There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
@Greg_Wood_
Sun 14 Jan 2018 14.48 GMT Last modified on Sun 14 Jan 2018
The campaign for a fairer deal for punters from bookmakers will take a significant step forward later this month, when the case for a “minimum bet” rule to prevent some backers being restricted to betting in pennies will be argued in Westminster.
The parliamentary seminar at Portcullis House on 23 January has been organised by Philip Davies MP, co‑chair of the All-Party Betting and Gaming Group (APBGG). An invited audience will include senior officials from the Gambling Commission, which regulates and licenses British bookmakers.
Davies organised the event after being told by a resident of his Shipley constituency that his attempts to place bets of £20 or even £10 on horse racing were frequently refused by online bookmakers, who instead offered to accept just a few pence at their advertised price.
An increasing number of online punters have complained about similar treatment in recent years, while the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF), which was created by the British Horseracing Authority in 2015 to represent punters’ interests, has warned that restricting or closing betting accounts is damaging racing’s popularity as a betting medium.
Simon Rowlands, the chairman of the HBF, will tell the APBGG seminar that a “minimum bet” rule, which requires bookmakers to lay an advertised price to lose a fixed sum, is essential to stop punters being driven away from the sport.
“We’ve come up against a brick wall of indifference, and even hostility, from bookmakers previously,” Rowlands said, “but there does seem to be a move towards addressing the issue. Discussing it in a forum like this is a significant move.”
Richard Flint, the managing director of Sky Bet, will also address the seminar, before being questioned by APBGG members.
Rowlands said: “There must be an incentive to tackle the puzzle seriously. That’s the whole point of betting on racing rather than having a spin on a roulette wheel. If you remove that, it has a big knock-on effect, as betting on the sport is perceived as not worth the effort.”
Sun 14 Jan 2018 14.48 GMT Last modified on Sun 14 Jan 2018
The campaign for a fairer deal for punters from bookmakers will take a significant step forward later this month, when the case for a “minimum bet” rule to prevent some backers being restricted to betting in pennies will be argued in Westminster.
The parliamentary seminar at Portcullis House on 23 January has been organised by Philip Davies MP, co‑chair of the All-Party Betting and Gaming Group (APBGG). An invited audience will include senior officials from the Gambling Commission, which regulates and licenses British bookmakers.
Davies organised the event after being told by a resident of his Shipley constituency that his attempts to place bets of £20 or even £10 on horse racing were frequently refused by online bookmakers, who instead offered to accept just a few pence at their advertised price.
An increasing number of online punters have complained about similar treatment in recent years, while the Horseracing Bettors Forum (HBF), which was created by the British Horseracing Authority in 2015 to represent punters’ interests, has warned that restricting or closing betting accounts is damaging racing’s popularity as a betting medium.
Simon Rowlands, the chairman of the HBF, will tell the APBGG seminar that a “minimum bet” rule, which requires bookmakers to lay an advertised price to lose a fixed sum, is essential to stop punters being driven away from the sport.
“We’ve come up against a brick wall of indifference, and even hostility, from bookmakers previously,” Rowlands said, “but there does seem to be a move towards addressing the issue. Discussing it in a forum like this is a significant move.”
Richard Flint, the managing director of Sky Bet, will also address the seminar, before being questioned by APBGG members.
Rowlands said: “There must be an incentive to tackle the puzzle seriously. That’s the whole point of betting on racing rather than having a spin on a roulette wheel. If you remove that, it has a big knock-on effect, as betting on the sport is perceived as not worth the effort.”
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 141
|
By:
I can understand a bookmaker having a maximum stake but it should be the same for all clients, not just decided on an individual basis. Casinos all have a minimum and a maximum stake which apply to everyone (in theory) If you advertise odds on an outcome and a maximum stake in your terms of trade then anyone should be able to place that stake at that price.
|
|
By:
If their price is greater than the Betfair price they would not want you taking advantage by laying it.
|
|
By:
funny you should mention betfair oldgit i have just been on betfair sportsbook as i noticed they were 18/1 a horse i thought had an ew chance today i have to admit i seldom use sportsbook but was still very surprised when i was only allowed £5.60 ew.
|
|
By:
foxy. rather like special offers in Aldi or Lidl they are soon gone.
|
|
By:
i didnt consider it an offer i just presumed they went the price so they could lay it.
|
|
By:
The traders are terrified you might be more clued up than they are, i don't know how much they pay these 'Traders', but whatever it is, its the sort of job that any fool can do nowadays, they look on the machine and go under..
|
|
By:
I used to work for one of the large bookies and they used to employ around 20 traders who really new there stuff. Now. I understand there is one trader only on shift at any one time and that he is responsible for every sport. Trading is now done primarily by computer and some firms merely react to the exchanges and will only lay a bet that they can instantly trade out of on an exchange. There really are not that many so called traders employed in the industry today. Best hope is that FOBT machines will get the elbow and the firms get back to being bookmakers rather than casino operators
|
|
By:
If you don't lay bets, what is the point of being a bookmaker? Are the FOBT machines the only profit centre that they have? In which case why pay for TV pictures etc?
|
|
By:
Losing more than £100 is a no no for The Sportsbook foxy, I thought you knew that. I expect you were politely directed to the Exchange to cure your desire to invest excessive stakes, and you will probably receive an email from Betfair for being recognised as a problem gambler.
|
|
By:
Losing more than £100 is a no no for The Sportsbook foxy, I thought you knew that. I expect you were politely directed to the Exchange to cure your desire to invest excessive stakes, and you will probably receive an email from Betfair for being recognised as a problem gambler.
|
|
By:
bookies are killing the game...prosperous countries don't have bookies ...TOTE ONLY
|
|
By:
take a look at the prize money here ....peanuts.... TOTE ONLY and you can be on.........
|
|
By:
^ Then no-one would bet. How can you bet with a 25% take-out? Do you do the lottery you fool!
|
|
By:
For me, it's all about the traders and the bookmaking staff. Everyone knows that all the firms use the Exchanges as a pointer. I can't get a football bet on without a phone call these days and will only be offered £25 before the price is changed within 5 minutes on screen even though it's been available to every other Tom, Dick or Harry all day long. The problem is it's me who is penalised and not the traders or compilers who haven't seen the market move and adjusted their lines accordingly.
Nothing will change though, the Skybet guy will talk his way around it all and the bookies will come out looking rosy as normal though. |
|
By:
jmdc no I don't do the lottery .. why its about 49/ million to one
re the 25% take out on the TOTE .. the TOTE looks a better bet |
|
By:
The Tote can pay quite well, particularly on horses priced at 10/1 or more, but you never know what return you will get until the race is over.
|
|
By:
The Tote will improve significantly, once the Bald Welcher is out of it
|
|
By:
Good Luck zipper, I hope another rogue like Baldy doesn't take it on and reduce your "winnings" even more. I expect you love Chesterbet & Riponbet and any other scam that masquerades itself as a betting medium. You will just be comparing like with like then. I think you need a trip to the USA to clear your mind a bit!
|
|
By:
Jmdc
I was genuinely surprised as I said I seldom use sports book but I keep reading and hearing on there adverts how good they are compared with anyone else. As for those who would like to see a tote monopoly you really need to get a grip of yourselves. |
|
By:
How can restricting the bets of winning punters ruin racing by driving punters away from the sport?
How many winning punters are there to be driven away anyway? If a bookie doesn't want to take your bet that's his prerogative. This stinks the same as the keepers of boarding houses and landlords can't turn away people they don't want to do business with. |
|
By:
foxy, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that an off course tote monopoly with a low takeout is the only solution UNLESS a realistic minimum liability figure is introduced. Betting on horse racing is highly complex and it’s very difficult to turn a profit punting. The o/c books are treating and using racing as a smokescreen to facilitate the operation of the FOBTs. If they don’t want to take a bet other than from complete steam tugs and premiership footballers with money to burn what other solution is there?
|
|
By:
If legislation forces bookmakers to lay everyone £20 at 5/1 in a 120% book, they'll either offer 9/2 in a 130% instead, or simply not price up the race at all.
|
|
By:
parispike 15 Jan 18 13:29
foxy, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that an off course tote monopoly with a low takeout is the only solution UNLESS a realistic minimum liability figure is introduced. So an off course tote monopoly would be a better option than a betting exchange? |
|
By:
Screaming has got it spot-on
|
|
By:
Depends if you feel any responsibility to racing as a sport. If you attend on course you make a contribution but off course it is very little.
|
|
By:
Dr Crippen, if you think it's just winning punters being restricted you are a long way wide of the mark. Anyone who shows any semblance of intelligence at all with regards to racing is being restricted. I don't know anyone at all who hasn't been restricted by one of the firms.
As for Philip Davies heading this, that's surely very bad new for punters. |
|
By:
Trouble with on course these days, you can only attend!
|
|
By:
An interesting answer sageform, but how many on here would say that they wished to support the sport in this way?
|
|
By:
Me
|
|
By:
Fine screaming. Better than what we have now where it takes a lengthy trudge to get a decent bet on in the shops. And then get refused.
|
|
By:
Paris pike
I was looking at the tote screen at sandown last week as the tapes rose poppy Kay was showing 3.10 for a win they returned it 2.20 |
|
By:
Better than the exchanges is it parispike?
|
|
By:
I think Screaming's point below is a very possible scenario: 'If legislation forces bookmakers to lay everyone £20 at 5/1 in a 120% book, they'll either offer 9/2 in a 130% instead, or simply not price up the race at all.'
Perhaps though also need to throw into the mix two big changes running through the industry presently: consolidation among the big players and improved technology. Cost reduction through consolidation and scope to improve the management of books through new technology and the extra resources that come with consolidation, might just give the big players the means to absorb a small minimum stake agreement/law without having to significantly alter the overround they work to currently or not price up races. In fact, the bigger players may see a competitive advantage here,with an opportunity to take business away from the smaller bookmakers online who will have less scope to absorb any extra costs from operating with a minimum stake accepted agreement. Also, arguably in terms of PR the bigger bookies need to keep up efforts to improve their image if they are to avoid greater government scrutiny as the industry consolidates more; accepting a minimum stake agreement might be seen as a minor cost to absorb in the broader context of where the movers and shakers are trying to take the industry for their advantage. Just a sense perhaps that the game has shifted for the big players; crude, aggressive policies to restrict/close accounts replaced with a shrewder, more strategic approach to keep the profits flowing. As an aside, a few accounts I have been restricted on for several years have suddently lifted those restrictions. Anyone else finding that is happening? I took that as a small sign that a change in strategy is on the horizon, but I may be barking up the wrong tree completely there. |
|
By:
I'm restricted to about 60p on Stan James. Which isn't a problem as they are not a very good bookmaker. Sometimes though they have decent football odds. They had the best odds for a treble I wanted to do. I had to contact support to be able to place a £20 treble on the football. They put my bet on for me.
This bet of course won. So I doubt I'll be able to do that anymore. I've been restricted by many bookmakers but actually banned by Corals which can't be legal surely? |
|
By:
I agree, parispike. The trade-off would be worth it.
If we returned to the situation of 30 years ago, where most races had no prices until the first show came from the course, and percentages were bigger in the races that WERE priced up, I'd accept that, in return for being guaranteed a bet when I'd made the effort to yomp around the shops. It's just that I think most people who are getting excited about the prospect of guaranteed bets think that they'll be seeing the same prices in all the same races as they do at the moment, and they are assuming that the firms will simply shrug their shoulders and carry on as they do now. They won't. |
|
By:
Interesting analysis, aka. It's a plausible scenario, but it also sounds risky from the bookmakers' point of view. And the whole point of this problem is that these conglomerates have no understanding of risk.
I don't know about whether any bookmakers might be loosening restrictions on accounts. My final two accounts, with B365 and Spreadex, were both closed last year, and the sole account I have left in a friend's name - with Skybet - is still restricted to £0.00 on horse racing and a total return of £5, £10 or £50 on anything else, depending on the event. The shops I use (Lads, Fred and Hills) have become worse, if anything. It's now commonplace for a request of £50 to win at 8/1 to be reduced to 13/2 (despite 8/1 still being the price on the screen). Few bets are accepted each way, at any price. Still, they're all better than the relatively new Paddy Power shop, which won't take a bet on any sport, even horse racing at SP. But then again, anyone who's found the prices must have walked right past the banks of FOBTs, which were the only reason the shop opened in the first place, and thus is clearly not of interest. |
|
By:
foxy 15 Jan 18 14:01 Joined: 26 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 6,325 | Blogger: foxy's blog
Paris pike I was looking at the tote screen at sandown last week as the tapes rose poppy Kay was showing 3.10 for a win they returned it 2.20 Always was the case, you never could rely on any displayed Tote figures to reflect the likely return |
|
By:
How much does it cost a bookmaker in a shop to take a bet? Bearing in mind I only enter one if I can't get on line for any reason and even then it is a 7 mile drive. If you take account of wages, electricity, free coffee if you are lucky, betting levy etc etc., surely they need to take bigger bets to balance the books not smaller?
|
|
By:
sageform , the shops are purely open to facilitate machine play as screaming alludes to. Profit from those is now well over 50% of the total profitability and that from a device that requires no maintenance (apart from when it’s smashed up) , no skill to price up and is in the long term risk free and guaranteed income.
|