HBF Forum

You're still closed

ahem......anyone?

No news, in this case, is bad news methinks.

Only legislation will force change and the sooner the BHA/HBF wake up to this reality the better.

Apologies but I've been sorting out the results from the Survey. We, the HBF, are hoping this will hit the press shortly. Once it appears we'll answer any specific questions and we will publish the results. I am hopeful that it will provide some leverage.

Us too, was offered 10p on BETFAIR SPORTSBOOK yesterday and got a nice email from W HILL today.

I will be very interested to see if the RP are willing to give any space to this if the results of the survey paint the picture we expect.

Guess RP will have spoken to their bookmaker employers and together they will report a damage limiting response along the lines that Clare gave to Nick Luck some time ago.
Maybe:'Our shareholders expect us to protect our business by regular risk assessment reviews as any business would do'. '
Banning customers is the last thing we want to do and the great majority of our customers will be accommodated. We sometime have to restrict to ensure that as many of our loyal customers have a chance of being laid at the price'.
CH4 presenters have too much to lose to not go along with the spin as many will be seeking employment soon. McCririck best bet to tell it how it is but not sure which platform if one exists.

@saddo mentions The Betfair Sports Book offering a max 10p at the price i experience similar and also know others treated in the same way.I wonder how many customers affected as it appears to be an increasing practice.As awareness of this grows do they feel no shame or at least embarrassment.? What i suspect is that they view all of there customers with contempt and they anticipate this type of unwanted publicity will soon fade away and be forgotten it is on us not to let this happen so i hope that people continue to highlight on racing forums and social media.This may not change things but does make all of there customers aware of what might await them.

Sites such as Odds Checker also have some responsibility imo as they are fully aware of what is occurring but still allow those responsible to advertise.Shame on them.

Steve, can you confirm that a "senior representative of a major bookmaker" was present at your meeting last week?

Who was it? And what did he/ she have to say on the subject of restrictions?

Or, more likely, did they make their excuses and not attend at all?

This has just appeared on The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/13/punters-body-say-bookies-closed-20000-bettting-accounts

The link to the headline figures on HBF's website is:

http://ukhbf.org/meeting-notes/

I can confirm that a senior representative of a major bookmaker attended last week's meeting, but that their identity will remain confidential for now. Their input both before and during the meeting was helpful and welcome, not least in assisting HBF in putting their public survey into a wider context.

I've read the article Simon this for me is a breakthrough which hopefully will open some eyes within the game after all it's taking money from their pockets!
I don't believe for 1 second that the vast majority of punters are unaffected that is fiction tbh but progress nonetheless

The issue of restrictions/closures MUST be aligned to the FOBTs issue. Although the b/m are inevitably going to deny any link it's apparent that the character of the betting shop is changing and arguably (at best) the requirement of the Gambling Act that the primary purpose of a betting shop (that is the taking of bets on sporting and horse/dog racing) is or has been undermined.

BHA/HBF need, in my opinion, to get more publicity on the matter (the Guardian report is a good start) and get into the public consciousness the fact that the bookmakers (both retail on online) are operating a model that permits, nay encourages,betting on  products that do not permit long term profit for the punter  - whilst at the same time heavily restricting or closing ordinary people who dare to show some measure of control and discipline in their betting on events where skill and judgement can by exercised by the punter.  It should be made clear that making any sort of profit from betting on sports/racing is far from easy but is possible. That a profit is possible is the hook by which new punters are drawn into the game.The perception, created by the b/m, that the only people affected are professional punters should be shown for what it is - a lie.

The British public have an innate sense of fairness and I'm convinced that a properly orchestrated campaign will bear fruit.

Regarding the numbers from the survey I could easily name 10 people who have had plenty of accounts closed/restricted, who didn't do the survey due to the "what's the point" line. I would expect there are thousands more like that, also thousands more who wouldn't even have known about it. It is a decent start though, and hope a few more people will take note now - we can assume there will be a big report in the Racing Post about this as well......

Thanks. HBF knew that it was getting only a portion of the population of restricted/closed punters, so it was important to have the input of co-operative/enlightened bookmakers in order to gauge how the figures might apply more widely.

Just read The Guardian well done them and the HBF for getting it published.I suspect the true number of restricted accounts is far higher and its also a great shame that Nick Rust seeks a puff when the BHA want to do this on the cheap but its a positive step.

I'm hoping the survey doesn't give the impression that its the books are only banning/restricting the big hitters damaging their business.
They are actually targeting the non profitable.
That is to say that the enthusiast who follows the sport and does not lose sufficient funds on a regular basis will be affected.
I bet with the books probably once a month when I take an EP or AP to circa £50.
Last week I backed a winner and the manager told me that security had been on asking about my MO (was I arbing) and whether I was monitored.
That's my 5th bet this year with the firm and first winner. The BHF/Pundits/Presenters/BHA know this practice is typical yet refuse to address the issue.


Rate reply:

Last week I backed a winner and the manager told me that security had been on asking about my MO (was I arbing) and whether I was monitored.

When will the Bookies give up on this outdated claim that arbers are a big problem.
Arbers simply no longer exist ( apart from those happy to make a fiver a day )

The good old "arbing" line. I cannot believe they even have the nerve to still use it.

Hopefully the issue is at least starting to get looked into, whether or not anything will get changed in the future we will see.

Rayman, from the piece in The Guardian:

“It is damaging to racing if bookmakers are using racing as a loss-leader and weeding out punters who happen to be profitable or, in some cases, appear that they may become profitable at some point in the future.

“HBF believes this survey should inform discussions about how racing and betting deal with their customers. British horse racing can’t continue to haemorrhage punters and people who just like to follow horse racing and have the odd bet.

So, no, it is not just the "big hitters".

Not sure who you mean by "BHF", but if it is HBF (Horseracing Bettors Forum) what clearer indication of intent can there be than that it gathered this evidence, collated it, contextualised it, and ensured as much publicity as it could get for it?

there is no hope for the whole industry

and here are my reasons why

all the high street bookies offers are the problem

for instance paddy power offer free bet if second to the sp favourite at one meeting per day

they also do an enhancement hour 4 horses pushed out in price to £50

they also do extra place races ie 1/4 odds 1-3 enhanced to 1-4

well if every high street punter went there and backed only in those races they will go bust

so what they do instead anyone who takes on their offers gets restricted

in my case i was backing £25 win or £25 each way and £50 max on their pushes

guess what i was well up about £9k i was told but it was nowhere near that (more on that later)

so now i have been told the shop have had an email from head office (or maybe its the shop managers decision)

i am on sp only and no each way bets and no enhanced prices etc

We have already had another bookmaker wanting to discuss things with us. The point of the survey was to show that contrary to the presented position accounts were being closed and this has an ongoing effect on racing.  Bookmkaers are not stupid. They know the current situation is not sustainable. The chasing of a limited pool of "recreational punters" with ever increasing offers and bonuses which serve to cut their margins and the increasing closure and restricting of "winning" punters in order to maintain those margins will only serve to reduce turnover and hence profits. Fighting to get to the bottom of a small barrel is not the way for a business to succeed in the long term. Combining this with a public image that is to say the least tarnished and poor levels of customer service then bookmakers are actually in quite a bit of trouble. The bright ones know they can only carry on papering over the cracks for so long and will start to look for alternative methods. Hopefully then we can influence that process for everyones benefit. If a bookmaker refuses to admit to the scale of account closures or restrictions or to say they are actually a good thing for racing then there is really very little you can do for them. However all bookmakers are not like this.

@stevetilley cheers for your above it makes sense and gives hope.

Thanks for the update Steve

Now lets see how this is covered by the various bookmaker sponsored platforms. The RP report it on page 26 with no editorial comment.
Will it be discussed on ATRs Sun forum? I'm sure there will be plenty of viewers sending emails on the subject. Will they be ignored. Will the ML report it? Tanya is on the forum but no mention of the survey had she done so many more who were affected may have responded to the survey.
Dear me she on the forum to support punters!!!
If as expected it will be brushed under the carpet we may as well give up and find another interest.

Now lets see how this is covered by the various bookmaker sponsored platforms. The RP report it on page 26 with no editorial comment.
Will it be discussed on ATRs Sun forum? I'm sure there will be plenty of viewers sending emails on the subject. Will they be ignored. Will the ML report it? Tanya is on the forum but no mention of the survey had she done so many more who were affected may have responded to the survey.
Dear me she on the forum to support punters!!!
If as expected it will be brushed under the carpet we may as well give up and find another interest.

fair play to you Steve, keep fighting the corner.

at the opposite end of the spectrum is Tanya, whilst people like her are on the panel you will have little or no chance of succeeding in bringing this to the forefront.

BHA and GC are dinosaurs living in a modern world, they will keep putting obstacles in your path.

Too many slurping at the gravy trough, MP's, pundits, presenters, etc.

Good luck.

Combining this with a public image that is to say the least tarnished and poor levels of customer service then bookmakers are actually in quite a bit of trouble.

Their profits (the only measure that really matters to them) don't support this statement. These profits are made on the back of policy of promoting risk free FOBTs,cartoon racing, numbers draws, online casinos etc at the expense of subjective profitability events at which the skilled punter has the possibility of making a profit. This approach is supported by using racing/football as loss leaders to secure new accounts (damaging  income for racing as levy is based on profitability) and  anyone who doesn't lose at the required rate is quickly weeded out and restricted/closed.

However to a certain extent I agree with stevetilley; this approach is not sustainable long term. For me the issue is how much damage will be done to racing before the issue is addressed. Left too long and the damage will be fatal.

I'm hopeful but not optimistic that anything will be done in the short term. As long, in particular, as the FOBTs are there in their current format where is the incentive for b/m to change? Such would require a longer term view (as surely the current FOBT situation can't last indefinitely) and CEO's are, nowadays, not renowned for anything other than  a short term view.

Whilst wishing the HBF every success in convincing the Books that the every growing trend in closing / restricting is not good for anyone, I can't help but think there is some serious naivety in their belief that Bookmakers will / want to change their M/O.

We'll be waiting forever if we are happy to sit back and allow the Bookmakers to call the shots.

There is simply no mileage in negotiating with the Bookmakers without simultaneously pushing for legislative change    (although I see no point in negotiating with them whatsoever)

Reveal the name of the rep present at the last HBF meeting,  and I would guarantee I could have an account opened and restricted / closed within days.............."beware of Greeks bearing gifts".

Has there been any mention of the survey on ANY platform?

rayman here's their twitter link

https://twitter.com/HbfBritain/with_replies

Whilst wishing the HBF every success in convincing the Books that the every growing trend in closing / restricting is not good for anyone, I can't help but think there is some serious naivety in their belief that Bookmakers will / want to change their M/O.


The way to make change happen, imho, is to generate negative publicity for the bookmaking industry in the mainstream media. The public understanding the truth, that winning is not actually allowed, is the one thing the bookmakers are really worried about.

I'm sure everyone who has ever mentioned this issue to a non punter always gets the same response - complete disbelief and outrage at how underhand it is. The people of this country are nothing if not fair, and the bookmakers really don't want the obscene way they do business to get into the public consciousness for precisely this reason (which is why they keep so many media platforms, and the 'journalists' who work for them, on the payroll).

Let's hope the HBF are prepared to go for the jugular, if negotiation is not going to work first, as punters now have very clear evidence that this is happening, and armed with this evidence, any half decent PR person could cause absolute carnage for the bookmakers (and their media platform collaborators), imho...

@ millhouse your above a good post and i agree but the other thing which might also help is to keep getting the message across to the punters not currently affected.They should consider what might await them.

in the past an p was on one bookies payroll during the fight between exchanges and bookies.

they will stoop to any corrupt practises.

shame this hasnt got round to the eu table yet.
the way the eu dealt with isps brings great hope....they certainly do not like companies discriminating in any way judging by their actions.

Worry not the fearless Stewart Machin is about to grill the execrable Michael Shinners.

Well done to the HBF forum.
The survey results have been widely publicised, and proves it wasn't a pointless task after all.
The Post &  the Racing Channels are all over this revelation that Punters aren't allowed to win, and even Tanya has highlighted the issue on Saturday's Morning line. It's now only a matter of time before the Bookies cave and return to being Boomakers again................

.........or did I just dream that?

IDKW-You beat me to it this fellow cynic was about put up a similar thread. However the Posts Richard Hoiles did his best on Sat.

This is all very positive we know it's beyond long overdue but obviously some cages have been rattled so we can now be a bit more optimistic

It is a small but positive step forward.The frustration is that any results will take time,but some of us have been closed down for a long time.What we need to do is keep posting to maintain awareness as i suspect that The Bookmakers concerned currently feel that interest will fade away along with the negative publicity.

LEGISLATION CHANGE REQUIRED (AS PER AUSSIE BOOKMAKING)

From last Tuesday Racing Post in betting news, an interview with BetBright's Sportsbook Director, Noel Hayes:

Your chairman Rich Ricci has seemed impressively supportive: Rich is a fantastic asset. The public see his racing profile and how that lends itself to helping to build the profile of BetBright but beyond that the staff see his understanding and application of business strategy along with his mentoring.

Why hasn't anyone in the Racing World pointed out the unfairness of this? Rich Ricci is happy to buy his way to success and yet I cannot bet a single penny on one of his horses with BetBright? I'd like to say to him, sorry Rich you can't enter the Champion Hurdle with any of your horses this year because you've been winning too much, then the Gold Cup, then another Cheltenham race etc and then when he still keeps winning other races he won't be able to enter any - get the picture Rich? It's incredible how he has the cheek to combine both roles.

More cobblers from Hayes:

Is there such a thing as a typical BetBright customer? Our research and data insight tells us the typical customer is one who values the enhanced product experience as well as the utility value of our differentiating products.

This is all very positive we know it's beyond long overdue but obviously some cages have been rattled so we can now be a bit more optimistic


Ask yourselves this. Why was the limited and very clearly hands off coverage of these revelations exclusively in the industry media, and not the mainstream?

I read the BHA Press Release, and while I don't know to where it was sent, it was clearly designed for betting industry publications, not for populist ones.

More accessibly and aggressively disseminated, this story would have been a good one for consumer media, weekend publication money sections/lifestyle sections/consumer sections/business sections, Radio Four, Radio Five Live, etc etc etc, and so given the bookmakers a real problem.

The agenda, it seems to me, is to keep these revelations very much in house - and given that the BHA get their revenue from a share in the bookmakers' profits, the racing media platforms get hundreds of thousands a year in bookmaker sponsorship, and those who work in the racing and betting media clearly get unrestricted betting, and lots and lots of lucrative side work, it's not hard to see why.

The story here, let's not forget, was that, despite the fact that the bookmaking industry's PR and advertising presents completely the opposite picture, thousands of people are no longer able to bet, simply because they have achieved the only possible objective of betting in the first place. If you bet with Britain's bookmakers, winning is not actually allowed.

Even if there is no mainstream media interest in that (which I strongly doubt) shouldn't every journalist in this industry who is remotely interested in reporting the truth have covered this story?

Yet apart from a few exceptions (most of whom also work for the bookmakers on the side, incidentally), it was business as usual for the bookmakers and their PR men last week at Ascot (Tanya Stevenson (on the punters forum), interviewed bookmaker rep after bookmaker rep without once asking any of them about the very clearly damning research of which she is supposed to have been a part).

Trust me, there are no Woodwards and Bernsteins in this industry. The only way the truth will ever be exposed on this issue is if punters make it happen for ourselves...

i was amazed at the lack of interest william hill shown at ascot ,each morning i went into there shop on the high street only to find euro 2016,overseas racing,that cartoon racing and slots machines been promoted in there shop thousands of people walking by and into there shop on the way to the races each day having to ask for prices as they were not clearly displayed.

This is all very positive we know it's beyond long overdue but obviously some cages have been rattled so we can now be a bit more optimistic

Couldn't be further from the truth fatlad.........not even a ripple....

IDKW I took your earlier post as a positive bud but haven't had a chance to find out where and what's been said or publicised by whoever

What BHA press release millhouse? Do you mean an HBF one?

Yes, HBF, though same thing isn't it, Paris Pike??

The chairman, who seems to be on punters' side at least, posted it on Twitter...

Moot point millhouse as to whether they're the same thing but I'm prepared to give HBF the benefit of any doubt fttb.

I do think however that HBF need to be more forceful. I don't see change being effected by negotiation alas.

Parispike, by that I meant that the forum was a BHA initiative.

I thought Stevetilly's earlier post was very interesting, and I can certainly see why the very smart people at the top of these big companies might be thinking that the current situation, where they are running daily loss leaders in order to trawl for losing punters, can't really be sustained.

So while I'd have zero hope whatsoever that the largely corrupt media in this industry will do anything at all to encourage change, perhaps negotiation might have some hope...

Millhouse, these "big companies" will spout any old carp to retain the status quo.
More annoying is that the HBF are lending their ear

Must be some serious negotiations going on behind the scenes........