There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 95 comments are related to the topic:
Today's 49's results from the bookies
Today's 49's results from the bookies
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 95
|
By:
Rationality can't defeat ideology. To these people, job losses are a necessary evil. Just collateral damage in the quest for overall good.
|
|
By:
As RR will confirm many shops are operating at a small loss or breaking even but many firms let them gently roll on as its not going to sink the group and you never know what might happen and once gone they are unlikely to return
I buttonholed a Hills area manager who was in a local shop and he said most people dont realise the costs, like media rights, and showing SKY TNT Eurosport, etc and increase in NI contributions, and whatever else Ive forgotten A business that has lost a chunk of shops now in danger of being finished off by an even worse chancellor than the last one. And her mantra was 'growth' Ha ha nice one Rache What a disaster, but the hard core of Labour loons who hate gambling, like the idiot I have to suffer, won't givash1t, even though their constituents will very much I tried with my MP who said the increase in gambling among wimmin and children was alarming. I pointed out that most gamblers were male and that she was supposed to be the MP geezers also but she could not wait to scarper |
|
By:
You have to remember the ideology. It's not really gambling they despise, per se. It's that thick people can't avoid succumbing to it. So how can they possibly walk past a bookmakers without being sucked in. It's the same mentality as taxing coke, or hiding chocolate from the checkout. Basically, thick people need all temptation taken away.
|
|
By:
Maineroad - I was working in an indy shop when all the virtual racing began. I remember the attempted scams on the Steppledowns stuff. We also had a couple of people attempting the slow count trick on the greyhound racing.
We even had one of the guys from the hole in one double act trying to get his golf bet on. Those were the days! |
|
By:
Maineroad - I was working in an indy shop when all the virtual racing began. I remember the attempted scams on the Steppledowns stuff. We also had a couple of people attempting the slow count trick on the greyhound racing.
We even had one of the guys from the hole in one double act trying to get his golf bet on. Those were the days! |
|
By:
If they really cared, they would be campaigning against lotto, omaze, postcode lottery. These are pernicious forms of gambling, and do prey on some peoples' lack of mathematical prowess. A touch of false hope for the proles. But there are no virtue signalling points to be earned in that space, and 'profits go to charidee'.
|
|
By:
Paddy Power owner cuts profit forecast sharply
Flutter, the world’s largest online betting company, sharply cut its full-year profit growth forecast on Wednesday, primarily due to another long winning streak by gamblers that increased its payouts. Already number one in the booming US sports betting market through its FanDuel brand, Flutter and its partner CME Group also announced the launch of the FanDuel Predicts app next month to target what it described as a significant growth opportunity in the rapidly expanding event contracts market. Event contracts allow investors to bet on the likelihood of specific events occurring, from sports and entertainment to politics and the economy. Flutter estimated that the investment needed to “aggressively” expand the new business will reduce its group core profit by $40 million (€34.5 million) to $50 million in the fourth quarter and another $200 million to $300 million next year. Flutter cut its full-year 2025 core profit forecast, to $2.9 billion from $3.3 billion, in August, mostly due to the run of customer-friendly sports results in the third quarter that only got worse in the first six weeks of the current quarter. Bookmakers tend to suffer when gamblers’ favourites win and chief executive Peter Jackson said Flutter had “complete conviction” in how it calculates odds after sports results have now gone against the Irish-founded group in the US for much of the last year. Flutter’s third-quarter adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) of $478 million, up 6% year-on-year, beat the $459 million average estimate of 17 analysts with LSEG SmartEstimate. However, Flutter’s full-year outlook for 24 per cent year-on-year earnings growth was well below analysts’ expectations for earnings of $3.2 billion. While FanDuel Predicts will allow users to bet on specific events such as election outcomes or the performance of financial markets across almost the whole of the US, it will limit event contracts on sporting events to states where online sports betting is illegal. As new states legalise online sports betting, Flutter will cease offering sports event contracts there and said it believes the boom in prediction markets will accelerate the legalisation of sports betting that offers tax revenues to states. - Reuters |
|
By:
Give it a rest cider - we've had 20+ years of the most liberalised gambling laws in the world. I'm using the word liberalised in the actual dictionary definition of the word btw - rather than your preferred use of the word which usually involves trying to demonise somebody that disagrees with you!
The 2005 Gambling Act was absolutely lauded by the big players in the Gambling Industry at the time. Share prices rocketed off the back of what was effectively the biggest ever loosening of regulation. Yet, rather than just enjoy the fruits that this incredible opportunity and the new freedoms this offered to them, the gambling industry chose to go much further and to completely ignore even the most liberalised gambling regulations in the world. Driven by pure greed (and emboldened by a regulator that was asleep at the wheel), they have driven a wagon and horses through even the most lax of regulations and protections - and used marketing, advertising, data and technological advancements to brazenly exploit people in every demographic. They have done that outwith the Act. That's why we are where we are today. For sure, some of our politicians (from all parties) don't have the first clue about gambling let alone the nature of addiction or problem gambling - but their instincts aren't ever going to be far wide of the mark given the actions of the industry. Your patronising, condescending and sneering assumptions that the people that have been exploited are "proles" or "lacking in mathematical prowess" or "thick people that succumb to temptation" also puts you firmly into the clueless bracket! Some of the brightest people in the world still smoke, some of the cleverest people on the planet use drugs, some of the richest, most powerful and most intelligent people in the world are addicted to alcohol. In that context (the reality of how addiction works) Why would you make the lazy assumption that that all gambling addicts are thick? |
|
By:
Ive given up smoking but stiil take a drinky-poo every now and again and again
And you can come off it n all. Youve been droning in simialr fashion quite long enough We are where we are now, whatever has gone before and you cant blame them for maximising profits when the opportunity presented itself. The regulator is there and didnt see anything wrong and it wasnt illegal so be quiet and address the problem we have now This calamitious administration has made an absolute cobblers of everything and now all are being asked to pay their 'fair share' But theres nothing fair about a chancellor-chancer would more accurate, making a cobblers of everything and penalising everyone to make up for it. And she kept going on about growth. The only thing thats grown is everyones bills and the national debt. Nobody in business thinks she is not a disaster, including Labour In your desperation to exculpate the stupid Theeves, you came up with the notion that shops were on the way out so it didnt really matter. If they are then market forces should decide, it should not be the business of the UK Govt to help them into extinction |
|
By:
[b]"stupid Theeves"[/b
Classic example of a mitoloism. No further observations, Your Honour. |
|
By:
"stupid Theeves"
Classic example of a mitoloism. No further observations, Your Honour |
|
By:
Why would you make the lazy assumption that that all gambling addicts are thick?
I'm not! This is at the centre of the ideology I outlined. I do have an ideology of my own, adults should be free to make their own decisions, and be responsible for their own choices. Life should not be constructed to account for the lowest common denominator, as people making poor decisions and those resulting in poor outcomes will never be eliminated. That's why we are where we are today. What's the problem, exactly? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
When it comes to the activity driving this increase in gambling, the National Lottery is the nation’s favourite form of gambling and gaming by some margin.
In fact, of the £15.122 bn gross gambling yield seen in the 2022-23 financial year, the National Lottery accounted for 23%, with just remote gambling via casinos proving more profitable for the gambling industry. However, with a one in 45 million chance of hitting the jackpot, the average consumer has more chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery. So who’s the real winner? Figures from the Gambling Commission show that in the 2022-23 financial year, there were £8.184bn in total National Lottery sales. £4.694bn of this contributed to the prize pot, while £1.709bn went towards good causes. Retailers’ commissions stood at £255m and the licensee, Camelot, retained £544m. However, the biggest winner was the government, who bagged £982m in a single financial year as a result of the 12% lottery duty paid. Why do most of the antis ignore this? |
|
By:
It hasn't happened yet aand might not but the noises she is making are not good. for anyone
One of the many things people in power should know but seem not to, is that spiteful tax increases are subject to the law of diminishing returns, and the yield decreases, as it did with excise duty, which made her hole a bit bigger The N etherlands increased gambling taxes and revunues nearly vanished altogether One thing she could do but lacks the cobblers, is axe Hs2, the biggest white elephant in history in Britains history and future, when it becomes active 25 years late and 100 billion over budget and already obsolete The sunk cost fallacy alive and well in Whitehall She will not be around much longer, whatever happens |
|
By:
Cider 13 Nov 25 14:05
Why would you make the lazy assumption that that all gambling addicts are thick? 98% of betting shop punters have no idea what an overound is. |
|
By:
Poor old cider (and mitolo)
Imagine being so invested and obsessed with an ideology - that you can see (quite rightly) why people should be held responsible and pay a price for their own (entirely legal) choices and actions; but simultaneously just cannot get your head around corporations also being held responsible and paying a price for their choices and actions (even when those actions are illegal). The actions of the individuals (the customers) have been entirely lawful and the actions of the corporations (the bookmakers) have been broadly illegal (for about 20 years). Any you want to hold the customers accountable and for them to take more personal responsibility   You are perfectly entitled not to like the 2005 Gambling Act (because it doesn't align with your ideology or you political beliefs) - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that you can pretend it doesn't exist. You might as well be arguing that you don't like the laws around drink driving and therefore you have the right and the choice to drink drive. The basis of everything you are saying is that flawed. To take that analogy to it's conclusion (ignoring the law of the land because you don't much like it), you are effectively saying that a law abiding pedestrian that get his by a drunk driver, is somehow at fault as he should have taken more personal responsibility for his actions and made better choices in order to have avoided getting hit. Only one party has acted illegally. None of your beliefs, likes, dislikes or ideologies can alter the reality of that fact or that it is why we are, where we are today. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
So you can just ignore it?
Your argument is exactly the same as that of cider & mitolo. You want to pick and choose which laws should be enforced - based on your personal opinion of them. |
|
By:
I dont say it can be ignored, but it certainly isnt the most enforced bill to pass parliament. They know it has flaws, its been successfully challenged and at times even on the basis of the acts it superseded. The books approach has not been ideal, but certainly not "criminal" in the way you suggest. What should never have been allowed to happen was bookmakers being within so many yards of a cashpoint or having the ability to take payment on any form of card.
The rest of the narrative regarding those who cant control themselves when it comes to gambling, drinking, shopping, drugs is sad but each individuals responsibility and NO ONE elses. Its not the guns that kill people remember.... |
|
By:
I'm a big believer in personal responsibility levelbreak - but you only have to google the words "bookmaker fined for illegal activity" to see why we are where we are today.
Lots of repetition in the results - but also plenty of variety and by the time you get to about the 200th result, it's not hard to see why politicians (of any flavour) might want or feel the need to step in and take action. If you google "bookmaker customer fined for illegal activity" ironically you get the same results - but AI very kindly points out that of course there are no instances of customers being fined for being in breach of the Gambling Act. Whether you like it or not - The Act (the most liberalised Gambling Act in the world at the time) puts the onus and the responsibility onto the behaviour of the "Bookmaker" not the customer. |
|
By:
Whether you like it or not - The Act (the most liberalised Gambling Act in the world at the time) puts the onus and the responsibility onto the behaviour of the "Bookmaker" not the customer.
Anybody arguing differently or trying to shift the onus onto the customer is clearly ignorant of the Act. They're entitled to argue that the Act should be changed because they don't like it, don't agree with it, or it doesn't align with their ideology. But while the Act is the Act as it stands (and as it has stood for 20 years) - they're just talking ideological or opinionated bollix. |
|
By:
That's an awful lot of hot air TM. I've never stated that stakeholders shouldn't be compliant with the law. The state picks and chooses when it does and when it doesn't want to uphold the law. That's obviously not just applicable to the gambling space.
As we understand it, the changes proposed in the upcoming budget have nothing to do with upholding the law. Or nominally reducing gambling harm. |
|
By:
cider - If you think there no relationship between what might happen in the budget and all the breaches of the Act and all the (self-inflicted) terribly negative coverage of the gambling/gaming Industry in recent years, which resulted in the White Paper, etc, etc. That's you're prerogative.
|
|
By:
The pretend "bookmakers" (ably assisted by the Racing Post) have made a ham-fisted and short-sighted attempt to save their casino, slots and bingo empires from the White Paper. They did that, by putting forward (offering up) Racing as the more acceptable face of their empires (a defensive front, if you like), exemplifying Horse Racing as a bit of harmless family fun, enjoyed regularly by all participants and causing no harm. Steeped in heritage, a part of our culture, our history, our Britishness, etc ,etc.
Back in the real world - they've merely succeeded in their attempts at getting all gambling lumped together (gambling & gaming, racing & roulette, racing & slots, racing & bingo) because at the time, it suited them to try to do so. As such, realistically, now who could blame anybody for thinking that all gambling should be taxed the same? If the bookmakers themselves (and racing up to a point, by going along with the bookmakers) have persistently said that all forms of gambling are the same. If racing bets get a tax rise - the Bookmakers, the Racing Post, (and to a slightly lesser extent) the Rcaing Industry will absolutely have brought that on themselves. |
|
By:
Cider is correct in that any legislation is only worth the paper its written on if the current government choose to apply it. For the past 10-15 years across all kinds of legislation and Acts, governments have chosen to ignore or not apply said legislation, thus redering any Act subject to challenges, debate and questions about whether its actually worth following.
|
|
By:
Not many industries have such a fine track record (pun intended) as the Racing Industry at getting "hoisted by their own petard". So none of that is really a surprise. Generations of amateurs and bunglers.
But to see the normally lobbying savvy, organised, cunning, forward thinking, strategically aware "bookmaking" Industry make such a series of self-destructive, self-inflicted, schoolboy errors and blunders is mind-boggling imo. Then again, all of their best people are probably 100% focussed on exploiting much bigger emerging markets like the US. |
|
By:
TM.. what do you mean by exploited? I thought the fucntion of a business was to look for opportunities where they can generate profit, create value in the business which then creates jobs and wealth. I did not get the memo where they need to protect the simpletons who are a danger to themselves every time they leave the house or log on to a tech device....
|
|
By:
It is indeed a valid point levelbreak. The Regulator did equally as good a job as the bookmakers, of more or less ignoring the Act for 10-15 years! - I think they were more interested in collecting fees tbh! But that was always going to result in a shake-up at some point and also make it worse when things finally came to a head.
Blame the police? As a defence/excuse it's pretty weak imo. Getting away with something on multiple occasions or for a long time because the police are incompetent, doesn't typically cut-it as a defence. |
|
By:
exploit
verb 1) make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource), utilise, make use of, put to use, use, use to good advantage, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalise on, benefit from, 2) make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand ^ Take your pick. One is admirable, the other, not so much so and not at all if illegal. |
|
By:
Bookmakers had the opportunity to exploit (in the good sense) all the opportunities that the 2005 Act presented to them. They chose to also exploit them in the other sense as well. Hence all the fines, bad publicity, the White Paper, etc, etc.
It seems they might now find themselves being held accountable for their actions, something which apparently we all agree on. |
|
By:
I would argue they have not exploited anyone.. clever marketing has been used and some pretty shady tactics. I dont like bookmakers at all for the way they operate their business models these days, however I do feel they an addict is responsible for themselves and their own actions. It is not for anyone else to have their freedoms of choice taken away by the state, the GC or anyone else...
|
|
By:
just ma ten pence worth but
i reckon the manager is pretty much on the bullseye its all down to personall responsiblity end of... innit..!!? |
|
By:
levelbreak13 Nov 25 19:36Joined: 19 Sep 25 | Topic/replies: 40 | Blogger: levelbreak's blog
It is not for anyone else to have their freedoms of choice taken away by the state, the GC or anyone else... A lot of people have had their "freedoms" taken away from them by somebody else - taken away from them by the Bookmakers! Your "right" or "freedom" to bet on whatever you want, whenever you want, to whatever stake you want - is a pure fiction - unless you are a loser, if you win or even look like winning, that "right" and that "freedom" was taken away from you by the BOOKMAKERS a long time ago. In that context (which is the reality) you are effectively wanting people to join a campaign for losers to be able to chose and have the freedom to be allowed to lose more, to lose more quickly or to lose everything they have. You are gonna have an uphill struggle imo getting public support or political support for that campaign. That's effectively what you are asking for (in the complete absence of any bookmakers willing to take business from winners). It's a tough sell to anybody that isn't already a problem gambler, an addict or of course a winner on a betting exchange!  |
|
By:
TM.. where was there ever a written right to be able to bet? Are you living in some warped parallel universe? Its a contract between two parties and the last time I checked the contract had to be understood and agreed by both sides before being implemented.
No campaign needed, I have no sympathy for those that lose their jobs, livelihoods or relationships etc from not being able to control themselves. If like many, someone cannot get their money on with the bookmakers, there are many other avenues. Exchanges, Spread firms, Tote or the local publican if they so wish. |
|
By:
evelbreak13 Nov 25 19:36Joined: 19 Sep 25 | Topic/replies: 40 | Blogger: levelbreak's blog
It is not for anyone else to have their freedoms of choice taken away by the state, the GC or anyone else... Apologies - when you typed this ^ I somehow thought you were complaining about having freedoms and rights taken away. I pointed out that you never had such things - with which you now seem to agree. Job's a good un. |
|
By:
go for the hotel manager
your reet inmy eyee... i candisagree here n there but thats what opionions are based upon |
|
By:
From a personal experience when my defence provided a summary of my gambling i.e amount of bets , times, countries,type of event and Stakes it certainly made for grim reading my barrister attempted to shift majority of blame onto bookmakers, judges response on sentencing was from the evidence provided nobody threatened the defendant in anyway to enter or place an online bet and while there should be some sort of protections in place for obviously problem gamblers this is not relevant here . The defendant is 100% responsible for his own actions.
Now many years later and a second chance in life I genuinely have to agree not ever once did anyone force me to place a bet except my own brain absolutely crazy in hindsight. For what its worth those that are in the height of addiction cannot see any other way out it truly does take a "rock bottom " moment thankfully I survived my first and only one unfortunately so many don't. |
|
By:
Dont seem to be rude Jacko, but if I had your previous life I wouldnt be anywhere near a gambling forum.?
|
|
By:
I understand what you mean Glasgow but I actually love horse-racing and all it entails it intrigues me immensely, it's truly amazing to watch the daily shenanigans without having a vested interest. Gambling took up my whole life for so many years nothing else mattered. Today is so different I look at the carry on now and say who in name of fxk did i waste so much of my life thinking I could pre judge animals running in a field along with fck knows what else i can watch all day if i am doing nothing else and no bet it makes for a very different perspective
|