There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 269 comments are related to the topic:
Dear Racing Post readers,
Dear Racing Post readers,
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 269
|
By:
Couldn't disagree more Booster , finding a personal niche is an integral part of gambling and although i'm not a soccer gambler/follower/watcher i do get the odd snippet on the less popular Eastern European games on occasions.
A problem gambler in my view would be someone punting on every TV live game and an acca on the UK stuff every schedule. One of the secrets of a successful gambler in my view is finding things that punters/bookmakers don't generally know and not gambling on things that every Tom , Dick and Harry does know. Good punting  |
|
By:
Thank you Hayden. If I hadn't been busy greening-up after the 6th goal in the Estonian First Division game, I would have said similar myself.
  The game is about one thing and one thing only - prices. That's it. That's the (so called) Holy Grail. It doesn't matter if you are hoovering up 1.1x in running about 1.01 shots or punting goals at 4/1 when you think it should be 5/2. It's just prices! If you don't know what price something should be, don't become a bookmaker. Be honest, open a casino or an amusement arcade if that's all you want to do. |
|
By:
I was only pulling his leg, he seems to want to label everybody that has had to make a deposit a problem gambler, so I made a little joke about his betting on Kazakhstan football being a red flag. Jokes and TM do not mix well.
He gets very offended, reminds you about how rich he is, then sneers at and belittles you for losing money. |
|
By:
Oooh and the filthy ew option wins at NA as well - what a fine day it is today!
|
|
By:
Wow you should write an ebook TM.
If that is the sort of stuff you bet on, no wonder you get your accounts closed! Nobody is seriously going to lay you Estonian first division. |
|
By:
Haha bad EW and Estonian first division football, and wonders why he can’t get a bet on!
|
|
By:
You are the one that got personal BR - you don't expect me to respond in kind?
You have no answers for what I am actually saying - so you twist it or misquote it, deliberately putting words in my mouth. Now you claim you were joking. Yeah, right.  |
|
By:
Ditto at Newton Abbot TM
|
|
By:
I didn't have a penny on it - but i knew it would push your buttons!
 |
|
By:
16:39 was to BR.
WD Hayden. |
|
By:
A reminder of my stated views for you BR - See what you can do to twist that to your own agenda:
The Management09 Sep 23 15:09Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 9,615 | Blogger: The Management's blog BR - It looks like you are falling for the words (never uttered by me) that dusty wants to put into my mouth. So for clarity, these are my actual views: 1) I'm against this intervention as much as the next man, probably much more so. 2) However, I think the way the slots/casino sites (masquerading as "bookmakers") have behaved made it absolutely inevitable though. They and their continued law-breaking have brought this on themselves (and therefore on all of us). 3) Anything that the GC is involved in will be an utter ill-informed mess. 4) Anything the on-line slots/casino empires are involved in will always be only to further their own agenda. 5) Despite that, If you wanted to oppose what is happening, sadly the only game in town (pun intended) was to side with the on-line slots/casino empires. As I say, they have their own agenda, it differs from mine massively. They don't give a sh1t about horses or horse racing anymore, so I feel it differs from "racing" too. 5) Despite this, everybody "in racing" seemed happy to leave it all to the on-line casinos/slots empires to do their bidding and fight their corner. 6) The Racing Post basically co-ordinated the opposition campaign/comms. They don't have anybody there that is qualified to do that. They don't have anybody there that could come up with an original thought, or even cough, without checking first with the on-line slots/casino bosses that pay their wages. 7) There wasn't too much wrong with the existing laws - if we'd had a regulator that was actually capable of enforcing them. Most of the things I don't like or think need to change, that have happened in the past 20 years were already illegal! - They probably could have just done some tweeks to the existing law, to bring it up to date with the advances in technology and replaced the GC with people that know what they are doing/understand the industry they are regualating. |
|
By:
BoosterRooster22 Sep 23 16:36Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 181 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
If that is the sort of stuff you bet on, no wonder you get your accounts closed! Nobody is seriously going to lay you Estonian first division. Of course they're not going to lay me a proper bet - and I wouldn't expect them to. And yet they still try to price it up! |
|
By:
You’ve posted that before,TM. It’s a load of contradictory nonsense.
|
|
By:
It's not quite as contradictory as you - firstly alleging that my winning is part of the problem and then 3 posts later, claiming that I don't bet at all, is it?
|
|
By:
It's almost like you haven't got a fkin clue!
|
|
By:
The Management
Agree with each of your points. BHA/Racing Post etc have sided with the betting industry in terms of Casino type games which is what has brought all this about. Even now they won't differentiate between Casino games and sports betting which is what they should have done. The greed of the betting industry is to blame for all this and the RP has sided with them to the detriment of punters and horse racing as well. |
|
By:
Bother the GC and the anti betting cross party independently came to the conclusion that gaming and gambling shouldn’t be separated for the purposes of problem gambling, so it wasn’t a machination of the bookies….unless they are in collusion with the bookies and in an agreement based on the greater percentage of customers still allowed to lose slowly on all pursuits at the betterment of bookies who can then cancel winners more easily.
|
|
By:
Thank you Joe.
|
|
By:
Dusty - explain this:
The BGC (Betting and Gaming Counsel) and obviously all of their members (the on-line bookmakers) are completely against affordability checks - but all of their members have voluntarily jumped the gun and gone with the most intrusive and draconian option in the meantime! Why are they implementing (of their own volition) deposit limits of £100 which was the very worst case scenario that even the most optimistic of hand-wringers had every dared to put forward?? |
|
By:
A collection of bookies agreeing to restrictions?
Suggests they arn’t unhappy with the status quo, and arn’t getting punished as you and others had desired. Just punters. |
|
By:
You don't really have to be a conspiracy theorist to work out the answer btw - but it seems to me it has backfired on them with a vengeance.
 |
|
By:
The reason betfair have got so strict is because of the recent court case where that lad killed himself. He wasn’t betting on slots, he was betting horses and dogs on the exchange apparently, though no details of the bets have been given, regarding stakes or the prices he was betting at etc.
The coroner, or the court or whoever all decided, in hindsight, that betfair should have done more to stop this. Betfair said their algorithm should have picked him up, but didn’t. So now they have obviously tweaked the algorithm, which has led to the recent spate of people getting their accounts closed and restricted, or interventions, where people are asked to provide documents. The checks are being done because the GC are fining companies for not doing them. If someone loses a lot of money, the betting companies are now expected to have intervened. That is what is happening. |
|
By:
The GC have 5hit all down this
They added their twopence to the WP’s already limiting proposal with complete leftfield mentality of calculating losses on a rolling week basis. But crucially added a disclaimer that says bookies can make their own determination on info they hold. It gives bookies all that they want. If anyone has major fked up it was those crying out for regulation to hurt bookies Absolute fck dumb motherfkers |
|
By:
If they all thought £100 deposit limits were intrusive and draconian, etc, etc.
Why iyo didn't they go with £200, £300 or £500???? Why voluntarily go with the harshest and most ridiculous option, the very option that you have been publicly deriding for months on end??? |
|
By:
There is no conspiracy. Betting companies are doing the checks to avoid fines from the GC. The spend limits are being introduced to avoid fines from the GC.
Whether or not the betting companies are also using the checks to ban winners is debatable, though you certainly wouldn’t rule it out. Though they can do that anyway, so nothing has changed. Though it is hard to believe that they won’t eventually turn it around to use the checks for their advantage, even if it is just to profile high value customers who they can both a) win money off and b) not get fined for doing so. |
|
By:
The GC have handed responsibility to the bookie because they don’t want to look responsible for ppl getting shut down.
|
|
By:
You can gauge the depth of knowledge / interest on here simply by realising that the majority of moaners have only self interest at heart, hardly a mention about the racing industries future.
Perhaps TM you would care to explain these laws/ illegal activities the bookmakers have been engaged in? And maybe ask your fan Joe Lampton wtf the BHA have to do with online gaming? Just curious. |
|
By:
Don’t know, but this is where calling bookmakers criminals and law breakers gets you.
Over the top heavy handed responses, to show they are playing by the book and to avoid fines. It’s the punters being punished. Punters who want to bet, but no longer can are the ones being punished. Not the bookmakers, not the casinos. And it’s not just winners being stopped. Not everybody who loses is a problem gambler either, most people just bet for fun, and they accept that there will be many ups and downs. Some years they may win, others they may lose. That’s how it’s been for me, and for the majority of other gamblers I imagine too. |
|
By:
The books can’t lose here
They can radically adjust their whole business and who they allow to bet on the basis the state forced them to. And if that means sacrificing racing so be it, they will just blame the GC. I said all along that the open market nature meant if anything backfires they can just fk off to America, the only game in town who was laying bets getting publicly attacked and denigrated continually for simply doing business…decide to now rearrange the furniture showing they can’t lose |
|
By:
So there's no conspiracy - it's just a coincidence that they all rejected the proposals as draconian and then while waiting for the actual final proposal, voluntarily went with the most draconian version possible?
You don't think they did it collectively/collaboratively to quickly cause as much inconvenience, outrage and fear to as many people as possible - to further their own ends? |
|
By:
Not really
|
|
By:
I simply find it too compelling for the stats used by the GC to suggest so few ppl will get inconvenienced given the vast majority will get waved through losing 10-20 quid a week on guesswork while pros who do damage to bookies will get shown the red card.
|
|
By:
That's your prerogative dusty - but it answers the questions I posed earlier:
If they all thought £100 deposit limits were intrusive and draconian, etc, etc. Why iyo didn't they go with £200, £300 or £500???? Why voluntarily go with the harshest and most ridiculous option, the very option that you have been publicly deriding for months on end??? |
|
By:
I’ve said before and was called a conspiracist for it; that betting for a living has no fans at the treasury
If there’s collusion between the regulator and the bookies it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. |
|
By:
No, I keep telling you, they are doing it to avoid fines from the GC.
The GC are handing out large 6 figure fines left right and centre. They want everything above board and squeaky clean. They don’t want any risk of further fines. As pointed out above, to the global betting firms, which most are, USA and other jurisdictions are now far more profitable. I don’t think they need or care about racing, I very much doubt it’s their most profitable outlet. The win, but only slowly model suits the larger companies. I don’t think they are that bothered by all of this. The main people objecting to the checks are the punters being caught up in them. It’s you who has all this conspiracy stuff in your head, TM. All this anti racing post , slot/ casino empire nonsense, is a million miles away from what is an actually happening here. |
|
By:
BoosterRooster22 Sep 23 17:43Joined: 17 Feb 01 | Topic/replies: 186 | Blogger: BoosterRooster's blog
No, I keep telling you, they are doing it to avoid fines from the GC. Right - and they had to set it at the price of a cup of coffee per day? There was no way they could have been seen to be doing the right thing - other than to go with an amount that they themselves have described as ridiculous, draconian, etc, etc? |
|
By:
TM
So what’s your point? They have done what, set it as low as possible for what reason? |
|
By:
£100 is for people who can’t or won’t show documents.
If they allow someone more, and they end up losing, GC will fine them. They have just been through a court case where they were blamed for not intervening with someone who ended up committing suicide. That is why it’s £100. They are being over cautious, and to be fair, they kind of have to be given the current mood around betting, and the accusations being thrown at them. Though it’s very frustrating if you are caught up in it, that’s why I think there has to be an option to opt out, to sign a waiver, and opt for personal responsibility if you don’t want to go through the checks. |
|
By:
£200, £250, £500 were all out of the question?
They had to voluntarily go with the lowest amount that even the most optimistic of hand-wringers had dared to hope for? |
|
By:
Yes they did . Because people like you keep calling them predators, law breakers, criminals and the rest of it. And you’re meant to be a punter.
Given that the anti gambling groups are also saying this, and much worst, the GC seems to be very anti gambling and is looking to fine companies for the slightest misdemeanour, then that is why it is so low. They have over reacted, to avoid getting prosecuted further. |