HBF update

Survey open from 3 April to 30 April 2016

878 respondents

Q1: in the last six months, how many accounts have you had restricted?

Total reported: 4576

75% reported six or fewer accounts restricted. Three accounts restricted was the median and one account restricted was the mode (138 reports). 93 of the 878 respondents reported no account restrictions in the past six months.

Q2: in the last six months how many accounts have you had closed?

Total reported: 1583

81% reported two or fewer accounts closed. Exactly half of the respondents (439) reported no accounts having been closed.

Approximately three times as many accounts were reported as having been restricted as closed.

Q3: please choose the bookmakers who have closed or restricted you in the last six months [from specified options]. Fill in any others at the end.

The highest figures were as follows: Paddy Power, 394; Coral, 383; Betfair Sportsbook, 382; ****, 345; Ladbrokes, 344; and Stan James, 329.

It should be noted that these figures will be, at least in part, a function of the size of the companies involved.

Q4: have you had accounts closed or restricted for sports other than horseracing?

Yes, 46%; No, 54%

Q5: have account closures or restrictions reduced your interest in betting on horseracing?

Yes, 59%; No, 41%

HBF regards this finding as one of the most significant of the survey. If taken at face value, this represents a significant reduction in the appeal of betting on horseracing (and by implication of interest in horseracing itself) as a result of individual closures/restrictions.

Respondents could then choose up to five bookmakers and answer more detailed questions. 577 respondents chose to do so.

Q6: what were the reasons given to you for restrictions or closures (choose as many as apply)?

Traders’ or trading decision, 50%; No reason given, 37%; all others were 2% or less.

Approximately 95% of those who responded in this section had been told “traders’ or trading decision” or had been given no reason for at least one of the accounts that had been restricted/closed.

HBF also regards this as an important finding of the survey. Many customers of individual bookmakers report having little or no explanation for closures or restrictions. This may seem acceptable to an individual bookmaker but is bound to have consequences for the appeal of betting on the sport more widely.

Q7: why do you think the account was closed or restricted (please choose as many as apply)?

I only used the bookmaker when they were offering the best price, 40%; I was making too much profit on the account, 36%; I only used them for special offers, 13%; I was arbing prices on exchanges, 5%; I bet selectively on EW races, 5%; all others were 1% or less.

Q8: why did you open the account?

Because I needed to open an account with another bookmaker, 30%; to take advantage of a special offer, 26%; in response to an advert, 23%; “other”, 15%; because they were recommended to me, 6%.

HBF notes with interest that only a small number of those surveyed reported opening an account on a personal recommendation. In a recent Deloitte paper, personal recommendation was identified as the largest influence in making purchases. Negative experiences with one bookmaker can have wider implications for betting in general.

Q9: how many trades on the account before closure?

There was a wide spread of values, from zero (13 reports of being closed before even striking a bet) to ten thousand (two).

The most common were: 100 trades, 69 reports; 50 trades, 44 reports; and 20 trades, 38 reports.

Horseracing Bettors Forum, July 2016

GM Prufrock - so what are the next steps regarding the account restrictions? Is there any hope in the future for punters to actually get a decent bet or any bet on without discrimination? Will the BHA actually speak up regarding an issue that IS affecting the longterm of the sport?

GM. HBF is in discussion with one leading bookmaker, who has taken this survey on board, and is still being contacted by/responding to others who are interested in being involved. Cannot indicate next steps until that has worked through. However, HBF is (clearly) not able to force the several bookmakers who have failed to respond to do so. And it cannot/does not speak on behalf of BHA, who may have their own political reasons for keeping mum about this. HBF hoping that its "meet the public" on 7 September will give a clearer indication of public sentiment about this.

Prufrock, why has this damning survey not been disseminated to the mainstream media in a way they can understand and relate to?

The story here, unequivocally, is that despite the bookmaking industry presenting themselves to the public in the absolute opposite manner, winning is not actually allowed.

Similarly, I hope this survey will be sent to the new Culture Secretary, before the invitations to bookmaker hospitality boxes start arriving on her desk.

My instinct, for what it's worth, is that there is no appetite whatsoever for any awareness of this issue to exist beyond the media in this industry (who have virtually to a man dutifully kicked it straight into Row Z) - would I be correct?

HBP no more than a publicity stunt, a cat with no claws

to coin a phrase from a well known disaster movie................

“like shooting a b.b. gun at a freight train.”

Prufrock, one way that change is very likely to happen, imho, is to expose the bookmaking industry's very carefully orchestrated PR lies when it comes to the way they do business.

They spend thousands upon thousands of pounds a year to present themselves to the public as some sort of avuncular friendly enemy, for whom fair play and transparency are an important part of the way they engage with their customers. The perception that, actually, winning is not allowed, and if you do so they will do everything possible to shut you down, including banning you from their shops and spying on your online movements, is kryptonite to their businesses, imo.

The industry media are totally complicit, and many would argue corrupt when it comes to this issue - virtually to a man they are working for the bookmakers on the side - so it is the mainstream media in which you need to deliver this message, if that's what you think is the best policy.

For what it's worth I think your current position of seeking negotiation is a good way forward, as I can't believe that the smart people who run the major bookmakers can continue to accept that offering increasingly costly loss leaders in the pursuit of a dwindling pool of losing punters is something the industry can sustain.

But if you can't get them to rethink their current discriminatory, unfair and totally duplicitous commercial policies, then you should absolutely go for the jugular, imho...

I agree with that, millhouse. "Raising awareness" of the truth of the matter is one thing that HBF definitely can do, and has done. Thanks for the feedback. HBF is not a "publicity stunt" (if so, by whom, and on behalf of whom, given that it has embarrassed some who run racing already?) but it may be a cat which has to find its claws. My (extensive) experience with cats is that they often end up getting their way eventually, so, ermm, thanks for that analogy...

That would seem very difficult for Ladbrokes to justify, dixie. The purpose of the HBF survey was to aggregate and formalise individual anecdotal stories like yours into something which could make an impact more widely.

^^ I would bet good money that the bookmaker willing to engage is William Hill...

Sorry, IDKW, you are quite correct. It may still be premature for HBF to show its hand in full at this stage of proceedings, so the following is selective.

Recommendations included: offering the opportunity to sign up to a "no frills" service as an alternative before a customer's account is restricted [we have received plenty of feedback from punters who would forego enhancements/offers as long as they could get a damn bet on]; establishing clearer T&Cs for customers opening new accounts, stating explicitly why and under what circumstances certain accounts may be restricted [in line with UKGC's directives on openness and fairness in gambling]; introducing a "right to review" for those individuals who find their account restricted [rather than, in the majority of cases, getting no explanation whatsoever]; agreement from UK-facing firms to lay win bets on horseracing to specified amounts, that amount to be discretionary but clearly visible to customers in advance [C***l have done something along these lines].

We have had contact from six bookmakers, though extensive and productive discussions with only one (it was only possible to have one bookmaker discussing confidential information at a time at our meeting). HBF reserves the right to publicise the identity of those who have not co-operated, but now is not, in our opinion, the time.

There is a fine line between informing the public and disclosing info which may be more usefully withheld for negotiation reasons. Hope that is understood.

Whats the change in William Hill's approach to taking bets in shop ?

Having had 9 out of 10 £100 bets knocked back to £25 the past few weeks, I have simply given up with them.  So I've not seen anything differ.

It was my (Simon Rowlands) first suggestion and predated the ABP initiative and the first meeting of HBF. HBF would like to see greater punter protection/consideration embedded into ABP status or whatever follows ABP: that would be more effective than anything HBF could come up with unilaterally.

My comments were a bit tongue in cheek and they weren't meant as a personal criticism of Prufrock who seems like a good egg, one of the few on HBF who isn't afraid to upset the applecart.

We need to apply a model of the minimum takeout rule in some Australian states, I know still in it's infancy over there but by all accounts working to a degree but no doubt their bookies have found loopholes in the legislation to squirm out of taking bets from certain clientele.

Admittedly if introduced over here then we could be looking at ridiculous overrounds, especially on the EW thieving races. Bonus offers, B.O.G., free bets, etc could well be a thing of the past as well.

I just cannot see it happening in my lifetime.

There will be a piece about account restrictions and closures, including a contribution from HBF, on BBC Radio 4's "You and Yours" at 12:15 tomorrow (Thursday 21 July).

Thanks Simon anybody with any sense who bets somewhat seriously will understand the predicament we are in and take in the time factor

wd onlooker good thinking

thanks onlooker i am so much wiser to situation now.

sorry i disagree that was terrible listening seems simon has the bookmakers interests in mind going forward than the punters

thats your opinion i have mine

What was it in particular that made you think that Bruno?