Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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.”
Show More
You still have not explained why they bother with anything other than FOBT machines? They must be making a margin from taking racing bets or why do it?
They need the racing to justify being, notionally, betting shops rather than casinos....
FOBT'S are finished. too much bad publicity, if firms don't lay a bet, then they will go out of business. GOOD Riddance to the likes of the despicable bald manc and the likes of, who stand in front of the TV screens Lying through there teeth about ''The shrewdies being on early''.
ALL THE SHREWDIES ARE ON HERE BECAUSE IF THEY ARE 1% SHREWD, THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO PENNIES YOU LIARS
ALL THE SHREWDIES ARE ON HERE BECAUSE IF THEY ARE 1% SHREWD, THEY ARE RESTRICTED TO PENNIES YOU LIARS
Racing has pretty much a loss leader as far back as early 2000's lets face it they haven't done anything to increase trade betting wise have they.As parispike says they need racing for the licences and that is why we have evening racing all year round so those with deep pockets and the subtly addicted can load up for as long as possible,with time to earn a few quid in between
Sure, they make a margin from racing bets. And one of the ways they make that margin is by refusing certain punters.
sageform, their licenses are to take bets - the fobts are meant to be ancillary activity. The Gambling Commission simply hasn't had the guts to take licenses away when fobts revenue becomes larger than betting.
There have been examples of bookmakers who traded on the basis that every punter's money was the same. They all come unstuck eventually.
Fifteen-odd years ago the T & F firm took the southern courses by storm, as if from nowhere. If Tabor wanted £20 grand on the jolly at Newmarket in the afternoon, they'd take it. After all, what's the difference between 20,000 of his notes and 20,000 of anyone else's? And besides, there was always the 'Stow in the evening to get it back.
Last I heard they were driving minicabs.
Fifteen-odd years ago the T & F firm took the southern courses by storm, as if from nowhere. If Tabor wanted £20 grand on the jolly at Newmarket in the afternoon, they'd take it. After all, what's the difference between 20,000 of his notes and 20,000 of anyone else's? And besides, there was always the 'Stow in the evening to get it back.
Last I heard they were driving minicabs.
dambuster FOBTS will never be finished but you're spot on with the paid liars on about the shrewdies being on early,nearly as laughable as the geniuses who put up tips and claim they're ON at 430/5ish the night before.Lay the obvious collapsers for FREE MONEY,leave the winners and never lose yet still bet day in day out.
Or worse still accepting large bets from connections of horses gaining FREE info into the bargain and manipulating the markets accordingly.
No one can tell me that all these guys are surviving from training fees alone and have bet their horses successfully over the years but now don't as they are restricted like ordinary punters.
Has their been 1 TRAINER speak out about betting restrictions which in reality betting has funded most of the prize money in 1 way or another for years NO,it's either something not spoken about on purpose or they're living in their own oblivious bubbles.Don't forget less money being bet means less prize money to go round
Or worse still accepting large bets from connections of horses gaining FREE info into the bargain and manipulating the markets accordingly.
No one can tell me that all these guys are surviving from training fees alone and have bet their horses successfully over the years but now don't as they are restricted like ordinary punters.
Has their been 1 TRAINER speak out about betting restrictions which in reality betting has funded most of the prize money in 1 way or another for years NO,it's either something not spoken about on purpose or they're living in their own oblivious bubbles.Don't forget less money being bet means less prize money to go round
Dave1357: I think if we're ever going to get anywhere on this, that is the firms' weak point. There's been the odd rumour over the years of people in authority having seen the figures, and one or two of them who actually understand what they're supposed to be regulating being shocked by how little the shops now take in bets compared to the FOBTs.
It's possible that some sort of deal might be struck whereby the FOBTs retain a relatively high takeout, but only if the same firms are willing to accept a hit on the rest of their business by taking more bets from more punters at a lower margin.
Even if the firms agreed to that though, they'd probably still just carry on as usual and blame market forces, or the economy, or the weather for not being able to take more over the counter.
It's possible that some sort of deal might be struck whereby the FOBTs retain a relatively high takeout, but only if the same firms are willing to accept a hit on the rest of their business by taking more bets from more punters at a lower margin.
Even if the firms agreed to that though, they'd probably still just carry on as usual and blame market forces, or the economy, or the weather for not being able to take more over the counter.
You still haven't answered this question parispike.
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?
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?
Foxy - I certainly don't condone it. Used to annoy me when the return was as you pointed out but just tend to ignore it now
32500 4000 please
no problem micheal would you like that bet again ?
not on this occasion
no problem micheal would you like that bet again ?
not on this occasion
I'm not answering for anyone here when I say this but all that we have now should be able to thrive if ran properly
IF BOOKMAKERS TOOK BETS IF TOTE TAKEOUTS WEREN'T RIDICULOUSLY HIGH IF EXCHANGES DIDN'T HAVE UNFAIR PREMIUM CHARGES the problem here is UNREGULATED GREED as there are plenty of genuine punters to make use the betting facilities in this country and be profitable all round
IF BOOKMAKERS TOOK BETS IF TOTE TAKEOUTS WEREN'T RIDICULOUSLY HIGH IF EXCHANGES DIDN'T HAVE UNFAIR PREMIUM CHARGES the problem here is UNREGULATED GREED as there are plenty of genuine punters to make use the betting facilities in this country and be profitable all round
Got there in the end, foxy. 
For younger viewers, it's a transcript of a famous conversation between Messrs Tabor and T&F one afternoon before a maiden on the July Course:
"65,000 to forty, please."
"No problem, Micheal. Would you like that bet again?"
"Not on this occasion."
And that's why forcing bookmakers to take bets, irrespective of who's asking for them, is not going to happen to any meaningful degree.
For younger viewers, it's a transcript of a famous conversation between Messrs Tabor and T&F one afternoon before a maiden on the July Course:
"65,000 to forty, please."
"No problem, Micheal. Would you like that bet again?"
"Not on this occasion."
And that's why forcing bookmakers to take bets, irrespective of who's asking for them, is not going to happen to any meaningful degree.
i had a feeling you would be aware of that story screaming, the daftest thing about the whole situation was that rc was capable of making it pay punting.
Horse Racing and all the other sports betting are just a 'front' for bookies having shops on the high street; fobts is the only product that matters to them - it is the cash cow with no risk. Nothing else matters!
if you think its bad betting horses try and get on greyhounds
Philip Davies is in charge of this commision, anyone still confident of a favourable outcome for punters
A Tory member of an influential parliamentary select committee received more than £10,000 in benefits from companies with links to the gambling industry which he did not declare during a contentious year-long inquiry into the betting trade. Philip Davies, a rightwing Conservative MP and prominent member of the culture, media and sport select committee argued that in one case he did not have to declare the benefit and in the other that the firm was not directly linked to bookmakers.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
In March 2011 he was taken to the Cheltenham festival – a trip worth £870 – as a guest of bookmaker Ladbrokes. He failed to mention this when he quizzed Richard Glynn, the chief executive of Ladbrokes, six months later during a select committee session.
The parliamentarian has also been given an annual "subscription" worth £4,680 from Peninsula Business Services, run by Peter Done – one of two brothers who founded BetFred, a bookmaker with 1,000 betting shops in Britain and which took over the Tote. Done remains a shareholder in BetFred's holding company.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
In March 2011 he was taken to the Cheltenham festival – a trip worth £870 – as a guest of bookmaker Ladbrokes. He failed to mention this when he quizzed Richard Glynn, the chief executive of Ladbrokes, six months later during a select committee session.
The parliamentarian has also been given an annual "subscription" worth £4,680 from Peninsula Business Services, run by Peter Done – one of two brothers who founded BetFred, a bookmaker with 1,000 betting shops in Britain and which took over the Tote. Done remains a shareholder in BetFred's holding company.
sparrow15 Jan 18 15:52
You still haven't answered this question parispike.
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?
Have an exchange but also declare a dividend for the casual punters like BFSP but with 5% commission already deducted.
Best of both worlds then.
You still haven't answered this question parispike.
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?
Have an exchange but also declare a dividend for the casual punters like BFSP but with 5% commission already deducted.
Best of both worlds then.
https://secretbettingclub.com/blog/category/the-better-betting-campaign/
Our survey found that, of 6575 bookmaker accounts, 4654 (70.78%) of them were either restricted or closed. The full results of which you can read in our freely available ‘Getting On’ Report, which you can access via our Better Betting Campaign.
The only time that I have had an account closed was by VC when they offered to pay the RUK sub if you placed 10 bets a month of £5 or more. I chose to bet £5 on 10 favourites each month and usually broke even or made a small loss so got my RUK for free. After 12 months they decided to close me down. Pre exchanges I had credit accounts with 4 major firms and bet frequently on course with no problems. I now just have one other account to take advantage of special offers or when Betfair is down.
i've had loads of accs all restricted, must be 70/80,inc mates accounts, and NO,I'M NOT A SHREWDIE , I DON'T ARB. i just take the best price possible for my fancies. even if i fancy 2 or 3 in a race. i like VALUE
i'd be concerned about anyone who's not had an account restricted.
must be losing fortunes or backing winners at 7/2 when they could have taken 6.4 here (ie we stuck yours on at 6.4, so you're a keeper)
must be losing fortunes or backing winners at 7/2 when they could have taken 6.4 here (ie we stuck yours on at 6.4, so you're a keeper)
How come restrictions DON'T AFFECT THOSE WITH THE MOST VALUABLE HORSE RACING KNOWLEDGE (barring Barney Curley obviously) why has this never been questioned? Maybe all these trainers and owners just have a bottomless pit of cash to bet away or maybe they don't bet at all,their silence is is deafening given the Levy scenario and the number of trainers attached to bookmakers in recent years
Can you imagine them having to bet like the rest of us
Check the betting at 5pm the night before our horse 20/1 can't bet with books so pray some arber sticks something on the exchange at 16's or even 14's doesn't happen
505pm A so called shrewdie/genius tips your horse and claims to back it with 364 Pp/Spbk etc
510pm Our horse is now 9's BEST PRICE and collapsing with money in the back column on the exchange just to make sure
515pm Decide to wait til morning and hope some of the shrewdie money gets laid back at 10s in the morning
730am Our horse opens anywhere between 6's and 8's with £16 at 8.2 will have to wait and hope it drifts back out otherwise wait til racetime and hope for the best
915am What's happened here our horse is now 10/3 best price low and behold it has been tipped up again with claims 6/1 was VALUE
Knowing that we've trained the horse for today and everythings in it's favour what can we do given it costs upwards of £20K per year to keep the horse do we still bet???????
I would think most people who are forced to bet on here will have this/similar experience many many times
Check the betting at 5pm the night before our horse 20/1 can't bet with books so pray some arber sticks something on the exchange at 16's or even 14's doesn't happen
505pm A so called shrewdie/genius tips your horse and claims to back it with 364 Pp/Spbk etc
510pm Our horse is now 9's BEST PRICE and collapsing with money in the back column on the exchange just to make sure
515pm Decide to wait til morning and hope some of the shrewdie money gets laid back at 10s in the morning
730am Our horse opens anywhere between 6's and 8's with £16 at 8.2 will have to wait and hope it drifts back out otherwise wait til racetime and hope for the best
915am What's happened here our horse is now 10/3 best price low and behold it has been tipped up again with claims 6/1 was VALUE
Knowing that we've trained the horse for today and everythings in it's favour what can we do given it costs upwards of £20K per year to keep the horse do we still bet???????
I would think most people who are forced to bet on here will have this/similar experience many many times
It would clearly be frustrating if that happened whenever you had one lined up but the majority of winners are longer at Betfair SP than on the morning of the race.
Yes but if we could ALL BET FREELY we'd be on at 20's not the slightly bigger at BFSP than the morning best 8's in that example
As screaming said the books that were offering 20's would either stop pricing up these races or go out of business.
The point of my example was that THEY CAN GET ON and we can't despite their priviliged positions and they would be screwed if they had to bet like us.As would the rest of the gravy training mob who have no problem betting with the books at ANY TIME we all know who they are so no names needed
Whole thing stinks. No easy solution.
Spineless that we should be restricted to a stake of absolutely no use, would rather just be barred.
Media doesn’t help “a big hitter got x amount on this morning”...oh right where?
Would like to see FOBT restricted to 10/20 quid a spin. If you want to spin more than that for “fun” use a casino, ironically not a premises with a license to “take bets”.
Spineless that we should be restricted to a stake of absolutely no use, would rather just be barred.
Media doesn’t help “a big hitter got x amount on this morning”...oh right where?
Would like to see FOBT restricted to 10/20 quid a spin. If you want to spin more than that for “fun” use a casino, ironically not a premises with a license to “take bets”.
bookies should be forced to disclose the % of accounts subject to restriction when advertising their services, ie my name is raymond and i bet responsibly. oh, and by the way 70.78% of our accounts are either restricted or closed.
All the liars and gravy training media/bookie mouth pieces have made it an unenjoyable experience for me thesedays so I don't even have the racing on only watch the races on here if I choose to.Can honestly say never even seen ANY of ITV racing
DenzilPenberthy Joined: 14 Dec 17
Replies: 28 16 Jan 18 12:20
I would think most people who are forced to bet on here will have this/similar experience many many times
What a ridiculous thing to say. I suppose you made fortunes before the exchanges came along.
Replies: 28 16 Jan 18 12:20
I would think most people who are forced to bet on here will have this/similar experience many many times
What a ridiculous thing to say. I suppose you made fortunes before the exchanges came along.
The best that could happen would be the end of overnight and early morning markets. Bookmakers getting their cards marked on the cheap which was the very reason they introduced them.
I totally agree it's the fact that some are able to bet freely in those markets and others aren't that I have a problem with
IF BOOKMAKERS TOOK BETS IF TOTE TAKEOUTS WEREN'T RIDICULOUSLY HIGH IF EXCHANGES DIDN'T HAVE UNFAIR PREMIUM CHARGES the problem here is UNREGULATED GREED as there are plenty of genuine punters to make use the betting facilities in this country and be profitable all round
A minimum takeout removes alot of the control the Bookmaking Industry has on all racing markets which I don't believe daily given the volatility on oddschecker then most races 2 or 3 horses are clear at the finish,what happened to the SUPPOSED GAMBLES etc.
Does the betting industry still regulate itself? If so this shambles could go on forever which is what they clearly want as no effort is made to increase betting trade on racing
A minimum takeout removes alot of the control the Bookmaking Industry has on all racing markets which I don't believe daily given the volatility on oddschecker then most races 2 or 3 horses are clear at the finish,what happened to the SUPPOSED GAMBLES etc.
Does the betting industry still regulate itself? If so this shambles could go on forever which is what they clearly want as no effort is made to increase betting trade on racing
a monkey take out for everybody on everyhorse, if they want to shorten the prices, let them. if you want a bigger bet, go racing
That would be a good start for everyone who knows what being restricted to pennies is like
if you want a bigger bet, go racing
... so you can get on at 7/2, but only after he's checked to see if he can get rid of it on here at 5.1
... so you can get on at 7/2, but only after he's checked to see if he can get rid of it on here at 5.1
Well, you can always stay at home and take the 5.1 youeself 
We're talking about getting on with firms, not here on BF
Loads of moaners on here. As per standard, none of the moaners do anything about it other than moan.
If a high st bookie keeps refusing or limiting your bets, get a video of each time and then go and object to
their license renewal at the council.
Bookie require a council license to operate, and councils are not keen on 'arcades', go to the council and object to their
licence with proof they are 'Nothing but an arcade pretending to be a bookie'
It would only take a couple of non renewal of licenses based on being just a front for a FOBT arcade for the bookies to rethink their strategy.
Either that or just keep moaning because that's what you're good at and anything else takes a bit of effort.
If a high st bookie keeps refusing or limiting your bets, get a video of each time and then go and object to
their license renewal at the council.
Bookie require a council license to operate, and councils are not keen on 'arcades', go to the council and object to their
licence with proof they are 'Nothing but an arcade pretending to be a bookie'
It would only take a couple of non renewal of licenses based on being just a front for a FOBT arcade for the bookies to rethink their strategy.
Either that or just keep moaning because that's what you're good at and anything else takes a bit of effort.
pumphol. • January 16, 2018 9:05 PM GMT
That really is a serious moan about moaners Plain
Beat me to it
Escapee it's took the efforts of many to get the issue even this far over the last few years it's obviously something that doesn't affect you
That really is a serious moan about moaners Plain
Beat me to it
Escapee it's took the efforts of many to get the issue even this far over the last few years it's obviously something that doesn't affect you
Loads of moaners on here. As per standard, none of the moaners do anything about it other than moan.
I have moaned plenty about restrictions, and what I have done like many others who loved racing is virtually gave the game up. The future for the sport is very bleak, it is now finally getting into the public domain you are not allowed to win or even just beat the SP (you can do that 90% of the time with early prices using a pin). Anybody who are below the age of 30 and fancies a bet will not be betting on Horse Racing, they are on the football, cricket, golf and darts. The game is thought of as completely corrupt right from the very top, and anyone with half a brain cell would never start to bet on Racing knowing that they will NEVER be allowed to win.
You need some punters winning, and making a living out the game on TV, showing what could be possible and getting the younger generation involved. All we have now is the books closing or restricting accounts to pennies after a handful of bets, but happily allowing you to go and do a grand in the machine/online slots with no questions asked.
As said previously, when the machines in the shops are making more money than all of your betting there is something seriously wrong with the whole industry. Yet we can listen to some muppet tomorrow say "we have seen thousands for this horse from all the right faces at early prices" and will not even get asked to prove any of it.
Still onwards and upwards.... It can't all be bad can it
I have moaned plenty about restrictions, and what I have done like many others who loved racing is virtually gave the game up. The future for the sport is very bleak, it is now finally getting into the public domain you are not allowed to win or even just beat the SP (you can do that 90% of the time with early prices using a pin). Anybody who are below the age of 30 and fancies a bet will not be betting on Horse Racing, they are on the football, cricket, golf and darts. The game is thought of as completely corrupt right from the very top, and anyone with half a brain cell would never start to bet on Racing knowing that they will NEVER be allowed to win.
You need some punters winning, and making a living out the game on TV, showing what could be possible and getting the younger generation involved. All we have now is the books closing or restricting accounts to pennies after a handful of bets, but happily allowing you to go and do a grand in the machine/online slots with no questions asked.
As said previously, when the machines in the shops are making more money than all of your betting there is something seriously wrong with the whole industry. Yet we can listen to some muppet tomorrow say "we have seen thousands for this horse from all the right faces at early prices" and will not even get asked to prove any of it.
Still onwards and upwards.... It can't all be bad can it
As MD says the situation is dire and the bookmakers buy the very best PR and media protection,but those customers not currently affected are increasingly being made aware of what might await them.This coming debate is down to the initiative shown by The Justice For Punters Org and one of there members and I would urge all punters to join and support. As individuals we will continue to be messed on but if we worked together then it does increase the chance of bringing changes to the law which it now appears will be needed.
Why do people prefer to bet with bookmakers rather than the exchange?
Is it because they are all on premium charge?
Or do they just want to bet 6 or more hours before the off?
Is it because they are all on premium charge?
Or do they just want to bet 6 or more hours before the off?
all aboard sparrow were all on premium charge everyone wins on betfair thats been the case since it started.
People prefer to bet with bookmakers when the odds and/or the terms they're advertising are better than on Betfair. Why wouldn't they?
If something is 8.0 on here, and 2.3 to place, you'd be a mug to take that, and pay up to 5% commission, if a bookmaker were offering 7/1, at 1/5 the odds a place, with a rule 4 that favours the punter, double result and even BOG sometimes.
The reason people are moaning is that if you then ask for £100 each way at 7/1 on that horse, the best you can hope for is £1.42 each way before seeing your account closed. If you pop down to that bookmaker's shop instead, you'll find yourself offered £50 win only at 6/1.
The answer? From the punter's point of view just be realistic, and be grateful for that £1.42 each way at 7/1 while it lasts. From the bookmaker's point of view, stop trolling the public with reports of monster gambles, when the public now knows that anyone accommodated for that sum is a massive overall loser.
And from a journalist/TV pundit's point of view, stop gleefully accepting bets and unrestricted accounts which you know full well are unavailable to the general public. Or if you do accept them, at least have the good grace to inform the public that you understand how fortunate you are and not troll your readers and viewers by pretending that such favours are the norm for them as well.
If something is 8.0 on here, and 2.3 to place, you'd be a mug to take that, and pay up to 5% commission, if a bookmaker were offering 7/1, at 1/5 the odds a place, with a rule 4 that favours the punter, double result and even BOG sometimes.
The reason people are moaning is that if you then ask for £100 each way at 7/1 on that horse, the best you can hope for is £1.42 each way before seeing your account closed. If you pop down to that bookmaker's shop instead, you'll find yourself offered £50 win only at 6/1.
The answer? From the punter's point of view just be realistic, and be grateful for that £1.42 each way at 7/1 while it lasts. From the bookmaker's point of view, stop trolling the public with reports of monster gambles, when the public now knows that anyone accommodated for that sum is a massive overall loser.
And from a journalist/TV pundit's point of view, stop gleefully accepting bets and unrestricted accounts which you know full well are unavailable to the general public. Or if you do accept them, at least have the good grace to inform the public that you understand how fortunate you are and not troll your readers and viewers by pretending that such favours are the norm for them as well.
So that 7/1 doesn't really exist if all you can have is a couple of pounds. Whereas you can have your £100 on here 10 minutes or so before the off.
That's right. And legislating to enforce that 7/1 isn't going to miraculously bring it into existence. It simply won't be on offer at all.
And yes, you might indeed be able to get £100 win at 8.0 and £100 place at 2.3 on here a couple of hours later, assuming the horse hasn't shortened. But instead of winning £840, as you would have with a bookmaker, you win just £788.50. It's very hard indeed to give away 6% of your winnings and show a long-term profit. Or looking at it the other way, it's not very hard at all to show a long-term profit with the bookies, because they are effectively be adding 6% to whatever you won on here. Which is why they don't do it (unless you have a press badge).
And that's not taking into account how much more favourable the rule 4s are with the bookies, or what happens if your winner gets disqualified.
And yes, you might indeed be able to get £100 win at 8.0 and £100 place at 2.3 on here a couple of hours later, assuming the horse hasn't shortened. But instead of winning £840, as you would have with a bookmaker, you win just £788.50. It's very hard indeed to give away 6% of your winnings and show a long-term profit. Or looking at it the other way, it's not very hard at all to show a long-term profit with the bookies, because they are effectively be adding 6% to whatever you won on here. Which is why they don't do it (unless you have a press badge).
And that's not taking into account how much more favourable the rule 4s are with the bookies, or what happens if your winner gets disqualified.
I'd much rather take my chances on an exchange that charged commission but not premium charge and if one ever came into existence that returned all the profits to racing, so much the better.
The very fact the treasury dont see 'professional gambling' as a taxable profession should be all anyone needs to know on the subject.
The government are in league with those who are protected to profit in whichever way is deemed acceptable and taxed accordingly.
The people who bet aren't expected to be allowed to win.
The government are in league with those who are protected to profit in whichever way is deemed acceptable and taxed accordingly.
The people who bet aren't expected to be allowed to win.
sparrow by your posts you prefer betting at racetime on the exchange that's fair enough for you if that works,other people choose to select horses in advance and take a price.
The racetime markets can be a complete lottery compared to prices that fluctuate from 430pm the day before right up to racetime,given that bookmakers offer odds throughout that period then people should be allowed to bet on those markets.
As I've said my grievance with this situation is that some are allowed to bet with bookmakers when others can't that's not fair as it isn't money based,pretty sure I'm not richer than those in the racing community.Why should some people be allowed to back a horse at 20's the day before but people like me can only have 6's or 7's at racetime that makes no sense and isn't an extreme example I know there are rare occasions when your fancy is bigger and comparing BFSP to sp is bolox.
If someone said to you sparrow you can't bet on the exchange anymore you have to bet on the tote knowing that you will be winning considerably less for your money whilst others bet on the exchange what would you say?
I now bet alot less as I have to decide whether I still want to bet after the moves and once again I've had to ditch selections today as they are far shorter than what I would bet at which becomes demoralising when they win for obvious reasons.
The racetime markets can be a complete lottery compared to prices that fluctuate from 430pm the day before right up to racetime,given that bookmakers offer odds throughout that period then people should be allowed to bet on those markets.
As I've said my grievance with this situation is that some are allowed to bet with bookmakers when others can't that's not fair as it isn't money based,pretty sure I'm not richer than those in the racing community.Why should some people be allowed to back a horse at 20's the day before but people like me can only have 6's or 7's at racetime that makes no sense and isn't an extreme example I know there are rare occasions when your fancy is bigger and comparing BFSP to sp is bolox.
If someone said to you sparrow you can't bet on the exchange anymore you have to bet on the tote knowing that you will be winning considerably less for your money whilst others bet on the exchange what would you say?
I now bet alot less as I have to decide whether I still want to bet after the moves and once again I've had to ditch selections today as they are far shorter than what I would bet at which becomes demoralising when they win for obvious reasons.
Betting shops are casino's, who show horseracing as a bonus for a few mugs, who will hopefully, have a couple of quid on the horses, while doing there bol10cks on the FOBT'S....
The only reason betting shops will close if FOBT'S are restricted, are those shops where the staff have never been trained to work in a NON FOBT Environment. that means that 99.8% will have to close, unless they Change their strategy quickly
The only reason betting shops will close if FOBT'S are restricted, are those shops where the staff have never been trained to work in a NON FOBT Environment. that means that 99.8% will have to close, unless they Change their strategy quickly
Takes place today commencing 3pm ,as Bruce is attending it will be interesting to read any RP coverage.
Is Bruce there in his capacity as a champion of the punter?
The reality is (as demonstrated by Phil Middleton yesterday) they can seemingly bet what they want despite their privileged positions and genuine punters (who aren't clueless) can't bet tiny fractions of what they can that is FACT.
We're obviously up against individuals who are prepared to lie and may easily convince those not associated/have good knowledge of the betting and racing game.
It's worth giving credit to those who have pushed to get it this far despite the corrupted burying of the subject which all bar a handful of the racing journos should hang their heads in shame,gl to Simon Rowlands this afternoon.
We're obviously up against individuals who are prepared to lie and may easily convince those not associated/have good knowledge of the betting and racing game.
It's worth giving credit to those who have pushed to get it this far despite the corrupted burying of the subject which all bar a handful of the racing journos should hang their heads in shame,gl to Simon Rowlands this afternoon.
Just had an email yesterday from Victory Chancer to say that they have closed my sports betting account with immediate effect, but I am more than welcome to spend money on their casino. Well, that's not going to happen!
My normal stake has been £10 per horse or occasionally £10 each way on larger priced horses. I first opened the account about 7 or 8 years ago now I think. After the first year, my account was restricted as far as BOG and other bonuses were concerned.
What a bu***r.
My normal stake has been £10 per horse or occasionally £10 each way on larger priced horses. I first opened the account about 7 or 8 years ago now I think. After the first year, my account was restricted as far as BOG and other bonuses were concerned.
What a bu***r.
Well mokegibboni you did commit the crime of wanting to bet on horse racing without being in the game or displaying evidence of being a deep pocketed lunatic
By the way, have the relevant authorities said WHEN the decision on FOBT stakes will be made. It's been talked about for ages now, so I was wondering if a date has been fixed yet for an actual decision to be made.
no coincidence that Mr Rust now occupies one of the strongest positions in Racing and his views will in no doubt be near or at the top of the pile when the final deliberations are made
If you go to the Justice For Punters web site you can read what was said by each speaker at the meeting,it is worth the read.I think Simon did good,but I also feel it is a shame that participant's where not able to challenge the cosmetic numbers quoted by the Skybet CEO.Of course it is not possible to be certain Re how many of us are now affected but I am going to suggest that the number is into six figs and growing.What would happen if just 5% of that number all coordinated and with guidance worked together. I feel it would certainly improve our chances.
When as individual customers we get treated with contempt then the Bookmakers concerned anticipate that we will just take it on the chin and disappear without fuss,but when an increasing number refuse to do so,and this is now starting to happen then they will have to start taking note and in small ways this is also now occurring. This does give some hope for future change but I feel the more of us actively involved then the quicker those changes might be implemented.
A couple of months ago JFP organized a members collective e mailing to Bruce Re no support or coverage from the RP concerning account restrictions, and just a few days later he wrote for the first time actually acknowledging that the problem existed. Of course this may have just been a coincidence but certainly a happy one.!
When as individual customers we get treated with contempt then the Bookmakers concerned anticipate that we will just take it on the chin and disappear without fuss,but when an increasing number refuse to do so,and this is now starting to happen then they will have to start taking note and in small ways this is also now occurring. This does give some hope for future change but I feel the more of us actively involved then the quicker those changes might be implemented.
A couple of months ago JFP organized a members collective e mailing to Bruce Re no support or coverage from the RP concerning account restrictions, and just a few days later he wrote for the first time actually acknowledging that the problem existed. Of course this may have just been a coincidence but certainly a happy one.!
I apologise if this has already been mention but Bruce Millington of the RP said this:-
"So what’s the solution? The most popular one is the minimum liability guarantee that already operates in parts of Australia and is offered in a kind of fashion on UK racing by C0ral."
That is not my experience of them?
"So what’s the solution? The most popular one is the minimum liability guarantee that already operates in parts of Australia and is offered in a kind of fashion on UK racing by C0ral."
That is not my experience of them?
Hi Trusty my understand of the Corals guarantee is 500 for all races and up to 5000 for selected top class ones,but via cash only in there shops.They have received plenty of positive media coverage for this.Tbh I have not attempted so far,but would be most interested to learn how any who have are finding it.Especially any who have collected and then returned for another go.
The speeches were also covered in full on the RP ap. Worth a look. I suppose that the perennial problem is SP. On course bookmakers can lower the price of a horse that is a loser in their book if they wish but high street ones have to accept SP even if every single bet they take is on the winner. I know they can lay off and often at a profit these days but it is still a disadvantage.
Bookmaker should behave like bookmakers ie make a book and accept bets, and not differentiate indiscriminately between horse owners, trainers, racing journalists and punters especially recreational ones. If so, they should be brought to book, and if found guilty a financial penalty imposed similar to other business entities eg airlines, utility companies, etc.
@greenhill LOL - I dont go to the shops but online they won't even lay me £5 e/w on the main handicap race of the day on a Saturday, whatever the price - I am a pure recreational punter who is less stupid at 50 than I was at 20 but have zero info from anybody. That cannot be right and they should not be allowed a licence if they don't lay a bet to the likes of me.
With regard to Corals guarantee I checked them out during the first week of its conception. Let me first say that I despise bookmakers with a vengeance having been banned online by them all. I then took to the streets with my laptop in cafes and although I can say with hand on heart I have never arb'd a bet I was banned from shops. I then hired students to place bets for me sending them out from the cafe, this led to two things. First the students were banned by the bookmaker shops and secondly Costa coffee banned me from the shop because they though I was running an illegal drug selling operation. So you can see I have no time for bookmakers. Now to the Corals offer. I went in to place a bet that took me to the limit of their offer, cant quite remember what it was as its about 3 years or so ago maybe more, certainly some time after I left bookmakers and focused on here. The manager rang up head office and preceeded to have a right ding dong with his area manager who was saying take it whilst he was saying that this guy (me) was code red or some words to that effect. He made all sorts of appeals to his boss on the phone about building the profit of the shop before realising that he had to take the bet. The real bummer for him was that the horse won but in conclusion I have to say they honoured the promise, whether they are still doing that I do not know.
So last night I did this bet with C0rals :-
26/01/2018 19:08PM Double
Each Way £ 20.00
2 x £ 10.00 8. The Last Samuri - 14:25 Cheltenham - Win or Each Way @ 5/1
13. Thumb Stone Blues - 15:15 Doncaster - Win or Each Way @ 10/1
...but I had asked for £20 E/W and the max they would accept was 10 even though neither of their prices were standouts.
Then I asked for a £3 win patent:-
26/01/2018 19:10PM Patent
To Win £ 6.65
7 x £ 0.95 4. Ceann Sibheal - 14:20 Uttoxeter - Win or Each Way @ 9/1
8. Timon's Tara - 16:00 Uttoxeter - Win or Each Way @ 5/1
11. Dino Velvet - 16:10 Cheltenham - Win or Each Way @ 12/1
All there prices were bad. CEann was 10/1 generally, Timons Tara was at least 6/1 and Dino was 14/1 and all they would allow is £0.95 win!!!!!!!
They did allow me a £4 e/w treble the same three.........they are clearly not a bookmaker restricting mug bets to such low stakes to a recreational punter.
26/01/2018 19:08PM Double
Each Way £ 20.00
2 x £ 10.00 8. The Last Samuri - 14:25 Cheltenham - Win or Each Way @ 5/1
13. Thumb Stone Blues - 15:15 Doncaster - Win or Each Way @ 10/1
...but I had asked for £20 E/W and the max they would accept was 10 even though neither of their prices were standouts.
Then I asked for a £3 win patent:-
26/01/2018 19:10PM Patent
To Win £ 6.65
7 x £ 0.95 4. Ceann Sibheal - 14:20 Uttoxeter - Win or Each Way @ 9/1
8. Timon's Tara - 16:00 Uttoxeter - Win or Each Way @ 5/1
11. Dino Velvet - 16:10 Cheltenham - Win or Each Way @ 12/1
All there prices were bad. CEann was 10/1 generally, Timons Tara was at least 6/1 and Dino was 14/1 and all they would allow is £0.95 win!!!!!!!
They did allow me a £4 e/w treble the same three.........they are clearly not a bookmaker restricting mug bets to such low stakes to a recreational punter.
http://www.attheraces.com/news/2018/January/19/inspired-punter-turns-%C2%A31-to-%C2%A3135k
That's the norm for them have a couple that start shorter or win and you'll quickly be down to pence
Good Luck with your bets
That's the norm for them have a couple that start shorter or win and you'll quickly be down to pence
Good Luck with your bets
They employ idiots who are accountants and NOT TURF ACCOUNTANTS.. These mugs will all have to be trained or sacked for people who are bookmakers, if and when the min bet rule comes in
Thank you C0rals...saved me some money for a change :-)
From the JFP Web site and if enough of us take a few mins to send the two e mails then I am thinking it would be time well spent.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... __says_MP/
This was my impression of the seminar. Get in touch with your MPs to lobby mentioning this link. Details of how to contact your MP are here: https://justiceforpunters.org/find-your ... tact-them/ Make your point robustly, but not abusively that what bookmakers are doing is unfair and even the All Party Parliamentary Group that supports the industry agrees. It shows how bad things have become when an industry 'wines and dines' you, but you still come out against them.
The following is massive and you should contribute: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/ne ... -open.aspx It has taken us 30 months of discussion with the Gambling Commission and the regular provision of evidence of injustice to get them to consider drawing up new licensing guidelines for gambling companies in all these areas. The GC now knows that the industry will not change without force. They've given the industry loads of chances and they've turned everyone down, so this is all about bringing in fines and other sanctions.
It's up to you guys whether you bother to contribute to both issues or not. If you do; great. If you don't you'll possibly waste the hard, voluntary work of 30 months that some of us have put in.
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... __says_MP/
This was my impression of the seminar. Get in touch with your MPs to lobby mentioning this link. Details of how to contact your MP are here: https://justiceforpunters.org/find-your ... tact-them/ Make your point robustly, but not abusively that what bookmakers are doing is unfair and even the All Party Parliamentary Group that supports the industry agrees. It shows how bad things have become when an industry 'wines and dines' you, but you still come out against them.
The following is massive and you should contribute: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/ne ... -open.aspx It has taken us 30 months of discussion with the Gambling Commission and the regular provision of evidence of injustice to get them to consider drawing up new licensing guidelines for gambling companies in all these areas. The GC now knows that the industry will not change without force. They've given the industry loads of chances and they've turned everyone down, so this is all about bringing in fines and other sanctions.
It's up to you guys whether you bother to contribute to both issues or not. If you do; great. If you don't you'll possibly waste the hard, voluntary work of 30 months that some of us have put in.
The link isn't working greenhill but the site is worth a look for those affected
I recently joined BetBright (they should be re-branded as NoBetBright) and paid in £100 to get a £100 bonus and it needs to be rolled over in 60 days by x amount of times (I can't remember exactly how many) and my balance is currently £428 and some pence.
My very first bet was £25 at 11/4, which won and I was instantly restricted to £1.56 stakes (where do they even get these figures from?) and after it going up to around a tenner once I lost a bit back, my maximum stake now on horses is £0.00 but I was told that was only on horses (which was a lie too) yet I might not want to bet on other sports anyway and so if I don't, I will never be able to complete the roll over requirements. On the other hand, if I try to complete it on other sports then I am basically being forced into bets that I don't want to make and they are dictating to me what I should bet on.
And then they laughably have "Gamble Responsibly" and "Stop When It's No Longer Fun" type logos on their website!
My very first bet was £25 at 11/4, which won and I was instantly restricted to £1.56 stakes (where do they even get these figures from?) and after it going up to around a tenner once I lost a bit back, my maximum stake now on horses is £0.00 but I was told that was only on horses (which was a lie too) yet I might not want to bet on other sports anyway and so if I don't, I will never be able to complete the roll over requirements. On the other hand, if I try to complete it on other sports then I am basically being forced into bets that I don't want to make and they are dictating to me what I should bet on.
And then they laughably have "Gamble Responsibly" and "Stop When It's No Longer Fun" type logos on their website!
My apologies Re the "Justice For Punters" link not working,i am not good with computers and it may be on me.If you google the name it will show top of the page.
Betdark are another two bob firm, who are economical with the truth, when it comes to advertising
Everyone should stick together and boycott the RP ,and lobby their MPs, until the liars are either made to lay a minimum liability return,or must advertise in big letters , that any winning punter will have there account restricted or closed, if they are too successful on certain types of sport
It has nothing to do with the Racing Post and once Fred's Tote exclusivity expires this year and other bookies can run their own pools, I am sure all the sharks, arbers and skillful punters will be able to bet as much as they like into these pools. I don't like being restricted any more than the next man but the idea that a stern editorial from Bruce would change things is laughable.
Ramruna - a stern editorial from Bruce is very doubtful to change things, whereas if he hadn't let them basically run his "rag" years ago we may not even be at this ridiculous point. Whatever that buffoon does or say now will be too little, too late. No new punters are on their way to bet on Horse Racing in years to come, and the Sport itself with the BHA and Bruce at the helm, have nobody else to blame but themselves. Restrictions should have been dealt with years ago when they started getting extreme, and not now when turnover and interest has got to where it is today. The books have banned so many mugs who essentially pay for the sport, they won't be back whatever happens (NAP).
@Magic_Daps -- agree re disgraceful behaviour by the bookies, and naivety (at best) from the BHA, but the FOBT agenda is driven by shedloads of more-or-less risk-free millions of pounds in profits. Bruce could have been more critical but the only difference it would have made is the Post would have been driven out of business -- because a couple of hundred million from the FOBTs dwarfs any other considerations.
How much are the bookies "funding" the Racing Post, directly or indirectly, anyone please? These two entities should be mutually exclusive in my book.
How much are the bookies "funding" the Racing Post, directly or indirectly, anyone please? These two entities should be mutually exclusive in my book.
They buy the Racing Post for every betting shop; they advertise in the Racing Post; some of them sponsor podcasts as well.
How much would the Racing Post cost without bookmaker advertising iyo? Who would pay that price?
They buy the Racing Post for every betting shop; they advertise in the Racing Post; some of them sponsor podcasts as well.
How much would the Racing Post cost without bookmaker advertising iyo? Who would pay that price?
Who'd pay £2.30/2.60 for a copy of that trash? Poor editorial, boring content and lacking useful betting information and direction; it is not fit for purpose or wrapping fish and chips. I'd rather have a fillet-o-fish any time than that waste of space media tosh at supermarkets shelves.
They should be allowed to be paid to advertise bookies adverts etc, but not at the expense of Racing (if the books don't want the bad press then don't have a reason for there to be bad press). The same goes for the BHA, TV gravy trainer presenters, and the huge amount of corruption throughout the game.
Nobody wants to say anything bad about the game, which shows that nothing is getting done. Print about corruption and hand out appropriate fines and long bans would be a start, be consistent for a fecking start, it may actually show that it is trying to clean the sport up. The biggest part of corruption though are the BHA themselves as they are complicit with it all with their cover ups and their closed shop. It says a lot when the best actual Racing journalism is in The Guardian!
Nobody wants to say anything bad about the game, which shows that nothing is getting done. Print about corruption and hand out appropriate fines and long bans would be a start, be consistent for a fecking start, it may actually show that it is trying to clean the sport up. The biggest part of corruption though are the BHA themselves as they are complicit with it all with their cover ups and their closed shop. It says a lot when the best actual Racing journalism is in The Guardian!
I understand it is always easy to criticise, but having a former senior executive of a major bookie heading the BHA together with a shallow and intransigent editor of a sports paper closely related to bookies are major contributions to present predicaments eg the cases concerning Jim Best, participation of wrong horse/wrong race (again), closures and/or restrictions of recreational punters accounts, etc.
I'm afraid until these entities acknowledged changes are imminent and necessary, and long overdue these two entities will stumble along as present till the inevitable car-crash scenario are upon them (again).
I'm afraid until these entities acknowledged changes are imminent and necessary, and long overdue these two entities will stumble along as present till the inevitable car-crash scenario are upon them (again).
They love a good "conflict of interest" does the BHA. Has Mr Rust got shares with the books?
Without a doubt (unless t&c do not permit) an employee of his position at that bookie would have accumulated a healthy chunk of stock options with the associated perks eg concessions at related businesses (hotels), eateries, health spa, etc.
So when he is doing his bit for the FOBTs staying for the good of racing, a cynic may be thinking he has some sort of agenda for himself.....
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539