Pouring Fuel on The Fire. Would Punters Be Willing To Take Collective Action Against.

reading is true..

Workrider

I totally understand the frustration although i don't have any accounts (except here) but what court action could be taken anyway, they don't have to accept bets. Bad publicity yes, but they get that now.

So they can do what they want with impunity Andrew ,you are probably right maybe no point taking them on..

I think the only constructive action would be for everyone to take a stand and not use them at all (only exchanges) but this is not going to happen of course.

A licenced Taxi driver for example is not allowed to offer fares  to some people but not others without good reason.So the licence should state that everyone should be treated fairly or no licence.

I am not a lawyer so am assuming this doesn't hold up but the equality act 2010 prohibits companies from restricting services to anyone in the 9 protected groups such as disability etc?

Status of a bet as a contract

When you place a bet with a licensed gambling business, you enter into a legally enforceable contract with that business.

The gambling business must make the terms and conditions of the bet available to you. You should make sure that you are familiar with the terms and conditions and that you understand what they might mean, especially in the event of any changed circumstances around the bet, before you decide whether to place the bet.

We also require gambling businesses to provide a means for you to complain about the bet. This helps us to keep betting fair.

Gambling businesses can refuse your bet

Just as you can decide whether or not you wish to place a bet, a gambling business is also free to decide who they accept bets from, and on what terms, in order to manage their business as they see fit.

Because a bet has to be a commercial arrangement between two willing parties, there is no statutory right to bet that means that a gambling business must accept your bet. Just like any other commercial business, a gambling business may sometimes withdraw offers or refuse bets in order to reduce risks to their business.

Making a complaint

When you have placed your bet, your contract with the gambling business means that you have certain rights and the contract can be enforced in law. This means that you have a right to take a gambling transaction to court if you do not think the outcome meets the terms and conditions of the contract.

Gambling businesses must offer a complaints procedure, including access to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider free to the consumer, which you should follow before deciding whether to take a matter to the courts.


https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/for-the-public/Your-rights/Status-of-a-bet-as-a-contract.aspx

"This helps us to keep betting fair." after the first para - why not "This helps them to keep betting unfair." after next one?

The Horserace Bettors Forum - have been tackling this problem - on and OFF - for the past 5 years ..... Haven't they ?

Also I love the way that the UKGC gives licenses to businesses all over the world and glibly says "you have a right to take a gambling transaction to court".

You are 100% correct leif.But could the gambling commission make taking a bet with a take out similar to Australia as a condition of the licence?Local authoritys are able to put conditions on Taxi drivers licences.

It's always good to remember that something's importance to you doesn't reflect its actual importance.  Ultimately, wider society couldn't care less about your sense of outrage, courts typically require laws to have been broken to take any action and don't take kindly to spurious legal action.

Restricted accounts probably represent if lucky, maybe 1% of their business. They will argue that the other 99% get on whatever they want.
Good luck but I can't see it changing,

a gambling business is also free to decide who they accept bets from, and on what terms, in order to manage their business as they see fit.

Those few words suggest they can decide to offer you £10 or 10p?

I can see it getting worse rather than better

the dealer • February 21, 2021 1:46 PM GMT
Restricted accounts probably represent if lucky, maybe 1% of their business

I'd be very surprised if that was correct.

There would need to be a Conveyor Belt of New Mugs - joining Daily - IF, "99%  get on whatever they want."

The primary drivers for restriction are whether or not the customer looks for best prices, plays casino games, and does silly accas.  If you stick to horses and only bet when the firms prices are competitive, you are 100% going to be restricted and banned from BOG and offers.  If that is only 1% fair enough but I'd be astonished if it was.

Some here could get together and employ a brief to detail cases and circumstances to the Gambling Commission the reluctance or refusal of bookies accepting bets from recreational punters esp those not playing/gambling on online slots and casino games ie a wilful and deliberate discrimination by bookies on types of gambling activities by customers/punters which (could) be a contradiction of the Betting/Gaming licence Act.

If so, count me in and contribution to a Paypal account opened for this purpose.

only we as a collective could bring about a change by not betting with them or starting with not betting with one particular company,could be any company to just make a point but we are not a collective,sadly

Even Tony Calvin's column makes me chuckle when he puts up tips based on sportsbook prices. Under normal circumstances he wouldn't be able to get more than 50p on with them given his column shows a good winning record and regularly beats SP - both things meaning severe restrictions are a certainty.

I am sure that more could be done but not sure that the courts are the answer.

If most of the restricted punters were younger then I am sure a very strong social media campaign would get the bookies to change their terms but in general most youngsters don't bet on horse racing and I would guess most restricted customers are probably >45.

If a shop was selling a product for £100 but wouldn't let everyone buy at that price, there would be a national outcry but "gambling" is seen as an illness or a sin and consequently no-one is interested.

I believe the only way is lobbying the government and gambling commission with the aim of a bookie having to accept a bet to a set minimum liability.

Restricting accounts for taking the price because they are offering the best price is really an unacceptable practice.

Jackie Weaver to head the panel

The only "steady stream of mugs" are those on Foxy bingo and the vast array of slots that come with 'offers' and promotions.

Traditional forms of gambling are dying on their ar&e. Last thing the books need is a smart punter eating into an already dwindling profit margin.



7,681 Total number of betting shops in Great Britain (March 2020) (7.7% decrease from March 2019)

£2.4bn Total GGY for non-remote betting (including machines) (Apr 2019 – Mar 2020) (26.4% decrease from Apr 2018 – Mar 2019)

£1.0bn Total GGY for non-remote casino (including machines) (Apr 2019 – Mar 2020) (4.0% decrease from Apr 2018 – Mar 2019)

£5.7bn Total GGY for Remote Betting, Bingo & Casino Sector (Apr 2019 – Mar 2020) (8.1% increase from Apr 2018 – Mar 2019)

You could have taken a recent opportunity to help reduce the amount of (effectively) free money that the books are coining in from casino & slot games - and therefore taken a small step towards getting some of their focus back onto bookmaking!

While they can take as much (effectively) risk free money as they like from people addicted to playing games where they cannot win (long term) - why would they want to engage or do battle with people that might win?

But the (short sighted) majority on here seemed to think regulating slots & casinos would be bad for them! - there's none so blind as those that cannot see.

slots and casinos are regulated

Sorry (blind & pedantic)) Dave - I meant properly and effectively regulated!

When I see the amounts of money in bets matched in here, I find it difficult to believe that you guys are not able to get [your] bets on.

As for the bookies,
Serious punters?
Who needs 'em?
Mugs only need apply.
TIA.

^^ this thread is about bookmakers not being "properly and effectively regulated" regarding horse racing.  Why don't you stick to the subject instead going off on an absurd tangent.

if there were a class action i'd contribute £500 towards costs

If there was any grounds for action, it would be against the UKGC for failing to ensure that gambling "is conducted in a fair and open manner" as required by law.

takeing them to court could be hard,imo.
It's just like the local corner shop refusing
to serve someone or a landlord of a pub barring
a drunk.Can't see how they would be made to take
bets off someone if they don't want to.Freedom of
choice.

Dave - if you can't see the connection - you are beyond help.

If you had two strands to your business - which one would put most of your focus and investment into? - the strand that gives you a sack load of risk free money every single day - or the other bit?

ericster when someone puts ^^ in a post it means they are responding to the second above post (or second below depending on set up).

^^still banging the drum that no one is ever going to hear.

It beats moaning that your account has been restricted - but then siding with the people that restricted your account when it looks like some of their more insidious practices might get restricted.

I love that you still can't see the connection between them discovering free money elsewhere and restricting accounts.

There is an article by Lee Mottershead in the post today about bookies not being able to restrict is Aus. If someone could post it please? Thanks

@ericster I am not a pro punter backing hundreds per race. I like £25 to £50 e/w generally on horses over 14/1 in the big handicaps. I also like to place £5 e/w trixies. If I have a win only bet on a shorter one, then it is on here.

Yesterday was a prime example in that Guard Your Dreams was paying 1-7 with Slybet (restricted to 0) and SB (ok for now). I had £50 e/w at 22/1 and would have lost on here and with most other books paying 1-5. PP were 1-6 but why take same the same price for a place less?

I surely epitomise a classic recreational punter and yet many books won't take my bets just because either I have won or taken the best prices that they were offering. I have had a few e/w trixies up that paid 5 figures and cashed out of one that would have paid £38k on Bet3p for 11.5K before the last leg. (which was unplaced).

Over 40 years I am not doubt a big loser but have probably recouped a fair amount over the last 15 odd years.

If they cannot take my bets which are purely based on form and experience then they really should not be able to hold a licence. I could explicity prove no inside knowledge from any source whatsoever.

The Management21 Feb 21 16:00Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 4,585 | Blogger: The Management's blog
It beats moaning that your account has been restricted - but then siding with the people that restricted your account when it looks like some of their more insidious practices might get restricted.BlushLaugh

I love that you still can't see the connection between them discovering free money elsewhere and restricting accounts.

Spot on. The availability of guaranteed risk free income from casinos, slots etc has turned the "bookmakers" heads. No need to worry about traditional bookmaking and bookmaking techniques. Easier to just isolate all those who show ANY discipline or skill in their punting and limit them to nothing or peanuts. Not sure tbh if they have wherewithal to revert....

Piece by Lee Mottershead in the RP today making comparisons with Australia, and how when 'our' bookies entered their markets and tried to restrict winning punters they "became figures of derision" and state racing authorities soon intervened to make it a condition of their licences that they would have to abide by the same minimum bet rules that apply to on course bookies.

Obviously the BHA don't have such powers, but Mottershead argues they should be asking a question and suggests perhaps through racecourses they offer "some sort of partnership or kitemark model".

TRUSTY,

My sincere apologies.

Point taken.

parispike-

You could look at it the other way round. The only reason that bookmakers are able to offer prices on every low-grade race, as well as loss-leaders like BOG, enhanced place terms etc., is precisely because they have those other guaranteed sources of income (slots, casino, and so on).

Without the incentive of luring in as many customers as possible, on the assumption that some of them prove big enough mugs to migrate to their online casino, they wouldn't be offering prices which require them to ban the shrewdies in the first place.

I mean, what were bookmakers like before Gordon Brown changed the tax structure to one which enabled Betfair to rise, along  with FOBTs and so on? Bookies offered SP-only on everything but the group races and the equivalent of 0-80 handicaps. Sellers, 0-60s etc.? Forget it. SP only.

So, if you regulated online casinos out of the equation, you wouldn't find bookies suddenly taking all your bets at early prices on the 11.30 at Southwell. They simply wouldn't offer those prices in the first place. Why would they? There would be no incentive to compete with each other to lure in punters on low-margin horse-racing business, because they'd have no guaranteed-margin casino business to try to move them to later on in the day.

exactly

Another reason was the original one for bookmakers when they first introduced early prices and that was to get their cards marked early.

Those are fair points sfbtw but I'd retort that if the bookmaker chooses to offer early prices then there should be a mandated minimum to which they must lay them to any customer. Not an unlimited amount but what (and clearly the figure would vary by race/time before event) could be considered as reasonable.

If they choose not to offer early prices, fine. I'm not trying to suggest they should be forced to.

Australia seems to manage with that model.

Screaming - I respect your knowledge as a punter but your 11:03 post is just factually and (especially) chronologically inaccurate.

Bookmakers are way past using horse racing offers as "loss leaders" in the hope that they recoup their "losses" in the through-flow to casino & slots. Your chronology is just wrong - There was a period of time prior to on-line casino & slot games emerging where all races were early priced and BOG etc. Because betting on horses enjoyed a brief spell where (slots & casinos still didn't yet exist) but widespread access to the internet had made it a competitive business (which was good for the punter).

Online slots and casinos only came along a few years later. So I would concede that horse-racing was then at that point in time (at the very beginning of online slots & casinos) briefly used as a "gateway" product for online casinos and slots. But it is so cut-throat competitive and so lucrative that it has developed at a break-neck pace - The days of using a "gateway" are gone already - the focus is now (and has been for some time) on attracting people (that are new to gambling) quickly and directly to where they want them to be - straight to slots & casino games.

Even when the "gateway" strategy was in operation - horse racing very quickly dropped out of even the top 5 of the "gateway" products that bookmakers would use to lure the fresh meat into their on-line casinos & slots, because they had already realised there was a much bigger audience out there! 

Their new target audience (and the wave of new problem gamblers) have nothing like the socioeconomic profile of the traditional problem gambler (horses & dogs, cash, betting shop, male, middle aged, low income). I know it's hard to swallow for a couple of old fossils like us - but the reality is that horse racing was (and still is) way down the list of "trigger products" being used to relentlessly target a completely different and much broader demographic - specifically young people and women. The sad fact of the matter is that horse racing (the traditional home for problem gamblers and addicts) is now only a tiny slice of the problem gambler pie - because it has no relevance whatsoever to most "new gamblers", young people or women either as a spectacle or as a betting medium.

Any argument that on-line slots and casino games have helped or have somehow subsidised horse racing bettors is simply factually and chronologically inaccurate. The (very brief) golden window for horse racing punters was actually just before the emergence of FOBT's, slots & casinos.

If someone is clearing four figures or more on a regular basis fair enough, but I suspect that isn't happening.

There should be a reasonable figure you can win before you get banned/restricted.

It is ridiculous that you can get banned on the expectation that you might win. 

Restricting any single bets under £20 is ridiculous and just shouldn't happen.

Also if you get restricted it seems the situation doesn't get reviewed even if you go from a winning account to a losing one. How much do  you have to lose?

I don't think it is winning/losing per se.  It is what you bet on and when you bet, eg as I said above: If you stick to horses and only bet when the firms prices are competitive, you are 100% going to be restricted and banned from BOG and offers.

It all comes down to whether they would choose to offer early prices if forced to lay them to all comers to any worthwhile amount.

I wouldn't!

Sparrow - Yes, that was the original purpose, to get their cards marked. But that's become irrelevant since the rise of this place. It marks their card for free at no risk. In any case, arbitrage ensures that whatever information a bookie thinks he has, the price is going to close to the one on here in any case, so they might as well just follow the prices on here and avoid getting caught out.

differentdrum - that's about right. With the abundance of "free money" available to them from on-line slots and casinos, they have become more and more risk averse.

Prior to the "free money" (slots and casinos) - you had to actually win a few quid before you got closed down or restricted.

Now - you just need to look like you might not lose at the required rate! - getting closed down because of iesnare software, etc, i.e. They can see (before you have a single bet that you use oddschecker, other books or the exchange. They can also tell that you don't use casinos & slots! (before you have had a bet).

Lots of tales emerging in recent years of - open a new account - make a deposit - try to place first ever bet - refused!

Why bother with the side of your business that returns a (high cost & high maintenance) low % profit - when you have low cost & low maintenance free money on the other side of your business?

I have no problem being banned from BOG and "offers" dave, however the situation has gone much further than that hasn't it.

Max Stake £1.28 on a 10/1 poke for example....

The Management - The original purpose of early prices on all races for the likes of Sean Graham was indeed to get their cards marked, but that's now irrelevant. Then came the early online heroes, such as Luvbet, who offered early prices on every race because they thought they could win by doing so.

They didn't.

So, what is the reason for offering them now? I can't see any reason other than as a gateway to appear competitive, and get punters to open accounts for other purposes. Beyond that, unless the punter is an idiot (and slots and casinos is about the best possible way of confirming that fact and taking advantage of it), then he's not going to get those early prices to any reasonable amount. Why should he?

@parispike It's all part of the same profiling, they never tell you that your are restricted, but once you get the "offers/bog" email you will find you are limited.

Much further.....I was offered 73p only on a selection in the Derby, on the day of the race after 10AM!

sfbtw - no I wouldn't lay early prices either. But o/c corporates choose to. Their decision - but they are being shielded from the consequences of that  decision by being allowed to apply totally unrealistic restrictions - allowed by the supine Gambling Commission whose remit is supposed to include keeping gambling "fair". How can it be fair to be allowed to operate a model where only losing punters are allowed to get any kind of bet on?

Reading the list of people having difficulty getting bets on, it really does bring to light the easy time we have allowed them these last 20 years or so. Maybe we can get Lee to highlight the problems here now that they have sorted the Aussie one out ,don't hold your breath...This is a chance for the POST to show some guts...

I'm just stating the facts screaming - the days of getting somebody to join your on-line slots and casino club via a spell on the horses first are long gone. Horses are completely irrelevant to their new target audience. They got all of that (racing) custom & money many years ago. They aren't offering early prices/BOG to lure old men onto the roulette anymore!

It's a completely different target audience and much more brazen and direct now.

workrider22 Feb 21 13:59Joined: 29 Jun 02 | Topic/replies: 29,882 | Blogger: workrider's blog
This is a chance for the POST to show some guts...

I love your fighting spirit - but the Racing Post are part of the problem, not the solution!

the dealer • February 21, 2021 1:46 PM GMT
Restricted accounts probably represent if lucky, maybe 1% of their business

Well technically that is probably correct if you think about it, if all  you can bet on restricted accounts is 73p maybe £2 then as a percentage of their business it probably is 1% of the actual turnover though they put it as though only 1% of accounts are restricted which is ridiculous.

The Management , don't I know I was trying to shame them .

I suppose it begs the question was Lee reading this thread...

Assume he has as think he's still in the naps competition although don't recollect him posting on this forum for some time.

Nice to see he has "gone rogue" - but it's all a bit late in the day.

BF Sportsbook still guaranteed to lay any horse to lose £500 on the day of the race I thought?