Finding the bloke may be difficult.

Dave - slight segway, but I seem to recall you were one of those discussing with Mr Banks when he was on here, about how he closed your account because you won on maybe a couple of races?

(not directly about this case of course, but seem to recall you were one not happy with how he conducts his business offerings)

Ok no probs - think there's another dave on here that was discussing it then.

'Adambunn' -Tw$tter 2022

https://x.com/Adambunn28/status/1479111630201917446

Banks needs to stop bleating at the clerical error.

https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/31741097/?pg=last#flvWelcomeHeader

..

banks alluded how this event actually unfolded yit?

if every punter on the racecourse resorted to calling plod when ripped off ,there,d be more plod than punters,like the rest of us plebs have to do why didn't banks go through the ring inspector or don't they exist anymore ?

Talking Horses: Proof punter-bookie relationship has changed for ever
Greg Wood
Mon 26 Aug 2024 17.50 BST


Whether or not Geoff Banks was cheated out of money at York, fractured state between bookmakers and those betting is beyond repairGeoff Banks’s satchel was £3,375 lighter than it should have been when he left York racecourse on Saturday, he said in a post on social media, and the high-profile racecourse bookie was understandably hacked off. “Unsavoury end to York with one of my team confusing a payout of £375 with £3,750,” he wrote on X. “And the ‘punter/thief’ took the money. We informed the police and gave a description. There’s no excuse for this.”

A subsequent report in the Racing Post suggests that the punter who made off with the cash may have been aware that Banks had laid a £1,000 bet at 11-4 on Tropical Storm, the winning favourite in the Roses Stakes, in addition to their own bet of £100 at 11-4. That implies in turn that Banks may have fallen victim to a hastily conceived – but still potentially criminal – act of fraud, rather than a failure by the punter to point out a mistake.

But a sin of omission is a sin all the same, and Banks was disappointed that many responses to his original tweet were less than sympathetic.

“It’s not the same battle between the old enemies that it used to be,” Banks told the Racing Post. “The betting public expects bookmakers to play fair and we expect the same, and then someone goes and does this; I think it’s abhorrent.

“People seem to think that it’s something to make fun of or that we deserve it, but they haven’t considered the impact this has had on my staff member and on how the relationship should be between a bookmaker and a punter. That fairness seems to have gone, and that’s a great shame.”

It is always easy to be misty-eyed about the past, and the odd rogue (or three) has cropped up on both sides of the bookie/punter relationship from its earliest days. A contemporary account of Derby day in the mid-19th century reported that racegoers would hold hands to form a circle around their bookie of choice to stop them running away, while the fake bookie “John Batten” fleeced racegoers to the tune of £10,000 in the unregulated “Hill” enclosure at Epsom in 1997.

At the same time, though, a great deal has changed in betting in recent decades, and certainly since Banks’s father, John, was in his mid-1970s pomp as one of the most fearless and flamboyant layers that the betting ring has seen.

As such, he was an exponent of an approach to betting and bookmaking that had been developed a century earlier by William “Leviathan” Davies, who earned his nickname from the monstrous bets he was willing to lay. Davies was the first bookmaker to gain celebrity status, and his reputation depended entirely on trust – on his part, that bets were honestly struck and on his customers’ side, that he would be good for the money should they win.

Davies famously lost £30,000 – the equivalent of about £3.2m today – to John Bowes, the owner of West Australian, when Bowes’s colt won the Derby in 1853, and insisted on paying Bowes in cash in the winner’s enclosure to cement his reputation as a bookie you could trust. For some of us, meanwhile, his legacy remains to this day. Davies retired to Brighton, and when he died in 1879 – a few hundred yards from where I am writing this column – he left a bequest to the local corporation to buy and preserve the much-loved Preston Park on the outskirts of the city.

From Davies’s time until the early 1960s, the racecourse ring was the only place where anyone could legally bet in cash, but even after the legalisation of off-course cash betting, which launched a betting-shop boom, there was still a personal element to the bookie-punter relationship. Punters would tend to bet in the same shop, alongside the same group of fellow punters, from one day, and year, to the next. Even as recently as the mid-1990s, the bookie was still the old enemy, but you were often on first-name terms with the staff.

Fast-forward a quarter of a century, however, and most punters’ betting experience has been transformed. A significant and ever-increasing majority of betting turnover is online, the big gambling conglomerates that dominate the market prioritise risk-free casino products over betting on sport, and any punter who shows signs of making the game pay – or even simply not losing enough to cover their “cost of acquisition” – is routinely closed or restricted after a handful of bets.

The punters have changed. They shop around for prices, as most consumers do when they can, and bet without any human interaction at all (bar the regular complaints to customer service that a £20 bet has been restricted to pennies). But when it comes to explaining why the relationship has fractured, the bookmakers have changed far more.

Banks, of course, operates at the track, which is almost the last redoubt of a personal relationship between punter and bookie. And to my mind at least, whether or not his punter was actively trying to pull a fast one, if he held on to £3,375 that he knew he had not won that would certainly make him a cheat. The significant number of keyboard warriors who seem to think that Banks is fair game is a sign of the regrettable extent to which online gambling has changed the whole game for good.

in 88 /  89    when the english £1 was withdrawn from circulation , i used to hand over scottish £1 notes which looked like and english £5 KERCHING


ALLS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR

re my story, just to clarify, Aberdeen played on the Tuesday, Rangers/Falkirk, Wednesday night.

I,m sorry for been a bit thick, but if it was some kind of scam,  why would a punter expect no one on the banks joint to check/put the slip through the automated pay out,or at least whoever was calling out the bets to shout out 375 quid and not 3,750
are we all certain/told.convinced that 375 quid was written on the slips potential winnings and not 3,750 ?,
was the mistake made when the bet was struck or at the payout ?

the scam/ruse seems to be something banks has put out there to protect his staff

I know £3k is a lot of money to some people, but i thought GB was a multi million pound bookie, his website must cost a few £££.
You'd have thought he'd have got more respect wiping his mouth and telling people what happened to him.

Ive been betting 25 years. I would say the internet only bookmakers from about 2006 onwards started a trend of being ruthless and having no qualms about screwing over punters. I still deposit with them and half expect a problem every time i win. They weaponised terms, aml and in general have an awful attitude to customers. Ive had times where i have made a genuine mistake. Just told no. Couldnt care less about you. So i dont think its come from punters first imo!

i wouldnt hand it back , i would be off for steak and chips and prob do a dash if the opportunity arose ,
im such a scoundrel when shawfield and sheffield greyhounds were both on the same day i made a killing , ie 1st shfield ect

I'd ask it again, from earlier, but surely this has happened before at a track?

Banks seems to be acting like it's unheard of and just happened to 'poor him'....

In relation to above points, yes the relationship between bookies and punters is broken, but not sure it's ever really been fixed aside from a few pally relationships on course (old schoolers).

Most punters know bookies have historically not given a steaming sh1t about punters and many punters have been ruined over the years historically by said bookies - not illegal, but certainly potentially immoral in preying on weak people for their money.

he probably bet both the 1000 quid and 100 quid bet back on betfair at 7 to 2 + ,so didn't really lose anything

always wear a balaclava when i collect my winnings from jeff, just in case he hands me 3k more than i was expecting ....

counted his dosh the next day thinking he did better than he thought.  without realising someones been on the phone to phil collins to see if he's available for a remake of Buster ...