Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
He finally says something negative against the bookmakers restrictions in his Thursday column.....not a lot but at least it's a start
Show More
Feeding from the same trough...that must be painful for him.
The criticism was pathetically mild and just gives him the excuse that'll say he's dealt with it now.
Too little too late, that horse has already bolted. He probably knows sales are going downhill I suspect, subscriptions must be hugely down against the RP "upgrade" a year ago, IF the machines stakes get cut shops will probably close so the RP will lose more sales. Then to top it all off all that is left for him is the punters who he has held in such contempt for as long as anyone can remember to boost RP sales. Again, that horse has long bolted too, many punters who cannot get a bet on anymore have left the game completely as it just isn't worth the hassle.
Those punters will never be back imo (for horse racing or the RP), and if they are still punting it will be on a different sport where liquidity isn't too much of a problem on here or where books will actually take a bet.
As you will be reading this thread Brucey - you should have had a decent go about restrictions years ago (but they didn't affect you back then I doubt), and the Racing game probably wouldn't be in as bad shape as it currently is. Why not do an actual 2 page piece about it in full, asking what the HBF and the BHA are doing about the state the game is in, asking Reps about their lies on camera or actual proof of their reported bets? When it goes completely t1ts up, You and the current BHA and the CEOs of the books will be long gone led on a beach taking your huge pensions you have basically stolen from the sport (NAP).
Those punters will never be back imo (for horse racing or the RP), and if they are still punting it will be on a different sport where liquidity isn't too much of a problem on here or where books will actually take a bet.
As you will be reading this thread Brucey - you should have had a decent go about restrictions years ago (but they didn't affect you back then I doubt), and the Racing game probably wouldn't be in as bad shape as it currently is. Why not do an actual 2 page piece about it in full, asking what the HBF and the BHA are doing about the state the game is in, asking Reps about their lies on camera or actual proof of their reported bets? When it goes completely t1ts up, You and the current BHA and the CEOs of the books will be long gone led on a beach taking your huge pensions you have basically stolen from the sport (NAP).
The near tumbleweed on this thread only goes to illustrate that hardly anyone buys it any more, as pretty clearly no one actually knows what he said to be able to make a comment about it...
whilst probably true millhouse you are using seriously flawed logic to prove it!
It's on the website for them that want to read it....
well it does it necessarily follow that if someone buys the racing post they then read BM's thursday column?
These days with news and info so easily obtained online and elsewhere the importance and necessity of the RP has diminished greatly thus circulation tumbling to the extent that now only the genuine hardcore users are mainly those working within and/or related to the horse racing industry. I'd was an occasional buyer of the RP eg for the Epsom Derby and Royal Ascot, but no longer; there is absolutely no need as the editorial and contents have been weak, ineffectual and perpetually boring.
The truth is...the RP is no longer printed for the benefits of punters and/or racegoers but more for its paymasters and parasites of the industry; if its demise is absolute in the near future I believe the majority of punters and/or racegoers will not miss it a jot!
The truth is...the RP is no longer printed for the benefits of punters and/or racegoers but more for its paymasters and parasites of the industry; if its demise is absolute in the near future I believe the majority of punters and/or racegoers will not miss it a jot!
A more pertinent question would be for Millington to ask how many employed in the Racing Media have restrictions on accounts with their bookmaker chums.
Flukes, if you want to get really angry, read 'consistently profitable punter' Richard Birch's column in the RFO each week...
Millhouse, I think it's widely recognised that Birchy's column has been retained for comedy value only.
Bruce pretend your covering restrictions issue but use it to knock on the head the idea of a "minimum wager" there's a good boy
Fair play at least his column is available online:
Restrictions put a major block on enjoyment
There has undoubtedly been an increase in the number of punters who voice their dissatisfaction at having their stakes restricted, either partially or to such an extent they may as well not have bothered asking.
Only this week, for example, a colleague who bets successfully on football told me there is now just one exchange where he can bet at his desired levels without being subject to an inflated commission rate and that fixed-odds firms are a no-go zone.
I also conversed with a punter who says his average bet is approximately £15 and that he bets almost entirely on racing plus some occasional football.
I like to think I have become quite good at spotting an arber or a former bookmaker employee from a genuine recreational punter when discussing this contentious topic and this man struck me as perfectly believable.
He said for 45 years he had placed bets without any restrictions, but that in the past 18 months he had had three accounts effectively closed through excessive stake limits, of which two were roughly £30 up over a three-year period and the other had won him around £20.
A growing number of punters are having their maximum stakes restricted
A growing number of punters are having their maximum stakes restricted
Julian Finney
Now he may be making the whole thing up, although if he is fantasising he is doing it very eloquently and plausibly and it would also be a weird thing to fabricate.
But he seemed convincing and if his story is true it suggests bookmakers are clamping down even harder on successful customers.
It cannot be claimed bookies operate on a strict 'thou shalt not win' basis because I believe no firm would be so stupid as to deny the person who makes a few grand on a dream multiple the chance to do it all back. But if the smart punter who chisels out a small profit over a long period cannot get his bets on something is badly wrong.
I don’t know what the answer is but I do not believe it is an enforced minimum-bet stipulation, as many are calling for.
This is unworkable because many punters have control of multiple accounts so if bookmakers were forced to lay anything to lose, say, £1,000, the punter with access to 20 accounts could stretch that limit to £20,000.
It remains the case that the vast majority of punters are no threat to bookies’ profits and are therefore allowed to have as much as they like on whatever they like. But the aspiration to be moderately successful should not be snatched away once a customer shows they are capable of making even a marginal profit from their hobby.
Restrictions put a major block on enjoyment
There has undoubtedly been an increase in the number of punters who voice their dissatisfaction at having their stakes restricted, either partially or to such an extent they may as well not have bothered asking.
Only this week, for example, a colleague who bets successfully on football told me there is now just one exchange where he can bet at his desired levels without being subject to an inflated commission rate and that fixed-odds firms are a no-go zone.
I also conversed with a punter who says his average bet is approximately £15 and that he bets almost entirely on racing plus some occasional football.
I like to think I have become quite good at spotting an arber or a former bookmaker employee from a genuine recreational punter when discussing this contentious topic and this man struck me as perfectly believable.
He said for 45 years he had placed bets without any restrictions, but that in the past 18 months he had had three accounts effectively closed through excessive stake limits, of which two were roughly £30 up over a three-year period and the other had won him around £20.
A growing number of punters are having their maximum stakes restricted
A growing number of punters are having their maximum stakes restricted
Julian Finney
Now he may be making the whole thing up, although if he is fantasising he is doing it very eloquently and plausibly and it would also be a weird thing to fabricate.
But he seemed convincing and if his story is true it suggests bookmakers are clamping down even harder on successful customers.
It cannot be claimed bookies operate on a strict 'thou shalt not win' basis because I believe no firm would be so stupid as to deny the person who makes a few grand on a dream multiple the chance to do it all back. But if the smart punter who chisels out a small profit over a long period cannot get his bets on something is badly wrong.
I don’t know what the answer is but I do not believe it is an enforced minimum-bet stipulation, as many are calling for.
This is unworkable because many punters have control of multiple accounts so if bookmakers were forced to lay anything to lose, say, £1,000, the punter with access to 20 accounts could stretch that limit to £20,000.
It remains the case that the vast majority of punters are no threat to bookies’ profits and are therefore allowed to have as much as they like on whatever they like. But the aspiration to be moderately successful should not be snatched away once a customer shows they are capable of making even a marginal profit from their hobby.
His argument against the minimum bet stipulaion is rubbish. The bookmaker simply has to do what the word suggests, and make a book. If he has taken one or two bets to win a thousand and doesn't want more, he simply cuts the price so that his offer is no longer attractive and punters take their bets to another firm.
At Salisbury last week, I backed a horse that was 4/1 on most rails boards, but 9/2 on a single one. I asked for and got £900/200 and the bookie immediately cut the price to 4/1, which is exactly how a market is supposed to operate.
At Salisbury last week, I backed a horse that was 4/1 on most rails boards, but 9/2 on a single one. I asked for and got £900/200 and the bookie immediately cut the price to 4/1, which is exactly how a market is supposed to operate.
Indeed. Also, KYC isn't working very well if punters can access "multiple accounts". Ditto self-exclusion.
the shame of the post going downhill is that once it was required reading especially saturday now so many people have givenup those glory days of pricewise in the early 2000s are a memory only .Is there any way back or even a new paper ?
Is there any bookmaker who has succeeded long-term by "making a book"?
I suppose Stephen Little did ... until even he got caught out with Jibereen, and couldn't get out of it by "making a book".
The trouble is, if you're taking bets from literally thousands of outlets at the same time, as well as online, you're leaving yourself open to a Jibereen experience every single race. Accounts don't need to be linked for hundreds of punters to be piling on the same horse at the same odds at the same moment. Hugh Taylor might have tipped it. Or it's gone 10.5 on here while you're offering 10/1 commission-free. Either way, if you're guaranteeing to lay to take out a monkey, you only need to accommodate a couple of hundred punters to find you've laid a £100,000 to £10,000 about a rag. Try getting out of that one on a wet evening's card at Wolverhampton by making a book.
The solution? Stop offering early prices on all but the biggest betting heats, but guarantee those prices to lose a monkey to everybody.
Result? No punters restricted ... but at the same time, all those prices we're currently complaining we're restricted to pennies on ... they will have disappeared. Instead of getting a tenner on by walking around the shops or placing online bets on your mate's account, you'll get nothing, because the price will no longer be there.
Careful what you wish for.
I suppose Stephen Little did ... until even he got caught out with Jibereen, and couldn't get out of it by "making a book".
The trouble is, if you're taking bets from literally thousands of outlets at the same time, as well as online, you're leaving yourself open to a Jibereen experience every single race. Accounts don't need to be linked for hundreds of punters to be piling on the same horse at the same odds at the same moment. Hugh Taylor might have tipped it. Or it's gone 10.5 on here while you're offering 10/1 commission-free. Either way, if you're guaranteeing to lay to take out a monkey, you only need to accommodate a couple of hundred punters to find you've laid a £100,000 to £10,000 about a rag. Try getting out of that one on a wet evening's card at Wolverhampton by making a book.
The solution? Stop offering early prices on all but the biggest betting heats, but guarantee those prices to lose a monkey to everybody.
Result? No punters restricted ... but at the same time, all those prices we're currently complaining we're restricted to pennies on ... they will have disappeared. Instead of getting a tenner on by walking around the shops or placing online bets on your mate's account, you'll get nothing, because the price will no longer be there.
Careful what you wish for.
Fair points, screaming. But how come they can do it in Australia? They must have similar issues over there, their own version of Hugh Taylor etc. A Gambling Commission that was better than a chocolate teapot might be a starting point.
Do they have an equivalent of Southwell sellers and Bangor bumpers in New South Wales though? And more to the point, do bookmakers offer prices on them from 24 hours beforehand?
(If they do, I stand corrected; and be glad to do so, because I would absolutely love it if I could walk into any betting shop and be guaranteed I could get a £500 to £100 about the second favourite in a Catterick handicap where the favourite's drifting like a barge; but the fact I'd love it makes me doubt whether the shop laying it would be around for long.)
i'm sure there could be caveats. Sellers and claimers could be out of the arrangement. Presumably they could still turn down business from strangers etc. For example, if you had 20 bets with the company then they would have to accept your (online) bet upto the £500 limit. If it was a new, hardly used account the arrangement wouldn't have to be enforced.
Also things like the favourite drifitng like a barge is an issue for the BHA. The game is in trouble if the market is thought to be so accurate about form horses running badly and we need foreign money to come into the game with good faith.
Also things like the favourite drifitng like a barge is an issue for the BHA. The game is in trouble if the market is thought to be so accurate about form horses running badly and we need foreign money to come into the game with good faith.
Sfbtw makes a number of fair points but surely also pertinent is that those books CHOOSE to price up early but then discriminate regarding who and to what extent they can be taken. If only mugs are allowed them then the book card isn’t marked. To be marked some people , in the inner circle, must be able to access them. Who.? Trainers, racing Post journalists, TV pundits?
Sorry, but that still makes no sense. If you get hundreds of punters on here all trying to take the £100 available at 10.5 at the same time, only the first one in the queue gets matched - the rest have to wait and see if another layer comes along. There's absolutely no reason why fixed odds software shouldn't work on the same basis.
And if you're concerned about all these punters turning up in the shops, link their tills to your online system - which I suspect is already done anyway. The point is that it can be done if the will to do it exists.
And if you're concerned about all these punters turning up in the shops, link their tills to your online system - which I suspect is already done anyway. The point is that it can be done if the will to do it exists.
A minimum liability is the ONLY way forward.
Nobody is holding a gun to the bookies head and forcing them to price up early.
If a bookie prefers to not to price a race up early, then fine, but those that do should guarantee to lay to a reasonable amount.
Nobody is holding a gun to the bookies head and forcing them to price up early.
If a bookie prefers to not to price a race up early, then fine, but those that do should guarantee to lay to a reasonable amount.
The simple truth is that the cash cow FOBTs, now generating well over 50% of shop profits, have made the off course books indifferent to sports/horse race betting. Why take a chance when a lovely 2.7% minimum return on every £ put in the machines is guaranteed? Quite why the BHA or their predecessors supported the introduction of these wretched machines and thereby took money away from punting on the sport they administer is an enduring mystery......
They've fallen for the shop closures line, paris. A line still being peddled, oh shop closures means less money for racing. Now the internet offhsore loophole has been closed racing doesn't need to worry about shop closures. Many of the shops were opened for machines in the first place.
Exactly The Fear. Outmanoeuvred at every pass. There are far too many shops in most towns. The excess have been opened solely to effectively circumvent the 4 machines per shop limit. Ffs outside New St Station in Birmingham there are two Badblokes side by side which looks from outside to be one shop and to all intents and purposes is. Except that one can’t move from one to another without walking 15 yards on the street.....
Some Govermnent official or Civil Servant clearly didn’t anticipate that the books would be quite as cunning.....
Some Govermnent official or Civil Servant clearly didn’t anticipate that the books would be quite as cunning.....
Its almost a given that the machine stakes will be dropped. In a few years an outright ban like in Ireland. Bookmakers will then have to offer all punter a fair crack at the whip
The truth is its very hard to win long term on horse racing. Thats a fact. Everything needs to go right and form together. Its called gambling and each punter should be treated fairly, or I dont see bookmakers around in 5 years imo
you only need to accommodate a couple of hundred punters to find you've laid a £100,000 to £10,000 about a rag.
The software they use will stop that, most bets gets referred now and they cut the price accordingly. All they need to do is set the market/software to suspend after "x" amount has been backed or to a certain liability and then adjust the prices. They would be cutting the price after 3 people have had a total of £1500 to £150, if you think hundreds would get on I think you are a bit deluded!
The software they use will stop that, most bets gets referred now and they cut the price accordingly. All they need to do is set the market/software to suspend after "x" amount has been backed or to a certain liability and then adjust the prices. They would be cutting the price after 3 people have had a total of £1500 to £150, if you think hundreds would get on I think you are a bit deluded!
whatever happened to bookmakers having an opinion? sack the odds compilers if they cannot get the odds right for the big races and dont price up the ones where they dont feel they have enough to go on, the current situation is that unless you are clueless you wont get more that £2 backing a team to say win the premier league etc, thats all wrong
if I was in charge of a big bookmaking company, first thing I would do is restrict the winners who are smashing up
the sp's and winning fortunes, you cant allow people to bet what they want and at top prices, their profits would
drop 20% easily, they have to maximize their profits, its their responsibility to the shareholders.
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.
the sp's and winning fortunes, you cant allow people to bet what they want and at top prices, their profits would
drop 20% easily, they have to maximize their profits, its their responsibility to the shareholders.
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.
TheAnorak is right. -- If you get hundreds of punters on here all trying to take the £100 available at 10.5 at the same time, only the first one in the queue gets matched - the rest have to wait and see if another layer comes along. There's absolutely no reason why fixed odds software shouldn't work on the same basis.
But what on earth is the point? If only the first punter gets the £100 @ 10.5 with Ladbrokes (say) before the price is cut, then for all the hundreds of punters who are a millisecond behind in the queue, what has changed?
One punter (or fifty punters) get on and all the rest have the same experience they have now that the price has been slashed.
But what on earth is the point? If only the first punter gets the £100 @ 10.5 with Ladbrokes (say) before the price is cut, then for all the hundreds of punters who are a millisecond behind in the queue, what has changed?
One punter (or fifty punters) get on and all the rest have the same experience they have now that the price has been slashed.
THe point might be if you pick a 10s shot that isnt hugh taylor you get on?
THe point might be if you pick a 10s shot that isnt hugh taylor you get on?
You'd probably get on anyway -- leaving aside restricted punters which are the subject of the thread but not relevant to TheAnorak's plan -- and even the restricted punters can back it on the Tote and still get the same price if there are no queues to back it.
So no. While I have no objection to TheAnorak's plan, I cannot see how it helps (and probably something a bit like it is already in operation).
You'd probably get on anyway -- leaving aside restricted punters which are the subject of the thread but not relevant to TheAnorak's plan -- and even the restricted punters can back it on the Tote and still get the same price if there are no queues to back it.
So no. While I have no objection to TheAnorak's plan, I cannot see how it helps (and probably something a bit like it is already in operation).
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...
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...
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.
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
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
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...
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...
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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".
A bit like presidents I think a fixed term should apply to racing post editors. Millington is far too comfy.
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.
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...
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
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
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
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
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.
I might be wrong but I think it could have the honour of being Europe's highest priced daily paper.
I might be wrong but I think it could have the honour of being Europe's highest priced daily paper.
Financial Times?
Financial Times?
Oct 14, 2017 -- 9:43AM, millhouse wrote:
The idea is to make you go away northanlite...
just tried the same bet again & this time got offered £2.67, a big improvement % wise.
Must all be linked to what they have taken & liabilities. Why take a chance???
More chance of Jo Brand appearing on page 3 than of the clown knocking his paymasters, horrible vile creature of a human being
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
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!
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!
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.
That was a few years ago now, so it might have changed since - haven't looked recently.
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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rayman, that is complete nonsense about golf bets.
Magic-Please explain why its nonsense about golf bets Rayman
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
Good luck. My fear is the changes are most likely:
1) more pool betting
2) income tax on winnings
But I hope I am wrong.
Good luck. My fear is the changes are most likely:
1) more pool betting
2) income tax on winnings
But I hope I am wrong.
Greenhill.....HBF posted on their twitter account on October 12th that they should have news in this area shortly...
Nothing as yet.
Nothing as yet.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539