There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
This coming Sunday I will be a guest on the Sunday Forum with Sean Boyce, Paul Kealy and Simon Clare to discuss betting on horse racing and many issues surrounding it.
While I am very much a punter myself and will have plenty to say about the issues that affect so many of us, primarily stake restrictions and their wider implications, I am conscious of the fact that there isn't a representative of the betting public that isn't involved in the media on the panel.
Thus, if you as a member of the betting public have any gripes, points or questions that you would like raised, please add them to this thread and I will do my best to bring them into the discussion.
Many thanks,
Kevin Blake
While I am very much a punter myself and will have plenty to say about the issues that affect so many of us, primarily stake restrictions and their wider implications, I am conscious of the fact that there isn't a representative of the betting public that isn't involved in the media on the panel.
Thus, if you as a member of the betting public have any gripes, points or questions that you would like raised, please add them to this thread and I will do my best to bring them into the discussion.
Many thanks,
Kevin Blake
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 125
|
By:
If you could tell Boyce and Simon Clare to go and play in the traffic that would be much appreciated, ta.
|
|
By:
That's not very helpful is it ?
We get a lot of moaning about bookies on here ( most of it justified ) and now we have an offer to take things up on TV and nobody is answeringly seriously. I would like to know how bookies can justify holding their licences given their current practice of being unprepared to accept so many bets. |
|
By:
2 things
can you please highlight the scandalous practice that certain firms carry out whereby there are no checks done whatsoever on where the money has come from for an initial deposit into a new account, bets are freely allowed to be made and when the point comes to withdraw any winnings, all manner of documentation is required to be sent to them (ranging from basic ID, to credit/debit card scans, bank statements, selfies holding your documentation etc etc)...I fully understand the KYC argument but this either applies at the DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL stage or it doesn't apply at all imo and secondly, please can you raise the fact that if FOBT turnover has exceeded OTC turnover in shops (which I believe it has although I don't have the exact figures to hand) then why there are not more grounds to challenge that bookmaker's licence? the licence is granted on the basis that making a book and taking bets on things that people are interested in (the traditional "OTC turnover") accounts for the majority of the focus of the business, the turnover etc in the last 5 years at least it is clear that actually the FOBTs are the main focus of the business and therefore this is contradictory to the licence that they have been approved (which is to be a high st bookmaker, not a high st mini casino/arcade, although we all know full well they are mini casino/arcades and not bookmakers anymore) it is like greggs starting to sell iphones even though they are licenced to sell pasties etc, it doesn't matter how many pasties you sell in a morning if you have sold a 1000 pound iphone |
|
By:
other phones and bakeries are available obv
|
|
By:
Morning Kevin,
Firstly I'd just say the "we" (Britain & Ireland) have the best racing as well as the most liberal gambling regime in the world. I've been to all the major racing nations and the paris mutuel style of betting is garbage. This needs saying as you often have various groups thinking it's the answer to funding but I for one wouldn't use it. So we have the history, tradition and a liberal gambling regime so alls good? Well it should be but my own view is that the BHA under the guidance of the off course firms are weakening the product. They want mug punters to bet on any old rubbish and the BHA seem to go along with their requests. The specifics that gripe me are: * Can't get on - I'm sure you'll cover this in detail but its worth saying that those of us who've spent decades following the sport and are its greatest supporters are well p*ssed off with this. The BHA for one doesn't seem to care less. They should be careful as they're putting two fingers up to the people who actually go to the gaff tracks, midweek, in the middle of winter. * Less racing at the lower end - Strip out an entire level and people will bet on a quality product. Less rubbish handicaps etc. * Ground consistancy - Who acctually trusts the going reports? Clear reports and if they are found to be inaccurate, why? Clerks of course held to account. * Greater transparancy - Stewards decisions, wind oporations etc etc. * Less Saturday racing - For the love of God. So a clear and open betting product of a higher quality where people can acctually have a bet. |
|
By:
Thanks for the offer Kevin. I would specifically like to back up wondersobright's first point which is verging on fraudulent behaviour and very commonplace.
Continually taking deposits and bets until you might happen to win when suddenly you have to jump through a load of hoops to get the money returned. |
|
By:
It would be very helpful actually, salmon spray.
Let's be honest, what is the point here? Kevin Blake strikes me as a decent enough chap but do you seriously expect him to be allowed to put any forthright, tough or even tricky questions to the panel live on TV, let alone get them answered honestly or meaningfully and in a way that might actually change anything of the current situation regarding the bookmaking industry. Or will it just be yet another smarm-fest from Boycie and Clare with Kevin looking in from the periphery. I think I know what my money would be on. |
|
By:
You might well be right,but if he is given the ammo and doesn't/can't use it then surely that is the time to be sarcastic.
|
|
By:
Fair comment, however I have seen and heard enough of these things to believe that is how it will turn out, unfortunately.
I genuinely hope I am wrong and wish Kevin all the best on it though. |
|
By:
Ask Clare which MP was filmed doing the watersports and was he one of the 3 fellows with his hose out.
|
|
By:
Irish whisper
I have 2 questions I would like to ask Simon, firstly why aren't staff member's allowed to tell the customers that they have a sleeper? and second why do Korals say they will guarantee any horse to lose 2k or 5k to anyone when actually they don't  |
|
By:
Kevin
Wish you well and hope you are afforded the opportunity to ask some searching questions. Mine would be - How can gambling operators simultaneously operate software that successfully excludes unwanted customers but fails to pick up self excluded customers? Ronnie's second question! |
|
By:
hi kevin, could you ask paul kealy why his papers pricewise box still has prices for 12 bookmakers when only 5 now guarantee to hold prices for a short time.
why is paul and tom segal's selections now at sp when the majority of tom's selections go off a shorter price than those advertised in the pricewise box. how can it still be called pricewise when no prices offered. |
|
By:
my question would be why are bookmakers reps allowed come on both racing channels as well as itv and rte and tell blatant..well untruths..simon is no angel at it as most people know but one particular irish rep takes the biscuit.most of us knwo the one that talks about "big hitters" and "those in the know".strangley if you try a 50 bet with then in their shops it has to be rang in.? imagine if you tried 5000 like in days of old? the smelling salts would have to be produced for the,..its nauseating
|
|
By:
parispike
off topic went to the coconut tree last Friday top top notch booked in again week on Friday, you must go regards Ronnie. |
|
By:
Restrictions, restrictions, restrictions.
15 years ago I could get €100 on a horse with at least 5 firms on the phone (my usual stake would have been €40). I tend to back in hcps e/w at 10/1 or longer. Nowadays I am doing well if I can get €5 ew on in a hcp. My usual stake is significantly lower than it was because its just too much hassle and there are really only 3 firms who will take more than a fiver. Limits Boils (just mentioned above by Kavvie) €0.00 SadCrooks €0.18 BF Sportsbuck €2.80 Billys €3.03 In the old days the firms at least had the good grace to send you a letter closing your account, now it's just an automatic restriction with no prior notice and despite some calls to CS all firms have refused to reconsider their "traders decision". Looking forward to the programme but perhaps it will just add to further frustration as I cannot see any change in policy from any firm... |
|
By:
Another point here in Ireland is the recent barring of all under age betting (u18), including ring bookmakers and Tote.
An education in betting could be picked up from an early age, without losing a fortune. Indeed I don't know of a single punter who didn't start betting until 18 but that is the new reality. Now when 18 arrives you have total unrestricted stakes to people who neither understand nor have any experience of how to assess value/opportunity, mostly betting through phones. The end result is the car crash with many poor unfortunates blaming everyone for negligence whereas in reality they simply need to learn how to bet and preferably with hard (earned) cash... |
|
By:
Ronnie Rails
Would I be right in thinking you are a longstanding "Koral" betting shop manager and that you are questioning the 2/5k guarantee? If so, why? And any details on shops pricing/prices in the guaranteed windows? (ie are they more defensive/different to online?) Not loaded questions; dont know at all and just be interested for an article I may be writing today (tho this is just one very minor area) Thanks, Tony |
|
By:
I think the case re Dave Evans and the whole "fraudulent" practice of bookmakers shortening horses that they know are going to be non runners to induce a higher rule 4 deduction.
Above we have a selection of punters(along with hundreds more)who cant get more than a £1 on yet Evans can get £6K @ 4/1 about a 7/2 shot @ the time of striking the bet with a 20p deduction and lo and behold he informs them his other hoss is a non runner and they subsequently shorten it from 7/2 to 3s to induce the higher rule 4. Nothing seems to have changed from the infamous "Panorama" days. Bookmakers offering favours to trainers for inside information. |
|
By:
That said it has allways been the case AND ALLWAYS WILL.
|
|
By:
Hypothetical champion trainer Willie O'Brien 100 plus winners every year,grade/group 1,2 etc wants to get a bet on one of his how does he do it.
Paddy koral what's in it for him? Would any of us stand the bet if so why? |
|
By:
I did not think Korals could get much worse than when i phoned then to place a bet on a snooker match of £110 on an 8/11 chance.Those brave traders offered me a bet of just £22, they were willing to risk losing £16.However in March this year phoned them on a Saturday evening to place a bet on the players championship semi-final between Ding Junhui and Marco Fu.Fu had been playing well all week and was reccomended to win this match in the Racing Post at 11/8.
By early evening Fu was in blue with every bookmaker on oddschecker and Ding had drifted out to best price of 10/11.Decided to back Ding, on telephoning was now quoted 20/21 Ding,even better,asked for £100, should be no problem i thought as all the money has been for Fu,and as such should be willing to lay Ding ,hence his price been shoved out.The bet was sent to trading,the lady on the phone tried several attempts to get an answer from them but the bet kept getting timed out with no decision from them.She put me on hold and went to speak to her manager.After a while she came and told me her manager had spoken to trading and they would not take any of the bet,and he could not give me a reason why. Many of my bets had been restricted over the previous couple of years, especially on snooker but this seemed crazy.The following Monday decided to phone and close the account i had had for 17 years.I asked to be told the details of the account over its lifetime and was told the amount staked and returned since it was opened in the year 2000, it was losing me £406,which surely proves i am no great threat to the mighty koral.Even losers can sometimes not get on.More and more punters will walk away from the game if these petty restrictions continue to apply,it seems now only the privileged few are guaranteed to get on,and we all know who they are. Like to hear what Simon clare's thoughts on this are. Oh ,nearly forgot to mention after refusing my bet on Ding a few minutes later they pushed him out to even money,you couldn;t make it up. |
|
By:
My nap is that we will not get a single answer from Clare that does not either 1) claim that "so called"restrictions apply to a tiny number of punters 2) Koral is committed to horse racing 3) they guarantee prices to win £x in the shops 4) they are committed to "responsible gambling" - or a combination of the 4.
All of which will be a complete load of bullocks. |
|
By:
I find it very difficult to watch Clare on TV without throwing up. He should have been a politician.
|
|
By:
Kevin-The GC have fined several bookmakers for not identifying suspicious betting two in the last week. Ladbrokes failed to suspect 2 punters who lost £1.3 million between them were legit. They were found to have stolen the money. Surely a quick check on their postcode would have been sufficient to raise the alarm. Again they hold their hands up and make the right noises and wait for the next mug/criminal to come along.
|
|
By:
Lads/Koral 2 customers lose £1.3 million. StanJames customer £40K and 888 were fined 7.8 for not identifying vulnerable customers not to mention criminal activity. How can any of them not recognise that losing such sums does not flag up a problem gambler or worse. Evidently they do not comply to the responsible gambling they advertise and say they support.
|
|
By:
Some of the proposed questions are borderline libellous and potentially slanderous so good luck with that punters.
I cannot imagine the issue of larceny could be possibly be relevant as that's a matter for the justice department and possible laundering of funds. If you believe a particular firm is immoral (or worse) don't give them your business. In my naivety it seems to me that if market forces dictate a rush of money for any horse - do you recall the "mad dash" at the track when word and money came back for a live one and prices disappeared whether laid or not? - then the simple rules of supply and demand kicks in. Bookmakers have a genuine gripe as it is now so easy to lay your selection and this is what one generally acquires a bookmakers' licence for? I suspect that removing the ability to lay horses would be a fundamental sea-change in current practices and the game would recover some of its former lustre. Laying Evans and other trainers backing their own nags was probably always a recipe for success for any bookmaker (and the 99% of generally-losing "back only" punters). |
|
By:
kevin i hope you can get some answers but i think thats a 100/1 chance,my question would be about what bookmakers are prepared to lose ,if anything .surely if 98% of gamblers lose its immoral to ban/restrict the other 2% that can win some money as they should be able to balance a book at those percentages,i understand they cant just lay punters anything they want but surely they must be able to lay to at least £500.they just want to ban anybody with any idea of what they are doing send them to the exchanges to then make the real market for the bookmakers who can lay whatever price they want to the mug punters that have accounts as they know its all coming back eventually,bookmakers are actually killing racing/gambling slowly and they know it.good luck
|
|
By:
Kevin, Im glad your in studio on Sunday. Your no nonsense speech we need more of
 Im also glad Sean is the main presenter too..If you can Kevin, please put Simon under some pressure because if you dont he will just recycyle the same nonsense over and over again. 1: Disgusting practice of only allowing long term losers to get a decent bet on. I actually think bookmakers will be a thing of the past in the near future. Stick to the exchanges everyone. Like Bittorent sharing software, an exchange/betting medium is hopefully coming!!!!!  |
|
By:
RoyalAcademy • November 7, 2017 1:27 PM GMT I suspect that removing the ability to lay horses would be a fundamental sea-change in current practices and the game would recover some of its former lustre. Laying Evans and other trainers backing their own nags was probably always a recipe for success for any bookmaker (and the 99% of generally-losing "back only" punters).
that statement makes no sense whatsoever as how would anyone be able to bet on the exchanges if no one can lay your bet, all banned punters are on betfair making the markets do you think bookmakers would all of a sudden say welcome back bet as much as you like,one of the earlier posters could not bet an even money chance on a snooker match where there is only 2 outcomes |
|
By:
DONT FORGET TO ASK ABOUT THE SLEEPERS
have a good day regards Ronnie. |
|
By:
1.01 the answers to questions from us will be the same garbage answers.
1: Lets stop the glamour adverts, Im sick of them, adverts in general I try to block them all! |
|
By:
My piece RR, thanks for input. Balanced, I hope; https://medium.com/@tony_calvin/honesty-and-acceptance-between-bookmaker-and-punter-may-put-an-end-to-the-bad-feeling-e63a1bc1bf78
|
|
By:
https://medium.com/@tony_calvin/honesty-and-acceptance-between-bookmaker-and-punter-may-put-an-end-to-the-bad-feeling-e63a1bc1bf78
|
|
By:
that statement makes no sense whatsoever as how would anyone be able to bet on the exchanges if no one can lay your bet, all banned punters are on betfair making the markets do you think bookmakers would all of a sudden say welcome back bet as much as you like,one of the earlier posters could not bet an even money chance on a snooker match where there is only 2 outcomes
@garryc: my point is that if bookmakers offer guaranteed prices and guaranteed stakes they are offering a "free money" scheme and that just makes no sense. There's no-one alive in business with those offers. Also, your point about the brave Betfair market makers is interesting: what are these other than unlicensed bookmakers offering on-the-margin prices with no interest in "special offers" of early prices? An amateur market maker can test the market for £2/€2 and won't be offering the largesse demanded of early-advertising bookmakers. I have no candle to hold for bookmakers but I can see why they wouldn't entertain traders for a moment and that, I suspect, is how most "profitable" punters make their dough here. Ability to lay has been the slippery descent to mediocrity and shabby practices. On-line exchanges, originally heralded as boons are now like most social media-they eat their young. Undoubtedly many of the present restrictions in place are anathema to good bookmaking (and seem counter-intuitive) where you simply balance odds with turnover but, as they say, never under-estimate the stupidity of most bettors. |
|
By:
good on you, irish whisper
|
|
By:
Excellent Kevin, thank you.
With a focus on customer service and basic manners, could you ask why bookmakers think it is reasonable to shut or heavily restrict accounts without any reason? "Traders' decision" isn't a reason. Some of us would like to know why those traders have reached that decision. Some will disagree with me, but personally I don’t expect a bookmaker to let a punter hammer them on a weekly basis. However, I also wouldn’t expect a bookmaker to close or restrict (frequently, losing) accounts because someone happened to back a horse in the morning that went off shorter in the afternoon. If that is the real (pathetic) reason they should have the balls to say so. I would also like to enquire about bookmakers’ websites planting spyware on our laptops and desktops but expect that topic might be a bit too warm. |
|
By:
Just like to add that I never bet overnight or in the morning. Totally pointless as you can only get peanuts on. All betting is after the opening show and I'm still restricted/closed. I just don't want the usuall tosh about arbers being brought out.
|
|
By:
I was watching a racing program on the weekend ,and geoff banks mentioned the practise of offcourse bookmakers willing to take shorter prices than offered on bookmakers board ,as long as the bookmaker reduced the price substantially.400/200 lay 350/200 but you must go 6/4on your board. This is similar to fixing the libor rate,and this was deemed a serious matter.
|