BET 365 WONT ACCEPT A 20p EW YANKEE

Try the 4 selections in permed trixies

try another bookie
do not take any doubles or trebles off me

@topshot - did you try and place the bet the evening before racing? If so, they may have restricted you because of the prices. They MAY have accepted the bet if you took SP on all four selections. Also, if you took the bet say an hour before the first leg ran, they may have excepted the full 20p unit stake then. I'm surprised really, because B247 are usually quite obliging in taking multiple bets at requested prices the evening before for the next day's racing.

Nope moke, tried to place it about 8:00 this morning.

Once restricted they even restrict you on footie accas, five fold on footie to win a fiver, seems they only have one button in Stoke, you would think anyone would want to lay football, however in their wisdom if your restricted on the horses your stuffed on other sports, ridiculous really I wonder how many thousands of other punters  with 345 cant bet on football because they are restricted elsewhere, I even wonder if those at the top even know this is going on.

waste of time trying to get a bet on with nobet 365

try sending them an email asking for your account to be closed ... it's a gary gonner

@pumphol - yes, Victory Chancer closed my account completely and won't let me bet on ANY sport, even though I only ever invested on horse racing with them up to the point of account closure.

But as a parting shot, they told me that I was more than welcome to use their casino facilities! My thoughts on that are not repeatable on here!

Were they your own selections ?

Are you a student?

I think if you win or appear to be a winner by choosing value prices then your account will be restricted or closed down.
It's that simple.That's how the bookies work ,and The Gambling Commission ,The UK government and Tony Blair are quite happy about this.
The bookmakers counter is only a one way lane.Money coming back to you is not allowed.

there are also many tipsters, for want of a better word, on twitter, facebook on all forms of social media. books are easily spooked now, so when they see the same multiple bets arriving at roughly the same time, instead of cutting the odds drastically on the selections, they are now knocking back multis on them.

@the dealer - there is also a little known rule which comes under 'syndicates'. Say you pick 6 winners from 6 selections and they all win at decent prices (I know, pigs might fly) and you can win up to a £1,000,000 with some of the major bookmakers! Now, if you picked all 6 from a tipster and, say, 10 other punters used the same tipster and hence placed the same multiple bet as you and therefore the same 6 horses using the same bookmaker, then the rule states that that £1,000,000 will be split between all 10 winners, so instead of receiving £1,000,000, you only may receive £100,000. The amount will vary obviously between the 10 lucky punters depending on the various stakes invested.

Also, you don't have to know who the other punters are for this rule to apply.

i didnt know that but no surprise

many thanks

Interesting mokegibboni, I wonder if these twitter lemmings following these tipsters know this?

In 2009 Betfred reduced me to 2p Lucky 15's on "UNNAMED SP FAVOURITES" that's as low as it gets!!

people need to start taking screen shots of these bet refusals and posting them on their twitter accounts to prove/shame them.

@the dealer - it's the same sort of thing I suppose as all the various lotteries. Say the jackpot win is £10,000,000 for a certain week and 2 people have selected the exact same numbers as each other, then they won't receive £10,000,000 each, but it's split between the two of them at £5,000,000 each (hardly worth getting out of bed for I hear you say!)

So, I think the bookmakers are saying that it's their discretion to apply the syndicate rule if they feel that it is necessary. I can't imagine one bookie paying out 10 lots of £1,000,000 to each of the successful punters, which is why they have this syndicate rule included amongst all their terms and conditions.

So going back to Frankie's Magnificent 7 are we now saying the bookmakers would not be paying out the full amount to those who had all correct super Heinz's if there were 100 people had that bet with the same Company?

@TheGoddess - yes, I was thinking about that. The bookies lost millions on that day but I'm just wondering if the syndicate rule that I mentioned had not been included 22 years ago. Maybe it's more of a recent inclusion perhaps, but I'm not sure.

I reckon if that had happened today, the syndicate rule would be applied. I can't see Hills and the like paying out 100 x £1,000,000. That would probably pretty much finish them off as a business I would have thought.

Barney Curley's multiples are perhaps a clearer example as it is clear the putter-onners were acting under his direction.

That cannot be true, Mok.

@s.kenbo - sorry, what can't be true?

How come the genuises don't have these problems?

Sorry, Mok, I should've been a bit clearer.

I meant the part where ten different people all had the same horses in a multi, but the bookies would cap the pay out at a million pounds and divide it between them.

I can imagine there's some kind of safeguard in place for Ramruma's example nowadays, but to theoretically not pay out punters across the country their correct winnings, because they picked the same horses, doesn't sound like it could possibly be true.

I was offered 0.00 for a trixie!

I have written to Tracey Crouch who is Minister for Sport and probably there are enough of us to begin an online petition and raise 100K signatures to force parliament to address the issue.

Agree with kenbo

It's very noticeable and I've mentioned it before how these anti-bookie threads pop with regularity that resembles clockwork.
Which isn't surprising on a betting exchange that's in direct competition with bookies.
What beats me is why anyone bets seriously with the bookies when their odds are consistently smaller than those available on here.

I'd take most of what's written here with a pinch of salt.

What beats me is why anyone bets seriously with the bookies when their odds are consistently smaller than those available on here.

Tax free Dr?

I agree they are pathetic, but when there's commission and potentially other charges with exchanges, that's surely one reason?

Dr C, I agree with your sentiments but for some reason I find it very hard to beat SP by using the exchange. It must be because horses that look obvious to me always drift (win or lose) and using a Bookmaker with price guarantee has its uses. I suppose I should use Betfair SP more often. It is fine to say that the best time to bet is 20 seconds before the off but we are not all hovering over a keyboard for 4 hours a day (or not every day) 

Dr Crippen 07 Jul 18 09:33
It's very noticeable and I've mentioned it before how these anti-bookie threads pop with regularity that resembles clockwork.
Which isn't surprising on a betting exchange that's in direct competition with bookies.
What beats me is why anyone bets seriously with the bookies when their odds are consistently smaller than those available on here.

I'd take most of what's written here with a pinch of salt.


So horse A is 10/1 with say 50% of the bookies, on here the price is 12.0 (but there is only £3 in the box to back), then at 11.5 there is £4, at 11 there is £10. How do you get say £75 on said horse on here at the same or above the price without waiting all day to get matched. Fine if you want a fiver, but other than that you got no chance... The liquidity is terrible and the layers have gone skint

Ok guys - forgive me if I've misinterpreted the terms and conditions. So I've managed to dig this up from Bet247 terms and conditions. Maybe I was looking too deep into it and made the wrong conclusions. It would be interesting to see how you interpret these paragraphs that I have just dug up. I came to my conclusions from the last sentence of these conditions that I've copied and pasted here.


4.7 Where there is evidence of a series of bets each containing the same selection(s) having been placed by or for the same individual or syndicate of individuals, bet365 reserves the right to make bets void or withhold payment of returns pending the outcome of any subsequent investigation.

All maximum winnings limits apply to any one customer, or group of customers acting together, who have placed bets containing the same selections, including where placed in a series of bets, at a range of prices, over a number of days using different betting accounts and/or across different betting channels. Should we have reason to believe that a number of bets have been placed this way, the total payment of all those bets combined will be limited to one single maximum winnings payout.

Think you're right with your interpretation, looks a cop out for the bookie though if it happened, and would wonder about it's actual legality if tested.

Refusing to pay out different individual bets would be interesting to test in court.

Did baldy not test this on the previous curly coup with the 3 big priced winners. Ended up paying in full

I don't think he was right with his interpretation. That clearly suggests to me that they won't be had over by a Curley type gamble again.


If I had a winning Lucky 63 that somehow paid £1,000000, yet some bloke three hundred miles away miraculously did the same bet, there's no way we'd be paid half a million each.

Jul 7, 2018 -- 11:41AM, s.kenbo wrote:

I don't think he was right with his interpretation. That clearly suggests to me that they won't be had over by a Curley type gamble again. If I had a winning Lucky 63 that somehow paid £1,000000, yet some bloke three hundred miles away miraculously did the same bet, there's no way we'd be paid half a million each.

The geniuses do these DAILY do they not?

s.kenbo -

'If I had a winning Lucky 63 that somehow paid £1,000000, yet some bloke three hundred miles away miraculously did the same bet, there's no way we'd be paid half a million each.'

but don't those T & C's that I've pasted below suggest otherwise?

Not at all. They're in place to stop a gang of fifty putter onners placing multi bets for a coup.

People randomly picking the same winners wouldn't be subject to that rule.

The Detorri example was used earlier, and it's a good example. People would be paid in full. I have absolutely no doubt about it.

I always feel that the winner at Industry SP, frequently shortens between the off and what is returned as SP.
While the Betfair SP often seems to have gone out a touch when that's returned.

Just a feeling.

Don't some bookies let you take a price, then if SP beats it they pay out on whichever is biggest?

Even the most ardent Betfair supporter is well aware of BOG. Are you saying you're not?

s.kenbo - Ok, fair enough. I think it was a good thing that the subject was brought up as T & C's can sometimes be looked at as 'grey areas'. Maybe bookies deliberately word their T's and C's in such a way so that they are covered whatever happens.

I'm not talking about this particular case necessarily, but generally across the board.

I totally agree with you there. Many of us can read these things, yet get different interpretations.

I got the sack after two and a half days yet I have to watch the man on T.V telling how they are the greatest thing since slice bread.

Even the most ardent Betfair supporter is well aware of BOG. Are you saying you're not?

How could I not be aware of BOG if I mentioned it?

Long term if we could all bet at 5pm the day before with bookmakers (as the shrewdies do) we would all be far richer than having to bet near racetime to get decent amounts on,that's why the shrewdie tipsters do this as it enhances their P+L and ROI at SP or BFSP they'd struggle for sure.

Denzil - you are correct!