There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 187 comments are related to the topic:
All these newspaper articles about reduced betting turnover are all missing ONE very important point
All these newspaper articles about reduced betting turnover are all missing ONE very important point
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 187
|
By:
most ?
i.m on here everyday I,m bet 99% exclusively with slybet and I didn't no so by most I assume you mean very few and zero excluding the most dyed in the wool 24/7 punters |
|
By:
The bookies are trapped into supporting horse racing.
Betting on the horses is basically there flag ship mantra, It’s their whole purpose to exsist,they have to offer bets on racing. |
|
By:
Re lost turnover and the Black Hole - I would have an average 10 dog bets per day, all at early prices and all at small stakes (£2 wins or £1ew) with WH. Today I had £1 ew on a winner on at 5/2 at Sunderland (taking 7/2) and now I am restricted immediately to £0.00 at all dogs.
If you multiply MY £20 a day over a year it is slightly more than £7k p/a. I am small fry and the sport is greyhounds, but if my experience is mirrored across horse racing and across all range of bettors, then I have to agree with the OP that a huge proportion of the "black hole" is due entirely to bookmakers restricting all types of customers, recreational, profitable and non profitable. |
|
By:
I've took around 700 more out of sly that I've put in this yr in stakes of under a tenner,still get all the free bets,offers,sportinlife value best offered etc etc ,so why arnt all people restricted, slybet not made a bean out of me for about 18 months and I've withdrawn over a grand in that time
|
|
By:
as the photo,s of desperate for a knighthood David Beckham were shown in MSM last week,Caroline ahern asked the ?
why did the tax avoiding Beckham's look so comfortable in the company of THE UK ROYAL FAMILY  |
|
By:
sorry wrong thread meant for the TAX THIEVING DETTORI THREAD
|
|
By:
lay the horses to lose a certain amount or you're not allowed to open the casino.
fairly straightforward. no horses, no slots. |
|
By:
Same here regards 'sly'. I used to be an ardent customer on their weekly loyalty bets eg bet £25, get £5 free. Now, I've been excluded from all free spins promotions, even the price boost (horses and footie) is restricted to a mere 250p. As such, I've virtually stopped betting mostly on horses with them.
That's 'sly' contribution to the reduction in horseracing revenue. Whose fault is it, mine or 'sly'? |
|
By:
theirs. so why is the whole industry blanking the subject ??
|
|
By:
We can't ignore the string of owners who are stopping betting on horses and moving horses abroad or selling them. These are mostly successful British businessmen who can't see the point in participating in the sport any longer. The restriction on the size of stakes from those perceived as "informed" winners is a separate issue from the affordability one. The common thread though is the insidious message that betting is a vice which makes participants less reliable, less employable and a bad influence on the rest of the population. Jim Cockburn, who runs Teme Valley Racing makes that point this morning and feels that being publicly involved in racing could harm his other businesses. Without a concerted attempt to present a more positive public face, jump racing won't get past 2030 in UK and flat will be the next target. I am old enough to remember when animal rights campaigners shut down half of the UK pig industry (my farm included), severely restricted hunting and are now after racing. As an aside New Zealand have now banned Greyhound racing. Gambling issues are just another facet of the co-ordinated campaign against using animals in sport.
|
|
By:
Sageform , a very valid point. Look at all the big owners who in the last 12months or so have publicly stated they are reducing their string due to being unable to bet on them. The industry again as a whole suffers.
|
|
By:
think you're right sage. Get economics to close down half the tracks and then there's less support to keep the sport going.
|
|
By:
The Goddess, your post capsulates the point exactly.
I believe your story wholeheartedly as there are thousands of others like it, but it is a shocking state of affairs when a big international bookmakers such as hills bans a customer from placing £1 and £2 bets. Its not risk averse, its betting averse ! They should have their licences revoked if they don't take bets, and I'm not referring to high stakes, Bets of £50, £100 on a horse is chicken feed. We mustn't lose sight of what a bookmaker is supposed to be for ! |
|
By:
But surely they are not banning bets on everything or they would have no business. I suspect they know where the low margins are and are slowly phasing them out. Surely no bookmaker has to offer odds on racing if they don't want to. If football and other ball games plus casinos are the way they want to go, the BHA or the Levy Board can't stop them.
|
|
By:
Winners not welcome, losers welcome. This has what big corporations are all about. And their actions, among the public perception of horse racing, have destroyed racing finances.
|
|
By:
I'm not talking about the exchange above, by the way. Which I think is still an excellent product for the vast majority of Saturday punters.
|
|
By:
If football and other ball games plus casinos are the way they want to go, the BHA or the Levy Board can't stop them. Bingo!
|
|
By:
Betfair good product for Saturday punters
is that because its odds on to crash on a Saturday |
|
By:
Betting should be separated.
Real events v computer generated gaming betting. The rules shouldn’t be the same for both. Real events,racing,footy,is opinion based,creates jobs and tax in that industry. Computer games do nothing,it’s basically make believe leisure activity. Maybe If the gambling commission was serious about stopping harm or affordability. It should make all betting companies,seperate the two. And customers should have to have 2 seperate accounts,with different rules for each account. The trouble is,bookies put a lot of money into the sports,plus advertise a lot,so no one wants to challenge them.and bookies would love ever account to just play slots all day. Then they moan media rights are too dear,we aren’t pricing up footwell.forgetting that the slots player started off at fontwell on a stag do. |
|
By:
Do you and Hulk discuss plagiarism comingagain? A couple of years too late about licencing btw!!
|
|
By:
A "professional" punter suggested bet restriction also played a part in the ever decreasing horseracing revenue and bookies used AC to weed-out non-profitable accounts.
How did the bookie muppets miss this behaviour of their paymasters? A clear professional disingenuity at play. |
|
By:
cag i've been on here long before you talking about this. Betting shops became legal in Britain in 1961. Until the introduction of casino terminals, designed by the bookies to specifically get players addicted, there were no issues. if you went into a bookie in 1982 and said £100 on Golden Fleece to win the derby he didn't say hang on, lets see how much you earn first. i agree with affordability checks, if you want to play the casino games. and yes they should be seen as two separate entities, licences and taxed accordingly rather than just all under the gambling banner. i'd even have them in two separate premises, a traditional bookmakers office and a high street arcade. we now have a situation where someone says they're putting a 50p yankee on and they're being told careful with the "gambling" mate, i heard someone lost £150k on Rainbow Riches and killed himself.
|
|
By:
bit like telling Brian to be careful having 2 paracetamol in the morning cos someone round the corner developed a 10k a month Crystal meth habit.
it's all drugs Brian, same as horses and fobts are all gambling .... that'll be you one day |
|
By:
but i've been taking paracetamol since 1961
doesn't matter Brian how much do you earn by the way .... those things go for 45p a packet in tesco, we want to make sure you can afford it (we also want to know if there's any extra juice we can squeeze out of you or if you're just a low income bum who's not worth pursuing) |
|
By:
Very good points comingupthehill.
Think that would be a better way of coming across then saying affordability checks are **** and not working / putting people off. There is no way the government / bookies / gambling commission can say yeah we will get rid of them when you have people such as hulk has mentioned losing £150k and killing themselves. You also have stories about people committing fraud / stealing from businesses where they work to fund their gambling addictions. The bookies are then fined as they let the customer gamble £400k or something daft when they were on £25k salary. Think it would be a lot better as you mentioned to get the bookies to separate genuine sports betting and simulated / slots... Pretty sure the bookies would hate that though and make sure the GC won't do it. It would also have the added benefit of making the slots cost more to maintain as they would have to be more diligent to the people gambling on them, and level up the playing field / margins they make and encourage them to do more in sports betting. |
|
By:
Until the introduction of casino terminals, designed by the bookies to specifically get players addicted, there were no issues. Bingo!
|
|
By:
Until the introduction of casino terminals, designed by the bookies to specifically get players addicted, there were no issues.
THE RACINGPOST will never articulate this, because they are scared. |
|
By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRo1f5-oTCs
|
|
By:
As you say trident I very much doubt this will be reported in the racingpost, neither the way the bookies used low level AW racing on an evening to justify keeping their shops open to get people on the FOBTs after work before the limits on them came in (roulette used to be £100/spin)
I really hope the powers that be in racing are not thinking if they get rid of Affordability Checks then everything will be rosy. I very much doubt this will happen as there is definitely going to have to be due diligence to a certain extent, and to me if someone is usually gambling say maximum £500 a month then suddenly jumps to £50k then there should be something in place to make sure they are alright. |
|
By:
As you say trident I very much doubt this will be reported in the racingpost, neither the way the bookies used low level AW racing on an evening to justify keeping their shops open to get people on the FOBTs after work before the limits on them came in (roulette used to be £100/spin)
I really hope the powers that be in racing are not thinking if they get rid of Affordability Checks then everything will be rosy. I very much doubt this will happen as there is definitely going to have to be due diligence to a certain extent, and to me if someone is usually gambling say maximum £500 a month then suddenly jumps to £50k then there should be something in place to make sure they are alright. |
|
By:
The Racing Post is akin to a turkey voting for X'mas. Their funding will be history, and the lightweight and bias racing journos will be let go soon after which to most is not a bad thing at all.
It can be refreshing. For instance, The Racing Post and most of their racing journos (rule) UK horseracing like the former dictator and tyrant President Assad ruled Syria. They repeatedly and knowingly voiced and published misinfo contrary to what's happening on the ground; the Racing Post always pedals the agendas of their bookie paymasters/funders and associates. One thing for sure. though. Until there is a willingness and policy to separate horseracing and fobt eg a separate licence for each to operate the present scenario eg the decline in horseracing revenue, prize money, Levy, etc, will continue in earnest. This separation is an absolute must to secure the future of UK horseracing. |
|
By:
And remember the billions in guaranteed profits made from (roulette used to be £100/spin) and during covid when Janet is stuck on her sofa 24/7 spinning slots/bingo on her phone, with no interactions if she was alright? And when Janet decided she wanted to quit and self excluded, emails from the same company who entice her back in with 10 Free spins.(A reprehensible and disgusting practice)
That Golden Goose is now gone. I absolutely despise the casinos, and I'm glad the gambling commission is beginning to get tougher personally from what I've seen and witnessed myself. |
|
By:
I'm old enough to remember the late Alastair Down writing an article in the Rancid Post extolling the pleasures of a day on the machines.
That sums up the extent to which the rag is in hock to its paymasters. |
|
By:
As far as separating horse racing from casino rubbish? That should be done
 . But won't be, as highlighted by other well-informed people in this excellent thread! |
|
By:
In the interim I'll advocate a shutdown of all fobt machines after 6pm weekdays and the whole of the weekend. This will have a significant impact in dealing with problem gamblers and restoring the image of some of the high streets where a proliferation of betting shops has arisen solely as a result of fobt.
|
|
By:
Alistair Down was not as wonderful a writer as some would make out.
|
|
By:
*Alastair Down.
|
|
By:
Hulk, live your fantasy about discussing this long before me if you must but at least stop regurgitating the same old carp that has been done to death. Like Impossible your sole issue is bookie blaming when there are many more real and damaging reasons the racing industry is in trouble.
Btw your fantasy that your £2 bets move markets is about as real as Impossible being crucial to the levy!! HTH |
|
By:
as were told 24/7 fobt,s are used for money laundering
WHAT ARE YOU SEEING ? you might think your seeing someone do their nuts but in reality might be swapping 100% bad money for what they consider a useful % of good money,whatever that good % maybe |
|
By:
as were told 24/7 fobt,s are used for money laundering
WHAT ARE YOU SEEING ? you might think your seeing someone do their nuts but in reality might be swapping 100% bad money for what they consider a useful % of good money,whatever that good % maybe |