PUNTER GETS GUBBED FOR 2.2K BY GEOFF BANKS!!!!

Geoff Banks
@geoffbanksbet
·
23m
We lay a fair dog bet every day. If this fellah had stood alone to win his 30 grand- no issue raised. But greed is a powerful vice

so it's £30K, not £2K?

cant possibly see how he can get out of not paying in a court.

im assuming the collusion amounted to 30k.

2K , 3 out of 4 copped.

30K = Total if 4 copped I believe.

600 odd bob per person

No, it's 2 grand. He sounds a disingenuous toerag tbh.

I agree with Rico pay up Geoff
as for protecting other customers whatever that means Geoff dont worry we love seeing other customers winning it is ok

why aint they got wotever procedures in place when the bet is placed?

Judging by this skullduggery,Geoff soon won't have any other customers to protect!

this sort of thing is happening all the time nice win then they have to jump through hoops to get what morally belongs to them
the little man against big companies emails pinging back and to every 4 to 10 days and the gambling commision do nothing

It's not exactly the Barney coup. C'mon Geoff, pay up with a smile.

must be in a desperate financial sitution to make a **** of himself for 2k.

Hi there Geoffy

I work for a the BBC and we are making a documentary about bookmakers being bent and not paying out cos they’ve done their dough in.

We’d love for you to participate. Maybe even headline?

Let know me sweetcheeks

Much love

@officialcafu and I xo

Rico-Dangleflaps06 Jan 22 21:55Joined: 07 Sep 18 | Topic/replies: 8,147 | Blogger: Rico-Dangleflaps's blog
must be in a desperate financial sitution to make a **** of himself for 2k.

Possibly true - but even if it's not true - it's what people will be thinking - in this day and age (twitter, etc) surely it does him more than £2k's worth of reputational damage.

elise 06 Jan 22 20:26
no idea on the real facts but to be fair to him he may know something he can't really stick out there re who was running the accounts, you'd need to hear his side i'd imagine

elise, he seems to be saying as much with this tweet:


Geoff Banks
@geoffbanksbet
·
2h
The intelligent person - in the absence of knowledge about a matter keeps his counsel and waits for the mini drama to play out

if the bet had lost the parasite would have kept the steak...needs dealt with..vermin.

Think Rentokill worth a buzz?

no..local shell garage.

Baldy tried the collusion malarkey when 3 punters all placed £1600 bets within 30 secs of each other on May 10th 2010, took a few years to sort but was thrown out. If Banks's business is registered in the UK it will take a lot less time to be thrown out.

It's all kicking off now

https://twitter.com/geoffbanksbet/status/1479231182021738501

* note, the post from the punter is 9 days old

he came across as a scrooge on betnation programme years ago,

2.2k isn't worth your reputation

Have I got this right ? He would lay a punter £x to lose £y but wouldn't lay a punter £3x to lose £3y.
If punter places a bet for £x and two random people also place a bet for £x then that's ok but if two connected people place a bet for £x that's not ok ?
Does it come down to a difference between two mates copying your bet for (say)  a fiver and copying your bet for  (say) £500 when their accounts show the maximum they ever bet is £50 and only in singles?

Do we know exactly what the email said, swaddle?

There does seem slightly more to this than I first thought. The link George posted clearly shows the punter goading him about how many accounts he has, and that he can’t handle ‘us’. It could be a total bluff by an angry punter who hasn’t been paid out, or goad from a punter who has been caught out and knows he isn’t getting paid.

One thing is for certain. These bets should be voided before a leg has ran if they think collusion has happened. Not taking the money, seeing how it pans out and scream foul play later on.

Agree, I doubt anyone betting in concert with others has ever had stakes returned after selections have got beat.

s.kenbo07 Jan 22 09:24Joined: 05 Aug 12 | Topic/replies: 19,264 | Blogger: s.kenbo's blog
One thing is for certain. These bets should be voided before a leg has ran if they think collusion has happened. Not taking the money, seeing how it pans out and scream foul play later on.

This is the bottom line (for me) - you either void the bets before the event or you pay with a smile. Trying to void them after the event (whether "collusion" is involved or not) and only after you know if they have won or lost, is the behaviour of a scumbag. It's despicable, dishonest and cowardly.

If you haven't clearly voided them before the hare is running on the first selection you need to pay - otherwise you are just a low life welch imo and there isn't any circumstance, excuse or rule that can alter that after the results are known.

Jan 6, 2022 -- 8:35PM, Rico-Dangleflaps wrote:

pay him a visit..plenty ways to disrupt a cosy life...amazing what 2 quids worth of shell power can achieve.

you sure? thats not even a litre's worth is it?

Yep agree with the above, can see after George has found that bit of evidence there is an argument should be voided for collusion, but do it before the first leg ffs when you have 4h to do it.

you sure? thats not even a litre's worth is it?

you can set the world on fire with a thimblefull of v power.

brass neck not paying a punter , all over betting forums , now court

come back johny power

what if a group of 4 mates go the races.

1 of them follows horse racing and 3 dont.

The 3 decide to copy the bets of the horse racing fan as they have no clue. So they all do a £1ew Lucky 15 and £10ew on all the selections.

Is that collusion?

Hornets nest here. Bookies lay a bet they pay out.

They've a right to refuse any wager, but not after they've won ffs.

It’s one way to get out of a winning Pricewise multi!

I think Banks used to post on here under the name of " Bet Editor " . !!!

Yes he was on here regularly years ago.

posts on here as sportsadvisor I listen to a podcast he is on I think he said he got a great multiple bet up with betfair but fell out with the company since over something so probably cannot post.

bally , betfair didn't allow him to use commas on his threads so he stopped posting

Geoff Banks
@geoffbanksbet
·
8h
If certain Betfair forum escapees cannot accept we behaved reasonably, we would point out the various individuals involved with perming 5 dogs to win in excess of 200 grand is not something we could 'allow to continue'
Difficult decisions have to be taken to protect our service.

You mean, people have been known to escape from here?

Geoff Banks
@geoffbanksbet
·
8h
get back to the forum

I think Geoff has read this thread and he's clearly not happy with you lot.

various individuals involved with perming 5 dogs

is this practice illegal?

Geoffrey's a sore looser ... pay up maggot

Rico-Dangleflaps 08 Jan 22 21:31 
various individuals involved with perming 5 dogs

is this practice illegal?

......................

Only after they've won.

  If certain Betfair forum escapees cannot accept we behaved reasonably, we would point out the various individuals involved with perming 5 dogs to win in excess of 200 grand is not something we could 'allow to continue'

   
  WALOFS,  Whats the difference between this case and the b/f forumite winning 200k+ in multiple bets the other

  week, either dont take the bets or Pay Up with a smile.

Geoff thinks we're all as daft as the complete mugs he allows to gamble with him. 

waited to see if one of them would lose, then threw his toys out the pram when they all won.

jog on Geoffrey.

Geoffs on the Barstewards Enquiry podcast this Sunday night and will be discussing the issue might be worth a listen

Do we know any facts about this yet?

As already mentioned, there’s nothing wrong with perming selections. I’m pretty sure Geoff or any other bookmaker are rubbing their hands together when punters do these bets. It’s a big outlay for either a small return, or even no return. Of course sometimes they may land a big one, but if they’ve paid their money…..

Also, Geoff, have you ever voided losing bets of a similar ilk before, and returned their money? Of course you haven’t.

Must've sent an awful lot of e mails out on Frankie's Ascot day for that nationwide collusion.

TBF, this does sound a bit more organised than that.

As we all already know, bookmakers only really want people playing with them who don't actually know what the prices should be.  Laying multiples at value prices can get very expensive indeed.

That said, if you accept the bet and haven't voided it by the time the first selection has run, you really should just be paying out with a smile.

agree he is entitled to refuse the bet but once the first runner has run you have laid the bet....pay up Geoff

Well if he still has his betfair account and is not happy with the forum comments he could come on here and state his side of the case.

F me. I've threw my line out there Geoff and recieved a fairly large nibble.

PAY UP!!!

In all seriousness though I will be intrigued to see what he has to say on that Podcast.

When it first came out I was 100% on side of punter, now I reckon he should get paid, but the punter isnt blameless.

Seems he hsant posted for a few years, even then it seems he was endorsing restrictions, ... have just put it to the top.

Trying to think what he could possibly say in a podcast, that would change the view that he is a welch. I cannot think of anything - because this still stands:

The Management07 Jan 22 10:32Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 6,633 | Blogger: The Management's blog
This is the bottom line (for me) - you either void the bets before the event or you pay with a smile. Trying to void them after the event (whether "collusion" is involved or not) and only after you know if they have won or lost, is the behaviour of a scumbag. It's despicable, dishonest and cowardly.

If you haven't clearly voided them before the hare is running on the first selection you need to pay - otherwise you are just a low life welch imo and there isn't any circumstance, excuse or rule that can alter that after the results are known.

I don't have a good opinion of so-called "bookmakers" that restrict accounts - but at least you know where you stand with them and they refuse your bets i.e. They are scared of you and have no confidence in their own ability to make a book or to manage their position.

That's completely different to accepting a bet (because you failed to notice you wanted to restrict them before the bet was placed) and then refusing to pay on a bet that you have accepted.

The liability is irrelevant - most multiples (if they were successful) have a big liability. The argument that he is protecting his business for the sake of other punters is also laughable - he is protecting himself and only himself.

Yep agree he should be paid on the basis he waited to see if it won.

There has been the suggestion though, that this wasnt the case.

Lets see what he says.

Life is too short, to listen to every whinging small time bookie out there imo - and I don't agree that he should even be given that outlet or the air-time - what outlet does the punter have?

It's cut and dried - he's already said he had some "big reveal" and people judging him were jumping the gun - but everything he has revealed thus far has just confirmed he is a welch imo.

If bets are accepted in shop by being put through the till system or through it being clicked through online, these are then the responsibility of the bookmaker. Say there were various bets ( that he had decided to take )in Yankees or such like where the first one won , he can then start to back the remaining picks to give himself cover . Any decent bookie knows his liabilities during the course of a racing day.If ofcourse he decides that some of his punters may know more than him , he has the option to back the picks for himself and cover the cost of his payout at the same time . There is no way on this earth a bookie should be able under any circumstances wait to see if the first one wins , and then decide he wants to scrap the bets.    As yet i havnt learnt the full circumstances on this case so will be very interested to hear of the outcome.

the circumstances are irrelevant imo...bet was accepted therefore stand it.

The "bets placed at same time" is no longer value.  Online, you know and can compare bets within a fraction of a second, software can detect same bets and also compute liabilities immediately.

All this information available to the bookie after first bet was placed.

william wallace/braveheart/battle field

WAIT WAIT

geoff banks HALF a mile from battlefield

just waiting to see who loses

Mug punter places multiple bets , bets cop , mug bookie cries foul and refuses to pay out . mug bookie losses court case pays up through clenched teeth.

I don't think the punter is a mug - also don't think GB is a mug - but hopefully you got the ending right!

cough up jefff

listen to the barstewards enquiry podcast geoffs on interesting show
it is available now

Anyone else get this from the interview...

"Originally the system did flag the bet up" - A FAULT AND PURELY A FAULT THAT LIES WITH BANKS.

……..But I thought I’d take the bet on….Then flag it up as collusion if it win!

from the interview what you would take is never get an account with geoff banks seems way to much like hard work

He does mention he noticed the forum

Says anyone that posts here is cowardly and anoymous, so I tried to tweet him and tell him who I was, see if it helps.

asking for bank statements when the first won and was even was going down the route of asking for his mobile phone records but thought that was a bit to intrusive ffs

To insult everyone who posts on here JB is further bad form from your goodself. As i am quite sure you may well read the reaction to the interview on here , i would just like to inform you that you came across as absolute schmuck of the highest order. Previous to any of the dogs running i think you would have every right to do as you wish , but ofcourse once one of them had won it looks horrendous on your part to cancel the bet. Actually totally ridiculous.

Hindsight is great but this bet should have been paid out for the bits that had won at the time of email.

If the system is not in place handle "small" liabilites that is the fault surely of the bookmaker, £23 @ 9/2 or whatever it was at the time of suspension email should have been paid out. If he wants to remove the rest of the bet for me thats poor form but so be it, thats about as fair as you can get, for me personally.

He keeps hiding behind IBAS - any idiot knows that this lot are not fit for purpose, including himself, that is probably fairly intelligant.

The main bit that doesn't stack up is where he says the system didn't flag the bets up until after the first had won, and then swears (100%) that if the first three bets had lost, the accounts would have been closed and stakes would have been returned.  From what he says, he (and the rest of his traders) would have still be none the wiser that they'd been placed to begin with!

didn't like the people guy who won so decided not to pay up, a total piece of s hit who should be banned from bookmaking, k unt

I made a claim against him in 2010, when one of his tweed & twill mix suits from Debenhams perished at the area where the legs join the torso.

, and then swears (100%) that if the first three bets had lost, the accounts would have been closed and stakes would have been returned.


   

-The first 3 bets won and he got a proof of funding request? (22.40 on the poddy)

https://twitter.com/geoffbanksbet/status/1480301167469121537


1 minute on why consumers should oppose big betting companies

Force them to resist affordability checks. Not profit by them

?????

Geoff's a small time maggot, relying on price insensitive mugs.  lay you anything you want so long as he can get rid of it on here.

can't get rid, shrewdie alert. 
can't get rid again, red flag.
can't get rid again, max take out 10 pence & send email.

15/8 ?  hang on ....... 3.45 here.  you're on for the lot.




ya, mug.

vermin.

Geoff Banks 2018 'Customers widely reporting of account ‘restrictions’ in their betting. Odds being advertised, yet no mandate to lay those odds?  Accounts with restrictions been kept open, in deference to share values, yet enquiries for wagers being met with responses offering £0. No explanations for these restrictions. No action from the regulator to ensure betting behemoths actually do what they say on their tins. If you advertise a price, you surely have to lay that price to all?

Where in the Gambling Commission’s drive on bookmaker’s ‘terms and conditions’ is their focus on actually ‘laying a bet’ as part of their conditions of licensing?

https://geoffbanksracing.com/2018/02/07/the-marketing-arm-of-betting/ here is article

all the same arnt they...losers accomodated..winners int.

TTT

Good spot Glasgow   

Bookie looks for sympathy now....

... Not sure how this ended up and I am not a user of "x". If anyone knows can you let us know, Ta.

cheers for reporting this

reposting

DEFCON [1]09 Jan 22 22:08Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 102 | Blogger: DEFCON [1]'s blog
I made a claim against him in 2010, when one of his tweed & twill mix suits from Debenhams perished at the area where the legs join the torso.



   

did GEOFF BANKS and GREG WOOD write an article in the guardian/racing post   that the bond between BOOKMAKERS and PUNTERS had been broken after this episode ?

Absolutely incredible, an old thread brought back by someone other than Rico.
How did you search for it GC, my search facility and others doesn't work anymore.

Stewarts there was a link to it on the other Banks thread.

Thank you GC.

Carma

Banksy should have listened to Lennon   

Instant karma's gonna get you
Gonna knock you right on the head
You better get yourself together
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead
What in the world you thinking of?
Laughing in the face of love
What on earth you tryin' to do?
It's up to you, yeah you
Instant karma's gonna get you
Gonna look you right in the face
Better get yourself together darlin'
Join the human race
How in the world you gonna see
Laughin' at fools like me?
Who in the hell'd you think you are?
A superstar?
Well, right you are
Well, we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well, we all shine on
Everyone come on