Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
It's not all about the affordability checks as all the racing bodies are saying.
Yes, affordability checks are one of the main drivers but the other main issue is not ever mentioned.
WHY ?
Account restrictions is the main driver of decreased turnover. Most recreational punters cannot get a bet on with a bookmaker if they wanted to.
I have been saying for years that racing's prize money will suffer as a result of turnover decreasing as a direct result of account restrictions and everyday recreational punters not being able to get a bet on.
If you want to place a £50 bet and get told by the bookmaker you can have £2, what do you do ? Unless you are a diehard fan you give up. If you are a recreational punter you walk away and that turnover is then lost to horse racing forever as that punter cannot "punt" .
A diehard fan might turn to friends to open an account for them but that doesn't last long either.
All of us on here have been forced onto here because of account restrictions yet how many are genuine long term winners ?
So the "bookmakers" cull thousands of accounts because of the risk that a couple might be long term winners when surely the more profitable view would be to let them all run and restrict the big winners after a milestone profit was reached and offset a portion of the profits from their profitable accounts against their losing ones.
Racing's finances would be a lot healthier as a result and so would the bookmakers bottom line.
Otherwise the cycle in which we are in will make horse racing even less profitable for the bookies because if losing punters cannot deposit then the only punters left will be winning ones restricted to 25p.
The only way out of this mess is either to go to a Pari Mutual system or make the bookmakers lay a bet to £1,000 as a condition of holding a licence and follow the Australian method.
Does anyone agree / disagree , or what would you suggest as a solution ?
.
Yes, affordability checks are one of the main drivers but the other main issue is not ever mentioned.
WHY ?
Account restrictions is the main driver of decreased turnover. Most recreational punters cannot get a bet on with a bookmaker if they wanted to.
I have been saying for years that racing's prize money will suffer as a result of turnover decreasing as a direct result of account restrictions and everyday recreational punters not being able to get a bet on.
If you want to place a £50 bet and get told by the bookmaker you can have £2, what do you do ? Unless you are a diehard fan you give up. If you are a recreational punter you walk away and that turnover is then lost to horse racing forever as that punter cannot "punt" .
A diehard fan might turn to friends to open an account for them but that doesn't last long either.
All of us on here have been forced onto here because of account restrictions yet how many are genuine long term winners ?
So the "bookmakers" cull thousands of accounts because of the risk that a couple might be long term winners when surely the more profitable view would be to let them all run and restrict the big winners after a milestone profit was reached and offset a portion of the profits from their profitable accounts against their losing ones.
Racing's finances would be a lot healthier as a result and so would the bookmakers bottom line.
Otherwise the cycle in which we are in will make horse racing even less profitable for the bookies because if losing punters cannot deposit then the only punters left will be winning ones restricted to 25p.
The only way out of this mess is either to go to a Pari Mutual system or make the bookmakers lay a bet to £1,000 as a condition of holding a licence and follow the Australian method.
Does anyone agree / disagree , or what would you suggest as a solution ?
.
Show More
How about an industry run exchange with all profits to racing or is that too much for the old traditionalists on here?
It's a wonder some don't want to go back to pre 1961 street corner betting if they are old enough to remember it.
Idustry should run it all,BHA should be going to Government with a radical plan showing the benefits of said plan for the industry and tax receipts.
Sparrow, street corner bookies still exist they are just referred to as Black Market or unregulated. I used to argue with my old mate Paul Haigh about the betting in the UK, he was adamant a TOTE monopoly was the way forward, I argued against.
He can rest easy as I now see he was probably right in a way e.g get rid of the current online bookies for horseracing completely and have a TOTE monopoly, returned to the public as the charter originally intended before sold by Labour btw.
He can rest easy as I now see he was probably right in a way e.g get rid of the current online bookies for horseracing completely and have a TOTE monopoly, returned to the public as the charter originally intended before sold by Labour btw.
Sparrow,when I say tote,I mean exchange.
The exchange is just a better version of the tote,how the tote didn’t get swallowed up into the exchange when it was privatised I don’t know,both do the same thing.
The exchange is just a better version of the tote,how the tote didn’t get swallowed up into the exchange when it was privatised I don’t know,both do the same thing.
See what I mean sparrow about lack of knowledge on here?
Which was privatised and when comingagain?
Which was privatised and when comingagain?
The tote,was sold,betfred bought it.it was state owned.
Eveyrbody who punts should know that but where do you suggest BF should have "swallowed" the TOTE? It was put out for tender and unless I am wrong PP bid for the TOTE, could be wrong tbf as it is a while but I do not remember anyone confusing BF with the TOTE?
Betfair could of bid for it,then incorporated it into their model,
The similarity is pooled money into a market giving a return.
Not a fixed priced offered by a bookmaker,so a similiar model.
The similarity is pooled money into a market giving a return.
Not a fixed priced offered by a bookmaker,so a similiar model.
Nothing similar, BF was originally a peer to peer platform and pretends it still is and never has been a pool operation and never will be!!
Btw the point being that had your confused suggestion happened, nothing would have changed other than no actual TOTE!!
I don’t buy the peer to peer Betfair logic.
It’s not 2 people trying to have a match,if one is risking a tenner at 66/1 and the other is risking 660 to get his tenner.
The layers are equals with the backers.
It’s not 2 people trying to have a match,if one is risking a tenner at 66/1 and the other is risking 660 to get his tenner.
The layers are equals with the backers.
The bookies are moaning,saying racing is too expensive to make a decent return on it,media rights,checks,etc etc.
So if this is true,then surely,getting 10-15% commission for taking bets and putting it into a tote,exchange pool,is a win win for them,no headache,15% cert profit,then try and tempt customers to bet on footy or slots.
They can then wash their hands of racing.
So if this is true,then surely,getting 10-15% commission for taking bets and putting it into a tote,exchange pool,is a win win for them,no headache,15% cert profit,then try and tempt customers to bet on footy or slots.
They can then wash their hands of racing.
Again the narrow minded " Blame the bookies" argument as most of these threads are consistent in doing. They are simply stating facts in face of the GC intentions and Government support for it.
Would you expect Tesco to keep selling chickens if they were warned that to keep doing so would incur a penalty equal to their profit?
Would you expect Tesco to keep selling chickens if they were warned that to keep doing so would incur a penalty equal to their profit?
Not sure about those who are not restricted. I operate as a contractor through my own limited company, generating £9k to £10k per month. I pay mysel from that, whatever I deem fit/necessary. I've provided all that to Betfair and I'm still restricted to deposit £300 per mnonth. Laughable. I've emailed a special address they point you to to deal with, three times. No response. I've just moved my activity to MB where there's greater liquidity and they're not restricting. BF had it's day I imagine. Pretty sure PP happy to run down.
Its a common belief that the books use restrictions and checks to get rid of business that is not profitable to them.
The key words are not profitable.
This includes punters that win some lose some.
ln many cases they are overall losers but not losing enough.
They deem keeping an account must come at a cost.
If the account is not justifying the service they provide then why should they support a recreational punters hobby for next to nothing.
The key words are not profitable.
This includes punters that win some lose some.
ln many cases they are overall losers but not losing enough.
They deem keeping an account must come at a cost.
If the account is not justifying the service they provide then why should they support a recreational punters hobby for next to nothing.
"If the account is not justifying the service they provide then why should they support a recreational punters hobby for next to nothing". Maybe because a punter could hold his own for a couple of years then start losing and then start chasing and lose thousands
"If the account is not justifying the service they provide then why should they support a recreational punters hobby for next to nothing."
Because the account is helping then in are making a book (i.e bookmaker)
Because the account is helping then in are making a book (i.e bookmaker)
2 jumps meetings today slybet etc rather than promoting betting acting as though its almost illegal to have a bet at lingfield today/arena tracks etc, no cards, form, betting etc and you cant even find the field for a race untill 10 mins before the off,I've not even looked at last 3 sedgy meetings
for lingfield with certain bookies sp only,no cards,form,Josh apalifi in studio and 007 doing the comms ,its almost as though their getting paid to end UK racing from the inside
Just been pointed out to me that Slybet, 7 mins from off, are SP only.
The end is nigh isn't it?
The end is nigh isn't it?
parispike 09 Dec 24 14:53
The end is nigh isn't it?
Who for Skybet punters?
The end is nigh isn't it?
Who for Skybet punters?
The game, sparrow.
Slowly, inexorably the life is being squeezed out of racing/betting.
Yes, I know there is here.
Slowly, inexorably the life is being squeezed out of racing/betting.
Yes, I know there is here.
there's 10.s of 1000,s of slybet punters one of the biggest online presence and race sponsors if they arnt bothered why should anyone else be ?, I,m a daily punter online and have missed whole meetings at arena tracks because of bookie coverage any newcomers have zero chance of knowing about them
point is their saying their doing everything they can to bring new punters in to the game and even on a 2 card afternoon ,their basically trying to hide one of the cards from public view online
Are you any good at pinball 1st TP? Only asking as most know about the ongoing dispute between Skyb and PP with Arena tracks, maybe spend less time in the middle of the night on celeb threads?
They are trying to get new customers but not horse racing punters. Racing is merely the gateway.
Im Glad to see this topic hasnt fallen into the normal slagging match by the usual culprits,
This situation hasnt developed overnight and each and every point made has some credence of accuracy, My little point is I emailed the gambling commission for a detailed breakdown of the data used to formulate there last reports with the emphasis on the numbers of problem gamblers against the bookmakers data base who have self excluded because of there gambling addiction, My second question was the percentages of who self excluded due to the gaming aspect (FOBTS) or gambling (horse racing , dogs , football etc) because of there addiction , two very very basic questions but not a reply.
The bookmakers have not said a word or raised any questions this , therefore the bookmakers are obviously happy about the situation concerning the gamblers being under the same umbrella as gamers who use the fobts.
This situation hasnt developed overnight and each and every point made has some credence of accuracy, My little point is I emailed the gambling commission for a detailed breakdown of the data used to formulate there last reports with the emphasis on the numbers of problem gamblers against the bookmakers data base who have self excluded because of there gambling addiction, My second question was the percentages of who self excluded due to the gaming aspect (FOBTS) or gambling (horse racing , dogs , football etc) because of there addiction , two very very basic questions but not a reply.
The bookmakers have not said a word or raised any questions this , therefore the bookmakers are obviously happy about the situation concerning the gamblers being under the same umbrella as gamers who use the fobts.
The bookies will tolerate horseracing customers as long as the same customers play fobt too; fobt is the ultimate aim. However, when the bookies have decided the customers are not attracted to fobt then all free spin promotion will cease, and restriction and/or account closure will ensue; the bookies will be cracking the AC whip with a vengeance.
I cannot believe how genuine recreational punters the majority of whom are long term losers can be as affected by AC as some here have claimed.
I cannot believe how genuine recreational punters the majority of whom are long term losers can be as affected by AC as some here have claimed.
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
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
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.
Betting on the horses is basically there flag ship mantra,
It’s their whole purpose to exsist,they have to offer bets on racing.
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.
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.
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
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
why did the tax avoiding Beckham's look so comfortable in the company of THE UK ROYAL FAMILY
sorry wrong thread meant for the TAX THIEVING DETTORI THREAD
lay the horses to lose a certain amount or you're not allowed to open the casino.
fairly straightforward.
no horses, no slots.
fairly straightforward.
no horses, no slots.
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'?
That's 'sly' contribution to the reduction in horseracing revenue. Whose fault is it, mine or 'sly'?
theirs. so why is the whole industry blanking the subject ??
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.
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.
think you're right sage. Get economics to close down half the tracks and then there's less support to keep the sport going.
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 !
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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!
Betfair good product for Saturday punters
is that because its odds on to crash on a Saturday
is that because its odds on to crash on a Saturday
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.
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.
Do you and Hulk discuss plagiarism comingagain? A couple of years too late about licencing btw!!
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.
How did the bookie muppets miss this behaviour of their paymasters? A clear professional disingenuity at play.
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.
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
it's all drugs Brian, same as horses and fobts are all gambling .... that'll be you one day
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)
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)
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.
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.
Until the introduction of casino terminals, designed by the bookies to specifically get players addicted, there were no issues. Bingo!
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.
THE RACINGPOST will never articulate this, because they are scared.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That sums up the extent to which the rag is in hock to its paymasters.
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!
. But won't be, as highlighted by other well-informed people in this excellent thread!
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.
Alistair Down was not as wonderful a writer as some would make out.
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
Btw your fantasy that your £2 bets move markets is about as real as Impossible being crucial to the levy!! HTH
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
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
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
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
a bit like arther Daley on the one arm bandit at the policemen's ball
"Alistair Down was not as wonderful a writer as some would make out". But still better than nearly all the others.
"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". I find a 100% in favour article hard to believe. Doubt anyone can post it ?
If memory serves Howard his article was about sea front arcades when he was a child so hardly anything to do with FOBT online debate or 100 % in favour? Stand to be corrected btw.
Exposed your attempt to invent a story Komrade Howard, too easy like the beating your boys took in Syria!!!
I was doubting the story. Can you read or are you mental ?
Of course you were Komrade,did the FSB check it out for you?
Yet again a sensible topic degraded into vitriolic abuse , everyone has a point of view that is conducive to where we are today whether it be 2% of the problem or 98% of the problem , i for one can not see a road back as there has been that much damage done by the said bookmakers/government under the guise of protecting the customer, Heres my proof i went into a local bookmaker to use the toilet (who had restricted me because of betting on scottish football ) on a saturday night not one punter in there just four people using the FOBTS, every single one of the four people had been excluded at one time or another and had spent spent varying lengths of time in the local mental health hospital to assist with there problem gambling, I brought this to the attention of the manager and later to the area manager stating the obvious about there mental health issues and how they had self excluded in the past, his reaction was they are either going to spend there money in here or across the road at a competitor so i would rather they spent it in here so as i can meet my targets , ( i asked him i thought you didnt have any targets for the fobts?),
Yes dumpling I agree. A fantastic thread with so many interesting and valid points raised which are all relevant .
Far more than one person could have come up with and it truly extols the benefit of group think.
Shoodacooda , I can't believe that in your above post. I do believe you, but I cannot get my head around the fact you have shown bf you have earnings around 9k a month but they have deemed a deposit limit of £300 per month appropriate.
I bet if your deposits were for their casino products they would have set your limit far higher!
Far more than one person could have come up with and it truly extols the benefit of group think.
Shoodacooda , I can't believe that in your above post. I do believe you, but I cannot get my head around the fact you have shown bf you have earnings around 9k a month but they have deemed a deposit limit of £300 per month appropriate.
I bet if your deposits were for their casino products they would have set your limit far higher!
Oneten, what is so fantastic about a thread that just regurgitated what every similar thread has already covered and that with plagiarised posts from the usual bookie bashers with hardly a word about the roles of the GC or Government?
Where you get "Fantastic thread" from is anybody's guess but no honour in self praise anyway.
Where you get "Fantastic thread" from is anybody's guess but no honour in self praise anyway.
It may be a pipedream, but I sometimes wonder about punters (who just want to bet) actually starting (at least some of them) to give up on bookies and start using exchanges more.
I never really understand why that doesn't seem to be happening more...
I never really understand why that doesn't seem to be happening more...
Linked to that - surely exchanges should make use of poor service by bookies, and use that as an edge in marketing the product (though I realise BF is also part bookie of course...)
Maybe you should ask PP that question stu, the original concept died when BF was sold to him.
stu 12 Dec 24 11:25
It may be a pipedream, but I sometimes wonder about punters (who just want to bet) actually starting (at least some of them) to give up on bookies and start using exchanges more.
I never really understand why that doesn't seem to be happening more...
It has been a mystery to me for quite some time but horse racing people are very traditional in their outlook and never really wanted to change their allegiance to the bookmakers despite constantly moaning about them at every opportunity.
It may be a pipedream, but I sometimes wonder about punters (who just want to bet) actually starting (at least some of them) to give up on bookies and start using exchanges more.
I never really understand why that doesn't seem to be happening more...
It has been a mystery to me for quite some time but horse racing people are very traditional in their outlook and never really wanted to change their allegiance to the bookmakers despite constantly moaning about them at every opportunity.
exchange was designed as competition to the traditional bookmaker. bewildering then that they have allowed them to come under the control of bookmakers who are obviously going to do absolutely fk all to promote their advantages over their traditional offering. quite the opposite, they've flooded the markets with their own money and restricted a lot of punters (under the guise of affordability - I cannot get my head around the fact you have shown bf you have earnings around 9k a month but they have deemed a deposit limit of £300 per month appropriate 'restricted')
punters want someone to hate...and prefer it not to be fellow punters
serious/betting fanatics etc cant get that their still a miniscule % of overall punters Betfair doesn't really lend itself to betting night before,morning for race ,at work, fav jockeys, trainers ,multiples etc etc,its really for serious punters
every time a 25/1 shot wins on the tv it should flash up "paid 43/1 on the exchange" so anyone that had a tenner on it at the bookies is made aware they just spunked an extra £180 ...
1st time poster 12 Dec 24 13:04
serious/betting fanatics etc cant get that their still a miniscule % of overall punters Betfair doesn't really lend itself to betting night before,morning for race ,at work, fav jockeys, trainers ,multiples etc etc,its really for serious punters
So these serious punters who get their bets on night before, early morning etc. and yet other people obviously not so serious can't get on!
serious/betting fanatics etc cant get that their still a miniscule % of overall punters Betfair doesn't really lend itself to betting night before,morning for race ,at work, fav jockeys, trainers ,multiples etc etc,its really for serious punters
So these serious punters who get their bets on night before, early morning etc. and yet other people obviously not so serious can't get on!
"at work, fav jockeys, trainers" nothing to stop them playing exchange. And what makes you think that the players here and especially on the forum are talented winning punters ? But admit they have the time to look at the screen all day
Betfair been going for what 25 yrs,look at liquidity 20 mines before a race
if you no of any other reasons why liquidity on betfair is basically non excistent 20 mins before a race,please let us in on the secret
I sit in front of a screen all day ,all the time in the world,racing savy but still prefer betting with slybet ,because like most punters I like ew.enhanced places, not involved with unmatched etc,etc
if you no of any other reasons why liquidity on betfair is basically non excistent 20 mins before a race,please let us in on the secret
I sit in front of a screen all day ,all the time in the world,racing savy but still prefer betting with slybet ,because like most punters I like ew.enhanced places, not involved with unmatched etc,etc
Racing savvy 1st TP and all day on Slybet but unaware of their dispute with Arena? Potential poster boy for the GC's crackdown!!
you don't want BF deductions on NR's for one thing. But bookies don't need liquidity. They take the bet or not and often depends on who is betting.
It's abundantly clear bookies do not want savvy punters chipping away the size of their cherry; bookies see this cherry theirs alone, and no intruder is allowed. As such, bookie will use every trick in the book to maintain this position eg indiscriminately / overzealously in enforcing AC; AC is supposed to monitor persistent big losers/possibly money launderers playing fobts (mainly), not horseracing.
However, AC is also a timely "gift" from the Gambling Commission (GC) used by bookies knowingly and readily to weed out unprofitable accounts and savvy punters despite the insistence of GC AC only affects a very small minority of horseracing punters.
However, AC is also a timely "gift" from the Gambling Commission (GC) used by bookies knowingly and readily to weed out unprofitable accounts and savvy punters despite the insistence of GC AC only affects a very small minority of horseracing punters.
howard 12 Dec 24 12:39
punters want someone to hate...and prefer it not to be fellow punters
Deary me Howard don’t you read comments ?
punters want someone to hate...and prefer it not to be fellow punters
Deary me Howard don’t you read comments ?
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/how-a-punter-with-average-lo...
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539