There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
in his article in todays Post about the rip off that is Cash Out...he uses the words about Bookmakers restrictions........." Perceived or Real to lay a meaningful bet" ---As if there is some sort of doubt that bookmakers put restrictions on any customers !!!!!! What planet does this moron live on ? How on earth is he the editor of a paper that should be promoting Racing and Betting and DEFENDING punters rights... I can only assume that somebody somewhere somehow is paying him for his perverted "perceived" views....
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 31
|
By:
So basically Bruce has criticised the bookies but apparently not enough.
|
|
By:
He'll not criticise the bookies, they are his paymasters, the racing post makes more from selling the r/post & and advertising to the bookmakers than it does from selling the r/post to joe public.
|
|
By:
i do not know ONE person(shrewd or not ) who has not been restricted to coppers. even trainers complain about not getting a tenner on and he has the arrogance or ignorance to use the word "perceived". If he was an honest transparent journalist he would open account in someone else's name (like so many other people HAVE TO) and see for himself how long before he is restricted. As i said in the first post the only logical explanation for his DENIAL of this is that for reasons i will let you dwell on its not in "HIS INTERESTS" to pursue this subject
|
|
By:
He's not denied it; he's acknowledged it. What he's not done is start a campaign.
|
|
By:
e/w pat, I agree 100% with you about restricted accounts but I'v told you why he or a lot more who work for the racing post will not say a word against the so called big bookies. The racing post paymasters. If you were going to read anything about them not taking bets and/or heavily restricting people you would be more likely to read about it in a normal daily newspaper then the r/post.
|
|
By:
List of racing papers that took on the bookies: The Sporting Life.
List of racing papers the bookies stopped buying as betting shop wallpaper: The Sporting Life. So why don't you write a letter to the Life telling them how iniquitous the restrictions are? Oh, wait... |
|
By:
why would anyone in their right mind actually buy the racing post ? nothing in there of any value you can't get elsewhere on line, it's not 1981 ...
|
|
By:
Bookies obviously don't restrict certain "winning"
 punters.In his column in this week's RFO, Birchie talks of a bet comprising £220 at 10/1 with Will Hill, £100 at 9/1 with Stan J, and £120 at 17/2 with Bet3pence. My limits with these so-called bookmakers at these prices would be £20, £Nil and £Nil respectively. Must try to win more often like our hero Birchie Boy, as I presume that must be the way to get such unrestricted accounts  |
|
By:
if anyone told me they can get more than a fiver on with Stan J i would immediately assume they have a huge gambling problem ...
|
|
By:
The juxtaposition between the Millington comments and the (allegedly successful - who knows?) Birch bets is the most egregious part of the situation.
Once that's accepted the whole grubby situation can be seen for what it is. Millington protecting his paymasters whilst, at the same time, members of his staff receiving treatment denied to a significant numbers of ordinary punters. Trebles all round!! (max stake £0.02 though). |
|
By:
what part of "perceived" do you not understand ?.. and if you think i have not contacted the Post and others regarding this situation its no wonder you dont understand the dictionary meaning of "perceived"
|
|
By:
Can you not see the word "perceived" is Bruce's way of criticising the bookies without appearing to attack them directly?
|
|
By:
Being offered 79 pence maximum on a 7/2 chance when I was placing £25 to win HOW ELSE WOULD YOU PERCEIVE THIS?
|
|
By:
Bruce updates his blog with dribble but only on days when he is not working as a stunt double for Alvin The Chipmunk
|
|
By:
so by your own words the racing post has an editor who is scared (p--d not ?) to attack the bookmakers on this matter, who will not or cannot print the truth,who ignores the fact that the bookmaking industry now chooses to be a risk free business ( your dictionary will be needed again,look up bookmaking )an industry that is now more concerned with casinos and cartoon products than promoting racing by the way , which he will only attack in a "perceived" way... And you think this person is fit and proper to be the editor of racing and bettings' only daily paper ?? are you related to him by chance ?
|
|
By:
What do you want to happen?
And bear in mind how quickly the betting shops drove the Sporting Life out of business. Every day for a week, Bruce runs the front page, All bookies are bar stewards. What do you think will happen then? Bruce has done what you want, and broached the subject of restrictions, but it is still not good enough because you don't like one word. And when the bookies ditch the Post and it goes out of business, what then? They will still be refusing bets and ruining people's lives with FOBTs. Nothing will have changed for the better. And you'll be reduced to ranting about the Exchange & Mart not taking on the bookies. |
|
By:
I believe there is precedent for editors to tell advertisers where to go when the latter threaten withdrawal of advertising because of their dislike of certain content.
Problem is that Bruce is not the man to have the balls to stare them down...... Too fond of the gravy imo |
|
By:
I read one of his tipsters this week say he got 10 points better than sp the night before on a winner.
I thought to myself. Do that once to any kind of meaningful stake and the account is gone. |
|
By:
i presume the Racing Post doesnt ever suggest it is 'defending punters rights' any more, cos it clearly wouldnt have a leg to stand on making such a claim...horse-race betting is clearly a sham nowadays but the trade paper has to go along with the sham otherwise it will likely go out of business...another win for capitalism!
|
|
By:
I believe there is precedent for editors to tell advertisers where to go when the latter threaten withdrawal of advertising
First, who else advertises in the Post? Second (and this is what killed the Life) what happens when the betting shops cancel their daily order of wallpaper (the Post betting shop edition and copy of the normal paper)? Call it £40 or £50 million a year based on a back-of-an-envelope calculation that might well be wrong: 10,000 shops x £10 a day x 7 days x 52 weeks. |
|
By:
If Millington bows to their threats,implied or overt, then he does "racing" no good at all does he?
|
|
By:
It is a big bad world out there.
|
|
By:
I have not read the article but would be interested in knowing his definition of "Perceived" under these circumstances.Even the HBF concluded after there survey 20,000 closed or restricted accounts in just the previous six months.The longer term fig will be far higher.Some confusing perception and perhaps we should all e mail him and ask.?
|
|
By:
What alternative to the Post do Bookmakers have please Ramruma?
|
|
By:
For wallpaper? It would be easy enough to set up a new company to print racecards.
|
|
By:
Why haven't they then? Must be a major cost saving.
|
|
By:
Fully agree he is stupid to use "perceived" as he must know nearly every punter who regularly takes anything close to best industry price is nowadays heavily restricted or closed. What is even dafter IMO is the example he uses for cash out; this facility is generally rubbish yes and a rip off compared to current true bet value (based on prices on here). However his example was of a bet that was "almost sure to win" and they offered him about 90% of what he would have got. What does he want; them to just pay the full amount? Punters know bookies are there to try and win and they will not offer overly generous cash-outs anymore than they would prices. In any event if Bruce was so sure it was a certainty why would he want to cash out (maybe because one converted try away from losing as he described it was no certainty at all!)
|
|
By:
I have a shocking memory but surely it was the presence of the Post that helped to put the Life out of business?
|
|
By:
The betting shops bought a lot of wallpaper from the Life. They thought it was guaranteed because the Post was the wrong size and shape.
The bookies made a deal with the Post to create the Life-size wallpaper now known as the betting shop edition, and the Sporting Life is pushing up the daisies. In theory, the Life took over the Post but ... that's only in theory. |
|
By:
(maybe because one converted try away from losing as he described it was no certainty at all!)
you've got your facts wrong, pythagoras...they were one converted try PLUS a penalty away from his bet losing (with All Blacks in possession and 78:06 on clock) |
|
By:
Bruce tweeting a picture of some clowns to troll Ayr is a bit kettle and pot
 |