Lee Gibson taking Betfair to court .. Suprised not more about it on here ...

Daryl Revok 10 Oct 25 14:41 
Rico, do you remember what the hoss he laid to pick up £114kplus was? Probably be quite tough to do that in today's markets

no idea tbh..i had his bank acc statements for the court case,he had 600k in his acc in august 2008 i think it was and had £20 in sept.

i thort he'd win the court case tbh.

I would rather have a bet with my money than give it to lawyers, the court case will cost him . I suppose he will class it as a winning bet if he wins the appeal.

Calvert was a complete crook who won lumps off Ladbrokes and S James before they closed him down. Took it to Hills, where he bet on all sorts. Tried to get out of trouble by laying the bollocks of Amarillo Slim and stopping it. Total toe rag. Rightfully warned off.

How did he get an appeal,they don’t like to overturn a ruling,or 2nd guess a judge.its not var.

Given osbourne made interest payments on buy to let mortgages exempt from profits,he can’t just get renters to make him rich again,so this looks his way of getting his money back.

problem gambler for the bookies is anyone showing any kind of nous or taking value / beating prices.  they are identified immediately by the "traders" (fancy title, £12.21 an hour) and told to fk off.  if they can identify them, they can also identify the mugs losing too much, they get invited to hospitality and talked into upping the ante.  they not ya pal, they not looking out for ya.  they want ya money.  all of it.

if a gambler self excludes from whill and its confirmed by them and they then let him bet again how in fcks name are they not accountable?

... Physically impossible to stop anyone who wants a bet getting it on, wether thats in person or through a third person, Hills will argue ( I guess ) that they stopped the person in question gambling from an online acc, as for high street shops it just cant be possible. imo.

Caan Berry 7 minute video on the Gibson appeal which also mentions Calvert:-

The £1.5M Football Betting Lawsuit Against Betfair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjtFut3dcnI

I wouldn't have a pound coin on at1,000,000/1 the claimant winning this Appeal

The poor individual is grasping trying to reclaim……

The last straw of desperation imv……

Tbh…..

think stealing/borrowing money to bet in another persons name after self excluding with another bookmaker  ,would class you as a problem  gambler
1,5 million there's dozens of footballers would have booted one straight out for a throw,took a yellow/red for a few grand etc,

OK, this is a desperate attempt which is pretty certain to fail.

BUT, if anyone wants to read about an even more desperate attempt to claw back money from somewhere, trawl Google for Ramsden v HM Revenue and Customs.

A 46 page document from 2019 detailing a short-lived court case brought by the 1980's high-roller Terry Ramsden against HMRC.

I suspect like many others, Ramsden was a hero of mine in the 1980's but this court case showed me that most idols have feet of clay!

I will say nothing about the case other than it contains some astonishing stuff - and I really mean that. My jaw was dropping when I came across a few months ago. (I should think that the HMRC were pretty miffed about something that came up in the case about one of their senior staff - you will soon see what I mean!)

You would have though that given Ramsden's high profile from the 1980's, someone in the media somewhere would have brought the case to wider attention. However, the case took place the day after Boris won the 2019 General Election, so the media's attention was elsewhere.

For anyone who followed Ramsden's career in the 1980's this read will astound you. If anyone does bother to read it through, let me know what you think!!

ARRY the lawyer on the AK bets podcast said the prescebent has already been set,by a big dog gambler who used to in the days of when bookies took a bet,used to go in with carry bags full of dosh and claimed bookie should have stopped taking it after a long losing run, and said there's 3 barriers to over come
bookie has to have a duty of care
bookie has to offer help
you have to be willing to be helped
in this case jury threw it out like they probably will this one because they deemed if bookie did refuse the bet ,evidence suggested he,d just place the bets elsewhere,
its on this weeks podcast worth a listen

There is no Jury 1st TP.

This (the Lee Gibson case) is the appeal.

Gibson has already lost the case in the High Court last year, and is now appealing.

Actually it may be that was last week and we are now waiting to be told the result.

Let me see if I can find the original result. Ah, this purports to be it:-
https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/LM-2021-000010-Lee-v.-TSE-Malta-LP-t.a-Betfair-FINAL.-docx.pdf

I normally want all punters to win a few quid apart from one or two (on here)……

I want this individual to lose……tbh.

Judgment is in. The punter lost.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1589

Inevitable

Proving he could sustain the level of bets he was placing undoubtedly contributed to his undoing.
Those that need protecting are generally not property tycoons but those losing way above their income streams.
Mind you, had he been taking them to the cleaners, he wouldn't have lasted longer the strawberry season.

The Racing Post has the story at:-

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/court-of-appeal-finds-against-punter-who-sued-betfair-following-1.5-million-gambling-loss-ahl8V4x2iS8H

Court of appeal finds against punter who sued Betfair following £1.5 million gambling loss

A punter who sued Betfair over nearly £1.5 million in losses after claiming they should have known he was a problem gambler has lost his case in the Court of Appeal.

Property tycoon Lee Gibson had run up the losses betting on sports, usually football matches, in a ten-year period between 2009 and 2019 before his account was suspended. He took legal action to try and recover the greater part of those losses, those suffered in the six years running up to the issue of his claim, arguing that Betfair should have taken action to stop him gambling.

A high court judge rejected that case last year but Gibson appealed and the case was heard by three judges in October.

Gibson had asserted he was a problem gambler and that Betfair knew, or ought to have known, that was the case. He said Betfair had breached the terms of their licence by failing to take appropriate steps to protect him from losing money.

However, Judge Nigel Bird, who heard the original case, ruled Gibson had "consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling (including his losses) and none of the information he provided to Betfair painted a different picture".

The judge added: "The fact that he consistently satisfied AML [anti-money laundering] checks (and raises no complaint about that) makes it impossible for Mr Gibson to argue that the size of his losses was, of itself, enough to raise reasonable concerns. Indeed, even after the trial, there is no real suggestion that Mr Gibson could not afford his gambling."

Gibson appealed on five grounds but in their judgement Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss, Lord Justice Popplewell and Sir Julian Flaux said the case hung on the challenge to the conclusion there was no breach of Betfair's licence conditions.

The judgement said that Judge Bird had "considered the relevant evidence, made no errors of principle in doing so and came to an entirely reasonable conclusion on that evidence".

It added: "I can see no justification for allowing the appeal against the conclusion that Betfair neither knew nor ought to have known that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler."

The decision was expected to be a key test case, with the potential to open the floodgates to other punters seeking to recover their losses had Gibson been successful.

Will this case, indeed has it already, make bf even more stringent about affordability checks etc, etc, ?  Probably, thus doing none of us any favours?

Well that would have been more likely if they'd lost, but they won.

Yes they did.  So did we against terrorists but try getting in a plane in half an hour today with ordinary luggage of thirty years ago.  Who really won that battle?

He wanted to bet and win, and if he lost he wanted his money back.
Sounds reasonable.
The judge have been awake.

You have to admire the Racing Post's loyalty to their paymasters, sneaking this line in at the bottom of their "report":

The decision was expected to be a key test case, with the potential to open the floodgates to other punters seeking to recover their losses had Gibson been successful.

Versus the reality, that I originally posted on this very thread two months ago:

The Management09 Oct 25 15:55Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 12,066 | Blogger: The Management's blog
Bit of an odd one imo.

Pretty much every "bookmaker" (including Betfair) were clearly in breach of Gambling Act on a wholesale scale for more than 15 years and many thousands of customers would surely have a case (purely on a legal basis).

Yet, on the limited info available, this fella seems to be one of few that doesn't have a case (imo).

'the reality' appears to be you quoting your own opinion again. the high court sets legal precedent in the real world.

It was the correct judgement. He was overwhelmingly to blame; his gambling was over many years. He knew what he was doing.

However, the bookies could have done more eg due diligence, etc, leading to a compulsory ban on him. But, bookies being bookies ie greedy and uncaring, this willing "partner" was easy fodder.

Let's hope the Gambling Commission will take an interest in this case and possibly levy a financial penalty. The bookie could definitely have done more. A PR the industry does not welcome.

Perhaps they should only let adults, capable of making their own financial decisions, bet. And not let Betfair reach into the accounts of their adult customers to help themselves.

It's set a precedent (arguably) for people like Lee Gibson.

People that didn't require grooming - because they were already gambling addicts to the extent they were prepared themselves to lie, cheat and manipulate in order to circumnavigate the mandatory regulations & protections in order to continue with their addiction.

For every Lee Gibson - there will be ten cases where the lying, cheating and manipulating to bypass the mandatory protections and duties of care was perpetrated solely by the online bookmakers. People that recognised they had a problem and self-excluded - but were still bombarded with unwarranted pay-day contact, free bets, free spins and enticements, etc.

Obviously you don't personally believe in any of the laws that you disagree with - but they still exist and where honest people (unlike Mr Dixon) have been on the receiving end of the wrongdoing (been cheated and manipulated outwith the Gambling Act); It would still be interesting (imo) to see such a case brought. Rather than this time-wasting nonsense that was always (imo) doomed to fail from the outset.

Dec 9, 2025 -- 9:37AM, The Management wrote:

It's set a precedent (arguably) for people like Lee Gibson. People that didn't require grooming - because they were already gambling addicts to the extent they were prepared themselves to lie, cheat and manipulate in order to circumnavigate the mandatory regulations & protections in order to continue with their addiction.For every Lee Gibson - there will be ten cases where the lying, cheating and manipulating to bypass the mandatory protections and duties of care was perpetrated solely by the online bookmakers. People that recognised they had a problem and self-excluded - but were still bombarded with unwarranted pay-day contact, free bets, free spins and enticements, etc.Obviously you don't personally believe in any of the laws that you disagree with - but they still exist and where honest people (unlike Mr Dixon) have been on the receiving end of the wrongdoing (been cheated and manipulated outwith the Gambling Act); It would still be interesting (imo) to see such a case brought. Rather than this time-wasting nonsense that was always (imo) doomed to fail from the outset.

TM... seething inside that the court ruled that people are being held responsible for their own actions and its been considered cheeky as fook to try bet and win but if end up losing then thats ok as you can find another way to reclaim losses. This case was never going to succeed but neither should any other from degenerates that took their chance, paid their money and try grizzling after losing.

Impossible surely even a thicket like you can understand that the law found in favour of BF, you even say it was the correct judgement i.e BF did nothing wrong. Then you say the GC should get involved and levy a financial penalty!! There is stiff competition for thicket of the year but you are odds on for the title.

TM

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the line you quoted from the RP. If the HC had found in the claimant's favour, it would have set a precedent. No doubt encouraging more people to claim that they shouldn't have been allowed to willingly lose their own money.

Your own quote Pretty much every "bookmaker" (including Betfair) were clearly in breach of Gambling Act on a wholesale scale for more than 15 years  has yet to be substantiated in the courts.

ie, the RP's line is opinion based on substantiated fact, a failed high court case. Yours is just an opinion, which you claim is 'reality'.

levelbreak - can you read?

Why would I be "seething" that a case I opined (two months ago) was probably a complete waste of time, has turned out to be er ....... a complete waste of time!

Are you insinuating that being proved right about something would make me angry . Strange thinking on your part imo.

cider - Betfair were not (to my knowledge) fined for their dealings with this individual. He probably did more wrong than they did tbh!

But have I just imagined the countless fines imposed on online bookmakers for their wrongdoing to 1000's & 1000's of other customers?

Imposed by an unaccountable regulator. These fines are not tested against law.

You could be right. But it's not reality, it's your opinion.

Even you cannot feign being so obtuse as to not recognise the difference between a case where the customer has knowing committed the majority of the wrongdoing, versus a case where the online bookmaker has knowingly and deliberately perpetrated all of the wrongdoing.

I'm not batting for bookies, far from it, they won't lay any of my bets! I am however rather irked by adults trying to cleanse themselves from their own poor choices, retrospectively.

I don't know where you get figures of thousands from TM, most of the fines I recall have been mainly for technical breaches or AML?

If there was evidence of a bookie knowingly accepting bets from an individual who had previously self excluded from their account with them, absolutely, they should face sanction. I'm not trying to claim that bookies are unimpeachable. But these need to be evidenced and tested on an individual basis. And/or an established pattern of wilful irresponsible behaviour, tested in a law court.

Dec 9, 2025 -- 10:03AM, The Management wrote:

levelbreak - can you read?Why would I be "seething" that a case I opined (two months ago) was probably a complete waste of time, has turned out to be er ....... a complete waste of time! Are you insinuating that being proved right about something would make me angry . Strange thinking on your part imo.

Every case of this nature is a waste of time, whether an addict or someone bombarded with free spins/offers. There is zero responsibility on the bookmakers nor can there ever be if the nature of gambling is to survive. Sadly the wokey left needing to find a reason for their failings has been shown up for what it is. Perhaps now the 99.9% of society that can go about their lives without being incapable of controlling themselves can be left alone.

If there wasn't a Gambling Act you'd have a valid argument/opinion in which I would share to an extent. Bookmakers could act however they liked, including without any responsibility whatsoever.

In reality - There is a Gambling Act. You are choosing to ignore that fact because it's existence doesn't align with your personal opinion & life philosophy. Once you accept the reality that the Gambling Act does exist, your argument, opinion & life philosophy are all irrelevant to the facts.

Its been discussed many times over and tested in court many times, The Gambling Act is a seriously wishy washy piece of all thought out legislation that rarely nedds to apply. Too many flaws in it to make it absolute law unfortuantely. I do like the bookmakers at all, but trying to hold them to account using The Gambling Act is flawed thinking.

terrible typing there, ill thought out, rarely needs to apply and too many flaws in it to stand up in court unfortunately. There are thousands of Acts and pieces of legislation that are challenged in the courts on a weekly basis and most are successful.

I wouldn't argue with much of your 10:30 post levelbreak.

I'm pointing out though, that there is a massive difference between a case where the customer has knowing committed the majority of the wrongdoing (i.e. Gibson), versus a case where the online bookmaker has knowingly and deliberately perpetrated all of the wrongdoing against somebody (and been sanctioned accordingly).

As stated, for every Gibson (hopeless case) there will be 1000's out there that have a more valid case.

Perhaps they should only let adults, capable of making their own financial decisions, bet. And not let Betfair reach into the accounts of their adult customers to help themselves.


   Surely thats the point, he was being allowed to bet untill for some strange reason he decided he wanted his money back.

What would constitute a valid case IYO TM? If you believe there are thousands out there it seems inconceivable that bookmakers are not being challenged in Court regularly . Seems to me it would be a case of Caveat Emptor for the majority and would require proof of a fraudulent act by a bookmaker for any disgruntled punter to succeed in getting any losses back, breaching the Gambling Act unlikely ever to prove fraud by a Bookie.

In part the Gambling Act 2005 was introduced to remove responsibility from Magistrates Court whilst also confirming that gambling debts could be pursued through Courts as opposed to the old Debt Of Honour rule, nothing within the act relating directly to disgruntled punters as far as I am aware. Stand to be corrected.

Cag - I have to get on now. (last post on here)

My idea of a valid case? Probably along the lines of a youngster, 18ish left home to go to a new job or Uni etc. Done his entire wages or student loan in no time. Never been put through KYC, Affordability, Source of funds, AML, etc, etc at time of opening account or depositing, despite multiple and repeated sizeable deposits. Might well have been put through it if HE ever tried withdrawing a chunk (but he never got to experience that!). Saw the error of their ways, self-excluded and stopped. Expensive lesson learnt, end of relationship. Yet despite that definitive message (self-exclusion) which should have ended all contact, still contacted relentlessly (by same firm) and offered ever increasing enticements and inducement to return.... and was allowed to return, no questions asked. You can make up your own unhappy ending...

Slightly stronger case that Gibson (imo). Then if you want to get onto the recently redundant, the recently bereaved, the recently divorced, the mentally ill, the medicated, the veterans with PTSD, etc, etc. They probably all fall under the term "vulnerable" (horrid word - but it's the word used in the Act).

On that cheery note - have a good day.

^ Maybe add in the terminally ill and the suicidal.

Like I said - have a nice day!

Dec 9, 2025 -- 11:24AM, The Management wrote:

^ Maybe add in the terminally ill and the suicidal.Like I said - have a nice day!

Are you suggesting the terminally ill who may want to enjoy whatever time they have left doing whatever they wish (which would absolutley be their right) are not allowed to enjoy the vice of betting TM? Thats a pretty slippery slope to North Korea...

I think TM was admitting that there would be Bob Hope and no hope of a disgruntled punter clawing back gambling losses? In the case of Gibson or anyone who has lied to keep betting and provided false accounts etc, my advice to the Bookie would be to inform them that they will be reported to the Police for potential fraud and see if they are so keen to carry on!!

A punter who sued Betfair over nearly £1.5 million in losses after claiming they should have known he was a problem gambler has lost his case in the Court of Appeal.

Property tycoon Lee Gibson had run up the losses betting on sports, usually football matches, in a ten-year period between 2009 and 2019 before his account was suspended. He took legal action to try and recover the greater part of those losses, those suffered in the six years running up to the issue of his claim, arguing that Betfair should have taken action to stop him gambling.

++++++

Interesting to know if the "property tycoon" was self-styled or just a lazy red top trope.

levelbreak09 Dec 25 11:46Joined: 19 Sep 25 | Topic/replies: 58 | Blogger: levelbreak's blog
Thats a pretty slippery slope to North Korea...


^ I'm not really going to be able to take you seriously after that remark.

I was suggesting that if you had a terminally ill relative, they might not be in the right frame of mind or even mentally capable of taking responsibility for their own decisions/actions.

As such both they and you (indirectly) might expect some protections from vultures. Rather than those vultures deliberately not taking the required steps that would have identified your dying relative them as "vulnerable" - but instead allowing them he to offload your entire inheritance on the slots via just a handful of massive unchecked deposits.

I suppose you could at least console yourself, the day after the funeral by taking up the free spins they send out, having noticed that a few days had passed without another massive deposit.

A deliberately extreme and quite emotive example maybe - but I'd be very surprised if such examples didn't exist - and of course would definitely exist in an unregulated Gambling Industry.

As a reminder (to save you replying with more opinionated tosh based on your personal beliefs) the 2005 Gambling Act does exist.

For completeness, I could equally picture your face if said relative had changed their will on their death-bed and left the lot to the Somalian care-worker that had been around for 10 minutes. Would you be disregarding the law and saying fair play to the care-giver; sucking that up - and arguing that your dementia ridden relative should have taken more personal responsibility?

Your last line suits very well TM, I would indeed not waste time crying over something that was not in my control to start with. It might annoy me for 5 mins but I sure as hell would not be scratching around trying to weedle a way back into said will..I'd do what most self respecting person should do which is crack on and focus on how to put myself in a better position without requiring it to have come from others failures...

I don't believe you for one minute - and even if true, you are probably in a tiny minority believing that the terminally ill are absolutely fair game and shouldn't be protected from charlatans, grifters and criminals.

The terminally ill who are of sound mind are just as allowed to bet as anyone else are they not? Why would you want to take one of lifes pleasures away from the TM? Are you suggesting we discriminate against those who are in ill health? If they are not suffering from any mental illness which would then fall under the mens rea or copus mentis sections of the law, then I think its pretty harsh that you want to decide what someone can and cannot do with their days..

As a reminder (to save you replying with more opinionated tosh based on your personal beliefs) the 2005 Gambling Act does exist.

The act which says to protect those of mental illness and vulnerability. If someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness choses to bet, enjoys a bet and does so in full control, are you saying they should not be allowed to bet? You need to dig deeper into things before coming out with generic sh1te to fit your narrative. I currently have a friend battling with MND and has been for a year now. He was an oil trader and still enjoys taking an interest in the markets. He also enjoys a day at the sport or watching it on tv ( including the ITV7 or a bet online). Are you saying he should not be allowed to do so? If so i'll invite you to come and meert him and explain why you hold that view...

We're back to where we started when I suspected you couldn't read!

How have you read anything I've written and jumped to a situation where I'm not allowing your mate to have a bet or I'm not allowing him to watch sport on TV ?? That's baffling.

It seems your own extreme take on things is clouding your judgement. Yer man can do whatever the fk he wants within the confines of the law imo. The same goes for online bookmakers (even if they're just pretendy ones).

Finally, so you agree that persons are free to make their own choices. No matter if terminally ill or not. That wasn't too tricky was it? Obviously if they are deemed not of sound mind then it would be a different story and bookmakers would be held to account on that, however there has never been a case of that nature put to the test. You should perhaps go away and look up the definition of terminally ill as it sure as sh1te doesn't have to mean not in control of their thinking.

I said they can do wtf they want within the confines of the law.

So any interaction with an online bookmaker would involve the Gambling operator (assuming licensed and regulated in the UK) complying with the 2005 Gambling Act. Which (I repeat) does exist.

Secretly gambling away his entire net worth (unless he's a pauper) even if that was his choice would (completely regardless of his health) compel the Gambling Operator completing some checks. Again, (because although you clearly don't like it) the 2005 Gambling Act exists.

To summarise: The 2005 Gambling Act exists.

Oh TM.. you are seriously overplaying that act sadly. I'll wish you good luck but have a proper read of the act please and realise how limited the legislation is with regards any checks beyond AML. That is the only time to my knowledge the act has been successfully challenged in court. The rest contained within the 326 part act alongside the amended schedules is literally of as much relevance as a red flag on a beach telling people not to swim.

I'm not really arguing if it's a good Act or an effective one - like many others - It's clearly not. The fact remains that it has existed since 2005 and that online bookmakers have been allowed (by the regulator) to brazenly drive a wagon and horses through it to the detriment of their customers (until recently).

If you think that Lee Gibson was a good "test case" or set a precedent - you might as well go and get a job "reporting" for the Racing Post! I'm pointing out that there are likely 1000's of other more genuine cases out there that could probably succeed or have a chance of succeeding.

This case is very relevant as if any punter whether an addict/vulnerable or not has lied to the company involved to circumnavigate triggers or limits etc, then no matter what their background or personal situation may be they will not win in court. The false representation to the bookmaker when supplying documents or information asked for is enough for the bookmaker to beat any claim imo.

Totally agree!

But the utter lack of specifics in The Act cuts both ways imo. If you put a dishonest chancer like Gibson out of your mind.

How could you claim to have been protecting the (genuinely) vulnerable if say - you took 4 x £20k deposits from somebody without ever running ANY checks whatsoever - because you didn't even have a system in place to run such checks (until the fines started getting dished out!). You've subsequently been fined by the regulator for failing to do so, you've probably breached all 3 objectives of the Act, you've not appealed that (you've admitted culpability) and you've paid the fine. Admitted guilt if only to the GC.

The Act only has 3 core objectives - and you've already been done for not having the capability/systems in place to adhere to any of them! I'd like to see a case like (there are thousands!) - but throw in that the person bringing the case is honest (preferably one of the customers actually involved in that widespread behaviour that resulted in the fine) but could also strongly argue their case of vulnerability and that they have been exploited.

That's a million miles away from the Lee Gibson case. Now that would be game-on and that would set a precedent.

As stated earlier - maybe throw in a bit of self-exclusion - you know the kind of self-exclusion that somehow results in people receiving even more inducements than when they were still active with that firm - except now  maybe they've also shared your "profile" and data with some of their other "betting partners" - so you don't just get more inducements from the firm you self-excluded from - but also from others.

other end of the stick

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

But if someone self excludes and then even tries to open another account, they lose any possible way of winning a claim as they are not to open or try to open an account. If they do that@s on them, not any bookmaker.

Not disputing that either levelbreak.

Cider - Skybet!

Genuine question cider - who wins strictly? The footballing legend or the lad that's had a personality bypass (asking for a friend)

Dec 9, 2025 -- 4:46PM, The Management wrote:

Not disputing that either levelbreak.Cider - Skybet!  Genuine question cider - who wins strictly? The footballing legend or the lad that's had a personality bypass (asking for a friend)

I've been with George since week 1. Yes, I think he wins. Though it's gone very well this year, and all angles are covered.

Fair play. I do sometimes get to watch more of it than would be my choice!

I'd wish you luck - but it doesn't much sound like the outcome will be of any consequence to your returns. WD.

Thanks! The show wants Kaz for sure, and she has a lot in her favour. George is going to be very hard to beat though.

See what you think of this. Especially the Jive element.

https://www.tiktok.com/@georgeclarkeey/video/7579958590690118915

I can see why he'd be popular with the ladies - and he looks like he'd rather be somewhere else, doing something else when he is dancing - so maybe that makes him relatable to the male audience too.

Watched it twice! Barely noticed him!

Easy to see why some people get that impression TM. He has a very laid back persona. Will be in his element on Saturday :) Yes Alexis is great, and a terrific foil for him, as the naturally enthusiastic other half.

Anyone watching that sh1te should be euthanised

Its a measure of how much we have degraded that it is prime-time viewing. Nauseating

££££

Never seen it and my wife would probably go on a lone cruise if I did watch it never mind punt on it. Cider claims to be a shrewd punter but bets on a public poll on the BBC despite claiming he does not watch the channel, the mind boggles!! lol

It's not for me - but bet wherever you've got an edge (imo) - and while I don't agree with cider very often - I don't doubt that he knows his subject(s).

I watch it for money making purposes.
Would you like to lay me that bet on here instead of slybet? In fact I will give you 1.25 to lay instead.

I will put up £400 in a couple of minutes.

Of course, someone immediately jumps ahead of me in the q

You can put it wherever you like sunshine, including where that dont radiate

I would not look at it if all the female contestants offered to polish my rocket. It is an abomination and a sign of moral and mental degradation

And you must be a poof

I would not take a bet on anything that promotes benders Cider let alone on something I would be embarrassed to admit knowing anything about!! Fair play if you can make money out of a public poll though, only time I have ever bet on such was for my wife when Norway won Eurovision @ 11/10, bought herself a new car tbf.

Are you sure that's not your eight quid mitolo?

Rybak

Won't go into depth here, it's gone off topic anyway. Specials is a part of betting that gamblers can have the biggest edge on without inside info, by a million miles. The different events need slightly different skills. XF and SCD in particular are/were about reading what producers want, and if they can achieve it, as well as who the public will be motivated to vote for. It's a puzzle, a challenge. One I fell into completely accidently due to basic maths becoming a major headline for strictly believe it or not. I've been pretty lucky I guess but not lost overall on a big event since 2010. It's an awful lot easier than trying to work out which horse is off today. Getting money down is the issue. The only reason why I didn't have decent money up was not wanting to spook the market. But that horse has bolted now anyway :)

Mitolo wouldnt go for it either imo

Tobes, your wife bought a new car after backing Norge at 11/10?

Was it a Matchbox or Mattel?

£22K win mitolo, posted it here at the time, her money btw.

If anyone wants it, I will pop it up again. More, if they want.

Weave bee near beef ore

Speciality markets like this are indeed exploitable, like Spoty as previously bored on about

But this is a crime against morality and reason and should not exist. I would no more bet on it than back the gladiator with a machine gun in a contest against the geezer with a fishnet and rod

It was a terrific bet, Rybak was unbeatable. Unfortunately, it was before me time :)

Did you take advantage when I told the Forum when Truss was going to resign Cider, before any media knew, shafter accused me of insider trading but I had no involvement in the market.

Don't recall, I only tend to get significantly involved in politics for the big elections. UK general, POTUS, by elections etc. I put over £5K on a Labour majority in 2024, can't remember exactly how much but I had issues with Betfair's maximum liability.

I put a chunk on Remain at long odds-on

Terrible bet when you think abou it, and when you dont