There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 480 comments are related to the topic:
Farewell to BF
Farewell to BF
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 480
|
By:
What plenty are missing in all this is that the books, despite any noise to the contrary actually embrace all of this, it gives them an excuse to shut people down who they don't want, with or without legislation they will still carry on exactly as they have been.
|
|
By:
On the contrary Duffy, too many blaming bookies for the GC zealots,makes no business sense for bookies to embrace the proposals gutting their core income.BTW they can get rid of who they don't want at any time they choose!! hth
|
|
By:
Clinitians V Sociologists
Is there prices up? |
|
By:
If it made no sense, why have they been restricting punters for years before the white paper existed? They won't be shutting casino players down, they will be shutting down unwelcome sports bettors just as they have been.
Do they publish the % of sports bettors targeted compared to casino/fobt players, not a chance, they will just produce the numbers that they have restricted and it will appear that they are doing a responsible job. All the white paper and the current social movement has achieved is to provide the books with an excuse to shut even more people down, before they just restricted your stakes, now they can get rid in the name of welfare...but they should be forced to reveal the sports vs casino players targeted, it should be heavily weighted against the casino players but it won't be. |
|
By:
u could be right. Any idea why they want to stop horse racing ?
|
|
By:
That Q. to Dr. C
|
|
By:
You can understand the books restricting successful punters but I can't see why an exchange would be so keen to restrict liquidity.
BF's stance at the moment goes way beyond what's suggested in the govt's white paper. |
|
By:
You answered your own question Duffy,they never needed the White Paper or GC proposals to get rid of unprofitable clients!!
Nor is the White Paper the scythe proposed by the GC so you need to think of another reason for blaming bookies!!? |
|
By:
It’s a bookies benefit because if you look at the arguments put forward by the likes of the GC, they argue that the proposals won’t affect 80% of users.
They don’t want people who put effort in and are relatively astute, they want total guesser who will make up the majority of that 80% I’ve long suspected the state don’t for a second like the idea some people make a living gambling, and that’s probably what the real issue here is. |
|
By:
I think you will find the "State" does not give a monkeys dusty and that conspiracy nuts like you are helping the GC!!!
 |
|
By:
BTW I spent over an hour knocking down the GC in their questionnaire rather than moaning on here,how many of you have done the same?
|
|
By:
The state don't like people making a living gambling. But it won't be the reason here. How about the crowd of 35,000 people that recently attended a Saturday meeting. Who were these people ?
 |
|
By:
Why am I a conspiracy nut?
Gambling for a living takes money from a business that pays taxes, while themselves not paying tax Plus the whole operation of getting on generally revolves around the black market where cash is passed around. 11% of the economy is the black market it’s a perennial sacrificial cow to attempt to control anything related to it |
|
By:
And of course pro gamblers never spend into the economy and related taxes?
|
|
By:
VAT etc are secondary
Primary taxes are capital gains or income tax ffs |
|
By:
Everyone spends into the economy with what they have left after primary taxation
Business hires staff and pays suppliers etc Gamblers who win just take out and pay non of that |
|
By:
Don't forget about that stealth income tax, NI. Which of course, is not hypothecated at all and wasted in a similar fashion to income tax.
|
|
By:
Bookmakers have been closing punters down for ever. Hell, they even closed down Sid James' budgie in Carry On At Your Convenience, and that was fifty years ago.
The relative enthusiasm from bookmakers for these proposals does need explaining though. This was one of my responses to the GC questionnaire: 78 To what extent do you agree with the proposed approach that would set a timeframe whereby recent overall net position could be taken into account for 7 days in relation the binge threshold and 90 days for the losses over time threshold? Strongly disagree Please give the reasons for your answer: These proposed periods punish the careful gambler, who bets infrequently and only when the odds are in the gambler's favour. Gamblers will be forced to try and find a bet sooner, for fear of the consequences of a bet losing if it's their first one for seven or ninety days. Gambling operators will love this proposal. This is a dream come true for bookmakers. |
|
By:
So the unemployed like you Dusty,where do their tax contributions come from? Capital Gains etc?
 |
|
By:
Cag you got a gob full of ****
You just flapping your gums as per, mr fukin know nowt |
|
By:
Typical from you ,incapable of a debate with reasoned argument Dusty,flapping gums your speciality!! HTH
|
|
By:
Cagliari thinks that propunters are exempt from VAT, don't pay council tax, get a rebate on fuel duty, avoid insurance tax, etc., etc.
|
|
By:
Wonder if they winners realise that once the steady losers like myself are taken out of the game, then they are less likely to remain winners.
At the moment they are beating people like me, because they are smarter, or more disciplined, or better informed etc, but as you reduce the pool by removing the losers (weaker players), you are left with a smaller pool of better players. Now a hierarchy will obviously reform in that population fairly quickly, but then the powers that be will come calling for those that are now losing and the whole thing resets with a small (and better) remaining pool once again. It's simply not sustainable. I am surprised that BF have not figured it out yet. It will just be Rico and his mate playing each other, until one of them gets popped and it's the end of the game. They will be finished. |
|
By:
You should learn to read screaming under your duvet!!!!
|
|
By:
You should learn to read screaming under your duvet!!!!
|
|
By:
screaming from beneaththewaves 10 Aug 23 17:42
Bookmakers have been closing punters down for ever. Hell, they even closed down Sid James' budgie in Carry On At Your Convenience, and that was fifty years ago. You hate taking my money and I hate paying it out, so why do we keep doing it to each other My favourite Carry on film  |
|
By:
Gag, you ain’t worth having a debate with when your opening statements are calling ppl you don’t know both conspiracy nuts or unemployed
You’d not have said those to my face I promise you that Pro gamblers that turn a profit don’t need to declare that profit. Where else can you make the potential money like that and the state have no idea how much you make, other than having to declare the return on the capital you put into investments? |
|
By:
A careful gambler, that only plays when the odds are in the gambler's favour are an anathema to the GC. They are only interested in people who they can scalp regularly and keep alive. Such as the muppet who thinks their six numbers could come up on the lottery.
Barry Orr I think it is who is the betfair shill was on RTV Saturday, which I assume is a paid for slot. This only talking to people who in the most part can't bet with his firm anyway. Did not mention bfex once, just the bf fixed odds prices. If the bf rep themselves aren't selling bfex to a knowledgeable audience, and shilling something to them that they can't actually use, what does that tell us? I believe it tells us that nobody in the business cares about exchanges (or those who use them). |
|
By:
Add low IQ and intellect Dusty and probably you to a tee?
|
|
By:
You the one thinking how clever you ain’t
Sat in your own p1ss and your attitude will at some point in your life result in a wired bottom jaw |
|
By:
Is that your response to anyone who challenges you Dusty,threaten violence?
Spent 40+ years earning my living with real violence on a daily basis so you are a non entity in that respect!! HTH |
|
By:
How are you challenging me?
You opened talkin 5hite and nowt changed You just stumble onto threads like a cynical dosser chipping away about stuff most wouldn’t even bother with you. You got blatant little man syndrome And I didn’t threaten violence, I said the way you speak to people will see you broken, it’s a fact of life. |
|
By:
You should perhaps confine yourself to tiddleywinks Dusty,you cannot back up your statements with any facts,can you?
The only reason I commented on this thread is that A.It was Alans and B. It was drowning in blame of bookies!! I don't think Alan was blaming bookies for his choice but tbf he never actually said!! |
|
By:
State of this forum these days!!
Started of a decent and informative thread as well... |
|
By:
I stated the fact that gamblers that make a profit will be disliked by the state for all the reasons they follow every earned penny of everyone else.
You gag on the other hand just blurted out tripe. |
|
By:
I think winners are well aware of what the effect of removing losers from the game will be, tomo. The mystery is why the people behind the exchange don't appear to be.
|
|
By:
Case rested Dusty,not the first time tbh!!! TAPS is an adjective that describes you perfectly and always will unless a scientist manages to fuse half brain cell to another!!!
|
|
By:
Bookies want customers having blind tenners on horses they know nowt about and have no idea of value, or alternatively shovel it into the fobt
As shown in the stats in the WP, the proposals won’t affect 80% of gamblers who are this type of client. Therefore the 20% they do have an issue with includes winners, within the claimed case of the minority of people who genuinely can’t control themselves. |
|
By:
Gag you just too damn daft to bother with
|
|
By:
Tomo 1984 - In a nutshell. Correct. A vicious circle which will rapidly lead to most of the remaining punters giving up.
|