There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 125 comments are related to the topic:
Sunday Forum: Betting Special
Sunday Forum: Betting Special
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 125
|
By:
Will you please ask simon clare ,that if you become acustomer rated red,is this a life sentence .Or is there a reprieve after 15 years
|
|
By:
My point Kevin is that like the Headmaster has pointed out how are bookies able to continue with the practise of using spyware on our laptops etc as every citizen has the right to privacy under one of the many articles of the European Court of Human Rights and surely this is a breach of that particular article.
|
|
By:
Q1.Why is it when someone is restricted on sports betting online they are still free to play casino/slots games for however much they like?
Q2.If the bookmakers are genuinely worried about shops closing in the wake of FOBT'S stakes being restricted,why do they offer shorter odds on sports to shop punters than those on their websites? Q3.Why am i constantly being told that i qualify for 'free' spins on a FOBT every time i place a bet on sports in their shops? |
|
By:
Why am i constantly being told that i qualify for 'free' spins on a FOBT every time i place a bet on sports in their shops?
because the rancid leeches are desperate to divert as much of the punter's pound from sports to FOBTs as possible |
|
By:
not much point adding a question here, clares probably got the tea boy scanning this thread by the hour. which means the odious **** will have been informed that ronnie rails knows where the bodies are buried, but they haven't got a clue who he is ...
|
|
By:
Kevin. Just a few suggestions.
Derisory stake limits both on line and in the shops. The current practice of some bookmakers offering to pay ‘extra places’ on a daily basis. Some leading bookmakers now pay 1/5th the odds 4 places instead of ¼ the odds 3 places in 14 runner handicap races. In effect, the punters who get their horse placed in the first 3 are getting reduced payouts to enable the bookmakers pay out on the 4th horse. Fine if the bookmaker wants to the pay the 4th horse at 1/5th the odds but the first 3 should be paid out at ¼ the odds as has been the case for well over the last 100 years. The review by the starting price commission some years ago into the SP returns for the so called ‘bad each way races’. The returns to the shops are now based primarily on the prices from course bookmakers betting EW rather than win only. Punters betting win only in the shops on these races are being hammered with appalling odds with the sp% in some 8 and 9 runner races coming in at up to 140%. The agreement reached 10 years or so ago whereby the BHA agreed with the bookmakers that their contribution to racing would be based on gross profits rather than turnover tax. Since then the writing has been on the wall for punters with the entire racing industry – the bookmakers, owners, trainers and indeed the entire Trade press silent when it comes to punters terms and conditions. The punters forum set up by the BHA should be looking to have the funding model changed back to a 1% or 2% turnover tax, paid by the bookmakers, as is the case in Ireland. If I walk into a shop with a friend and my €100 bet is accepted but my friends bet for the same amount on the same horse is refused – that’s discrimination in my book and wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Good luck on Sunday |
|
By:
I sincerely hope there is some books rep on the forum on Sunday and some of the above fair questions can be asked.
Just on the point of restricted stakes and the pushing of casino/slots on punters; Frankie Dettori lends his name to a slot,the max a line bet is £50,there are 25 lines= £1250. say 10 spins a minute and in 8 minutes you have no problem getting a 6 figure sum on. A simple question is why are the books prepared to take such colossal sums on these but their policy is the get clearance for a £50 bet elsewhere? We all know the answer but no one will ask the books the question as it will never be publicly answered by them,hard to blame the books but even on a simple moral level it is so very wrong. |
|
By:
Good Luck Kevin - noble effort from you to post this so credit there. This would be a discussion better served by being on RUK - ATR has it's paymasters and though I'll watch and see what is said or not - you're rather going into the ring with one hand tied up I'd have thought on that channel.
Some good questions from the posters above, one that I don't think has been asked is: We know bookies restrict any customer who has either shown profitability or is attempting to back a horse who's odds are shortening at 'pre show' prices - whether that be at 9am 11am or 1pm....if it's a steamer and you're trying to get on, you won't get much if anything at all. This will never change. We can moan and debate all we want but it won't change. However why is it that bookmakers 'refer' bets being placed in shops at 'Live Show' prices. Two examples in the last week - I want £430 a 7/1 shot (9.2 BF) 8 mins before the off....over 4 mins to ring it through/place it....I want a £30 c/f combi in a 8 runner field where I didn't include the odds on short priced fav....even longer to refer/place it...5mins that one. On what basis are bets now being referred which takes minutes sometimes as long as 5mins at Live Show prices - especially when the liability against the bet isn't a five figure+ sum. Given this is the status quo - that bookmakers won't even take bets unchecked at Live Shows prices when there should be no danger of them having a badly overbroke book (which they would do if they laid any volume early as all they would lay are the live ones - I actually don't blame them for this, this isn't Hong Kong, the game is institutionally corrupt here and the insiders would string them up by a rope if they laid early prices for anything more than a score) However why is it that a punter trying to bet to win less than 10k a bet at a live show prices has to sit there like a numbskull for 5mins to have a bet accepted? Surely there should be a practice in place where live show bets in the shops are accepted without pause/referral and long phone calls - in the same way if you have a bet with the on course pitch bookies they take it and place within a matter of seconds? The acceptance of these bets should be mandatory and swift. There are enough avenues/volume across the industry to balance a book in the 10 mins before the off for pretty much any bet to get laid - however this simply isn't the case. If bookmakers systems are unable to cope with updating their 'book' in real time to know the affect of such liabilities arriving close to the off - they need to update their systems, this isn't the fault of the punter. Basically the point here is - if in a shop you can't even get on bets to win 3k+ at Live Show prices without being treated/made to feel like a bandit - on what basis do they hold a license under the description of 'bookmaker'. |
|
By:
Thanks very much to everyone for your contributions thus far. Please keep them coming. I have added many of the questions/points from here to a list I will have in front of me on the day. That said, it is important to be aware that I am just one member of a four-person panel and am unlikely to be able to ask/say everything I'd like to, but I'll do my very best.
|
|
By:
good on you kevin,can you ask simon clare how it is acceptable to take somebodys bets all day as long as they are losing money ,make them a vip and invite them to hospitality events while they are losing thousands on the account but as soon as they turn it round and get the money back your account is totally shutdown with no reason given as was the case with me with coral,
|
|
By:
kevin,
you deserve more credit than most within the industry in highlighting the demise of horse racing betting. the members of your forum on sunday includes 2 punter friendly journalists, paul and yourself, and a couple of bookmaker linked propaganists(past and present). If you are going to change something, you need people with actual cloat on such a forum. None of the 4 of ye have any, neither has anyone responding on this thread. 20 years ago, horseracing and to a lesser extent(as the filler product in the shops) greyhound racing were the core bookmaking products. In those pre internet days, firms did employ real odds compilers(or purchase from tissue makers) and they would lay a bet within reason. 4 items have changed the bookmaking landscape. First was the decision to allow singles in football matches(used to be minimum trebles or 5 timers), second, the internet(and global betting), thirdly, the proliferation of all weather racing(which has become "live cartoon racing" apart from a handful of fixtures), and finally the FOBTs in the UK. The cumulate effect is that nowadays compared to 20 years ago, the majority of "new" punters have their first encounter with betting firms, on some form of non racing sports bet, generally a soccer bet. The firms love this aspect as they have tightly controlled margins on soccer and it is an easy sports product to police. Horseracing has only 2 real products that puts itself into the public domain, the grand national and the Cheltenham festival. The decision to move the Derby from a Wednesday, a unique midweek event, to a Saturday now results in many ordinary sports fans(as distinct from racing fans), not even knowing the race is own that particular weekend. the return of racing to a mainstream channel(ITV) has had little impact...losing racing off the BBC was a disaster. the dye has been cast, the controller...the actuaries and executives within the major firms are now totally risk averse and akin to those in the general insurance industry, they only want to deal with low risk customers. In the old days, the bosses of the major firms had at least a passion for the game and an understanding of punters. the current executives could not care less about racing and all they are interested in is the bottom line and personal bonuses. There would be one and only one solution to change the current problems with punting on horse racing and greyhound racing to a lesser extent. You would need the governments of the UK and Ireland to change the taxation within the industry. In the case of the UK, levy for figures sake, a 40% charge on profits from FOBTs, a 20% charge on profits from sports betting and have only a 5% levy on profits from horse/greyhound racing. Such an policy would then incentivise the firms to work harder on the racing product and a few more risks might be taken and more punters laid reasonable bets. 2002-2008 was the modern golden years of betting/punting, if you failed to ride that wave, you will be a long time waiting for the next one to come along. |
|
By:
irish whisper
if you allowed one question please please ask SC why staff are not allowed to tell the punter if there have a sleeper. its the punters money. FAIR AND OPEN NOT A CHANCE regards ronnie |
|
By:
SC will want all questions emailed to him on friday. if it's not on the list you can't ask.
house rules. |
|
By:
Kevin, I really hope you get the chance to ask those relevant questions,the ones that make them squirm. As you say on your blog, horseracing has suffered the most from the big three's decisions in recent times. Like most punter's on here I wish you well, and I also believe that your wholehearted fight for punters rights is genuine!
|
|
By:
Kevin
Good luck. 1) Racing is being used a loss leader by many firms to attract punters and then divert them to more profitable channels e.g. casino/football etc 2) Punters who stake fairly small bets e.g. £10ew, £20ew can be restricted by backing a single winner - Not £k's. 3) Some online firms e.g. Stan James will not even allow you a chance to win, you are restricted if you don't show right profile 4) If normal punters cant place bets they will become disenfranchised and Racing will lose its core base and revenue. 5) Why cant a code of conduct be agreed as 1st step - guarantee any horse to lose say £500 or be blacklisted. 6) What is the punters forum set up by Nick Rust doing about this - it seems worse than ever "getting on" Thanks Davy |
|
By:
keen leader damns with faint praise per usual but in fairness offers some solutions to the problems. I would say Sunday is an honest attempt at discussion and KB never claimed to be performing any task other than helping shed some light on the vexed question of restrictions etc. The disregard for the punter is not unique to bookmakers and the sops to Joe Public in terms of the Racegoers' Consultative Forum (Ire) and the Horseracing Bettors Forum (UK) are clear admissions that lip service must be paid to the ultimate funders of the game. Lip service but no power or influence whatsoever.
The two racing jurisdictions are entirely separate and Ireland's racing funding model is unique in that although horse racing taxation is falling in proportion to all other betting opportunities the industry here claims 100% of the levies as being "ring-fenced" for racing. That dependence is as weak as it seems and all it will take is the whim of a left-of-centre government to see things a lot differently. The UK is in thrall to the bookmaking industry via the funding mechanisms so has little influence over how they conduct themselves. In many ways punters have been spoilt of late and its not a lifetime ago that "blowers" and SP only were the order of the day. This, in turn, made racegoing far more attractive and the on-course market of old is today's early-pricing and exchange markets. What's the solution to a modern day business - under more pressure from shareholders and investors - providing a "bettor" service to customers? On the one hand it seems that the poor level of service should dictate that a punter simply goes elsewhere and votes with his wallet. Exchanges surely offer this alternative but as I said in an earlier post exchanges (and laying) have created its own monster. Why can't volume and competition force the market to become more competitive? Are we dealing with a huge cartel that needs to be investigated and subject to market rules enforceable by law? The process of licencing is the only statutory method to impose solutions that may be unworkable. If I take the Irish model how can anyone force PP to offer their customers better terms? Taxing other sports punitively is simply not an option unless you want the industry funding model to be racing and greyhound betting only-cue, disaster. There are no fobt's in Ireland but the restriction problem is as bad here as the UK. My view is that as long as you have the ability to trade at will you are simply competing with bookmakers on an unfair scale and bookmakers will continue their current practises some of which are understandable. The range of possible if unlikely solutions could be more licensed competition, more discerning and choosy punters turning off their money taps, an enforceable code of conduct based on licence renewals and probably some restrictions on amateur layers. But where are the champions of influence for these developments? |
|
By:
The recommended questions on this thread are all relevant but Kevin has no chance of putting them all forward. I'm sure he will do his very best. It would be more than harsh to aim any criticism his way post show if he has to leave out any equally relevant ones.
|
|
By:
Well said Rayman.
|
|
By:
anyone man enough to challenge the so called bookmakers needs to be applauded ,so well done kevin ,you are a punters friend compared to the rest of the gravy train journalists who would never dare mention restrictions and are only concerned for themselves ,i am looking forward to sunday.
|
|
By:
6) What is the punters forum set up by Nick Rust doing about this - it seems worse than ever "getting on"
I've no doubt the intention is/was there from some HBF members (I use "some" advisedly) but the reality is that nothing has changed in this regard. |
|
By:
paris - I agree the intention was there. I think small steps are needed, get them to agree a minimum payout even if it's £100. At least it polarises the issues and puts a stake in the sand.
|
|
By:
Agreed Davy.
What I also can't understand is why the bookmakers don't just adjust prices automatically, as the bets come in. Online, surely everything can be sorted out by fairly remedial computer programming instantaneously. If a load of Arbers see one at 10/1, and you can lay at say 10 on here, then surely their systems can spot that in milliseconds, and there's a price change. Likewise if there's money coming in for one, then shorten, or stop laying it. Their systems can be set up to stop taking bets at £100 liability or a £1m liability by someone at HQ pressing some different buttons. As has been said before if they can restrict so many punters so quickly, then surely their systems could handle the above......Having said that mind, some of the online platforms some Bookies use, do seem very clunky, so perhaps their systems are just rubbish, and they aren't prepared to pay to update them? They'd rather have some "trader" look at bets manually, which does seem rather slow and backward. |
|
By:
Most points have been raised already.I just hope you get a
fair crack of the whip.Its just a shame a few more pundits wont get their backsdes off the fence.I think hulk 23 has got it about right though. Good luck Kevin |
|
By:
on today atr 11am.
wonder if paul kealy is still on, hasn't done his column in the post the last 3 days. not down on the atr schedule. |
|
By:
wonder if paul kealy is still on, hasn't done his column in the post the last 3 days. not down on the atr schedule.
Paul Kealy was said to be too unwell for the Racing Post podcast Friday. Given the way Maddy Playle was coughing and spluttering through it, he must be ill. |
|
By:
I wonder if "Paul Kealy is unwell" is a euphemism for "pished"
 ...keep thinking James Hill looks as comfortable as a Free church minister on there |
|
By:
s clare life story.
 |
|
By:
Talking of Kealy and the Racing Post, have we had a thread on their leaving Canary Wharf for presumably much humbler and cheaper offices?
|
|
By:
no,
s boyce on the ibas panel. not the punters pal. |
|
By:
simon - ave bet £10
like show so far - kev getting stuck in  |
|
By:
Clare as expected talking bollox.
|
|
By:
£10 been the limit for laddies/ coral for how long.
|
|
By:
WHAT ABOUT THE SLEEPERS MR C
|
|
By:
ronnie whats the sleepers?
|
|
By:
talking a lot and saying nothing is SC
|
|
By:
sleepers are winning bets that punters forget to claim,when i worked for a bookmaker i was threatened with the sack if i told punters they had winnings to collect from sleepers.
bookmakers get thousands every month from sleepers. |
|
By:
Simon Clare has an annoying habit of not finishing his sentences when seemingly making a point. He seems quite disingenuous.
|
|
By:
ronnie,£5000 limit to all. is that true?
|
|
By:
to be fair taking bets of people in the know in irish racing like kevin blake is suicidal
|
|
By:
they'll be sending out agents to find the "Elusive Ronnie Rails"
 |