There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Punters are being forced into betting smaller and less often due to account restrictions and the threat of affordability checks, prompting online betting turnover on racing to plummet, according to professional gambler Neil Channing.
Channing said punters were having to be strategic to avoid hitting deposit thresholds that would result in bookmakers asking for sensitive financial information, such as bank statements, to allow them to prove they are able to afford their betting.
Last week, figures released by the Gambling Commission showed online betting turnover on British horseracing had dropped by £1.6 billion in the last two years, leaving the sport with a real-terms black hole in its finances of £3bn when adjusted for inflation.
Channing said: “You just have to bet smaller as you're limited on what you can deposit and that's not really how most people bet. For example with Cheltenham, lots of people I know wouldn't go too mad in January because the racing is a bit rubbish in the build-up but then they'd go bigger during the festival. If you're limited per month you can't do that, unless you're organised and get things lined up.
“How can punters be happy to send in quite detailed information while often having no idea who will see it, how it will be used and stored? Certain bookmakers are also using the whole affordability thing and regulatory requirements to attempt to weed out business they don't want, which is costing turnover but not levy necessarily.”
I think Neil makes a salient point about the racing being a bit rubbish-that is because the said bookmakers/BHA would not reduce the fixture list numbers. An industry that day by day walks ever closer to irrelevance ably guided by the "governing body".
Channing said punters were having to be strategic to avoid hitting deposit thresholds that would result in bookmakers asking for sensitive financial information, such as bank statements, to allow them to prove they are able to afford their betting.
Last week, figures released by the Gambling Commission showed online betting turnover on British horseracing had dropped by £1.6 billion in the last two years, leaving the sport with a real-terms black hole in its finances of £3bn when adjusted for inflation.
Channing said: “You just have to bet smaller as you're limited on what you can deposit and that's not really how most people bet. For example with Cheltenham, lots of people I know wouldn't go too mad in January because the racing is a bit rubbish in the build-up but then they'd go bigger during the festival. If you're limited per month you can't do that, unless you're organised and get things lined up.
“How can punters be happy to send in quite detailed information while often having no idea who will see it, how it will be used and stored? Certain bookmakers are also using the whole affordability thing and regulatory requirements to attempt to weed out business they don't want, which is costing turnover but not levy necessarily.”
I think Neil makes a salient point about the racing being a bit rubbish-that is because the said bookmakers/BHA would not reduce the fixture list numbers. An industry that day by day walks ever closer to irrelevance ably guided by the "governing body".
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 24
|
By:
not sure so called savy punters would/should be betting bigger at the most competitive meeting of the yr,surely they be getting more/bigger in what Channing calls uncompetitive/rubbish racing in Jan ,bookies have plenty running for them at chelt,frothing at the mouth to take your money
|
|
By:
thought he was hovis for a mo. vision a bit fuzzy
channing is bang on when it comes to punting. just wish hed spare us his student politics. if someone else relentlessy told us how great toryism was i doubt theyd get an easy ride his point here is valid. a casual(losing) wagon i know went to put 2k into his account and got knocked back unless he could provide proof of funds. hes a multi and said fro. then asked me if i could help as he had 300 quid in there and maybe i could boost his balance and remove the need for a deposit. i got it to 1100 in 2 days and then ironed it all out unsatisfactory for all. hes now got nothing to bet with and i owe 300 him quid |
|
By:
on the + side for the mortal plebs must mean everyone's gone from been winners to been losers
 |
|
By:
they should go on Betfair where everyone's a winner apparently so no need to top any accounts up
|
|
By:
thought he was hovis for a mo. vision a bit fuzzy
lol, had same thought glancing at the title too - thought it was bit sudden and unexpected |
|
By:
Am I missing a trick here. We are talking BF here as I cannot think you'd get a bet on with a fixed odds firm online.
A savvy , long term winner, should not need deposit. A festival/weekend punter doing his 2k a pop likely will. Moaning is really about consistent losers. so not enough mug in the (pathetic nowadays) markets. More correct books,PP involved,trying to get the lot. PC and done in margins. And maybe lack of trust in the sport. Who would fancy it, unless you had a proper card. |
|
By:
The business model is broken. No way I would provide info and as for leaving a large balance with a bookmaker who could be hacked any day-no thanks.
|
|
By:
"A savvy, long term winner, should not need deposit"
What would you say to those savvy long term winners eg small stake recreational punters who do not leave money in any bookie account overnight for fear of phantom/unexplained bets placed during the night? I'll not provide sensitive financial info to any bookie until they are regulated by the FCA, and the staff responsible for AC holding the relevant qualification administering the process. Why? At the moment there is no accountability or statutory penalty levied on bookies for misusing info provided or compensation to account holders. I'd hold the bookies in the same regard as fraudsters or scammers. The only difference is the former is legalised. |
|
By:
leaving yer dough in is not ideal but what other options ?
|
|
By:
What would you say to those savvy long term winners eg small stake recreational punters who do not leave money in any bookie account overnight for fear of phantom/unexplained bets placed during the night?
Fair comment. Add mistrust of the books security. But we're only trusting Betfair here. Think most of us have little other choice but to. Can't imagine anyone decent could keep a 365 or high st online acc for long. Any other I've seen pop up I wouldn't think a withdrawal would even be an option. |
|
By:
RACING POST
|
|
By:
I can only deposit a ton a month. If I withdraw £200 can I put £300 in next month ? Don't think so.
|
|
By:
You can withdraw £200 and put £300 in the same month. There is a way you can fill your bf account for a 2% fee, but I wouldn't know anything about that.
|
|
By:
thanks. will look into that ( the former ! )
|
|
By:
the general concensus is that only 5% of horse racing punters are winners and are on the exchanges because they cant get a bet on with the shops or online . going by comments 95% on here must be winners who cant get on with the shops or accounts . you cant blame the firms for not wanting to accomodate em!can ya!
|
|
By:
i must be a "mug " as i can get on to reasonalble stakes wi denise & bills ,.........fook all wi slys fred and paddys /sportsbook etc , i thought i was doing reasonably well over the past 5 or 6 years but most of you guys must be wheelbarrowing it in. whats your secrets.
|
|
By:
my secret is, I rarely bet on nags!
|
|
By:
i only bet on the nags
|
|
By:
like I saqide yesterday I,m only a fivers/tenners punter,but took out over 800 in winnings in last 14 months from slybet starting with around 300 bank and always have around 300 in since reading all the doom on here over last 12 months,if I drop to 250/sub 250 I deposit 30 to 50 in
I still get all slybet offers,free bets to 20 quid, sportinlife value best prices honoued on ew terms, I don't chase losses its just a bit of entertainment for me I've never been restricted,refused or asked about my financial arrangements reading this forum you,d think I,d be high on the list of accounts they wouldn't want so not quite sure why/what people are up to who are getting grief |
|
By:
Foyles , you can't be betting many 8/1 into 4/1 horses win or lose. If plenty of winners stay the same price or drift OK. ( that's with 3 65 )
|
|
By:
my sin with slys is they were offering 25/1 mother earth for the 1,000 gns most of the winter all the other firms were shorter , i kept putting the odd £5 - £10 on in dribs and drabs at that price every so often from about october till around febuary when they cut it to 16s iirc .then i stopped backing her . but i had plenty(by may standards ) on by that time .....when she won in may that was the end of getting anything reasonable on with them but in a way i am not bothered tbh as they will never get it back.
baldy had 3 bets all small stakes beat the price on a few of them restricted to next to nothing so dont bother with him . |
|
By:
Try getting a few small stake accas (long range) up with 'sly'. Soon you'll be in their sin-bin like yours truly eg all free spin promotion knackered; price boost restricted to 250p. I used to bet at least £25 weekly on their loyalty promotion - now zilch. 'billie' is worse. Absolutely zilch on everything.
I'm a genuine recreational (fun/take it or leave it) punter with a £100 deposit limit with every bookie. |
|
By:
howard i very rarely back anything under 10/1 so i have a lot of losers but the odd winner at big prices, the winner will cancel out most of the losers ,i play relativly small stakes spread around with the books and on here .
|
|
By:
Well a lot of losers helps ! I take it plenty of your winners don't go 33/1 into 12's either
 |