HBF survey

Does anyone else think that the forum meeting once a quarter is insufficient?  I'm sure various issues are being worked on in the background but meeting four times per year doesn't allow much time for progress.  Call me sceptical but isn't that what the BHA and bookmakers want, i.e. little progress.

Maybe other forum members aside from Steve would like to interact on this thread?  Time for a tweet.......

if they read this thread, the entire forum will jack it in tomorrow, which will ensure litle progress for you 

Hi there.

I am Simon Rowlands, Chair of HBF. I used to be very active on here - as old-timers will recall - but have many more calls on my time these days and have deferred to Steve Tilley to engage on here on HBF's behalf, which I appreciate greatly.

A significant call on my time is HBF work. I am currently in communication on behalf of HBF with, among others: SPRC, BHA, RCA, IBAS, and am attempting (so far have failed) to establish contact on behalf of HBF with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Racing & Breeding and the UK Gambling Commission. I am also representing HBF in seeking to make contact with a number of CEOs of large betting companies regarding the very issue this thread started about - account restrictions and closures - and I answer some, but not all, of the correspondence HBF receives from the public.

I do this as a freelance racing/betting analyst, having left Timeform the day before the merger between Paddy Power and Betfair. "Loper" would seem to be unaware of this, or of the fact that I have been championing punters' rights for decades and have been very active on Twitter about HBF in recent months. I would appreciate if his future comments about me reflected that reality.

A few other points: Racing Post mentioned the existence of this survey when it came out, which was only a week or so ago; no members of the Forum are on the staff of bookmakers; when choosing the Forum members, with the assistance of the BHA, I felt strongly that they should be able to interact not only with punters but with those who might be able to solve the problems which punters face; you may have reservations, or stronger, about some of those Forum members, but I am absolutely sure that the ability to understand the betting landscape and tiptoe through the minefield that it involves was desirable; HBF members are collectively behind this survey and other initiatives, but, as individuals, their ability to promote it may be more limited (editors and producers dictate content, not usually writers or broadcasters); Tanya interviewed me about HBF on Channel 4 shortly after it came into existence, so, contrary to what has been stated above, it has been covered there.

HBF is not going to get everything right, and I am unlikely to have got everything right in helping to establish it (having lobbied for it extensively until someone - Nick Rust - came in who was finally prepared to do something about it), but Rome was not built in one day. What I would like to establish is something which has relevance and endures long after I as Chair and the other Forum members have moved aside to be replaced by others. 

Whether "others" will come forward to do something which is unpaid and which can take up a significant amount of time could now be questioned. The endless questioning of motives and performance comes with the territory, but it is proving exceedingly unhelpful when, as is proving to be the case, the same mistruths and misunderstandings keep having to be addressed and corrected. 

You have an open line of enquiry to the HBF through its e-mail address, and you have an open means for understanding what HBF hopes to achieve, and how it hopes to achieve it, through the HBF website. Please use this, while remembering that the body is unfunded and voluntary, and that each Forum member also has to try to have a life outside such commitments.

Incidentally, HBF hopes to have a public day at a racecourse in September, in which Forum members are available to meet the public they seek to represent. I hope some of you come along. Organising this required establishing a good relationship with the racecourse in question, which will be giving up facilities at no cost, and no small amount of correspondence. I personally felt that was a better investment of time and effort than some of the alternatives. Further details will follow in due course, as will details of the various initiatives mentioned above.

Simon Rowlands

Hi Simon cheers for your above during which you have shared more detail about The HBF thoughts actions and progress (or even lack of down to negative response by those you have attempted to engage with) than i have seen elsewhere inc on your dedicated sites.I think we are all well aware that building Rome took time but details of the foundations are helpful when shared with those of us who wish to support the build and imo more regular communication as per your above would prove helpful in this respect.

Thanks for the reply, not sure where or what you will get from the Gambling Commission though, so I wish you well with that one.

I know it is voluntary etc so nobody is expecting over the top communication, and I think people are disappointed that the likes of Tanya cannot even put a post up on Twitter etc at least showing there is a survey for anyone that has been restricted, it comes across to punters that being paid by the books is the priority here.

Hopefully the restrictions/closures will get somewhere with the books, but I do fear the worst and nothing will change as it seems that none of them have any interest in taking bets on the sport anymore (when you cannot get a bet taken with 8 online firms for the National you know there are major issues). You only have to open a new account with ANY of them and then see the deluge of emails promoting ONLY the casino/slots etc. I really would love to be wrong and hope there is some change with the discrimination against punters, but just cannot see it happening, but only time will tell.

Good luck with trying to get some sort of change - you will certainly need it in my opinion.

Hope that doesn't sound too negative!

I agree with greenhill regarding communication. Hopefully this thread can stay active.

Thanks both. That's useful feedback. I will try to drop in here occasionally. I very much want HBF to make a difference in a tangible way, but simply existing and asking awkward questions alone has its merits. A number of people said they discerned a change in behaviour of some of the aforementioned bodies around the time HBF was created, though that may just be coincidence. You have my word for it that I have cheesed off quite a few individuals in a few of those bodies already :-)

Simon,

apologies for getting your employment status wrong and I appreciate you making yourself known on here and setting the record straight. May I suggest that you update your personal profile on the HBF web page as it was the source of my misinformation.

To be fair to Betfair (and indeed Paddy Power now) this forum has been the main platform open to all and sundry to discuss and air views regarding all things sports betting related. They didn't need to set it up and must have been sorely tempted to shut it down many times since its inception.

It is universally recognised as the first port of call for gauging the mood among racing fans & punters. I would think it a good idea that HBF members should be seen to interact in this environment with those they seek to represent, assuming of course that Betfair/Paddy Power have no objections. It will certainly encourage greater feedback to the HBF which is surely one of its main aims.

As a matter of interest, Simon, were you able to provide  Steve Tilley with some valuable input regarding your own personal experiences of punting  restrictions?

Apology accepted. My biographical details are correct on the HBF website. I don't think I can post links on here, but it involves uk hbf and org. That has been in existence for a month or so now. The piece on the BHA's site is a press release from the time HBF was launched and probably needs to remain as it was at the time it was published. Sadly, I will not remain 52 forever; gladly, I will not remain a wage slave forever, either. ;-)

I would dispute that Betfair Forum is "universally recognised as the first port of call for gauging the mood of racing fans & punters". It used to be, but that was before the proliferation of other forums and of social media. It is, nonetheless, important, which is why I appreciate feedback from it, whether personally (I don't always post when I look in) or through Steve.

I have not given Steve Tilley my personal experience of punting restrictions. I have not been restricted by anyone recently but do the vast majority of my betting on Betfair Exchange (and used to do Tote betting quite a bit), anyway. I have been restricted by a few bookmakers going back further. I want this to be about others not about the agendas of those who happen to be on the Forum anyway.

Hi @prufrock i no longer use the exchange because of PC but started posting on here because it appeared to be the focus point for discussing HBF and account restrictions and i wished to interact and contribute.You have now created your own dedicated forum which is a positive but do not allow any of us to post on it.I hope this will be reconsidered because it would enable all interested parties to come together in one place which would surely also be helpful to you.?

Ideal world = we'd have a Forum people could post to, moderated by HBF members (it would have to be moderated).

Actual world = we'd have to fund this, establish it, and find time to moderate it ad infinitum.

It may happen, some day, but I would not be in favour of dropping other initiatives to make this happen. Something would have to give.

Hope you understand.

Thank you for the prompt reply yes i do understand (although do not wish to) There is a good case to put to the BHA that they should fund it.?

The BHA helped set us up, and they give us a room if we want it. They have been, and continue to be, helpful. But the intention always was that HBF would be independent of BHA - as refelected in many of our public utterances - and that is the way we have headed. This might be a step in the other direction. But the time might well be a bigger issue than the funding (we managed to set up our own website with no assistance). As I said, not ruled out. But would stop several other things in their tracks if implemented now.

Too many members on here have - understandably  - whinged about bookies restricting accounts and exempting them from betting on advertised odds; in Australia the public cried foul - and public protest led to change. Did you know that our biggest bookies cannot now restrict /close accounts in NSW?
If you want this here - please do 2 things:

1. sign the petition
2 get a minimum of 2 others to sign it- and get them each to recruit at least 2 more - and so on.

If YOU do this we'll see some justice for  punters. At the moment bookies only want to take the cream off mug punters and FOBT addicts - when they restrict you, they will not discuss why and hide behind the storyline 'it is a traders decision, it will not be overturned and the person responsible for it will not talk/ discuss with you because he is not customer facing.'

That is a disrespectful and arrogant way to treat customers-a change must be imposed upon the bookies.

Petition
Make UK licensed bookmakers accept bets up to a minimum liability of £1000

It has become a common practice for bookmakers within the UK and those that operate in the UK to restrict or close the account of customers and / or to exempt some customers from participating in advertised promotions or enhanced offers. These widespread practises are unfair and discriminate.

New South Wales, Australia has recognised these inequities and has legislated to introduced the type of regulation we ask for in this petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/126319


As I type 108 have signed up- but now we need momentum!


can you get this on your other forum?

I appreciate the need to let the forum members prove their credibility as punter rep's but there was understandable cynicism when Tanya was appointed. I thought we should all reserve judgement and hopefully she would rub our noses in it as she proved to be a valuable member. With this in mind I expected an opportunity like pushing the survey as a prime opportunity for her to silence the doubters. Tanya has a private Twitter account which enables her to express an opinion. We are not asking her to express an opinion we are simply expecting a tweet to her many followers and I thought she would have made sure to make one in order to silence the doubters. Sadly that has not been the case and she is missing an opportunity to put this doubt to bed.

That's a fair point. I cannot speak on behalf of Tanya. I can, however, point out that she has not Tweeted about anything since January 25th.

Twitter just isn't the thing for some people, as others on here have made clear.

Apologies prufrock, but let's put this a bit more bluntly.
Tanya is member of the HBF. The HBF was supposedly founded to look after the punter, and his/ her concerns.
Tanya has not yet publicly promoted the HBF survey regarding restrictions.
Tanya is side salaried by Betfred (apparently).

Do you, or indeed the forum as whole, not believe there is a conflict of interest here?

HBF was created to represent the perceived interests of the British horseracing betting public, not to be a carbon copy of that public.

Collectively, I believe it does that well, not least because its members represent a wide range of skills and experiences, including the ability to connect with those who might bring about the desired change.

Each and every member is expected to declare any conflict of interest on any subject that comes up and step aside from discussion of that subject if necessary. Any member trying to give an individual bookmaker, or bookmakers in general, a soft time of things would get shot down by others (it has not happened).

Instead, collectively, we are in the process of engaging with several major bookmakers about the matter of restrictions and closures, a decision that Tanya (and every other HBF member) was involved in and details of which will emerge when a few more of those bookmakers get round to responding to our initial approach.

I do not see a conflict of interest here, given the framework in which the Forum is obliged to operate. None of my fellow Forum members has echoed your sentiments.

I won't be discussing the status of named Forum members on here subsequently, but you can contact me through the HBF e-mail address if you wish to take the matter further.

I have to go away for a couple of days on family business, and need to try to earn a crust once I get back, so apologies if I do not respond immediately to any further messages on this thread.

I want to bump this and keep the thread active.Thank you prufrock for your posts they have been informative and more of the same from yourself or any HBF members would prove helpful in maintaining interest because this will be needed.

The way i view the situation is that by supporting your efforts we are helping ourselves but with respect we should not have to beg for crumbs Re gleaning any progress or even lack of.I do appreciate the time issues but likewise do not feel its unreasonable to expect not just yourself and stevetilley but all or any HBF member to spare 10mins occasionally to keep us updated.

stevetilley how goes the survey have we reached the 1000 mark yet.?

One "problem" about the Betfair Forum (or part of its appeal to some no doubt!) is that comments which require a response can be tucked away on a thread that is otherwise about Nicky Henderson or the effect of the draw at Chester. Even something titled "HBF Survey" can get lost against the background noise.

Some of us will try to come on here occasionally, but in return perhaps some of you could alert us to your concerns on Twitter (even if we then come on here to continue the discussion at more length).

Thanks

Hi @prufrock i agree and suggest we keep this thread as a one stop place for HBF and account restriction topics but with respect communication is a two way street.Once again i ask stevetilley how close are we to the 1000 participants in the survey which is his target.This would be a good example because this important information should not need to be sought.

Many questions have been asked via different threads on this forum Re HBF yet there has seldom been much response from HBF members i am aware that they do reply to e mails but i feel most are better severed by an open and general response.When this does not happen then people who have a genuine interest lose it and as you say the thread fades into the back ground and gets forgotten which is what the Bookmakers would wish.

I do not do twitter but hopefully other members will do as you ask but i have taken the time to post this and all i ask is that all HBF members at least have a look and think about what the people on here have to say (much of it is positive informed and supportive).

Maybe they should appoint a 'greenhill' correspondent solely to keep you in the loop, mate   

A reminder that this Forum is run by, and moderated by, a bookmaker, who doesn't (or at least didn't) allow blunt criticism of its own policies, mention of its competitors or links to external material. As such, it is not the ideal platform on which to discuss HBF business. But, as long as everyone is aware of that and makes allowance for it, we will do what we can, when we can.

prufrock and stevetilley, I`m amazed at your patience in dealing with these ungrateful bast@rds. Who the phuck do they think they are, coming on here demanding this, expecting that, and dismissing everything you`re doing? Tell them to phuck right off; let them set up their own forum, if they`re so unhappy with what you`re doing.
Unbelievable, the self-importance of these arrogant nobodies.

^^^^

It is perfectly possible and rational to support the objectives of the HBF whilst holding some reservations about potential conflicts of interest relating to some forum members . That is my position. Perception is important and I remain uneasy that some HBF members receive remuneration from bookmakers; such creates the perception at the very least of conflicts of interest.

I am grateful to the forum members for what they are doing and recognise that progress on the issue of closures and restrictions is unlikely to be swift.

"Perception is important and I remain uneasy that some HBF members receive remuneration from bookmakers"


Exactly so, who could possibly be expected to publicly bite their employer's hand. Tanya in particular should should choose a side.

she should should, indeed ..

HBF has issued a statement today regarding Grand National over-rounds in response to press enquiries on the subject, as follows:

STARTS

"HBF was encouraged by the return to a more acceptable level of over-round in this year's Grand National, with the 148.7% figure being the second-lowest this decade. The % increased only slightly from 144% about half an hour before the off.

Nonetheless, HBF continues to have concerns about the starting-price process, not just in relation to the Grand National but on a day-to-day basis. It made those concerns known to the Starting Price Regulatory Commission as part of that body's consultation process, and it made it known that it found the report that emanated from that consultation to be deeply unsatisfactory.

To date, SPRC has not responded to HBF's open letter about this matter, despite the suggested deadline having recently expired.

The integrity of starting prices, and of other betting matters, is far too important to be left to an under-resourced body that is limited in its powers. Last year's Grand National [in which the SP % was 164.9] showed how easily starting prices could become weighted heavily against bettors, and lesser races are not immune to this threat either."   

ENDS

Is that the problem with the SPRC - that it is an "under-resourced body that is limited in its powers"?


..or, perhaps to put it another way, are the people that make up the SPRC well-intentioned?

I would rather leave it to others to speculate about that, but I HAVE MY DOUBTS.

I would say that, from a punter's pov, they appear to be hopelessly biased against the punter, and therefore not fit for purpose. But of course a punter would say that wouldn't he. It would be nice to know the answer from someone in a better position to give a less biased opinion, as "lack of resources and power-limitation" is something which can cause a group to receive unfair criticism whilst at the same time having the best of intentions.

If the SPRC is truly stuffed with plants, can't Nick Rust be persuaded to see that that is so, and that that is bad, ultimately, for all concerned, and do something about it?

I had forgotten that HBF existed before this thread. Now following on Twitter to keep up to date with what I hope will be positive developments.

The HBF is akin to a terrier forever pulling at its master's trousers, one day it will bite or drop

"We don't have the resources or the power" was part of the SPRC's own whinge in their whitewash - sorry - report, rather than "we don't care". The former is easier to prove than the latter (not least because they have owned up to it), even if the latter were to be truer than the former. And it amounts to much the same regarding their fitness for purpose. 

The SPRC is a non-profit company (though one which may pay its officers) limited by guarantee which was established by SIS/PA/MGN and is funded jointly by SIS and Turf TV. Only something called "The Nominations Committee" can appoint or remove Directors (it is unclear who is on this Nominations Committee).

Not sure there is anything Nick Rust can (or would wish to) do. But we won't be giving up.

SPRC has just responded to missing the requested deadline for answering HBF's open letter about the unsatisfactory SP report (which deadline expired at midnight last night) by saying that their Directors have been unavailable due to the House of Lords being in recess!

Worth reading report in Racing Post on Grand National starting prices (page 8).

Credit to Jockey Club Racecourses for being pro-active in this matter.

HBF's next meeting (June 6) will include representatives from the Racecourse Association and an agenda to discuss the on-course market, as well as future data provision, between the two parties.

They need to do something. I have just lost my last 3 accounts because the person who opened them for me wants to get a mortgage and doesnt look good having hundreds of pounds going thru his bank account every week. I now have absolutely nowhere to bet except betfair. Cant bet on sports anywhere except the shops and even then they have to phone up every bet i place. Sp only in the shops on the horses or betfair sp as no liquidity the night before.
All against someone who lost 10's of thousands for 20 years of my gambling life and now cant try and win it back.
Its a disgrace. I spoke to bbc radio about it and they used my account restriction letters on the shownthat i emailed them. Hasnt made a blind bit of difference though. Hope this group can actually do something.

Even if the HBF is successful in it's endeavours to get bookmakers to play fairly, I fear that all of us already "punished" will still have nowhere to bet.

It is pretty clear that the cull has already taken place, the software is pretty much in place to stop repeated accounts, and successful punters have either moved on to the exchanges or packed it in altogether.

For it to be deemed successful, in my eyes, the bookmakers would have to put forward an amnesty, and re-open closed accounts. This will not happen, realistically.

Any increase in bookmakers liabilities will only affect current customers and new customers. The already punished will still not be allowed to play.

Best of luck, though.

Question is, what does the HBF plan to do with the results of their Survey?
Go back to the BHA and say " see, told you there was a problem."
BHA sit on the results too afraid to rock the boat given they want the Bookies onboard as ABP's.

Sorry, but the ONLY way to achieve anything is to get the issue into the mainstream press.

Ask the BHA for a decent budget to achieve the same, and see what response you get?

It will be a more realistic aim to get something into the mainstream press with some evidence to support any claims.

HBF is independent of BHA, and I believe that is how it should remain.

As HBF's own website says "The HBF has a good working relationship with BHA but operates independently of that body, and does not speak on behalf of it in any way. Indeed, HBF sees holding authority to account on behalf of UK horseracing bettors to be a central part of its purpose"

My understanding was this survey came about at the suggestion of the BHA?
Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I'm sure this is what was stated on a previous thread?

Personally, I'm much more of the opinion that Punters should go on the attack, rather than **** foot around the Bookies hoping for them to throw a few crumbs back our way.

It came about as a result of HBF recognising that it needed better evidence to back up its claims in order to convince some bodies and individuals of the extent of the problem. That includes BHA.

Some bookmakers have indicated that they wish to engage with HBF on this and other matters. Some have indicated the opposite.

There is nothing to stop you, or others, "going on the attack", or HBF for that matter if more diplomatic approaches prove unsuccessful.

My main concern with this issue is in terms of bookmaker compliance, hence my earlier reference to the potential for kicking any suggested solution into the long grass however reasonable it might seem.

Being without any knowledge of the potential procedure for change and the hurdles that would need to be negotiated on the way to implementation, wouldn't something have to be added to the wording of the terms of compliance regarding the granting of bookmaker licenses? And, if so, wouldn't that involve legislation and therefore parliamentary time?

Well, HBF sure has no ability to compel bookmakers to act in a certain fashion. But it can attempt to persuade them to do so, in the belief that some of what has gone on has been counter-productive to more than just those bookmakers' erstwhile customers. And it can lobby bodies like the UKGC and the APPG on Racing & Breeding (both of which would be very likely to ask in the first place "have you talked to bookmakers, and provided evidence, about this?") to this end.

One thing that has been "achieved" in recent months is that account restrictions and closures, and individual bookmakers' relationships with the sport more widely, have been flushed into the open. And it is quite clear that some of those bookmakers hate the disinfectant which comes with exposure to sunlight. They may wish to avoid more of the same.

We shall see.

Have to dash.

OK, thanks Prufrock.

I currently have this image in my mind of Phillip Davies standing up in the Commons and talking all day to filibuster any attempt to bring his paymasters on side.

His record of opposing worthy changes to legislation is a morally dubious one at best.

If I ever feel a bit demoralised about all this - and it certainly happens - I remind myself of that particular individual and that motivates me. ;-)

Lol!

Good work prufrock.
The SPRC should be asked why they allow conflicting shows from SIS and Turf.As the shows are supposedly from the ring,then there shouldn't be variations on the same horses.

Siralex - and others: if you want change re placing bets then get legislation to change it - this has happened in NSW Australia- and we will get change here if everyone gets actively involved

my earlier post on this thread refers
please sign and promote the petition for change:

if t worked for Will Hills etc elsewhere- it can work in the uk- please sign up :

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/126319

I'm with those who think legislative change is a pre requisite of change. I just don't see that the b/m can be "encouraged" to to anything that might adversely affect their bottom line.

When all the procrastination, obfuscation and dissembling have been exhausted the b/m will hide behind the "fiduciary duty to shareholders defence".

That's why a legal change is required. 

The egregious Philip Davies will no doubt endeavour to filibuster any attempt I expect.

The HBF and their "diplomatic" approach will amount to 0 I'm afraid.

Of course some Bookmakers will "indicate their willingness to engage".
Getting them to actually take a decent bet is an entirely different matter.
Stalling tactics,  I think is the phrase.

Presumably those bookmakers who have indicated they are not willing to engage think "stalling tactics" are unnecessary.

We have had expert advice on these matters, and have discussed the appropriate approach at length between ourselves. If this does not work then we have other options. Leave it with us.

OK guys we're at about 820 replies. Can we get it to 1000 by Tuesday please? I'm on analysis duty then.

It's fair enough that people want to vent their spleen at shoddy practices but they also need to understand the need for due process. The Judge didn't stick the black cap on as the defendant was walked in to the dock. First comes the allegation which has been made in this instance. Then comes the evidence gathering. This is the stage the HBF appear to be at. It is in all our interests to give them the ammunition they need to take it to the next stage of laying the actual evidence before the accused. It doesn't really matter how they behave at that stage. In fact the more intransigent they are the better because he who seeks equity should come with clean hands. The end of this process must inevitably be pressure brought to bear on the legislature but that can only happen after the due process I referred to earlier.

As has been pointed out it has happened in Australia and the sun still continued to rise. So let's not get side tracked with Tommy said this or Bobby didn't do that. Let's do our own bit to help facilitate change. Negativity is corrosive and self defeating.

Tweet, email, blog, talk down the pub but get it up to 1,000

The racing press do nothing to report that the books only want losing customers. The HBF and the rulers in racing and the racing world know exactly what is going on. The government are not going to be too impressed with this situation and will find it difficult to do the job for them given that the more the books win the more they get.

@rayman are the books winning more and the government receiving more.? Many of the winners or even perceived future winners closed down today would become losers on balance if given the chance to continue.The Australian Gov acted has this decreased there revenue.? None of us know exactly what's going on because we do not know the true numbers involved.Only the bookmakers concerned can provide this information.I do not expect that they will but i also think people would be shocked by the size if they where forced to.

The more of us who campaign or become actively involved as per this threads survey then the more more impressed the Gov will be because they may have to be.?

Greenhill-The Government must be asking the question though. Is it not very strange that the leaders are not even commenting on this issue.
Total silence form the Top and forget the journalists in the nationals who have had success on many campaigns.
The Post have lost all the principles that a dedicated paper should be addressing you can only assume that they have been threatened by their providers.

rayman - I agree so the last hope becomes ourselves.If we work collectively given encouragement and guidance then i believe we can bring some change.I can well understand the frustrations and cynicism but lets all at least give it a go.

Bump

All against someone who lost 10's of thousands for 20 years of my gambling life and now cant try and win it back.
Its a disgrace.

A member is good enough to share the above.How many to a lesser extent have experienced similar treatment.An account which is still losing long term on balance gets restricted because the customer enjoys a little purple patch.No wonder people feel angry.

greenhill - I do not want to take this off on a tangent but all siralex does is bet pricewise/tipsters (probably dirty each ways in the tipsters) and mostly the night before.

As much as I want the books to lay advertised prices (shouldn't be advertised if they don't want to lay it), even I don't expect them to lay hundreds to a single customer on those horses, and then walk to the next shop to try again and again. Anyone who bets the night before in all honesty gets what they deserve, there are ricks everyday, but if you take them at 6pm the day before you are marking their card and also your own account for pennies. I rarely bet the night before as it is pointless imo unless it is the festivals/top class racing, betting a selling handicap hurdle the day before will do your account no favours whatsoever (or in shop).

Hi MD Cheers for the info and i agree your points.As the HBF attempt to engage with the Bookmakers perhaps this is an aspect they could investigate on our behalf.Assuming a small minority will make a long term profit would the Bookmakers be willing to inform us what is acceptable business under these circumstances.

Many years ago winning accounts where not always closed or made SP only when deemed fair business ie the customer was seen to be betting off his own judgement and effort and not attempting snides.I know FOBTs EPs and other aspects have changed but it would be nice to know.

I think we start losing this argument if we start justifying what the Bookmakers do. If they don't want to take bets overnight, don't put prices up - if you don't want to take "dirty" each way bets price up accordingly.

I have never followed Pricewise, only tinkered with some tipsters (some time ago) but have used each-way possibilities for more than 50 years until I give up that strategy several years ago (because bookies were pricing up defensively and then because I had no accounts left). Ultimately the issue is that bookmakers are discriminating against those they perceive will not lose bundles to them. What strategies people use is a side issue and bookmakers have shown they are quite capable of dealing with these without discrimination.

I agree with that, I would be more than happy with no overnight prices. I would also be happy if this place didn't open markets up until 11am etc, but the books get marked for pennies and this place seem to think that if a market is open for a longer time they generate more commission which is ridiculous.

But I do think that you cannot realistically expect a book to take thousands on a pricewise horse per person, when there is no way of actually making a book etc. The trouble is most of the books don't have decent compilers anymore since the inception of the cash cow that is FOBTs, so they are not willing to risk anything - even if they are laying under the odds.

The trouble is most of the books don't have decent compilers anymore since the inception of the cash cow that is FOBTs,

As much or maybe more since this place used to have good liquidity overnight and they thought this would be a an everlasting free tissue.

Magic - But I do think that you cannot realistically expect a book to take thousands on a pricewise horse per person, when there is no way of actually making a book etc

No I don't and if they set limits (value, time or both) then fine but let it apply to everyone (albeit that big losers will be allowed to circumvent it).

Agree 100%, I was mainly referring to the way siralex punts, in that he thinks it's his right to have as much on as possible on everything he wants at overnight and early prices.

What does it matter how anyone else punts?
We need to work on the principle that if a price is advertised, then it should be available to ALL, no matter what time of day or night, and to a pre determined minimum liability.

What we have now is a situation whereby overnight prices are available to but a select few.
Just have a read of Birchy's diary in the RFO.......it's enough to make you puke.

What the hell does it matter how I punt ??? I have found a way of trying to beat the bookie and get some of my fortunes lost back. I haven't followed price wise for nearly 2 years now. There are thousands of tipsters out there online, in papers, on here, on the Internet, etc etc. I spent almost 3 years tracking who was good at making a long term profit and then narrowed it down and followed them. Some involved overnight betting some didn't.
The point is that I lost nearly 6 figures and have won about a third of that back over a 4 year period. I have lost a load the last year as have nowhere to bet except on betfair.
I didn't put hundreds on, i also never bet dodgy each way and I certainly didn't do any Arbing! I wanted £50ew or £100 win, hardly massive bets. But because I bet singles, follow tipsters, make a profit, beat sp and don't bet on their casino sites I am banned everywhere.

Good god how easily you are all distracted. A question for Mr TILLEY or PRUFOCK. When you were all round the table and decided to have a survey what form did the discussion take with regard to publicizing it?. I have this naive vision of each one of you stating 'well I can do so and so' or 'I can get in touch with this guy'. Now at any point did any look at Tanya and say, 'Tanya you have a strong online TV Twitter etc presence can you announce it via all or at least some of these mediums ?'.

If this venture is to fail it is because the vast majority of people are still unaware of it. Trust me the vast majority of affected punters have no idea this survey exists.

siralex - anyone who punts overnight gets marked, it is the quickest and easiest way to get an account gone in double quicktime, every punter knows this. Also if you follow tipsters that beat SP you know your fate with the books before you start following and betting them. The books know you are following them by your betting, so as soon as you open another account in someone elses name and place exactly the same bets you are gone again. You have to put other bets through accounts, other sports, a few mug bets, take a shorter price with them now and again. It may cost you a few quid, but in the long run it is the price you pay to keep an account open that bit longer.

The more you all whine and groan about individual examples the more the those that want to see this venture fail rub their hands. Keep the survey underpublicised and claim that only a small handful of punters whinging about there own self interest have been found. The way forward is to show that the current state of affairs is to the detriment of Racing. A new model with racing income not tied to Profit but turnover and some rules that allow interested punters to take part instead of being turned away ie minimum liability aka Australia, is a model that would encourage more newcomers to join and stay within the sport. This has to benefit Racing not a bunch of selfish gits (myself included) whinging on here.

magic_daps, you just don't get it do you?
Yes, we all know the current situation...........it's precisely that which we are trying change.

The point is, if a Bookmaker prices an event up, then that price should be available to ALL......not a select few.

It shouldn't matter what time of day you bet, or what you are punting on. The principle is, there should be no discrimination.

I know that, the point is there is no point bleating about the closed/restricted accounts. If you bet in that way they will be gone and that is the current situation. I am hardly saying the books are right in what they do am I, quite the opposite.

Its not like the bookies say, well u cant bet on overnight prices, but we will allow u to bet after midday on the day if the race or even at sp, they restrict u at sp as well!!! Not only that they stop u betting on other sports, i cant bet on the football this evening unless i use betfair or go to the shops and even then they have to phone my £5 correct score bets through!!! And as for betting on golf at say 66/1 thats impossible!!!!

Is this survey still active ?

Ends today I believe.

Well at least they'll have had their eyes opened a bit as being in their positions they wouldn't have experienced what the rest of us have trying to place a bet! Only shame is there'll be so many that have given up long ago and grown tired of it all that they won't get the FULL picture but hopefully they have enough info to go to war with

Do you think Tanya gets restricted fatlad, or will she be accommodated like Birchy?

done

Saddo I was very vocal early doors on here but after hearing what a few of them had to say believe the majority have the best of intentions.We know there's one rule for one and one for another but her public clout (not a pun) would have made a big difference imo had she wanted to use it which pretty much says it all.

Aye, but I'd rather not have someone who can bet what they like in my corner tbh.

I know what you mean but they're in positions to potentially get changes made if that's possible.Still the biggest surprise to me is why aren't more racing people bothered about all of this considering how much betting on Horse Racing benefits the industry,I've mentioned this a few times but they must all bet freely too or have too much money to care

Just to keep everyone posted. The survey is closed and we're going through the data now. There is quite a lot of it and people definitely didn't hold back when it came to comments.

stevetilley cheers for the update.I read someone describe the PC as "Killing the dream" The above post by OliasOfSunhillow 23rd April 11.51am well explains how if things are allowed to continue fewer people will even attempt the dream and what the knock on consequences might well be.Along with your survey results i would respectfully suggest you show this to those at the BHA who feel there is no problem Re account closures.

Thanks Steve I would also like to reiterate greenhill's comments about showing the findings to the BHA, whilst bearing in mind/maybe mentioning that this is very likely just the tip of the iceberg numbers wise as the sceptical and those who have been affected for years (voices ignored) and have subsequently given up won't be in the survey.

I would guess it is a small percentage of restricted/closed punters that actually filled it in, many wouldn't have bother because they would think "why bother as nothing will get done", surely a decent percentage wouldn't have known about it, and also plenty would have already given the game up due to the hassle of getting on.

No doubt the bookies reps will tell you that the response is more than they have ever closed, and it must be the same people filling it in numerous times.

Good luck and hope there is something positive to come out of it all.

Through no fault of their own the publicity for this venture was poor and I am quite sure that vast numbers of closure victims did not even know about the survey. Hopefully enough data has been generated but be warned if the Bookmakers or even the HBF try to suggest that the number of entries shows how small the problem is then the mouths firmly closed approach of media and bookmaker connections has certainly done the trick.

We know the Books own the racing media at arms length but it would be no surprise to learn that they have "influence" in other areas and also very good PR and legal council.I do believe that the Justice For Punters Org will eventually prove a great help but currently they have had to delay there official launch because of this.Lets keep bumping this thread.The message is starting to spread which gives hope.Once again i would ask the HBF members to contribute whenever possible as this helps maintain interest.

and sign up

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/126319

Has this ever been aired on C4 racing/ the morning line?

surely the line to follow is: in order to get a  licence in NSW Australia all bookies must lay horses to specified limits of liability - or is it right that they continue to pick and choose and just encourage FOBTs?

This change in Australia was achieved thru public lobbying- and it applies to online giants such as Will Hills and 365

I cannot believe how apathetic  UK public is compared to aussies- once the Aussie public see an injustice they act!

Painful as it is I have to agree Imfao

TTT for the benefit of Fatlad.

cheers loper I have signed all petitions

@ Fatlad 1981 Myself and many others share your experiences and frustrations expressed via your recent thread.The one thing we should not do is accept the situation.This is exactly what the Bookmakers concerned would wish for.HBF members an up date of any intentions actions or progress would be much appreciated without this people will lose interest and hope.

A little off topic but it keeps this thread in play.Leading bookmakers we not only have trouble getting them to take a bet but increasingly the same Re being paid when we dare to earn a return.? Recently a friend a small stakes punter backed one at EP 14/1 bog with Corals.The horse won 9/1 and when he checked his account this was the price he had been paid at.When contacting customer care he was informed that his account had been reviewed and bog was now withdrawn.An e mail then arrived confirming this 24hrs After the bet had been placed.

Perhaps an admin mistake understandable and soon sorted but not to be as after several polite e mails and phone calls Corals held there position.So although the amount involved was small on principle he then advised them he was continuing via the small claims court.The next time he looked at his account the full amount had been credited Corals had not seen fit to advise him of this.!

Not the remit of the HBF but something all Corals customers should be aware of.