Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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
Show More
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.
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).
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).
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
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!!!!!
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!!!!!
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
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
DONT FORGET TO ASK ABOUT THE SLEEPERS
have a good day
regards
Ronnie.
have a good day
regards
Ronnie.
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!
1: Lets stop the glamour adverts, Im sick of them, adverts in general I try to block them all!
My piece RR, thanks for input. Balanced, I hope; https://medium.com/@tony_calvin/honesty-and-acceptance-between-bookmaker-and...
https://medium.com/@tony_calvin/honesty-and-acceptance-between-bookmaker-and...
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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
because the rancid leeches are desperate to divert as much of the punter's pound from sports to FOBTs as possible
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 ...
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
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
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
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
SC will want all questions emailed to him on friday. if it's not on the list you can't ask.
house rules.
house rules.
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!
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
...keep thinking James Hill looks as comfortable as a Free church minister on there
Talking of Kealy and the Racing Post, have we had a thread on their leaving Canary Wharf for presumably much humbler and cheaper offices?
no,
s boyce on the ibas panel.
not the punters pal.
s boyce on the ibas panel.
not the punters pal.
simon - ave bet £10
like show so far - kev getting stuck in
like show so far - kev getting stuck in
£10 been the limit for laddies/ coral for how long.
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.
bookmakers get thousands every month from sleepers.
Simon Clare has an annoying habit of not finishing his sentences when seemingly making a point. He seems quite disingenuous.
to be fair taking bets of people in the know in irish racing like kevin blake is suicidal
they'll be sending out agents to find the "Elusive Ronnie Rails"
Nov 12, 2017 -- 11:38AM, PyrrhicVictory wrote:
Simon Clare has an annoying habit of not finishing his sentences when seemingly making a point. He seems quite disingenuous.
very true tends to to go off on tangents
listening to Claire about the amount of people he says [thinks ] are betting on horses racing I,m surprised they have time to dust the fobt,s never mind shoiting themselves about going out of business if there use are restricted
Ashleigh
no if it was how come so many punters get knocked back
no if it was how come so many punters get knocked back
The guy from Ladbrokes is having a laff,I am a fun punter and they won't allow me to withdraw my funds from them.
12,000 bets a day for permission to lay, only 800 restricted.
Simon Clare - wottack hunt.
Helpful enough for got you, Salmon Spray, you sanctimonious so-and-so?
Helpful enough for got you, Salmon Spray, you sanctimonious so-and-so?
God almighty Crawford has remembered we fell out 10 years ago.
I think Kevin has done rather well btw.
I think Kevin has done rather well btw.
I cannot abide Simon Clare, the smarmy, sleazy, slimy disingenuous creep, just can't watch him without wanting to put my foot through the TV. How he can be allowed to go on there and blatantly lie his way through it is shocking. The £5k guarantee in the shops to anyone is absolute fantasy island stuff, complete b0ll0x and blatant false advertising and I, and others I know, know this from personal experience.
Just as is the waffle about people betting middle of the day/ half an hour before the race/ on the first show not getting restricted.
Just as is the waffle about people betting middle of the day/ half an hour before the race/ on the first show not getting restricted.
Lets test clares statement, get a decent judge (e.g. norfolk man or any other) to select a horse in an itv race at weekend. At a certain time we try to bet the said horse for an amount of cash in shop and see what happens, go punter power.
A total waste of 75 minutes !!!!
Did we learn anything new ? The answer is no ! It was just the same ground that has been covered on many forums for a long time now. A lot of the time it was like a party political broadcast on behalf of the Ladcr00ke/C0rals party and many words were spoken but nothing actually was said. That limited KB timewise but i was expecting a lot more from him and it has to go down as very disappointing on his part.
Then again, i've asked myself what i was actually hope to glean from it all. And if i'm honest i will say nothing much, if anything. And thats exactly what i got !!
Did we learn anything new ? The answer is no ! It was just the same ground that has been covered on many forums for a long time now. A lot of the time it was like a party political broadcast on behalf of the Ladcr00ke/C0rals party and many words were spoken but nothing actually was said. That limited KB timewise but i was expecting a lot more from him and it has to go down as very disappointing on his part.
Then again, i've asked myself what i was actually hope to glean from it all. And if i'm honest i will say nothing much, if anything. And thats exactly what i got !!
I learnt that Boyce is a member of the IBAS adjudication panel and therefore that body is even more rancid than previously thought.
Must admit if felt a bit flat with Clare having far too much airtime to spout the party line (maybe the absence of Kealy didn't help?)and maybe Kevin was only allowed to say so much?But well done to Kevin for having a go and he made a great point at the end about the bookmakers having the majority of the media and some trainers/jockeys in their pocket,also that the irish bookmakers seem to manage without FOBTs.
Simon Claire - Trying to DEFLECT away from 'not being able to get a bet on' issue - by 'bigging up', "the Extra Place terms being offered by bookmakers,"
-------------
NO use offering, "Extra PLACE terms," .... if you cannot avail yourself of them - because you a Restricted - as most are.
-------------
NO use offering, "Extra PLACE terms," .... if you cannot avail yourself of them - because you a Restricted - as most are.
last time i tried to bet with clares lot (through accounts not in my name) i was told i could have nothing on, and that was for a few pre tournament fancies in last years european championships (I wasnt looking for big bets either), a big event, bets based on opinions,....its just nonsense...the reason i was trying to bet with bookies is that there was no liquidity on BF, this line tracking (new buzz industry word it seems) is another lame excuse imo
didn't see the full show, what did SC say when asked about the policy of not telling punters they have a sleeper ?
Great closing comment by KEVIN - re this issue NEEDS DISCUSSING MORE ...
Kevin says ...
"This is a disgracefully UNDER-COVERED issue in the RACING MEDIA"
"The mainstream press are picking up on this MORE than our Racing MEDIA are."
"Perhaps this is as a consequence that Bookmakers give so much work to JOURNALISTS and Broadcasters - that we don 't see this fleshed out more."
"If I had one more wish it would be that ...Our TRADE PAPER discuss this MORE OFTEN THAN THEY DO."
-------
But WILL THEY?
Kevin says ...
"This is a disgracefully UNDER-COVERED issue in the RACING MEDIA"
"The mainstream press are picking up on this MORE than our Racing MEDIA are."
"Perhaps this is as a consequence that Bookmakers give so much work to JOURNALISTS and Broadcasters - that we don 't see this fleshed out more."
"If I had one more wish it would be that ...Our TRADE PAPER discuss this MORE OFTEN THAN THEY DO."
-------
But WILL THEY?
I was at Navan today and met a friend who told me a certain bookies his Son was backing with has refused to lay him anymore bets, Maybe if he had a word with Simon it would change .
https://geoffbanksracing.com/2017/11/12/the-bookmakers-response-to-the-simon...
companies should be forced to disclose the % of active accounts subject to restriction. boilsports, for example, would be around 98.4%. this would be useful when contemplating opening a new account.
xmoneyx
https://geoffbanksracing.com/2017/11/12/the-bookmakers-response-to-the-simon...
I would warn the lot off, but the only bookmaker I can remember getting warned off was something to do with John Francome
https://geoffbanksracing.com/2017/11/12/the-bookmakers-response-to-the-simon...
I would warn the lot off, but the only bookmaker I can remember getting warned off was something to do with John Francome
Appropriately the horse in question was the Fred Winter hurdler Stopped!!
The irony
The irony
Alright lads?
Have to say I came away from that quite frustrated. An hour and a bit just isn't enough time for all the issues we had hoped to discuss, including a lot of what was mentioned on this thread. I went in with six pages of notes, all of which were allowed for in the running order, but we only got to cover less than three pages of it.
While we didn't get to go as deep as hoped, I'd like to hope that getting the basics of the discussion out there on a platform like that will help to stimulate a wider and deeper discussion of the issues in the media. Already, there is a piece on the issue in The Times today (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/bookmakers-must-accept-racing-be... so hopefully the racing media will belatedly start to give the issues the prominence they deserve.
Thanks again for all your input on here and apologies if I didn't get a chance to raise your points.
All the best,
Kevin
Have to say I came away from that quite frustrated. An hour and a bit just isn't enough time for all the issues we had hoped to discuss, including a lot of what was mentioned on this thread. I went in with six pages of notes, all of which were allowed for in the running order, but we only got to cover less than three pages of it.
While we didn't get to go as deep as hoped, I'd like to hope that getting the basics of the discussion out there on a platform like that will help to stimulate a wider and deeper discussion of the issues in the media. Already, there is a piece on the issue in The Times today (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/bookmakers-must-accept-racing-be... so hopefully the racing media will belatedly start to give the issues the prominence they deserve.
Thanks again for all your input on here and apologies if I didn't get a chance to raise your points.
All the best,
Kevin
All firms are same come up with same bollox
My mate works for a firm says same bollox
Like there programed to say same ****
He knows talking bollox too
My mate works for a firm says same bollox
Like there programed to say same ****
He knows talking bollox too
Think I'm guilty of going in with unrealistic expectations, and was disappointed in the main, but it shouldnt be underestimated that the programme even took place.
From the start, the programme lacked any urgency and clear structure and timekeeping seemed non-existent. The start wasted 10 minutes. But fair play to ATR and all concerned for getting it on, and for Simon for going on.
From the start, the programme lacked any urgency and clear structure and timekeeping seemed non-existent. The start wasted 10 minutes. But fair play to ATR and all concerned for getting it on, and for Simon for going on.
Claire basically went round the houses to say whats fairly obvious, all the tipping lines,segal,kealy,taylor,lightfoot go through basically the same process and more often than not 2 or 3 of them put the same horses up,so savy punters out there using similar methods even though you might be picking them independently from the above tipsters if you come up with the same horses you,ll be restricted, Claire was basically trying to tell punters to come up with new methods to come up with the winning horses that the above tipsters don't land on,and make your dosh before you get restricted, LOL
Hi Kevin I think you made a good fist of it under difficult circumstances,so cheers and well done.If we all work together then we will increase the chance of change.Once again I would ask all members to please consider Reg as supporters of the Justice For Punters Org.They are pro active in seeking the right to bet for all.
he has a point re what he called "line tracking" punters
its obvious that they don't want to and shouldn't be laying 3/1 about a team 3.8 to lay on here in 2nd division hungarian football as its flat out unprofitable to lay that bet, I get that completely
the issue I have is (a) why the fack are you pricing up markets as obscure as this?? (trying to lure in the hungarian market and then aim to channel that to the casino like they do domestically??) and (b) ultimately it layers that are responsible for the prices they are quoting (not including palp errors) and if they are so adamant that laying 3/1 about a 3.8 is bad business then surely just link the markets to the machine like some firms and cut it to 5/2 or 11/4 when 3.8 appears on here to lay
its obvious that they don't want to and shouldn't be laying 3/1 about a team 3.8 to lay on here in 2nd division hungarian football as its flat out unprofitable to lay that bet, I get that completely
the issue I have is (a) why the fack are you pricing up markets as obscure as this?? (trying to lure in the hungarian market and then aim to channel that to the casino like they do domestically??) and (b) ultimately it layers that are responsible for the prices they are quoting (not including palp errors) and if they are so adamant that laying 3/1 about a 3.8 is bad business then surely just link the markets to the machine like some firms and cut it to 5/2 or 11/4 when 3.8 appears on here to lay
Fair play Kevin but as I am sure you are aware,they don't like anyone upsetting the applecart. The main objective of most in the racing media, is to get on the gravytrain, and heir next objective is staying on it.
The only surprise for me this year is that mick fitz didn't get racing personality/pundit of the year,ah well there is always next year.
The only surprise for me this year is that mick fitz didn't get racing personality/pundit of the year,ah well there is always next year.
Fair to you Kevin for bringing the issue's up, and fair play to ATR for the platform .
Simon Claire revealed a lot about the ''trader's'' ( sic ) methods, basically they are linked to the Betfair Market and, I suspect to market fluctuations on sites like Oddschecker !
Hopefully, in January when the government actually make a decision on max stake per spin on Fobts ( my hope is for £20 ), the landscape of there ''business model's'' will change and, we can get back to the High Street bookmakers employing ''trader's'' who actually take a view about the prospective outcome of a horse race !
Simon Claire revealed a lot about the ''trader's'' ( sic ) methods, basically they are linked to the Betfair Market and, I suspect to market fluctuations on sites like Oddschecker !
Hopefully, in January when the government actually make a decision on max stake per spin on Fobts ( my hope is for £20 ), the landscape of there ''business model's'' will change and, we can get back to the High Street bookmakers employing ''trader's'' who actually take a view about the prospective outcome of a horse race !
I wonder the present traders employed by bookies are still the same ones who were prepared to take on the public in the past eg pit their racing knowledge against joe public, or are they just merely turf accountants/mathematicians using software to guide them similar to the City gents with their sophisticated electronic trading without an ounce of experience and/or knowledge from user?
Simon Clare came across as someone who was shifty, evasive and economical with the truth. His firm 'ok korals' was the worst with bet restriction and closure of betting accounts.
Simon Clare came across as someone who was shifty, evasive and economical with the truth. His firm 'ok korals' was the worst with bet restriction and closure of betting accounts.
well done Kevin , you gave it a good go . the thing with discussing subjects like this with a PR man from a bookmaker is that they have had many years to come up with excuses to any sensible question or point of view you ask them .
also, without knowing there figures for who and how many get restricted etc, it's very easy for them to talk more BS than they already do
also, without knowing there figures for who and how many get restricted etc, it's very easy for them to talk more BS than they already do
"Traders"? Traders no longer exist....certainly not at Ladbrokes / Coral.
A more appropriate job title would be "line trackers"................now where have I heard that before
A more appropriate job title would be "line trackers"................now where have I heard that before
simon sits awake at night wondering if anyone's backed something at 7/2 when it's 4.4 to lay here ... very sad
Simon Clare should have just admitted that at Ladbrokes/Corals we do not care about horse racing...we have the fobts to guarantee a sizeable profit with no risks - the fobt is our cash cow!
Simon Clare told a lie saying ANY punter can back a horse for 5K at retail. He should be taken to account for this.
saxon farm
14 Nov 17 03:19
Simon Clare told a lie - I saw him open his mouth.
FTFY
14 Nov 17 03:19
Simon Clare told a lie - I saw him open his mouth.
FTFY
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539