Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Thought I’d pass on the most recent update from ATR. “An ultra-low latency stream is something that we are looking at and which we’re having to do with our partners in Greece, who distribute our pictures for us globally.
To manage expectations, however, I don’t think this is something that we’ll be able to launch shortly, I’m afraid. I appreciate the frustration, but as I’m sure you’ll understand, given such a service has to be of guaranteed speed and quality for all of our customers worldwide and, importantly, involves third party licensees, it is not a simple solution for us to rollout.”
Racing TV successfully produced their 0.5 latency stream for most UK tracks, obviously the pictures from Ireland are disappointingly a little slower at over 1s behind. As most people have realised over the course of the summer months is that drones continue to rule because of their angle. RMG asked me to make a submission to Racing PLC that would allow them to utilise drone pics and/or more side on cameras, I’m hopeful that will come at some point but I doubt it will be in the short term.
Drones are set to be discussed in parliament at some point in the future, currently awaiting a date for a private members bill.
So maybe one day we will see racing providing a level playing field, but I doubt it will be imminent. So, with the help of a fellow in runner, we have decided to try and create our own level playing field which will be available to anyone that is interested.
I’ve been involved in this project for a few weeks now, and what a refreshing change it is to be able to bet on level terms. It’s allowed me to put far more liquidity into the markets, rather than messing around here and there for a few pounds. As I said, this is available to anyone who wants to bet on level terms. Anyone interested please send me a DM or contact me via @boots111 on Twitter.
To manage expectations, however, I don’t think this is something that we’ll be able to launch shortly, I’m afraid. I appreciate the frustration, but as I’m sure you’ll understand, given such a service has to be of guaranteed speed and quality for all of our customers worldwide and, importantly, involves third party licensees, it is not a simple solution for us to rollout.”
Racing TV successfully produced their 0.5 latency stream for most UK tracks, obviously the pictures from Ireland are disappointingly a little slower at over 1s behind. As most people have realised over the course of the summer months is that drones continue to rule because of their angle. RMG asked me to make a submission to Racing PLC that would allow them to utilise drone pics and/or more side on cameras, I’m hopeful that will come at some point but I doubt it will be in the short term.
Drones are set to be discussed in parliament at some point in the future, currently awaiting a date for a private members bill.
So maybe one day we will see racing providing a level playing field, but I doubt it will be imminent. So, with the help of a fellow in runner, we have decided to try and create our own level playing field which will be available to anyone that is interested.
I’ve been involved in this project for a few weeks now, and what a refreshing change it is to be able to bet on level terms. It’s allowed me to put far more liquidity into the markets, rather than messing around here and there for a few pounds. As I said, this is available to anyone who wants to bet on level terms. Anyone interested please send me a DM or contact me via @boots111 on Twitter.
Show More
level playing field? have you got softwear that bypasses the 1 sec delay?
or more likely you're sub selling drone pics? which is it martin?
An ultra-low latency stream is something that we are looking at and which we’re having to do with our partners in Greece, who distribute our pictures for us globally
taking back control
taking back control
Nov 8, 2021 -- 7:18AM, dave1357 wrote:
An ultra-low latency stream is something that we are looking at and which we’re having to do with our partners in Greece, who distribute our pictures for us globallytaking back control
An IT partner in the UK or Gibraltar circa £80k, or an IT partner in Greece circa £30k.
Which would you choose? 
Sorry, better swap Malta for Gibraltar, I had forgotten we had moved... 
good luck with it thebootman
what is it that RTV can do that ATR can't ?
just BS as usual
what is it that RTV can do that ATR can't ?
just BS as usual
what is it that RTV can do that ATR can't ?
atr just procrastinate for their own agenda.
atr just procrastinate for their own agenda.
atr or skysports are pulling your plonker martin they have purposedly delayed pics for 20 years they have absolutely no interest in a level playing field it is just total spin
if hbf wanted to do something useful you should have been all over this intrusive affordability check nonsense like a rash from day one what is your teams stance on this?
if hbf wanted to do something useful you should have been all over this intrusive affordability check nonsense like a rash from day one what is your teams stance on this?
no probs with the affordability check from me..gambling ruined plenty peoples lifes.
rico I suppose you have an account manager whO can jump through hoops to sort your account out rico lots of customers even if they are winners dont I think it inconvenient illogical bowlarks for alot
never spoke to one for yrs and have no intention of.
worthless.
worthless.
Nov 8, 2021 -- 7:11AM, bettinghelp wrote:
A GPS bot has been launched today.
Fair play to anyone using a GPS bot but it's not for me. I went to meet with TPD at Newcastle last year, it's an impressive product they have, but on what was a windy night, some of the horses were showing as being in the Border Minstrel, not sure how you can bet in running using that data.
Nov 8, 2021 -- 8:04AM, ballyregan wrote:
atr or skysports are pulling your plonker martin they have purposedly delayed
Not sure where my reply went to Ballyregan re affordability checks and to save typing it all again I'll summarise. It is something the HBF take very seriously, it will massively impact racing if a low limit is imposed.
The HBF provided a 20 page submission to the Government’s Gambling Act review, a similarly detailed response to the Gambling Commission’s consultation on remote customer interaction and the proposal to introduce affordability checks for deposits of £100 a month. Last week we wrote to the Information Commissioner’s Office regards the Single Customer View initiative that is being proposed and today wrote to Chis Philip MP in reply to his views on SCV.
Back in May on the back of a number of Betfair customers having low limits imposed on their accounts I asked the Post to ask questions. This led to the following article:-
Betfair punters have hit out at "intrusive" affordability checks claiming the exchange has requested information on where winnings have been spent as well as detailed documentation on income before lifting restrictions placed on accounts.
The level of information required from Betfair has turned some users away from betting, primarily on horseracing. One punter said the extent of the information being sought made the experience more invasive than applying for a mortgage.
Betfair are the latest bookmaker reported to be pre-emptively imposing affordability checks on their customers, despite the fact a controversial recent Gambling Commission consultation on the subject – which attracted a record number of responses – has yet to yield any official regulatory changes.
Lee Keys, a professional punter and Betfair user since 2003, said he received an email from the company "out of the blue" a month ago informing him an affordability restriction had been placed after he had made a number of deposits due to "a bad run".
Keys, who says his net winnings on the exchange are £700,000 and that he has previously been through stringent Know Your Customer checks, said: "With betting on Betfair being my living I reluctantly agreed to give them documentation. They asked for proof of funds – home ownership, land ownership, assets etc, bank statements – and I provided a bank statement and a share statement.
"I told them that across the board I earned £115,000 last year and they then asked where the £115,000 profit had gone, which is when I told them that enough was enough.
"What I didn't like is that they wanted more and that, to me, is a bit sinister. Why didn't they want that in the first place? Why would I provide details of my current and share accounts but then they want to see where the money I made went as well? I'm not having any of that."
He added: "If this is what you have to do to have a bet then how many people are going to go through this? I've been asked less intrusive questions when I've gone for a mortgage and it's absolutely ludicrous."
Another casual Betfair Exchange punter who spoke to the Racing Post said he was planning to rein back his betting on horseracing, which accounted for 90 per cent of his bets, after he was restricted to depositing no more than £1,500 a month.
In emails shared with the Racing Post, the user is told by Betfair's due diligence department that the restrictions will remain in place unless "a full explanation as to how you are funding your account (eg salary or other income) along with documentation that illustrates this" and "a copy of a bank statement dated within the last three months (name and address must also be clearly visible)" are provided, which the user has refused to do due to the nature of his full-time job.
Having informed Betfair that the deposits being made were from previous winnings and providing details of the account used on the exchange, the customer was then told he would need to show bank statements going back many months to prove that was the case.
An email from a senior Betfair employee to the user said: "I acknowledge that your account is in a profitable position over a longer term period, but in order to revert to your previous limits, we would need to gain comfort that your recent activity was funded by your previous winnings or that you have access to sufficient income/funds that would support a higher limit."
A spokesman for Betfair said: "There are multiple reasons we would ask customers for additional information. As a responsible gambling operator, Betfair has a range of controls in place to protect our customers and to ensure we meet our legal and regulatory obligations.
"We can't comment on individual cases but as part of the controls and processes we have in place to protect our customers and meet our obligations we may require an extra level of information from customers to ensure their activity is appropriate.
"Where we do request this information, customers can be assured we will deal with this information securely, discretely and in as swift a timeframe as possible."
Customer interaction, which closed in Febuary, included a proposal that a monthly net gambling loss of as little as £100 would mean punters would have to prove their income in order to continue to bet.
This has caused huge concern for British racing's leadership, who fear the sport could lose upwards of £60 million a year from lost levy and media rights income if punters are put off by intrusive questions about their finances.
A report by the Daily Telegraph last week claimed the Gambling Commission would not be allowed to act unilaterally on affordability checks, with the findings of its consultation being considered as part of the government's wider gambling review and the likelihood being that affordability checks would be watered down or shelved altogether.
However, in the meantime many punters have reported that bookmakers have already introduced often intrusive affordability checks.
In March, the Horseracing Bettors Forum said it had been contacted by several punters because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.
Colin Hord, chairman of the Horseracing Bettors Forum, said: "We've responded to both consultations on affordability checks the Gambling Commission raised and also the Gambling Act review which we included some statements on affordability checks. Both times we've made the case that these checks need to be proportionate and should not be unnecessarily intrusive into people's financial affairs.
"There's a reasonableness that needs to be maintained. With Betfair we also want to ensure that people's previous betting history is taken into account and we've seen that quite a number of bettors have profitable accounts but run into losing runs and their profitability is not being taken into account when undertaking the affordability checks.
"Our concern is the level of intrusiveness and the level of information that's having to be provided."
He added: "The other thing worth raising is what qualification do the people within these bookmaking companies have to make the assessment that these people are or are not to continue gambling? That works both ways, because you can argue they'd be keen to keep people betting but in other respects they're cautious about who they're letting continue and who not."
Entain has also launched checks across all of its 14 brands as part of an initiative designed to identify customers in the UK at the greatest risk of potential financial problems, and to implement staking limits and tighter affordability checks.
The HBF provided a 20 page submission to the Government’s Gambling Act review, a similarly detailed response to the Gambling Commission’s consultation on remote customer interaction and the proposal to introduce affordability checks for deposits of £100 a month. Last week we wrote to the Information Commissioner’s Office regards the Single Customer View initiative that is being proposed and today wrote to Chis Philip MP in reply to his views on SCV.
Back in May on the back of a number of Betfair customers having low limits imposed on their accounts I asked the Post to ask questions. This led to the following article:-
Betfair punters have hit out at "intrusive" affordability checks claiming the exchange has requested information on where winnings have been spent as well as detailed documentation on income before lifting restrictions placed on accounts.
The level of information required from Betfair has turned some users away from betting, primarily on horseracing. One punter said the extent of the information being sought made the experience more invasive than applying for a mortgage.
Betfair are the latest bookmaker reported to be pre-emptively imposing affordability checks on their customers, despite the fact a controversial recent Gambling Commission consultation on the subject – which attracted a record number of responses – has yet to yield any official regulatory changes.
Lee Keys, a professional punter and Betfair user since 2003, said he received an email from the company "out of the blue" a month ago informing him an affordability restriction had been placed after he had made a number of deposits due to "a bad run".
Keys, who says his net winnings on the exchange are £700,000 and that he has previously been through stringent Know Your Customer checks, said: "With betting on Betfair being my living I reluctantly agreed to give them documentation. They asked for proof of funds – home ownership, land ownership, assets etc, bank statements – and I provided a bank statement and a share statement.
"I told them that across the board I earned £115,000 last year and they then asked where the £115,000 profit had gone, which is when I told them that enough was enough.
"What I didn't like is that they wanted more and that, to me, is a bit sinister. Why didn't they want that in the first place? Why would I provide details of my current and share accounts but then they want to see where the money I made went as well? I'm not having any of that."
He added: "If this is what you have to do to have a bet then how many people are going to go through this? I've been asked less intrusive questions when I've gone for a mortgage and it's absolutely ludicrous."
Another casual Betfair Exchange punter who spoke to the Racing Post said he was planning to rein back his betting on horseracing, which accounted for 90 per cent of his bets, after he was restricted to depositing no more than £1,500 a month.
In emails shared with the Racing Post, the user is told by Betfair's due diligence department that the restrictions will remain in place unless "a full explanation as to how you are funding your account (eg salary or other income) along with documentation that illustrates this" and "a copy of a bank statement dated within the last three months (name and address must also be clearly visible)" are provided, which the user has refused to do due to the nature of his full-time job.
Having informed Betfair that the deposits being made were from previous winnings and providing details of the account used on the exchange, the customer was then told he would need to show bank statements going back many months to prove that was the case.
An email from a senior Betfair employee to the user said: "I acknowledge that your account is in a profitable position over a longer term period, but in order to revert to your previous limits, we would need to gain comfort that your recent activity was funded by your previous winnings or that you have access to sufficient income/funds that would support a higher limit."
A spokesman for Betfair said: "There are multiple reasons we would ask customers for additional information. As a responsible gambling operator, Betfair has a range of controls in place to protect our customers and to ensure we meet our legal and regulatory obligations.
"We can't comment on individual cases but as part of the controls and processes we have in place to protect our customers and meet our obligations we may require an extra level of information from customers to ensure their activity is appropriate.
"Where we do request this information, customers can be assured we will deal with this information securely, discretely and in as swift a timeframe as possible."
Customer interaction, which closed in Febuary, included a proposal that a monthly net gambling loss of as little as £100 would mean punters would have to prove their income in order to continue to bet.
This has caused huge concern for British racing's leadership, who fear the sport could lose upwards of £60 million a year from lost levy and media rights income if punters are put off by intrusive questions about their finances.
A report by the Daily Telegraph last week claimed the Gambling Commission would not be allowed to act unilaterally on affordability checks, with the findings of its consultation being considered as part of the government's wider gambling review and the likelihood being that affordability checks would be watered down or shelved altogether.
However, in the meantime many punters have reported that bookmakers have already introduced often intrusive affordability checks.
In March, the Horseracing Bettors Forum said it had been contacted by several punters because of checks requested by the Tote, where a low-level trigger of £750 in total deposits appears to have been introduced.
Colin Hord, chairman of the Horseracing Bettors Forum, said: "We've responded to both consultations on affordability checks the Gambling Commission raised and also the Gambling Act review which we included some statements on affordability checks. Both times we've made the case that these checks need to be proportionate and should not be unnecessarily intrusive into people's financial affairs.
"There's a reasonableness that needs to be maintained. With Betfair we also want to ensure that people's previous betting history is taken into account and we've seen that quite a number of bettors have profitable accounts but run into losing runs and their profitability is not being taken into account when undertaking the affordability checks.
"Our concern is the level of intrusiveness and the level of information that's having to be provided."
He added: "The other thing worth raising is what qualification do the people within these bookmaking companies have to make the assessment that these people are or are not to continue gambling? That works both ways, because you can argue they'd be keen to keep people betting but in other respects they're cautious about who they're letting continue and who not."
Entain has also launched checks across all of its 14 brands as part of an initiative designed to identify customers in the UK at the greatest risk of potential financial problems, and to implement staking limits and tighter affordability checks.
thanks for the detailed response sorry for the earlier negative reply regarding atr skysports but they have delayed the pics for 19 years hopefully one day you can gain definitive progress and they will sort it , re affordability checks it will be an illogical intrusive nightmare for so many and it is great that you are onto it the best you can thankyou, I think it will ruin the huge majority of customers experiences, recreational time and put them off horse racing for good a bit sad really.
No probs with the affordability check from me..gambling ruined plenty peoples lifes.
What should be addressed as a matter of urgency is firms closing/restricting winning accounts and only allowing addicted mug punters to bet.
Ignore peoples claims of winnings,97% of gamblers talk utter sh!te and 99%+ lose long term.
Everyone in the forum win and dont pay PC.
A polygraph unfortunately is essential these days.
What should be addressed as a matter of urgency is firms closing/restricting winning accounts and only allowing addicted mug punters to bet.
Ignore peoples claims of winnings,97% of gamblers talk utter sh!te and 99%+ lose long term.
Everyone in the forum win and dont pay PC.
A polygraph unfortunately is essential these days.
What should be addressed as a matter of urgency is firms closing/restricting winning accounts
if you bet a horse at 5/1 & it gets beat at 11/4 you don't have a 'winning account'. but you are still on their radar.
hth
if you bet a horse at 5/1 & it gets beat at 11/4 you don't have a 'winning account'. but you are still on their radar.
hth
I’m on PC charges but win a fraction of what you big boys earn but credit where credit is due for Bootmans relentless campaign to get an even playing field for everyone I’m going to give it a go and hopefully increase my profits nothing ventured nothing gained and both ATR and RTV (IRELAND) should be ashamed of themselves what they serve up to us and let’s not forget the courses who for years have dictated to the general public for tv pictures to be delayed to feed there own pockets and the BHA have gone along with this procedure but now all these companies and organisations are telling and enforcing safe gambling procedures laughable in my opinion but very easy to enforce once you have made your millions the more people who go along with Bootman the better it will become for all of us let’s rally together and give it a real go Kempton Newmarket won’t know what’s hit them lol
bf has evolved over the yrs..it will never be a fraction of what it was,EVER.
its been finely tuned into a highly efficient automated money making machine that has a considerable advantage.
it is what it is.
its been finely tuned into a highly efficient automated money making machine that has a considerable advantage.
it is what it is.
sounds like you think they're hard at it Rico. remember that next time i tell you who's moving the prices (not me) ...... 
thats just your supposition in fairness..
my £10 lay of the 2nd there at newc half a fur out and getting 37 bets matched from 75--1000 with 1 bet over 17p is factual.
my £10 lay of the 2nd there at newc half a fur out and getting 37 bets matched from 75--1000 with 1 bet over 17p is factual.
Lee Keys, a professional punter and Betfair user since 2003, said he received an email from the company "out of the blue" a month ago informing him an affordability restriction had been placed after he had made a number of deposits due to "a bad run".
.... I think i know him, is his nickname "Bucket". ?
.... I think i know him, is his nickname "Bucket". ?
Thanks for all the replies, more than I expected, hopefully I have now replied to everyone. If not or if anyone else is still interested then please get in touch.
Your flogging a dead horse with ATR. Please do not waste your time.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539