There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 284 comments are related to the topic:
Geoff Banks - what an utter cretin!
Geoff Banks - what an utter cretin!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 284
|
By:
Im very upset to have been called a moron. Especially from such an intellectual heavyweight
 |
|
By:
FACT,
bookmakers' don't/won't DO BUSINESS with people who are bad for their business... SAME AS IT EVER WAS ! All this hiding behind the ''arber'' line is total cr*p.... just be honest Geoff, successful punter's aren't welcome ! |
|
By:
just be honest Geoff, successful punter's aren't welcome !
I've asked Geoff twice on this thread if he had any 'long term' successful punters and had no response. He may well respond with 'I've already answered that question, can you not understand what I'm saying'.  As previous posters have stated Geoff has shot himself in the foot on this thread, but, fair play to him he is prepared to debate bookmaker / punter issues on social media and TV. |
|
By:
Geoff can debate bookmaker/ punter issues all day long.
BUT, if he's putting up prices and not making them available to ALL, then he ain't playing the game fairly. |
|
By:
It is a strange relationship between bookmakers and punters. The closest I have come to it is the oil industry where airlines and the oil companies supplying them with jet fuel despise each other.
Punters frequently describe bookies as "the enemy", are happy to take advantage of errors when they work in their favour, and hero-worship individuals like Barney Carney whose activities go close to the edge of criminality. Bookies actively seek to discourage business if they see a risk of a loss. I don't blame Geoff for not wanting to set himself up for the benefit of Barney Curley, Sir Mark (and in his day Martin Pipe) - and Jim Best for that matter - but it is a hard line to draw between them and the genuine punter. |
|
By:
Punters who only want to back Pricewise and HT;s selections and the scurry over here to lay them are no good to the b/m. What Geoff refuses to admit is that today the b/makers want to price up every event under the sun. Obviously there's going to be experts out there who concentrate on specific events who will spot mistakes- these are the punters who he can't accommodate, the ones who constantly beat his odds compilers.
|
|
By:
I don't know where i got Barney Carney from - perhaps a universe in which the Bank of England is headed by Mark Curley...
|
|
By:
".........As previous posters have stated Geoff has shot himself in the foot on this thread, but, fair play to him he is prepared to debate bookmaker / punter issues on social media and TV........"
What, however badly ? |
|
By:
i would agree that he deserves a lot of credit for coming on and addressing the points raised, especially considering the uncalled for title of the thread. I also agree he's shot himself in the foot tho. He's possibly been too honest for his own good in a couple of posts.
What is quite amusing is that he is accusing the punting side of being "blinkered," which is bound to be true to an extent, but clearly he can only see things from his own narrow perspective. That is also understandable but it's maybe fair to say both sides are wearing blinkers. Now all we need is a tongue-tie for Geoff too  |
|
By:
The problem with the modern bookmaker is the same as with all capitalist activity as it matures into a desperate grab for that extra 1% profitability.
The culture of finding extra margin will always end up creating suffering for the consumer/customer. The bookmaker offers of BOG, so called free bets, enhanced odds etc., are a desperate attempt to increase business, yet their very existence undermines the platform on which bookmaking was founded. Making a book, ie being a bookmaker, is not possible when the offers on display create an under round percentage. The bookmaker can no longer lay any runner behind a cushion of favourable odds. This means he ceases to play the horse and plays the man instead. This has meant that the science (it is not an art) of making a book with a built in % is being lost and with it God knows how much turnover as punter after punter is targeted for not being a moron. Bookmakers, by their actions, seem to be saying that being a propunter is a doddle and with 10s of thousands of them roaming the high street, racecourses and web sites of this country then bookmakers are an endangered species. I have some sympathy, because the advent of the exchanges has blown the old overround out of the water. However, it does come with a hefty deduction for commission so is certainly not the paradise for punters that has been recklessly trumpeted by those without any understanding of odds and probability. One thing in the bookies favour with regard to exchanges is that they have reduced the possibilty of ricks massively by providing a concrete accurate tissue in advance of pricing up an event. The only option for bookies in order to increase turnover is to (as a body) ignore the exchanges 100% books and go back to building in a healthy overround that they can operate behind whilst being able to lay a decent bet at the price on offer, whoever the punter is. That is, they should rediscover the art of bookmaking. |
|
By:
there is no "art" in bookmaking it should be a numbers game. % of the book against any runner and in reality in most cases all you want is the fav beat for a pay day. Same as it ever was.
Geoff & his cohorts can't really lose but they want to make sure they never ever do with profit to the max. Greedy wee f***ers |
|
By:
Recreational gamblerts -WIN OR LOSE - won't get their bets restricted by me, at least that's policy and I accept it's possible we make analysis mistakes. But since we give our customers no less than a month to determine their style of play normally, that's why we get less complaints
Yet more complete and utter nonsense. I opened an account the other day and had two bets. One won and one lost. Account therefore showing a very modest profit. Neither horse got completely caved in in price and the price on the winner was just better at GB than here accounting for commission. Now limited to £20 win on anything. After two bets. So when you said "no less than a month", did you really mean less than 24 hours, Geoff? |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Hey kemosabe, dis Geoff mon... he ummm speak with forked tongue !
|
|
By:
If you won't lay RTB Geoff, it's time to find a new career !
|
|
By:
And, of course this is no reflection of Rob's shrewdness as a race horse investor !
|
|
By:
Geoff ''owned'' by Rob_The_Bantam.....
there is no coming back from this Geoff ! |
|
By:
2 bets and restricted - a great feat. Geoff will come on to explain how you are obviously a numbers trader/arber as his firm never make knee jerk reactions as he pointed out in this thread.
|
|
By:
New nom de plume required Geoff...
how about Shylockadvisor ?. |
|
By:
The ''ego'' has crash landed !
|
|
By:
Where the FUN never stops!
Well obviously it can stop pretty quickly if you are not instantly recognised as a mug of epic proportions. |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
To close/restrict accounts quicker than boils/sky/fred is some achievement in itself.
|
|
By:
loper 27 May 16 13:50
I have some sympathy, because the advent of the exchanges has blown the old overround out of the water. However, it does come with a hefty deduction for commission so is certainly not the paradise for punters that has been recklessly trumpeted by those without any understanding of odds and probability. I would love to know the percentage of posters on this thread who would actually be paying the Premium Charge. |
|
By:
C'mon Banks, with your arrogant, planet sized ego.Awaiting your response to R_T_B
|
|
By:
You obviously won more beans than you lost Rob_The_Bantam and that has clearly upset the bean counters.
|
|
By:
Two things baffle myself Re these quick and often punitive restrictions.1/ How many of those closed down now for daring to win or even appear that they might would if allowed to continue become losing customers in the future.?
2/ Why do these firms who restrict people to tiny amounts at the price not at least show some honesty and officially close the account because this is what they are really doing.I can guess the answer to my own question but with increasing awareness and publicity that firms such as Ladbrokes will restrict to pennies do they then feel no embarrassment or shame in still calling themselves Bookmakers.? |
|
By:
I would guess:
1. Plenty would end up longterm losers, therefore costing the books profit and also the sport 2. They rarely shut them because they then get their lieing reps on tv and try and give the perception that they close only these mythical punters that are taking them for millions - when nothing could be further from the truth. It's easy to say they have only closed 0.001% of betting accounts, but won't mention the figure of how many are actually restricted and dormant accounts because they won't lay more than 50p. I could be wrong but doubt it, it's not like they go on tv and tell it exactly how it is. |
|
By:
I was restricted by B0ylesp0rts and refused bets for a tenner, then a fiver, then two quid, then a pound, so just for the fun of it and to save time, tried a 5p bet and a 1p bet and still no joy.
I phoned them just out of interest and was told it was a trader's decision and that's all they would say on the matter. I opened the account about 2 years ago with £50 and ended up withdrawing £106 in total when closing it, but even then they wanted me to jump through hoops because I had a new bank card and they were saying the could only pay out to the old one which wasn't in use any more, so a tenner of that £106 was added after I was restricted! From memory I think I then had to delete the old card and add a new one and make a deposit with the new card before I could withdraw back to it, yet when I initially tried to delete the old card it was saying I wasn't allowed to if my balance was above £10 or ironically if I had any unsettled bets, although they would have had to take a bet first for it to even be unsettled or for me to potentially lose enough to go down to £10. I phoned them and got through to a Far East sounding woman at a call centre who told me I had to get a letter from my bank saying I had a new card and to scan or photograph the letter and send it to them and she would remove my old card so that I could add the new one. I suggested wouldn't it be easier just to send a photo of the actual new card instead but she wasn't having it. The next day I phoned and got an Irish bloke answer, who deleted the card no problem, so that I could add the new one, deposit some more money and then immediately withdraw it all back to the new card to finally hit my bank account a few days later. I'm just debating now whether I should put that £46 profit over 2 years into a new Geoff Banks account or not......At least I should be able to get on anything Sean Levey rides anyway! |
|
By:
Boyles closed mine after 5 bets and 5 losers with a loss of £740, beat SP 4 times so that was that.
|
|
By:
Having 74p left in my B0yles account a year or so back I decided to blow the lot on an accumulator to close the account down, teams entered 74p acc placed
Result Max 11p |
|
By:
I'm not taking sides but Geoff taking too much stick on here. He's in the buisness to make money, pure and simple.
If you're not happy with his attitude, punt elsewhere. As for those that complain about getting there accounts stopped/restricded it's really simple, just punt on here. I have about eight phone accounts which I barely use and the reason for that is on the odd occasion I want to put on a 'ticket' I usually get accommadated or for an ante post bet. As for online accounts I genuinely have never taken up any 'offers', I don't like to waste my time. Two online accounts only, here and purple. I mean, how can anybody go through oddschecker an take up all the offers? I would nead to buy a new notebook with all the usernames and passwords. Not for me I'm afraid.. |
|
By:
Some spelling errors above. Too much Peronis last night.
|
|
By:
Don't bookies have to be willing to take a bet first in order to make money?
As for as the password problem goes, just choose "incorrect" and that way if you ever forget and type the wrong one, you will get a message saying "your password is incorrect." Or if it tells you that it has to contain 8 characters then go for snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarfs. |
|
By:
As for as the password problem goes,
I have enough with here, bank accounts etc. If you want 40-50 feel free. |
|
By:
Why should consumers be treated so differently when they're having a bet compared to any other activity? If you're buying a telly you look for the best price and electrical outlets accept that and compete, if you're buying the weekly shop you look for the best price and supermarkets accept that and compete, if you're going on holiday you look for the best price and travel agencies accept that and compete. Repeat ad nauseum.
But if you're having a bet and look for the best price you're labelled a filthy arber and told to **** off...unless you have a second bet which is the equivalent of buying a can of beans for a fiver. Rather misses the point of having the first bet I'd have thought. We don't want money back cr@p, we don't want cash races, we don't want free bets, we don't want 50/1 about any horse in the Supreme. We just want to bet at our discretion at advertised prices to a reasonable sum.....and if we're that bloody good at it you should do what your forefathers did and have it back somewhere else with a little bit on top for yourself. This industry has turned into a national disgrace. |
|
By:
^ - and car insurance - price competitive product - people shop around
if the insurer doesn't really want the business they price higher, but will take it at that [right] price, having established the risk .. |
|
By:
Why should consumers be treated so differently when they're having a bet compared to any other activity?
Sainsburys were doing an offer this week. Eighteen cans of 440ml Budweiser for £12. Why can I only buy ten cases when I want fifty cases? |
|
By:
Do you really need me to answer that?
The proper analogy would be if they kept running different specials and you kept going back for your maximum, would they throw you off the premises in week 3 and tell you not to come back ever again? (I can answer that too, if you need me to) |
|
By:
Great point stewarty. I suspect everybody would be happy with a limit that is the same for every customer. Not be revoked from certain customers because they bought a kilo of bananas that were cheaper than anywhere else for a short time last week.
|