Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.

[ionapaul]

LOL - that's an excellent gif Tony!

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Lazare]

Pray for Lazare

https://extra.ie/news/irish-news/nun...hers-promotion

They haven't gone away you know.

[Lazare]

Go to shop for two beers. Because two beers is respectable for a Monday. Drink responsibly.

Shop has promo on 4 beers.

'Hey, two tonight, maybe two tomorrow night'



Drink 4 beers.

[Guest]

Winning isn't even a necessary prerequisite for a restriction, a handful of beating SP and depositing via neteller is more than enough.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Strewelpeter]

What's the general feeling about wework as a business and as a service?
Anyone here used them and did they find it value?
More interested in what the thinking is about them as a business hype train or solid proposition?

[cardshark202]

I've never understood why bookies can just limit or even close winning accounts with little to no repercussions though. Seems inherently wrong. The odds are already in their favour almost every time. If someone is smart enough to beat the bookies, then fair play to them. The bookies have huge resources at their disposal.

Even if the number of limited accounts are very low, surely that is more to do with the fact that almost every account is a losing account.

[Mellor]

no-ones ever accused australia, which has this system of minimum allowed bet sizes, of idealism in anything.

If we are going to look up Australia as a paragon of gambling integrity, you should probably be aware that the majority of Australian gambling is a tote system.
The majority of Australian betting is handled by a globo-bookie (TAB) runs all the brick and mortar betting shops in the state, as well as betting terminals in every pub – literally almsot every pub, many would go under without it. They offer some fixed odds, where the minimum bets apples – force them to assume some risk. But majority to totalised across the whole country. They accept almost any bet amount on the tote because the tote means zero risk. Zero.

Revenue from TAB fixed odds betting in 2015 was $430 million.
Tote revenue was $1,240 million. So over a billion of risk free punting where they just skim off their share before payout.


There's currently $13million in the Tote pool for the the Melbourne Cup.

[Mellor]

Even if the number of limited accounts are very low, surely that is more to do with the fact that almost every account is a losing account.

It might be only 1 to 2 % of accounts. But I imagine that's because most accounts are lying dormant. I'd imagine if you looked at the % of winning accounts, or the % of accounts better >1000 per year. The % becomes a lot higher.

[Guest]

Their fixed odds will also have the added benefit of being run by PPBF from August 2018. I wonder will that affect their limits in any way.
Their fixed odds site is a bit archaic when compared to the larger European companies, the website is awful but I would imagine there will be a huge improvement soon

[Denny Crane]

Being at the Melbourne Cup is far more reminiscent of a wet day at Leopardstown than I expected.

[Mellor]

At a Melbourne cup charity event today.
Instead of a sweep, they auctioning off the field. Starts at about 1k, then hits 5-6k for most of the way. Johannes Vemeer goes for 12k and last year winner 10k
Getsvti the favourite. There's 100k in the kitty after the charity cut. And the big knows must have blew their load because somebody picked up the favourite for 7k. Works out at about 14/1, for a horse currently trading at 7/1 to 15/2.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[NewApproach]

I've never understood why bookies can just limit or even close winning accounts with little to no repercussions though. Seems inherently wrong. The odds are already in their favour almost every time. If someone is smart enough to beat the bookies, then fair play to them. The bookies have huge resources at their disposal.

Even if the number of limited accounts are very low, surely that is more to do with the fact that almost every account is a losing account.

They owe an income to nobody but their employees and beyond that only have obligations to their shareholders. It's up to winning punters to stay ahead of the game really - I don't think having regulated minimum liabilities would really be of that much benefit.

Also fully agree with the comments elsewhere that those who have had accounts restricted are living in an echo chamber. No way 10% of (once) active accounts are restricted. There are so so many pure recreational punters that a number that high just isn't possible if anyone gave it a mediocum of thought.

[jack90210]

Why doesn't everyone just use exchanges?

[KevIRL]

I have never had an account restricted. Confirmed mug.

[Guest]

Why doesn't everyone just use exchanges?

Certain markets there is no liquidity like gaa. Rugby alt handicaps etc. I got restricted on bet 365 last week I’d show the bets but even by my sick standards would be embarrassing. Women’s cricket in running🔥. Rugby not one special done not one arb.Coral also closed me wouldn’t even let me use a 20 quid free bet.Hope ray Winstone gets a stroke doing one of his bet 365 adverts. I would love to see a proper debate on tv and ask bookmakers why they restrict accounts. Most joe soaps have no clue they do this.Virtuaks abd other cartoons should be banned

[Guest]

It's definitely an issue of liquidity but I also think recreational punters are simply confused by how the exchange works.

There are plenty of people I know who only back soccer and horse racing which obviously have more than enough liquidity but would never venture near the exchange.

People are happy to use bookies as it's a more user friendly experience.

[Strewelpeter]

Why doesn't everyone just use exchanges?

In a word marketing.

[Strewelpeter]

Great results in Melbourne
#prayfordenny

[Solksjaer!]

I have never had an account restricted. Confirmed mug.

Paddy Power drinks out a mug with my username on it. But sure I still go back and pick the ol horse with the same name as me granny, as this one time , it worked.

I mostly stick to losing at golf , although due to one or two big scores, I’d say it’s the only sport I’m ahead in.

Did you know Monty (great commentator) was once 66 to 1 for the order of merit having won it several times already. A bit of a sweat with Michael Campbell in the last event but Monty (great commentator) did the deed. Some day my ship will return (so Paddy Power keeps telling me)

[AndyFatBastard]

People just want to know that the game is fair. They don't care that it's weighted against them, they just want to know that if one day they finally find the signal in the noise and become winning players, that the rules will still be applied equally to them.

[approx]

It just so happens that I had a meeting this evening that involved a request for me to tell the story from day 1 to present in bookmaking terms with particular focus on the now and client restrictions. I was asked and agreed to do so about 1.5 yrs ago for EGR magazine, I started writing it, figured it would be c,5000 words but they wanted 600 words max so I just shrugged my shoulders and said get lost as I didn't want to be an article with soundbites. I was happy to be the first industry rep to go on the record about the issue.

Empty vessels make most noise, twitter, etc.. It's a problem, no denying that, but the size of the problem is grossly overstated. If you asked Kevin what % of punters had a restricted account I suspect he would tell you 10%, that would overstate it a minimum of 10X. The online bookmaking world is far bigger than a few thousand people on twitter.

In terms of min lay rules. As I tell anybody that says they would like to be laid to a minimum of a 1k liability, no problem, il lay you to 2k, but at my prices, probably close to 5% per runner but hey you don't mind about that do you? Like you just want to have your bet laid.. 1.5% per runner and enforced minimum lay levels do not sit together.

Twitter/Journalists also need to differentiate between punters and arbers/bonus hunters. The latter represent the noisiest faction on twitter, imo. Profit Maximiser, Profit Accumulator etc are a scurge. I see people on twitter complaining about restrictions, I search their account in the DB and I chuckle. They are not punters, they are scalpers. Not saying either party is right or wrong, just saying thats life.

Also punters who are "losing" yet restricted after 8 bets or whatever are also often wrong, I had it here myself on this forum and for that very reason I ceased posting my insights on horse racing. Somebody comes in, tells blatant lies, I correct them on their lies, etc.. If you get a name for getting out of bed early you can stay in bed all day. I take no offence to anybody raising the issue nor do I make any apologies if they have had their account restricted. I do take offence to somebody telling lies to cause brand damage.

Punters like to be restricted, in some instances, imo. It makes them feel cool to say they have had an account restricted. It validates their decision to continue punting when they are most likely losers, cos lets face it 97%+ are losers.. But they can gain twitter kudos and feel cool and be successful, by some measure, if they can spout that they have had an account restricted.

Anyway, il be doing a pretty in depth piece to camera on this topic in the next few months. I think it's an interesting topic to debate, but how do you debate with a punting equivalent of Clare Daly which is what you are more likely going to be faced with.

/rambling disjointed thoughts

I’ve being a long-term reader/lurker whatever the word for it is, but I feel I have to weigh in on this subject.

Firstly, I should make it clear that I have never had an account restricted for the simple reason that I’m not a very good punter but I’m not a disgruntled one (for the most part) I make my bets as my choice, nobody forces me to do so and I do so knowing the odds are not in my favour.

Secondly this not a direct attack on GAB even though it is likely to sound like one but as the main industry rep on site and as it’s a direct reply to his post it may seem that way.
Bookmaking is a business and the goal of any business is to make money and as much as possible so from their perspective restricting or excluding the bets from punters they see as a liability makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t make it right! They do this because they can! Regulations which should stop them doing it are not there because in reality the regulators don’t care as winning punters mean less bookmaker profit meaning less revenue generated.

But is bookmaking a business? Or a form of extortion? Yes people are going to say that is a bizarre statement to make but is it really?? You have a business that’s business model is based upon the misfortune of others. If people are not unfortunate enough to lose money the bookmaker no longer exists. So, in order for the likes of GAB to enjoy the good of life somebody somewhere has to suffer the bad. And those fortunate enough to win money get restricted! Whether this affects 1 or 1000000 customers is not the main factor, wrong is wrong no matter how you quantitate it.

What does the customer get in the world of bookmaking? You go into most shops or online they have responsible gambling adverts saying when the fun stops you should stop. On that basis if it’s fun or entertainment being supplied then everybody should be allowed to take part without restriction. The 7/1 on the board should be freely available to all willing punters up to a max liability which is equal for all customers, but it is clearly not otherwise there would be no restrictions or exclusions. Basically, that equates to discrimination based upon the assumption one person is better at gambling than the other. So why is discrimination not ok in other businesses but deemed ok here?

By advertising a price available and not giving it or giving it with restriction is nothing but false misleading advertising! If Tesco had two loaves of bread for the price of one but only available to certain people and the decision was made at the cashier whether you avail or not of the offer there would be uproar.

The problem here is that the those who care or see this as an issue are too small to make a significant impact and those in the industry know this. GAB’s argument that the problem is smaller than stated is nonsense really, like I said even if it is only 1 person that is affected it is wrong as it equates to just plainly being WE ONLY want to ACCEPT CUSTOMERS THAT LOSE THEIR MONEY. I’m sure I will get a reply saying, “we have winning accounts not restricted” or words to that affect which is nonsense, if they are not restricted its solely because it is deemed in the long-term they will be losing accounts, and this again goes back to WE ONLY WANT TO ACCEPT CUSTOMERS THAT LOSE THEIR MONEY.

People will argue that nobody is forced to place a bet and yes this is true but those wanting to do so should be allowed to do so equal to everyone else and that is the bottom line, anything other than that no matter how the bookmakers spin it is wrong on every level!!!

I will finish with a point on the argument that some people are “arbers/bonus hunters” and have somehow no right to complain, what is wrong with that? Is that not exactly what the bookmaker does? So saying that’s “just life” is maybe the approach bookmakers should take to winning punters, edge gainers or any other word that is put on it.

[Solksjaer!]

'Weigh in '? Very good very good. I like you already

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[6starpool]

The only honest justification for restricting winning accounts (unless there is clear evidence of cheating or fixing of course) is so that bookies can make more money. Anything else is disingenuous at best.

[cardshark202]

I’ve being a long-term reader/lurker whatever the word for it is, but I feel I have to weigh in on this subject.

Firstly, I should make it clear that I have never had an account restricted for the simple reason that I’m not a very good punter but I’m not a disgruntled one (for the most part) I make my bets as my choice, nobody forces me to do so and I do so knowing the odds are not in my favour.

Secondly this not a direct attack on GAB even though it is likely to sound like one but as the main industry rep on site and as it’s a direct reply to his post it may seem that way.
Bookmaking is a business and the goal of any business is to make money and as much as possible so from their perspective restricting or excluding the bets from punters they see as a liability makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t make it right! They do this because they can! Regulations which should stop them doing it are not there because in reality the regulators don’t care as winning punters mean less bookmaker profit meaning less revenue generated.

But is bookmaking a business? Or a form of extortion? Yes people are going to say that is a bizarre statement to make but is it really?? You have a business that’s business model is based upon the misfortune of others. If people are not unfortunate enough to lose money the bookmaker no longer exists. So, in order for the likes of GAB to enjoy the good of life somebody somewhere has to suffer the bad. And those fortunate enough to win money get restricted! Whether this affects 1 or 1000000 customers is not the main factor, wrong is wrong no matter how you quantitate it.

What does the customer get in the world of bookmaking? You go into most shops or online they have responsible gambling adverts saying when the fun stops you should stop. On that basis if it’s fun or entertainment being supplied then everybody should be allowed to take part without restriction. The 7/1 on the board should be freely available to all willing punters up to a max liability which is equal for all customers, but it is clearly not otherwise there would be no restrictions or exclusions. Basically, that equates to discrimination based upon the assumption one person is better at gambling than the other. So why is discrimination not ok in other businesses but deemed ok here?

By advertising a price available and not giving it or giving it with restriction is nothing but false misleading advertising! If Tesco had two loaves of bread for the price of one but only available to certain people and the decision was made at the cashier whether you avail or not of the offer there would be uproar.

The problem here is that the those who care or see this as an issue are too small to make a significant impact and those in the industry know this. GAB’s argument that the problem is smaller than stated is nonsense really, like I said even if it is only 1 person that is affected it is wrong as it equates to just plainly being WE ONLY want to ACCEPT CUSTOMERS THAT LOSE THEIR MONEY. I’m sure I will get a reply saying, “we have winning accounts not restricted” or words to that affect which is nonsense, if they are not restricted its solely because it is deemed in the long-term they will be losing accounts, and this again goes back to WE ONLY WANT TO ACCEPT CUSTOMERS THAT LOSE THEIR MONEY.

People will argue that nobody is forced to place a bet and yes this is true but those wanting to do so should be allowed to do so equal to everyone else and that is the bottom line, anything other than that no matter how the bookmakers spin it is wrong on every level!!!

I will finish with a point on the argument that some people are “arbers/bonus hunters” and have somehow no right to complain, what is wrong with that? Is that not exactly what the bookmaker does? So saying that’s “just life” is maybe the approach bookmakers should take to winning punters, edge gainers or any other word that is put on it.

You said it better than I could have.

This was exactly my point.

[Guest]

Good post.

Was thinking about this during a boring class this morning. That 10% number, or whatever, is just a distraction from the main point. I'd definitely no idea of what the number might be. It was about the bigger picture that if you have a winning account you will be shut down. So there becomes no point to the whole thing. By not allowing some genuine winning punters, you lose all the people smart enough to think they might be winners some day and dumb enough to actually become winners.

I think you're massively overestimating the amount of thought that goes into the average bettor's approach. Everyone thinks they're going to be a winner some day, or doesn't think at all.
The people who get shut down, or are at risk of getting shut down are a small minority that are separated socially from the customers that the sites actually want, and never the twain shall meet. There's enough money in the mindless 'Man United are going to win, so I'm going to bet on them' gamblers that they can happily risk a small bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when restricting accounts and still turn a profit doing so.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[6starpool]

What is wrong with that? In my view if you run a business it is your right to use your discretion as to who you cater for. Were I running a pub I would not want the local alcoholic scurge in falling on top of people when drunk and nipping people for cash on the promise of payback on dole day. These bonus hunters have a similar impact on the bookmaking industry as that drunken scurge.

On this point, it is exactly the equivalent of the alcoholic scourge that bookies love to cater to. They are the guaranteed losers with high volumes, the problem gamblers. Pubs refuse to serve drunk alcoholics (some of the time) as the law forces them to (when heeded). Bookmakers have no such moral or legal motivation aside from the mealy mouthed 'stop when the fun stops' type crap, or unless punters themselves request they aren't allowed to bet.

[Guest]

The level of ambiguity around when should changes occur in any individual person's stakes throws up a whole host of problems and ethical issues.

If an account is restricted it is generally viewed that they are a winner or have the propensity to be a winner in the future.
As I previously said a couple of times beating SP, depositing via an undesirable method such as neteller or even taking top price displayed by oddschecker is grounds for a cut.
Should that be allowed?
I don't personally know but bookmakers run risks of fixed tennis games etc quite regularly and restricting accounts is a far easier method of avoiding heavy losses than filing issues with the ATP or WTA.

Additionally if someone displays losing tendencies(even if their account is winning) their limits may well be substantially increased in order to recoup losses or for the customer to incur larger losses.
Obviously they have the potential to win more but it's unlikely long term.
Again is this fair?
Should a customer be given notice that their betting limits have been increased or should they have to request an increased limit?

Personally I think the issue around changing the betting limits of someone who is clearly in no way shrewd is a far bigger issue given the estimates given here that 97% of punters are losing.
I have no idea what the solution may be regarding manipulating accounts but it's a two fold issue.

also, I've a very strong view on how I would regulate the industry and it would be to the benefit of the public rather than the bookmakers.

Id be curious what you think around this. I personally have always thought the Italian sites are decent with a centralised regulator, no palped bets allowed. They have issues around who decides what is to be offered but it definitely has some benefits.

[6starpool]

Overall have (obviously) no problem personally with bookies or gaming companies, but it's easy for me to say as a very occasional user with no problem gambling past (I'm certainly in the 97% if mugs albeit in low amounts and volumes). However, I don't think there are enough controls or protections to stop or help those that have problems, and there are many.

I have no suggestions to be honest that are realistic, but there is a large moral hole.

[6starpool]

Overall have (obviously) no problem personally with bookies or gaming companies, but it's easy for me to say as a very occasional user with no problem gambling past (I'm certainly in the 97% if mugs albeit in low amounts and volumes). However, I don't think there are enough controls or protections to stop or help those that have problems, and there are many.

I have no suggestions to be honest that are realistic, but there is a large moral hole.

[Dice75]

Fancy a bet now, anyone got any tips?

[Guest]

A fine thought for us to consider during our next boring classes.

How do you have boring classes when you're the teacher Should you not be professing or asking questions for most of the time?

[The Situation]

In my view, this has changed dramatically. It's not fixed by any means. But the industry is light years ahead of where it was 10 years ago when I started in it and I doubt every firm has exacting standards but account closures because people will not supply documentation to confirm that the can support their level of spend is not at all uncommon. It will improve again in the near term as centralised self exclusion and account P&L visibility gets introduced.

I dunno I think companies have gotten better at been seen to advertise the perils of addiction but you still hear of lots making direct sales calls or enticing emails to former big losing customers offering free bets to return to their website. All's fair if a customer wants to blow their money off their own accord but proactively chasing those who have clear problems is where I'd draw the ethical line.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[jack90210]

Bookies are bum hunters but don't like been bum hunted themselves by the match betters or arbers. Can't blame them really. I moved to the exchanges long ago anyway unless there's some very good offer by the bookies.

[6starpool]

I'd feel better about the whole industry if they banned Ray Winston and likes from ads every break during sports events.

[Guest]

Classes are three hours long, so a mixture of tutoral plus lecture. Plus my mind switches off around this point in the term. Just three weeks left now until 9 uninterrupted months of no teaching!

Nice one. This term is feeling like an eternity. Have one class of 180. Just going through their CA tests now, as well as writing six exam papers and grading three final year student literature surveys. Quite unfair having to work for a living.

[Wesley Harms]

Bet365 issued a business update this morning. They acquired 30,000,000 new sports betting accounts in their most recent financial year.

Would the majority be bonus hunting duplicates after the ‘free’ 200 quid, which they are actually doing away with I think

[Hooch]

Would the majority be bonus hunting duplicates after the ‘free’ 200 quid, which they are actually doing away with I think

Its actually gone now with about 2 weeks or so.

[Guest]

In my view, this has changed dramatically. It's not fixed by any means. But the industry is light years ahead of where it was 10 years ago when I started in it and I doubt every firm has exacting standards but account closures because people will not supply documentation to confirm that the can support their level of spend is not at all uncommon. It will improve again in the near term as centralised self exclusion and account P&L visibility gets introduced.

Have paddy power brought anything in since they played that postmaster with freebies to ensure he kept blowing stolen money with them ? I’ve heard enough to suggest they have not,looking forward to the book said fella is bringing out with Declan lynch
Can’t believe bookies got away with it again in the last budget.theyve shown themselves to be morally bankrupt enough now ,fairly draconian measures are needed ,industry self regulation isn’t good enough
Would be strongly in favor of having accas banned too,cannot handle it at work these days,everyone is waving around their phones planning their shit access for the weekend/every European night.ultra tilt

[Guest]

I'd feel better about the whole industry if they banned Ray Winston and likes from ads every break during sports events.

Paddy power halftime ads during irish international have topped Winston’s for tiltcringe.
Why can’t any of the gambling companies come up with ads like Mass Mikkelsons Carlsberg one.hasnt influenced me to drink that piss but it’s a class ad IMO.
Pretty sure he’ll if it exists will involve being strapped to a seat with eyes forced open watching Bingo and “accabanter” ads on loop

[Trippie]

Decent read about Tom Cotton, the GOP and how the average southern american turned into Trump supporters. (Cliffs it's all Omaba's fault)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/13/is-tom-cotton-the-future-of-trumpism?mbid=social_twitter

[DeadParrot]

Think you would probably do worse than Forest Bihan in Exeter.

wonder how many of us did this?

*strokes beard and ponders ongoing conversation regarding betting policies and restrictions on bets. Feels superior to average punter on the street, enjoys the discussion and considers themselves better informed than most
*reads tip
*mug bets

[elbows]

wonder how many of us did this?

*strokes beard and ponders ongoing conversation regarding betting policies and restrictions on bets. Feels superior to average punter on the street, enjoys the discussion and considers themselves better informed than most
*reads tip
*mug bets

Did you immediately stop reading the rest of the posts and put the bet on.

[Solksjaer!]

Did you immediately stop reading the rest of the posts and put the bet on.

Yep. E-way.

[Strewelpeter]

those addicted to the high life etc.

OK I think I see where I might have a little problem

[eoghan104]

On the subject....

I don't get the whole account verification thing. I opened an account with Ladbrokes and when I wanted to withdraw it took me days to get verified. They must have outsourced this to some foreign country as the replies all came during the night and response times were desperately slow.

I understand the need to verify accounts but why should I not have to verify BEFORE I do my money? Surely if it is such a necessity then the verification should happen before a bet is placed?

Also, "pending withdrawals" that can be reversed for 24-48hrs. Is there a reason for these outside of preying on impulsive problem gamblers? For example an account with a €10 deposit limit has a 9/1 winner with his tenner. His withdrawal sits there looking at him for 48 hrs. Should he be allowed reverse this? Is this not a new deposit in reality?

Serious regulation is needed and they need to start with Advertising.

[Tar.Aldarion]

I was trying to get verified on GDAX and they require two forms of ID, I don't and probably never will ahve two forms of ID so that kinda sucked! Who the fuck asks for two forms of ID...

To make it worse, the site that owns them (Coinbase) only require one form of ID).

[eoghan104]

For the record I am an impulsive idiot and have restricted deposits an all of my accounts to stop stupid drunk splurges.

[6starpool]

I was trying to get verified on GDAX and they require two forms of ID, I don't and probably never will ahve two forms of ID so that kinda sucked! Who the fuck asks for two forms of ID...

To make it worse, the site that owns them (Coinbase) only require one form of ID).

If you don't have a public services card you'll need one at some point so get one now. With the passport I assume you have, there are your 2 forms of id without ever having to learn to drive.

Also, I'm suspicious of adults that never learned to drive. It's like people not being able to cycle, it's just something you assume most people can do.

Then again, I can't swim. I tried to learn once though, but was awful at it.

[nicnicnic]

https://www.racingpost.com/news/evans-fined-3-140-for-betting-related-and-withdrawal-charges/307526

The David Evans case this week is a good example of the hypocrisy that exists from the betting industry.

Evans was 100% pulling a stroke to gain a mathematical advantage based on the Rule 4 Deductions table when there is a non runner in a race. Now Ladbrokes knew this was going down, so what do they they do. Pull the exact same stroke on their customers in their own favor by shortening a horse they now knew wasn't going to run and report Evans.

The system of deductions I think all agree is flawed and outdated, but because the Industry simply restrict/ban people who take advantage of it on the rare occasion it can be used in the punters favor while at the same time use it to increase their own bottom line on a daily basis.

The rule 4 system is very much like the Each Way markets terms, an antiquated method of dealing with these matters. The reason they still exist is simply they are systems that can be very much skewed in the Bookmakers favor.

We all know the term dirty EW merchants where punters use the EW system to gain a mathematical advantage over the Bookmaker. However no account will last pissing time if you focus on such Markets. While at the same time for most races, punters are at a disadvantage with place terms offered by bookmakers.


Aside,
" Unonothinjonsnow" ran in the 2.55. That presenter on RacingUK with the drooling tone proclaimed an obvious reference to the C4 news reader.

[approx]

I’d not really intended on getting into debate but I think your post is fair and well considered, even if I disagree with some of your considerations, so here you go I guess. It’s just an alternative point of view and it’s like Trade Unions against Industry. We are unlikely to ever agree and we will ultimately need arbitration to find a middle ground. I think that day will come, but it’s not yet on the horizon.

So this is good. I’m gonna remind you that you opened with it. Choice, free choice, which you are happy to exercise.

I get that so no worry there.

1/ Capitalism makes the world go around
2/ I don’t believe that regulators don’t care. That’s just my view though. The regulators are civil servants who move slowly and they have far bigger fires burning than account restrictions that they need to address and I do believe in time, maybe 3 to 5 years, they will get around to addressing this.

Is it based on the misfortunre of others? I thought you said earlier that it was free choice in the knowledge that the odds are not in your favour? I’m not finding it easy to reconcile your two points and I don’t see how they sit alongside each other. People are spending disposable income, if not on Rooney to score first perhaps on a takeaway from the local Chinese?
Now are there people who step beyond free choice and become addicted? Sure are, much the same as those addicted to drink, drugs, eating, the high life etc.


Capitalism. Spending disposable income on entertainment.

Suffer the bad? I’m not able to understand how somebody making free choice in the knowledge that the odds are stacked against them equates to them suffering the bad life but whatever, we clearly have different interpretations here.

That’s valid. Though I take the view that it is a business right to refuse custom. Invitation to treat, etc.


This part is where people miss the point. On track bookmakers were asked to display a sign stating that they would lay their prices up to a max liability. What they found out was to just put that liability at €100. So there you go, you are getting a commitment of a lay to lose. Beyond that it’s discretion.


Disagree. Genuinely believe UKGC will move on this in the next few years. What the solution will be is still a mystery.

Can’t argue with you here. Very valid POV. Do counter it with capitalist motives on the part of the business though.


Which do you want? Equal to everybody else or a max liability? They are entirely different things. I don’t know many bussiness that are not allowed some element of discretion. In fact I don’t know any at all.



What is wrong with that? In my view if you run a business it is your right to use your discretion as to who you cater for. Were I running a pub I would not want the local alcoholic scurge in falling on top of people when drunk and nipping people for cash on the promise of payback on dole day. These bonus hunters have a similar impact on the bookmaking industry as that drunken scurge.

I thank you for your reply.

I'm not sure how to reply to each individual point so I'll try and respond in general.

The point on my freedom of choice is not where the problem is. Yes I can freely have a bet that I choose to place but another individual with a restricted account does not have that equal level of freedom to do so. That level of freedom is based upon the fact that they are deemed a liability and myself not so which brings us full circle back to initial point that only losers are welcome, which I think highlights my argument that it is a business based upon the misfortune of others because if they all stopped having that bet at unfavorable terms then the business fails so therefore the income of those in the industry is clearly dependent of people losing money which can never be deemed good.


This argument about disposable income being used is probably one of the most frustrating things I have ever heard over the years and not really why i made my post, but, If I want a bank loan I need to prove i have the disposable income available to make the repayments yet betting shops probably hit peak volume on dole day (outside of a saturday) and these people clearly don't have disposable income and I don't think many are asked "can you afford this bet" and while that is an important issue its gets away form the initial topic really. but it leads to my next point..

You replied "Capitalism. Spending disposable income on entertainment." capitalism aside.(It is flawed also)

What do you deem is the service provided by the bookmaker?

It's certainly not entertainment?!

It's the ability to place a bet upon the result of an event which can be deemed as entertainment BUT provided by others and as result that bet will result in the customer winning or losing money. However, when you restrict people who it is believed will be winners in the long term it becomes just placing a bet to lose money.

You know, I know and most others know the ordinary Joe soap on the street does not have a chance of coming out on top in the long term and by refusing to engage your service to people who do have a chance of winning long term highlights the industry for what it is/has become, a machine to take take take and take some more from the weak and able to do so without being held accountable. It's certainly not a gambling industry as there is no gamble left for those taking the action.

This debate is one that has gone on and will continue to go on with the punters having the attitude "it's us against them" and the bookmaker tightening all angles and terms of service to make sure the "us" never win and the more it grows the tighter they get to squeeze.

[Tar.Aldarion]

If you don't have a public services card you'll need one at some point so get one now. With the passport I assume you have, there are your 2 forms of id without ever having to learn to drive.

Also, I'm suspicious of adults that never learned to drive. It's like people not being able to cycle, it's just something you assume most people can do.

Then again, I can't swim. I tried to learn once though, but was awful at it.

Oh yeah I forgot the new ones have photos. I'll request a new one cheers.

I learned to drive but never bothered to do the test as I moved to Dublin around the same time. I call it my zombie apocalypse insurance, I'll never need to drive apart from that. Although we are fucked if the world relies on electric cars at that stage.

I know what you mean, I'd be the same with you non swimmers. Used to queue up all night to sign up for the lifeguard training as a kid in Sligo.