There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Sent an email to the MP responsible for gambling asking if is it fair the bookmakers will only take bets from people who lose.
I have said I just wanted to be treated fairly and asked how can it be right that punters who lose can bet as much as they like
yet if someone wins they will only let them bet pennies.
I have said I just wanted to be treated fairly and asked how can it be right that punters who lose can bet as much as they like
yet if someone wins they will only let them bet pennies.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 33
|
By:
Well done seaside. It might get you nowhere but doing nothing would have removed the "might". If we don;t try and make waves on this issue who will?
|
|
By:
gl see cyde..ive had $400 @4/5 that he replies foysdc.
|
|
By:
I’ve long wondered why this hasn’t been tested in court.
If a gay can set a trap by asking a cake maker to bake a cake advertising a subject the maker doesn’t agree to, then take them to court when they refuse, based on the laws of offering a business (or whatever law it is)…then the same must apply to a service that gets withdrawn to some while still offered to others, it’s prejudice and must be declared somewhere equally like the cake example, that if you are in business offering a service you can’t pick and choose who you give it to. There was for over a decade a practice of ‘tease and squeeze’ where enterprise offered a product only to new entrants that was subsidised by established customers, overtime regulators and the general public caught on about the practice and now it’s denigrated with service providers being pressed to stop the activity. |
|
By:
If a bookie runs a book they know exactly how much exposure they can offer.
The decision who they offer it to is questionable. Offering fools value as enticement is one thing, but blanket denial of service based on the fact they took previous prices and won should be a breach of license. |
|
By:
Bet 365 blocked my account by using the Responsible gambling criteria, Even though I proved I was a responsible gambler who occasional had winning bets. I had a good month and they found a way to block my account. I could not believe the interaction I had with them. It dawned on me they can now use this criteria to block whoever they want. I was very surprised with their attitude, they are scared stiff that the government will crack down on all bookies if they aren't seen to be actively blocking accounts.
|
|
By:
Agree with honchos post
|
|
By:
You may also point out to your mp the fact that uk racing is going to change for the worst next year to help increase bookmakers turnover.
|
|
By:
Which other business is expected to take custom which they believe will be unprofitable? I think there are a few exceptions for utilities and universal services like the post and basic bank accounts, but otherwise I cannot think of any.
|
|
By:
That’s a fair point longbridge but in the old days they gave you a fair crack now it seems just a couple of bets.
|
|
By:
jimnast - I guess that is just them getting better at spotting patterns?
|
|
By:
Yes technology has changed things so much ,onlooker will know you could do say 5 shops from the same firm if you thought they had priced one up to big and they wouldn’t know .
|
|
By:
Long ridge that’s not correct
The bookie offers the prices and turns people down simply on who they are. Is there a more clear cut evidence of prejudice? They should take as much as they can to satisfy the book, if they did that then people who won would still achieve bets on occasion. Instead of simply being closed down. What they actually do is entice people more inclined to lose, which is the very premise of the fight against them. |
|
By:
@dustybin -- your rant about gay cakes misses the fact that the bakers won that case in court.
|
|
By:
It went back and forth between various courts, but only ruled in favour of the Asher’s right not to be ‘forced to promote a belief or opinion they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with’…that has no defence here.
|
|
By:
Is the bookmaker offering a price not an invitation to treat? and when you ask to place the bet, the bookmaker will then either accept or reject.
That possibly doesn't explain why they close accounts but would explain why they can change the odds/stake for an individual. |
|
By:
I have had in one day from same company their responsible gaming team restrict me to deposit, basically saying they think i have a gambling problem, and the same day trading limits on account to make it unusable. Isn't this the point that they all miss that gmabling is wins and losses? All gamblers have losing spells. Its the equivalent of Warren Buffet having a few losing trades and saying hes an addict who shouldnt be allowed to trade anymore
|
|
By:
dusty - they turn people down on the basis they believe their custom will not be profitable. That's business. If they turned them down because of their race or gender or sexual orientation, that would be prejudice. And illegal.
|
|
By:
Where I believe the problem is is that bookies use the excuse to close people, in this I agree with those who attack bookies for their underhand tactics implicitly attempting to get addicts while pretending not to.
This is why it should be part of the licence. If bookies arn’t infact offering prices to make books but instead offering prices they can’t justify then it’s somewhere on the scale of false advertising. Ofc supermarkets can offer loss leaders to get people in the shops, but they can’t run a business appearing to be competitive by offering discounts they then pull at the checkout. |
|
By:
* supermarkets might stop people clearing the shelves like a cash and carry and opening up a shop of their own with the wholesale products
But they don’t restrict an individual to single teabags at the checkout just based on who they are. |
|
By:
It is happening in supermarkets now. Take the trouble to go and buy a half pound of Anchor butter. You won;t get it because they have reduced the size of the pack! Just like a bookie won;t take a bet but will offer a reduced stake. It is deplorable.
|
|
By:
When I get a reply I will let you know what he say's
I did say to him Equally and Fairly. |
|
By:
you should set up an account using the username "brexit_is_great". Not only will they think you are a mug, but if they do shut you down, you can whine that they are only doing it because they don't like your politics.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
any account closure should be accompanied with a reasonable explanation.
if you don't believe the explanation is reasonable enough - for example "traders decision" - you should be able to refer it to the Gambling Commission for further investigation if it turns out they're closing accounts without good reason - licence revoked |
|
By:
licensing objective -
ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way what part of only taking bets from people your algorithms have identified as complete mugs is conducting your business in a "fair and open way" ?? |
|
By:
"unfair and secretive way"
 |
|
By:
Anyone who complains about crooked books should open an account at pinnacle, one of the very few that won't restrict winners.
|
|
By:
fun fact, pinnacle used to offer horses years ago but had to shut it down since they can't ban winners and making correct odds for horses is impossible due to inside info
|
|
By:
pinny don't operate in the uk as not ukgc licensed.
|
|
By:
The flipside of factoring down winners[new accounts start at [1] if you are shrewd it could be [.001
 when your info is shared with other bookies] is that losers have, over the years, been given more leeway to place ever bigger bets.The biggest stake factor Rory [inside trader] recalled a customer being allotted was 40. “He’s allowed to lose 40 times what anyone else was and it was astronomical what he was punting. There was no conscience to it.” [says it all ]In response, Paddy Power said its safer gambling checks would always override stake-factoring decisions. All of the sources who spoke to the Guardian said stake factoring was increasingly automated at the more tech-savvy companies. This, they said, meant there should be fewer arbitrary decisions made by bookies playing it safe. Full article https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/19/stake-factoring-how-bookies-clamp-down-on-successful-gamblers |
|
By:
I have still had no reply only an automated reply.
Don't think he wants to know. |
|
By:
thought you were going to post ...
He's replied .... Asking if I have any Tips for Catford Dogs. |
|
By:
I sent my MP a copy of the RTV cover letter when it came out months ago and the MP only recently got back saying how important it was to keep people safe and that they would be keeping a keen eye on what the white paper would include….this was a week after the WP was released.
MPs serve their own interests. |