There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 3624 comments are related to the topic:
sky live video
sky live video
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 3,624
|
By:
There were obviously those who were on slower pics
But the regulator is there to bring integrity to betting. If the three alternatives are either 1. Buy the limited advantage available 2. Get unauthrised access 3. Stop betting Then its pretty clear in anyones book the regulator has failed. |
|
By:
I never tried getting ahead of people
you were purchasing ft pics..which made you ahead of all bar a half dozen on course.. carte blanche syndrome. |
|
By:
read above post.
The official line was the hospitality was not sold as a trading room. But you purchased it singularly as a trading room didnt you? How was/is it different to the shop you call an 'office' every day you use when not oncourse? |
|
By:
ahead of all bar half a dozen.
You know that is total bollox By the time I accessed ft btw it had been going years and you know it. There were 12 in the box before musical chairs started removing the positions. And how many were in the closed shops? |
|
By:
there are many tracks that have 6 or less box players..many.
so,i'll reiterate...those using ft pics when you were, were ahead of all bar half a dozen. FACT. |
|
By:
That is simply wrong.
Closed shops were getting it sent direct, I was at least 2 hops down from that. Each shop had how many in? And I know there were at least 3 shops getting them. |
|
By:
shops wernt getting them direct..they were coming from a central source.
|
|
By:
Seems like its been in this stage for some time...but surely with the ATR tracks something has to give before everything grinds to a halt?
Just seems like 0.6 is a happy compromise to everyone? Box players get the 0.6 on the field, tracks get box players. Drones can get what..0.1-0.2 on the home players? FT'ers similar to drones, home players are at a disadvantage but like all of the above...the best players will survive? Surely at present its just drone v drone v bot? As Willie says youd have to be mad to play the last 2-3f? Dont see whats not to like, at present youve got what...whoever it is getting the raw feed (if anyone) v drone? |
|
By:
the drones have actually virtually ruined it..
|
|
By:
Maybe im biased because I cant make a profit in the current ATR state, but surely money is being funneled to a finite few or its just drone v drone passing each others money around, get rid of all the commision or PC for a year or two, nout left? Is there people out there that would play the exchange in play with a bit of advertising and education? Would need plenty of advertising, all my generation only interested in a football 4 fold 3 times a week, days 1 and 2 of chelt before they lose interest and the grand national, regardless of value or absolutely no value.
|
|
By:
Rico
I still have the screenshot showing me in the third tier. 4 users in the top tier which each went down different lines, I was on just one. That one then lead to another 6 in the tier above each going a separate way with us being in another level of 4 Each of those ‘single users’ had the capacity to be a shop full of players....you know this as that’s what yours was. Don’t try and insult my and everyone’s intelligence to make out loads weren’t higher up the line already. As I said all along, it all originates from the sale of hospitality sold as trading rooms so the few can purchase the opportunity to bet on what nobody has yet seen, and everyone else attempts a myriad of things to counter that flagrant market abuse. All the while the regulator is guilty of a dereliction of duty. (How can they conclude buying access to bet on an event that finished before anyone else saw it isn’t the epitome of market abuse?) They simply didn’t want to do their job, because as the MPs ultimately determined, they ‘arn’t fit for purpose’. |
|
By:
2005 Gambling Act.....
Informed Information The person being given information is aware of the fact that the information they’ve been given isn’t available to everyone so shouldn’t be used for financial gain Viewing the result of a race through the provision of unique technology is giving access that isn’t available in the public domain. Visual data is information and it’s uniquely provided for the purpose of market abuse. Restricted Information Information obtained in this category has been done so because the person placing the bet or giving said information to someone else is involved in the thing that the bet is being placed on. This includes the likes of club employees or agents The courses are holding the event, and uniquely providing (at a high price) the facility to use technology to bet in the market before anyone else. |
|
By:
Drones is not a new tech but I am curious did we have drones like 1-2 years ago? or we didn't notice them because of stable flash live video?
|
|
By:
dustybin • March 4, 2021 6:15 AM GMT
2005 Gambling Act..... I don't think the words you quoted appear in that Act. There is also no chance whatsoever that the UKGC would interpret renting a room as being inside information. btw why haven't all the drone operators been stopped by court order yet? |
|
By:
The latter point first...perhaps because theres a 2 year back log in the courts if you hadnt noticed.
Informed Information and Restricted Information are both terms in the Act. The rest is legal interpretation. The renting of the room isnt the issue, its the limited supply of the things in the room. It is self evident that visual data is information, and supplying in a room that is only accessable to the few who purchased access (restricted information) for the sole purpose of abusing the betting market is clearly in the GC's remit. They came up with an extremely contrived notion to explain why it was permissable in 2011. Its laughable. Now the GC are walking dead so its pointless taking the issue up with them. But the review should include the matter as the MPs are looking at gambling, and as Ive said before, it needs to add media into the area of the next regulator since it has created a Pandora's box from which all these additional problems have arisen. |
|
By:
Its in the Misuse of inside information
Policy position paper 30th Aug 2018 Gambling Commission Entitled the Misuse of information spectrum. |
|
By:
i will reiterate for the umpteenth time..the latency through the internet is minimal.
|
|
By:
totally agree with dusty, having a time advantage IR would be a parallel to the pre-race market of knowing a jockey was going to ride a horse in such a way that would compromise its chance of winning the race - if only a handful know and laid the horse accordingly its obviously a big deal
|
|
By:
why do stores allow people to que up at midnight for the boxing day sales?
is this iyo acceptable practice? |
|
By:
There wasnt an Act created for the fair division of merchandise.
There is one to regulate the practises of gambling. |
|
By:
what is it?
|
|
By:
drones have been on the go the last 4 years or so Cheburekito
|
|
By:
not over racecourses they int.
|
|
By:
thats 1.01 greenie
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
dustybin • March 4, 2021 1:50 PM GMT
The latter point first...perhaps because theres a 2 year back log in the courts if you hadnt noticed. Informed Information and Restricted Information are both terms in the Act. The rest is legal interpretation. simple enough to start a court action, backlog or not. I searched the act for both the terms and can't find them. Where are they? |
|
By:
Told you the terms are exampled in the 2018 Misuse of Information spectrum
I have it on the ipad and Im not typing the whole address in here. Search on the GC.gov site for PDF Misuse of Inside Info. I said I thought the the cause of action would be for the tv companies to challeng the drones as it would be pretty straight forward. I dont have the RTV channel so I dont know what their opinion of drones are and they dont run it all by me So I cant answer as to where we are. Just supposition. |
|
By:
You said it was in the 2005 Gambling Act, so that wasn't correct.
The wording is the gambling commission's and not in the gambling act and therefore not "legal interpretation". I would have thought that given that the wording you quoted is from a document that deals with sportsbetting integrity that was written after multiple organisations considered integrity issues, they would have taken the opportunity to highlight people renting rooms overlooking racecourses or other sports properties, if it was considered to be a significant factor. |
|
By:
Renting rooms overlooking racecourses?
We are talking about the racecourses selling premium positions in an exclusive room where a unique fast feed is piped to them for them to act out their bets before anyone else is in a position to bet on the occurence. The GC wrote chapter and verse as to why they could excuse themselves of involvement, coming up with the daftest reasoning (for eg. that the rooms werent called 'trading rooms' but 'hospitality' (as though the name on the door changes what happens inside) and that as long as the course didnt advertise the fast product in the rooms then it would be ok (if demand outstrips supply what difference does it make whether its advertised or not?)) Since they made such a daft conclusion a number of people including MPs have reviewed the actions of the GC and called for their replacement. Can you think of anyone who has ever said anything positive about the GC? Like I said. The GC in all liklihood are finished, another body who doesnt operate on a basis of willfull ignorance will re-interpret what is considered 'insider trading'. |
|
By:
If a person has information regarding a sporting event that isnt public domain then what happens with that information can be actioned on (the BHA have brought a number of cases against trainers) but that information tends to be relatively subjective (if say a footballer isnt going to be playing, it might effect the performance, but it doesnt assure the result, the game could still go either way)
Betting using pictures that are unique to a selctive audience who purchase and then limit access to the running of a race, include the absolute, ie the objective result, say the absolute actual winner of a race, or a jockey who fell off the horse, these are arguable definitions of areas that might influence the outcome, they ARE the outcome. |
|
By:
*thes ARNT arguable fedinitions that might influence the outcome, the are the outcome.
|
|
By:
They didn't even mention courtsiding in that document - why would anybody think it was in the least relevant?
The trading room issue is more relevant but even if they decided that the facilities were trading rooms, it would just indicate that they should be licensed and not address your issue. |
|
By:
Racecourses are licensed. The proper aproach would be to refer the matter to the SGB.
It seems pretty clear cut dave that there is systematic front running of the market and the nature of the fact media has its own regulator meant that the issues were hidden in pigeon holes where each body assumed it wasnt their responsibility. I take it you actually bet? If you bet IR then you'd know on average millions every hour are bet on racing during the race. The GC are more interested in confiscating fake fobts (singular) from Chinese takeawys. The whole picture issue has created a s hitstorm of problems top to bottom. The laissez faire attitude has contributed to a slew of blackmarket action. No political party cares for such a thing, the setup has failed, I suspect the outcome will be quite different soon. |
|
By:
I am very doubtful that whatever happens it will be good to us
|
|
By:
everyone wants to drive a rolls royce from their armchair.
|
|
By:
dont let it lie dusty ...the smart mans andyl
 ....always right and always on a righteous crusade (even tho he wielded the sword at some point)  |
|
By:
Rico
I can promise you with absolute sincerity whatever is coming was non of my making, it was the rum handed approach of the regulators that never fixed the job in the first place. What I am doing is recognising that change is coming and what I think the best way of addressing the potential issues we all have that could easily finish IR. Politicans dont care about the running of institutions, they want them to take care of their own problems. So when a number keep coming back to them for one reason or another the likihood that they take radical swings at the sector increases. As for the implication about the armchair, Im assuming you mean again the flawed logic that those who bother going on course have carte blanche to abuse the system? Well, if we all went on course we still wouldnt get access to those facilities and thats the whole point, they are finite and limited which is counter to the very premise of integrity in betting. You dont for eg see the BHA say, 'we take insider information very seriously....but only after 5 people have been given the info'.....so why is it that trading rooms are allowed to give the equivilent priviliges to such a limited few? |
|
By:
limited to those that arose from their armchair and made a effort..
no different to fenwicks offering 6 55" tv's half price on boxing day.. |
|
By:
ffs
|