There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 82 comments are related to the topic:
Bruce Millington FINALLY comments on restrictions...
Bruce Millington FINALLY comments on restrictions...
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 82
|
By:
The part that had me with face in hands is when he says he 'doesn't know what the answer is'.
Here's a suggestion, Bruce. If you want to make it difficult for the bookmaking industry to continue disenfranchising your customers, Why don't you try ACTUALLY PRINTING THE TRUTH about the way they operate, instead of running their shameless lies without so much as questioning a single word... |
|
By:
RAM, not sure what you mean? Surely this is about restricted punters. I personally don't care if Hugh Taylor's army get on - it's the people needlessly restricted on their own judgement who need the £500 offer.
|
|
By:
Anyone know how Aussie Punters got the New South Wales racing authority to implement it.....who pushed it - did their racing press campaign to force government.....
They must have had someone on their side....obviously we've got an industry newspaper unwilling to help due to bookmakers having them by the short and curlies |
|
By:
Grayhawk, the media are not in the bookmaking industry's pockets in Australia, and when the bookmakers waltzed in and started doing what they do over here, it was very widely reported, including on the main terrestrial channels, at which point the authorities took action, because not giving the public a 'fair go' was 'Unaustralian'.
Our media, on the other hand, took jobs on the side with the same bookmakers, shamelessly accepted unrestricted accounts for themselves, and cynically printed/broadcasted the absolute opposite of the truth, with total complicity... |
|
By:
RAM, not sure what you mean? Surely this is about restricted punters. I personally don't care if Hugh Taylor's army get on - it's the people needlessly restricted on their own judgement who need the £500 offer.
It would presumably apply to all punters. So the currently-restricted punters would be in the same queue as everyone else. So once Hugh Taylor tips Flying Dancer, everyone is placed in a queue, the one at the front gets the price but the people behind don't. So for everyone who is not at the front of the queue, the new offer would make no difference. I cannot see an easy answer. If we have a queue system (and we probably already have) then it will make no real difference. If bookies stop pricing up all the races, then we will be worse off than we are now. |
|
By:
Ta Millhouse....
|
|
By:
there are restrictions and there is just plain silliness. just tried to place a rugby bet at 3/4 on sportsbook.
max bet 27p  where is the logic in that??? before i'm accused of trying to arb, the market isn't available on the exchange |
|
By:
The idea is to make you go away northanlite...
|
|
By:
My understanding is that in Australia the racing authorities have a hand in issuing bookmaker licences so if they come up with an idea as they did they can say to bookmakers, take it or leave it and leave the room. Over here licencing is done by local councils so as you can see there are some hurdles to get over.
Personally I do not think this is complicated from an implementation point of view. Software will protect from taking shed loads of bets on one horse from multiple accounts, as Anorak says if they have took one or two bets to the max and they feel thats enough then they cut the price which will push the business to other bookmakers. Nobody is complaining that a price is cut and they were unable to get it, the problem is that the price exists but its only for the losing majority. It remains dangling in front of you but you are not allowed to bet. The interesting question is why has the jobsworth Millington decided to hint that there is a problem. He has not got up on Thursday morning and thought, you know what maybe there is something in this and I will write about it. Something else is afoot, I would like to think that they feel that the balance towards bookmakers within their paper and on the street has become too weighted and even they are suffering but lets see. |
|
By:
I think the whole purpose was to discredit the idea of a minimum payout. He's not having a debate where people can reply he has just made it an equivocal "minimum payout wouldn't work".
|
|
By:
A bit like presidents I think a fixed term should apply to racing post editors. Millington is far too comfy.
|
|
By:
Bruce doesn’t do debate. Disagree with him on Twitter , no matter how politely, and you will be blocked. Whether that approach is due to arrogance or him doubting his ability to debate I wouldn't know.
|
|
By:
Reading it, he clearly doesn't have any idea of the scale of the problem, as, predictably, he trotted out the total lie that it's most likely to be arbers who get restricted - no doubt this has been drummed into him over and over again by bookmaking industry frauds in every hospitality box he enters...
|
|
By:
The whole arbers argument is just total bollocks
Time you factor in the best price then knock off the 4 to 5 betfair charges it's a waste of time from a profit point of view You make buttons at best |
|
By:
I ain't bought the racing post in like probably 10 years now
And never would ever unless going to the horse racers Was reading it in the supermarket today Jeez is it £2.70 now What a total waste of money The way racing post paper has dropped greyhound racing is an utter disgrace No proper lines of form And at most meetings a fing computer programme guesses and tries to pick the losers sorry I mean winners  |
|
By:
Jeez is it £2.70 now
I might be wrong but I think it could have the honour of being Europe's highest priced daily paper. |
|
By:
I might be wrong but I think it could have the honour of being Europe's highest priced daily paper.
Financial Times? |
|
By:
FT is £2.70 weekdays, £3.90 Saturday.
|
|
By:
Give the owners a few months and they'll fix that.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
More chance of Jo Brand appearing on page 3 than of the clown knocking his paymasters, horrible vile creature of a human being
|
|
By:
Bruce simple question how does birchy and palmer get what they wont on and why does the boy birchy always say his bet for exsample 700/200 with 365 or lads fair doos richard but stop the name dropping the both of you and by the way steve your book was a lot of urine
|
|
By:
Of course...if one is a horsey journalist and/or a horse racing voice box one can easily get on. Why would the bookies want to bite the hand that feeds them? Even the bookies (turf accountants) draw a line to the extent of their sharp practices; a bit of pain - these industry parasites seldom win, anyway - otherwise they'd be doing it for themselves (full-time) and not affiliated to racing journals/media.
A very simple exercise if Bruce still needs convincing: he could always asks to witness a restricted punter when he/she is putting on a bet online or in a high street betting entity, simple really! |
|
By:
Talking of the FT, the last time I looked they didn't cover horse racing at all. I think they have a sports section, but nothing about horse racing - not even results were published.
That was a few years ago now, so it might have changed since - haven't looked recently. |
|
By:
some bookies don't help with their tempter prices to try and get people to open new accounts, offering a point or 2 above anybody else just to get new accounts. PP/SpBook are probably the worst, and Boyles too. If you already have an account and regularly take these prices you get closed down
|
|
By:
a few months ago i mentioned to a member of staff in ladcrooks that trying to sign up
every customer for online accounts may not be in her best interest. The blank look i got back made me give up. line up for xmas turkey's |
|
By:
Northanite was in nat west and the staff were petering me about why i do not do my business on line and i asked the same question as u and got the same reaction but they did ask me to enjoy the rest of the day!
|
|
By:
Sorry the word was pestering
|
|
By:
northernlite
the staff member gets a score for every sign up so it would be in her favour, that's why the punter gets hassled to sign up. have a good day regards Ronnie. |
|
By:
Sevey-Books will take golf bets till the cows come home as no way can 'form' work out for the punter through inside information. Birch is not meant to be a serious tipster he is there for entertainment value only.
|
|
By:
I won't be in their staffs' favour if numerous customers stop going into shops and do their betting online instead and as a result, shops are closed due to a reduction in takings, is I think the point being alluded to here.
|
|
By:
roadrunner46 13 Oct 17 14:30
down to the individual to workout how to beat them at their own game, all their shops on the high street are their weak spots. ---------- Oh that it were so simple. If you have half-a-dozen Bakers' shops within a couple of miles of your home - But - None of them have any Bread, Pies, or cake on offer ... Then you go hungry. |
|
By:
Rayman, that is complete nonsense about golf bets.
|
|
By:
Magic-Please explain why its nonsense about golf bets Rayman
|
|
By:
You are implying that bookmakers will take bets on golf. I can tell you from experience whether that be multiple sets of online accounts or numerous shops in London that they heavily restrict golf betting just like everything else. They shouldnt given the margins and unpredictability in recent months but they do. I have had to pretty much stop pre off golf betting as simply cannot get a decent bet matched these days outside of the majors.
|
|
By:
In Australia the minimum bet laws only apply after 09:00 day of race (or 14:00 for night racing), so books offering early prices aren't affected. Offering early prices prior to 09:00 allows the oddsmakers to sharpen the books at low limits before the bets come in.
Books must stand any punter to lose a max of $2k (win or eachway)/$800 (place) for metropolitan (major) race meetings. Half those limits for country (minor) meetings. The laws don't apply to the retail TAB outlets that are in every suburb and practically every pub. Online corporates only. Punters can't ask to win $2k at the price offered, then have more on at a lower price if the book moves the price. It's $2k max liability per Customer, per horse. Some books are circumventing the laws by making it difficult for (known) customers to open accounts (or to reopen accounts that were closed prior to the laws being implemented), and by customising their racing markets for sharper punters. The minimum bet laws for racing are better than nothing, but the corporates in Australia are still pretty much using the U.K. model that they brought Down Under, focussing on luring and keeping the mug punter while dissuading anyone that has a clue. Their markets are all copies of each other, they limit sharp bettors on sports other than racing, they promote Cash Out and other rip offs, they've recently been promoting Lotto, Lottery type products, etc etc. The world needs a global cryptocurrency exchange for sports and racing and I'm tipping we'll see something along those lines within 3-5 years. |
|
By:
stopped by the RP years ago
Millington is a phukcing tool |
|
By:
Magic-How can you select form a field of 3 figures when form can be so erratic Group 1 golfers not making the cut etc.Tiger Woods 6/4 for the US Masters some years ago.
The weather can be impossible to predict over the tournament. Your fancy can go out at 0900 with wind and rain and the opposition can go out at 1400 in perfect conditions. The old maxim about never backing anything that can talk comes to mind-Rayman |
|
By:
Perhaps the penny has finally dropped for whoever is pulling Millington's strings that while bookmakers are acting in this way without any censure, the obscene fact is that the more interested you become in racing the more likely you are to be disenfranchised, frustrated and ultimately excluded.
And that people who are interested in racing are the ones most likely to buy the Racing Post. An that if you are being restricted, and still buying the Racing Post, you are reading so many pages of shamelessly unquestioned bookmaker lies and propaganda that you're not going to be buying it for much longer... |
|
By:
millhouse and all recently The Justice For Punters Org lead an e mail to Bruce campaign giving examples of the problem many of us now face as normal punters restricted to tiny amounts.JFP is now starting to receive some mainstream media recognition and we also asked why they had gained none from the RP.I have no idea if this was responsible for BM finally acknowledging that the problem exists. It would be good to learn that this played a part.
The HBF now appear a spent force,and I would ask all backers to consider reg as supporters with JFP because they are pro active in seeking fairness for all Bookmaker customers but they need our active involvement to do so.Those not currently affected should consider that you could be next.! If we work collectively then we do have a chance of bringing change. |