they have to return to what they have been given a license to do. |
|
By:
There is some momentum building behind this issue now however it needs all punters to get behind one single campaign to get it investigated by the Department for Culture or the Culture Select Committee.
|
|
By:
Please don't release a load of flame on this post I am but the messenger. During the last HBF meeting it became apparent that the BHA don't believe closed accounts are a significant problem. When the HBF pointed out it was we were asked to prove it. That is what we are intnding to do. We are sorting out the exact method at the moment. I will post here when we have decided what information we need then it will be up to you guys who have been restricted to help us out. I know many of you believe that the HBF/BHA are just bookmakers stooges. We are not. We have the opportunity to raise this with the BHA and we will need evidence. It will be interesting to see if ABP's appear amongst the bookmakers making restrictions. Personally I think the problem is quite large but we need evidence. Please watch this thread for further details or watch at the new HBF website http://ukhbf.org/
|
|
By:
where have the BHA been ? On the moon ?
BHA need evidence of account restrictions and closures ? surely the bookies haven't been able to conceal this problem from the Gambling Commission, HBF and BHA ? HBF Steve, I think you have a mountain to climb here in even being heard above the clink of wine glasses and munching of cucumber sandwiches at the next meeting. Bookies control everything in the UK, take away their powers of restriction and closure and most would be at the mercy of the pro's on here, that coming from a person that has had every single bookie account closed. |
|
By:
the bit I dont understand is that 95% of restricted punters are losers, is it because they are not big enough losers and not good enough to mark their cards?
|
|
By:
Surely if you went back with a high figure, the ones who represent the books will call you liars and say the figures are incorrect. Why can't they just give a figure of how many punters are restricted when it comes to horse racing? Or are they really scared at the actual figure?
PS - make sure the figure is closed and restrictions rather than just closed, as many books do not actually close accounts and restrict them to pennies so they are dormant (but they can then peddle their lies to shareholders regarding the amount of 'active' accounts), imo of course. I tell you what, why not send a few of the BHA around my house and open some brand new accounts in their names (need their own VPN), and see how long they last before they are closed or heavily restricted. |
|
By:
ladbrokes lying as usual, cant wait to see there continual decline to where they finally shut up shop disgusting company. It would be at least over 25% at least that have restrictions.
How are we to prove this send the Famous "traders decision" email?!? sure we've all got at least 5 of them, i myself received 17 in a matter of 2/3 weeks you cant tell me theres no collusion. Some of these accounts had had for 10 years. And some where bad losing accounts. They never close your account they restrict your account to buttons its there way of saying we dont close accounts, we just make trading decisions. |
|
By:
the bit I dont understand is that 95% of restricted punters are losers
losers they may be, but at some point they may be winners. why take that chance when you have a guaranteed stream of huge income from the fobt's ?? no brainer. |
|
By:
Betfair give advice on how to Arb- I quote from their help/ advice pages:
What is Arbing? Arbing is one of the most talked about and controversial techniques in sports betting, and is designed to offer punters minimum risk and the potential to make long-term profits. The word arbing is derived from 'arbitrage', which describes the process of simultaneously buying and selling securities or assets, and it has its origins as a practice in stocks and shares. Arbitrage has existed in betting since bookmaking first began. But technological changes in the way people access bets, and particularly the rise of online bookmakers, have led to a growth in the popularity of arbing in recent years, with tens of thousands of gamblers successfully employing the technique around the world. However, some bookmakers have not taken kindly to the trend, and have prohibited arbers from practicing the technique. Sportsbook- thats Betfair sportsbook- ban any arbing activity ... Pinnicle betmakers apparantly welcome arbers - but their prices are restricted and i think its win only on certain horseraces - perhaps all?- so no dirty e/w thieving allowed! |
|
By:
uk cant use pinnacle can they?
|
|
By:
oh yes
|
|
By:
?
|
|
By:
To cut to the chase no-one is allowed to win and if you lose but back a few shortened horses then you are also banned..
The trick nowadays is to still let you get a bet on so that the alleged "bookmakers" can claim so many "active" accounts Those freaks at the inbred nobet£3.65 were the first to try it and as an old man I was the first to be granted the pleasure of winning £25 if I could.. Such disgusting incestous freaks can then claim that they have so many millions of punters .. And can employ half of the workers of the most disgusting town in the UK at minimum wage... |
|
By:
weidly i have found 365 the best out of all companies..
|
|
By:
only a matter of time boydie ...
|
|
By:
owe ive had mine shut (limited) with them that lasted a good 8 years (helped was a silly kid for about 6 of them years) sis boyfriends lasted less than a day. Other friends had lasted a while but is a severe losing account. However other ones last less than a day. had a betfair sports book had one treble got like even, 4-5 and 4-6 went off 1/2, 4-11 and 2-7 last one lost a dog of gosdens time flies. next bet i tried limit 1.49 lol
|
|
By:
had 17 closed in a rough 2 too 3 week period just find these are better than most
|
|
By:
stevetilley
During the last HBF meeting it became apparent that the BHA don't believe closed accounts are a significant problem. When the HBF pointed out it was we were asked to prove it. That is what we are intnding to do. Thanks for your update. It's appreciated. Can I ask a couple of questions: Did you clarify with the BHA what their basis for their assertion was that restricted accounts are not a significant problem? I think a lot of people and indeed the article points out that it is the restrictions which are the issue and logical grounds for why this will be in the individual bookmakers interests to restrict to the point of a meaningless account rather than close it. Did you clarify what proof the BHA are requesting from you? I know many of you believe that the HBF/BHA are just bookmakers stooges. My guess is there will be a variety of opinions but that most people won't see it that way. I think many people see the BHA doing what they think is best for the game. Many think incompetence rather than corruption is the issue. As the article points out only a few years ago the vast majority of bookmaker revenue was generated by racing. Now it is a minority. What has the BHA done or sought to do about that? Very little. They are relying on the bookmaking industry to work with them in good faith. Add naive to incompetent. If the bookmakers could get all their profit from other sports and FOBT's they would happily cut racing loose because it pays a lot of money into racings coffers and bookmaking is a bottom line industry. Those dopes at the BHA need to wise up. As for your group I have no reason to doubt your good intentions. I very much doubt the BHA is intent on meaningful change. The fact they are incapable of entertaining the restricted accounts issue says it all and the BHA will kill the game as we know it. Not fit for purpose. |
|
By:
Who are th people that make up the BHA, i get the feeling like its an old boys club?! am i right or wrong?
|
|
By:
Hi stevetilley when you say last meeting was that the one yesterday or from further back.? I ask because your information is significant.You will receive no flame from myself but the BHA should and shall.Why do they not believe you and also appear defensive.? Us punters indirectly fund them and they initiated the HBF (virtually cost free) and now do not wish to believe what you have correctly told them.There is something very wrong about this.
"Please don't release a load of flame on this post I am but the messenger. During the last HBF meeting it became apparent that the BHA don't believe closed accounts are a significant problem". |
|
By:
If anyone can prove that a certain betting company uses IE snare to snoop against them then i suggest that this activity is most definitely illegal contrary to what was described in the article that the bookies are doing nothing illegal,this snooping is contrary to the ECHR in that an individual is entitled to privacy being one of the articles contained within the act.
|
|
By:
Perhaps punters should organise a "strike day" on one Saturday per month,when nobody bets with bookmakers.This would rapidly bring the problem into the public eye,and maybe bookies would get the message !
|
|
By:
The High Street bookmakers have three models that make them vast profits...
FOBT's ( 2/3 of ), numbers, football... THEY DON'T NEED HORSE RACING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
By:
Insread of continually complaining about bookmakers, WHY DON'T said punter's USE THE EXCHANGES ?.....
|