• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Is There Any Good Bookies These Days ?

Slim said:
I guarantee you they wouldn't be able to do that again. The bookmakers have had to adjust from their predatory ways. I had a front row seat to what went on in the industry over a ten year period.
Click to expand...
Slim
was it powers you were involved with and do you know of the €43, 000 rugby stake being returned when it lost.
 
I had a strange day, lost three points, backed about six horses, one winner at the end got most of my losses back. As usual when I have a run of losers, my discipline slips a bit. Can’t remember all the names but three of them were Olly Murphy’s.
 

Former racehorse owner receives suspended prison sentence and fined £290,000 for role in illegal bookmaking operation​

Haydon Simcock’s involvement was revealed after an undercover investigation by the Racing Post in February last year​


Haydon Simcock was given a 30-week custodial sentence suspended for two years and fined £290,154 on Monday for his role in the operation of the illegal bookmaker The Post.

Simcock, 40, was sentenced at Birmingham Magistrates Court after pleading guilty in September to one charge of providing facilities for gambling without a licence and one charge of advertising unlawful gambling between May 2023 and September 2024.

The sentencing came after Simcock was exposed in February last year by an undercover Racing Post investigation, during which he claimed The Post had 1,000 customers including racehorse owners, trainers and racing managers.

These included Mark Dunphy, a former owner who lost £270,000 when the illegal bookmaker collapsed. In a witness statement read to the court, Dunphy said he subsequently suffered two heart attacks from stress and that he had “lost everything”.

Simcock, a former syndicate boss and registered racehorse owner, held the role of commercial VIP manager at The Post and was said by the prosecution to have “played a significant role in the operation and management function”, recruiting new customers who would place bets via taking screenshots of the odds available with four leading bookmakers and sending the details through via WhatsApp.

Prosecutor Sam Stein KC said: “He did all of this on the basis of extracting a financial advantage for himself.”

During Monday’s hearing, it was stated that the owner of The Post was an individual known as David Lyons, although his true identity had yet to be established and the Gambling Commission had not been able to trace him since The Post’s illegal activities were revealed.

Stein said The Post accepted money “from all sources, including money from suspected criminal enterprise”, citing a message from Simcock to Lyons in which he said of a customer: “He sells watches and probably drugs.”

In a separate message, Lyons told Simcock that to deal with one customer who was complaining about not receiving payment from The Post he “could contact an old Albanian friend and [the customer] would disappear”.

Following the publication of the Racing Post article on February 25, 2024, Simcock continued to reassure customers of The Post that it had a “select number for customers only” and that it would still operate.

The court was also told about Dunphy, a former toll bridge worker-turned-professional gambler whose colours were carried by the likes of Grade 2-winning novice chaser Do Your Job.
Dunphy was introduced to Simcock by a friend and subsequently became a client of The Post. After depositing a total of £240,000 between November and December 2023, Dunphy placed four bets taking the amount in his account to £280,000.

Having sought to withdraw £240,000 in January last year, Dunphy was given repeated excuses for non-payment before reporting the incident to his bank as fraud and theft.

However, following a conversation with Simcock, Dunphy agreed to withdraw his complaint in return for £10,000 and the assurance of the whole sum being returned. While he received £10,000 from Simcock personally, the rest of the amount was never repaid.

Stein said: “Dunphy said he trusted Simcock and had taken him racing at his own expense. He believed everything he said about The Post and that his health has been affected by this; stress, high blood pressure and two minor heart attacks.

“In his witness statement, he says, ‘I’ve lost everything – my lifestyle, my horses, my passion for racing horses, my friends and my girlfriend.’”

In mitigation, Simcock's barrister Emily Andrew said he had been "working under direction from Lyons" and that he had not recruited any new customers to The Post following the Racing Post's article. Simcock has also "removed himself from all involvement in horseracing and gambling".

Andrew added: "He wishes to express his remorse from Mr Dunphy’s losses. He paid him £10,000 of his own money and never received any repayment from Lyons."

In sentencing Simcock, the chair said: "You have shown a complete disregard for the law here and had a major impact on others. You have caused stress to other people and they have had health issues because of this. You have narrowly avoided serving custody."

Alongside his suspended sentence, Simcock is required to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work, 20 rehabilitation days and pay £290,154 in restitution to Dunphy, costs and a victim surcharge. The court set out that Simcock pay £300 a month – the maximum he said he could afford to pay – until such time as it could be increased.

Simcock declined to comment when approached by the Racing Post outside the court after the hearing.

John Pierce, Gambling Commission director of enforcement, said: “This case illustrates all the risks that consumers face from illegal gambling – links to crime, having no regard for social responsibility, repeatedly exploiting consumers and operating without any of the necessary operational safeguards in place.

“This investigation shows our determination to take action against illegal operators and protect consumers from harm. Using mobile apps like WhatsApp does not make illegal gambling invisible or beyond our reach – we can evidence such activity is taking place and we will use every power available to us to play our part in removing this unlawful activity from the British marketplace and to ensure those responsible are held to account for their actions.”
 

Revealed: the racehorse owner fronting an illegal bookmaker with more than 1,000 customers​


A registered British racehorse owner is a senior figure in an illegal bookmaker that claims to have more than 1,000 customers, including others involved in racing, an undercover investigation has revealed.

Haydon Simcock, a former syndicate manager, said he acted as commercial manager for The Post Bookmakers, an unregulated firm taking bets through the messaging app WhatsApp whose advertising material has been circulating widely through the sport in recent months.

The BHA is now set to investigate the role of Simcock in The Post Bookmakers, which offers heavy deposit inducements and claims to offer a bespoke service to those who cannot or will not bet with regulated firms, citing affordability checks and account restrictions as key reasons customers choose to bet with them.

Believing he was speaking to a prospective customer, Simcock told an undercover reporter the firm employed ten people, had 1,300 customers and expected a "ridiculously busy" Cheltenham Festival. He recommended the customer deposit "as much as you can" to take advantage of a matched deposit scheme.

Simcock said: "Let's just say you were putting in £2,000. We double it, so you've got £4,000 to bet with. You'll have a £2,000 cash balance and a £2,000 free bet balance. It's up to you how much you put in but, obviously, with Cheltenham coming up, if it was me, I would be making the best use of it and getting in as much as you can, just so you've got funds ready for Cheltenham.

"We do get ridiculously busy through Cheltenham. We are putting messages out shortly, just to make sure that you've loaded up your accounts ready for Cheltenham. We're offering matched deposits to all our existing customers as well with the festival coming up, just so we're not getting dragged down with people putting money in during the festival when we're really busy. We would rather people load up, have money in your accounts and then you're free to go and do whatever you want."

Simcock added: "A lot of our customers at the moment are owners and trainers and racing managers within horseracing, ultimately because everyone is struggling to get on and people don't want to provide bank statements and affordability checks."

Racing's leaders and betting industry representatives have repeatedly warned that black market betting activity has risen since bookmakers began implementing affordability checks, which will be debated by MPs in Westminster Hall on Monday after more than 100,000 people signed a petition calling on the government to scrap their formal introduction.

The BHA has become increasingly concerned about the financial and integrity threats posed by the black market, with the governing body calculating that for every £10 million of gross betting win that moves outside of the licensed environment, racing loses £1.5m in media rights and £1m in levy funding.

The ease with which prospective customers can reach alternative black market bookmakers and the apparent impunity with which they function is illustrated by the fact Simcock is operating in his role openly and without using an alias, with his name and telephone number carried on the black market bookmaker's advertising material.

The Stoke-based Simcock has owned five horses in Britain since 2018, one registered in his own name and four under the banner of Dark Horse Partnership, a syndicate he fronted that had five winners. Sirius White became the last Dark Horse Partnership runner in January, having won a Chelmsford handicap in November last year. Simcock currently has no horses in training and the firm behind his syndicate was dissolved in 2022.

During the Racing Post's undercover conversation, Simcock said he had worked for The Post for eight months having previously been a punter with an outfit he asserted had been trading since 2017. He also provided reassurance that the firm offered discretion and that punters would have their identities and funds protected.

"We are the same as any other bookmaker, in a sense," he said. "You get your bet on and you get paid. Nobody will know that you're betting with us. We only take ID from you when we're paying you out."

Confirming his own involvement in the sport, Simcock said: "I'm in the racing industry. I've run a syndicate for the past five years and had horses in Newmarket."

According to Simcock, The Post, whose name and logo appear to falsely imply a connection to the Racing Post, offers customers the best odds available from a pool of four major bookmakers – bet365, Paddy Power, Sky Bet or William Hill – and prefers to accept bets via screenshots of online betting slips. This is believed to be the standard practice of WhatsApp layers, some of whom are understood to employ established and seemingly reputable racing figures as agents likely to be trusted by potential customers.

The Racing Post made contact for a second time with Simcock on Thursday, this time using the mobile phone number shown on the Dark Horse Partnership Facebook page. When confronted with questions about his connection to The Post Bookmakers, Simcock this time said he did not "work directly for the business" and asked that inquiries were instead directed towards a man called David he had referred to as The Post's owner during the first telephone call.

"You need to speak to the owner of the business because I'm just a friend of the owner," said Simcock. When it was pointed out he had previously explained he worked as the "commercial manager", a title also given to him on the advertisement seen by the Racing Post, Simcock replied: "Technically, no. Like I say, you would be better speaking to the owner."

He subsequently stated he did not know the owner's surname and at no stage disputed The Post being described as a bookmaker that is not regulated and pays nothing to racing or the exchequer.

"I don't work directly for the business," he then said before acknowledging his name was on the promotional material. "Yeah, that's correct," he said, adding: "You need to speak to David. It's his business. I'm only a friend of David and do little bits for him."

Simcock said he would ask the business owner to make contact with the Racing Post. No such contact has been received. Running an unregulated bookmaker is a crime under the Gambling Act 2005.

Responding to the Racing Post's findings, a BHA spokesperson said: "We would not tolerate anyone who is found to be acting as an illegal betting operator being licensed or registered to take part in our sport. Should any such individual be identified we would look to investigate and take the appropriate action, as well as working with authorities such as the Gambling Commission, who have responsibility for regulation of the gambling industry."

A Gambling Commission spokesperson confirmed The Post is not regulated by the organisation and said: "We don’t comment on specific cases but we always investigate allegations of unlicensed gambling."
 
Simcock said: "Let's just say you were putting in £2,000. We double it, so you've got £4,000 to bet with. You'll have a £2,000 cash balance and a £2,000 free bet balance. It's up to you how much you put in but, obviously, with Cheltenham coming up, if it was me, I would be making the best use of it and getting in as much as you can, just so you've got funds ready for Cheltenham.

Sounds like
system doing fantastic send more MONEY
 
Quixall Crossett said:
Hello mate,
That was the point i was making (or trying to make) last week on the "Is there any good bookies" etc thread but somehow it was taken as a whinging about bookies restricting and closing accounts post. As i said at the time, that is old news and has been done to death. And as an extra, in my working days i did actually try and fight some of the "rules" that were being put in place regarding closing and restricting because i had my doubts as to whether we would have any punters left !!!
But getting back to your reply, bookmakers should make an effort to try and encourage horse racing punters to get back in the shops (which as i will say again, was the point i was trying to make), but whether they will or not is a different matter.
It depends on how much they value racing. But what they say and what they really think regarding that are poles apart.
Click to expand...

Replied to this thread as it's more apt

I imagine the bigger bookies don't care what punters are betting on, all they're concerned about is turnover,volume,margin,expenses & bottom line profit i.e. like any other business.

It's easy to see how they'd rather have punters on fobts, cartoon racing and casino bets compared to horse racing, i.e. lower expenses and no chance of anyone having the temerity to have an edge over them.

But as in my post in the other thread with some of taxes going to 40% and horse racing remaining at 15% will be interesting to see how it plays out re their interest in horse racing
www.gov.uk

Changes to Gambling Duties

This tax information and impact note covers changes to Gambling Duties announced at Budget 2025.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

I have a feeling the idea of an old school bookie whose vocation is to make a book on horses, take on all comers and adjusts their book accordingly, is a bit like the idea of a hooker with a heart of gold
 
Last edited:
Going thru your points in order.

No, they dont really care what punters are betting on except that, and especially in my day, the cost of running a horse racing dept was far, far higher than say Golf or Cricket etc and even football in those days. With all the back up staff of compilers, IT dept, trading analysis etc it was a costly sport. Now, these days, most firms dont have compilers and it is all just copy and paste.

FOBTS, casino and cartoon racing !!!!! Just those three alone would be heaven for the shysters of today. Football is far and away their biggest sport these days but they still have the bad days/weekends.
Those first three, plus lotteries, numbers games etc are all they REALLY want.

As for their interest in racing - it is a necessary evil. Just look at today. Up to a few minutes ago every race had been won by one of the front two or three in the market. And a right old touch in the first at Newcastle which will not have pleased a few of them. :)
(I must add that the stewards at Newcastle didnt deem it necessary to look into the gamble or question Micky Hammond about the "improvement" ). Absolutely no mention of it in the Stewards report although i will keep checking in to see if they update it. But nothing so far as of 2.24 and the race was at 12.15.

"Old school bookies" are gone !! Never to return.

I still remember the three rules regarding punters that were being pushed in my last few years in the game.
1 - Push them towards the casino.
2 - Push them towards the casino
And 3 - Push them towards the casino.

I dont know how i got thru those last couple of years and wish i'd left a bit sooner. :(
 
Quixall Crossett said:
Going thru your points in order.

No, they dont really care what punters are betting on except that, and especially in my day, the cost of running a horse racing dept was far, far higher than say Golf or Cricket etc and even football in those days. With all the back up staff of compilers, IT dept, trading analysis etc it was a costly sport. Now, these days, most firms dont have compilers and it is all just copy and paste.

FOBTS, casino and cartoon racing !!!!! Just those three alone would be heaven for the shysters of today. Football is far and away their biggest sport these days but they still have the bad days/weekends.
Those first three, plus lotteries, numbers games etc are all they REALLY want.

As for their interest in racing - it is a necessary evil. Just look at today. Up to a few minutes ago every race had been won by one of the front two or three in the market. And a right old touch in the first at Newcastle which will not have pleased a few of them. :)
(I must add that the stewards at Newcastle didnt deem it necessary to look into the gamble or question Micky Hammond about the "improvement" ). Absolutely no mention of it in the Stewards report although i will keep checking in to see if they update it. But nothing so far as of 2.24 and the race was at 12.15.

"Old school bookies" are gone !! Never to return.

I still remember the three rules regarding punters that were being pushed in my last few years in the game.
1 - Push them towards the casino.
2 - Push them towards the casino
And 3 - Push them towards the casino.

I dont know how i got thru those last couple of years and wish i'd left a bit sooner. :(
Click to expand...

Thing is nature abhors a vacuum, so if there is gap in the market for an actual real horse racing bookie, perhaps it might get filled.
 
With reference to a piece from an earlier post and the front page headline on the Racing Post website yesterday afternoon, a comment from one of the bookies mouthpieces made me laugh.
Some bloke from BetGoodwin said they got "absolutely filled in" and hammered at 16's, 10' 9's and 8's.
As someone who very rarely, if ever, went 9/1 about a horse, i just wondered why they actually went that price. Is it because the prices are moved by a bot which just moves a tick at a time ? If so, they only have themselves to blame and need to start having some manual input. I see it all the time on Oddschecker. Some firms have their bots set up so that a drop from 10/1 takes it to 19/2, then 9's and then 17/2 etc etc. What absolute nonsense and it definitely costs them money. If the money was coming, and apparently it was because, in their words, they got absolutely filled in, why not go straight to 8's. Or better still, and this had to be done many times, slash it straight to 6's from 10's and get out of the way for the time being and assess things, Its no good whinging if the bot is just cutting prices one tick at a time.
Serves them right !!!!!
As i have said many times in the past. Sometimes these bots need to be turned off and manual input is needed. Better still, manual input only !!! (:it will never happen. Those days are gone)

p.s. And if they have 85/40 in their bot price list it needs a 7lb hammer taking to it !!!!!

F'&@*>$# bots and AI.
 
The Fortune Teller said:
I've a hunch a bookmaker losing however minimal an amount qualifies as being 'absolutely filled in' these days.
Click to expand...
One firms "it wasnt a good result but not too bad", is another firms "we got slaughtered". It obviously depends on how big they are and how big they play.
I would love to be able to sit in one of these "Mickey Mouse" firms trading rooms one afternoon and watch the ticker and liability screen. I very much doubt i would be surprised at what i saw.

Any takers ? :)
I'll pay my own expenses to wherever you are and give an honest review.
 
Couple of interesting posts about the mechanism of price movements, thank you.
I didn't realise they had actual bots doing it, I'm getting too old to keep up with the game.
 
walsworth said:
Couple of interesting posts about the mechanism of price movements, thank you.
I didn't realise they had actual bots doing it, I'm getting too old to keep up with the game.
Click to expand...
They have been around for many years now Walsworth. They were one of the deciding factors for me to finally get out of the game and that was back in 2013. I'd started in the industry back in 74 so i think i'd done my fair whack.

The emergence of the casino games took away a lot of the company's focus, (as it did with every other firm - easy, easy money) and with me being an old twat who was set in his ways, it didnt sit well with me. But of course there was F*** all i could do about it. But when the bots came in, i felt (and it wasnt just me) that i was just wasting my time sitting studying all day long for something to keep onside or a fav to take on and get what i could out of it. But then soon after i had finished my shift, someone would click a mouse to switch on the bot and all the prices i had put in were now changed into, basically, the same prices that every other firm were going. I would leave word that we needed to be top price a certain horse or keep another one well under but time and time again it wasnt done. By the time i had reached home, the prices i had gone many times bore no resemblance to the ones now showing on Oddschecker..

So i took the decision to quit and punt. I just wish i had done it a year or so earlier.
 
Last edited:
Quixall Crossett said:
They have been around for many years now Walsworth. They were one of the deciding factors for me to finally get out of the game and that was back in 2013. I'd started in the industry back in 74 so i think i'd done my fair whack.

The emergence of the casino games took away a lot of the company's focus, (as it did with every other firm - easy, easy money) and with me being an old twat who was set in his ways, it didnt sit well with me. But of course there was F*** all i could do about it. But when the bots came in, i felt (and it wasnt just me) that i was just wasting my time sitting studying all day long for something to keep onside or a fav to take on and get what i could out of it. But then soon after i had finished my shift, someone would click a mouse to switch on the bot and all the prices i had put in were now changed into, basically, the same prices that every other firm were going. I would leave word that we needed to be top price a certain horse or keep another one well under but time and time again it wasnt done. By the time i had reached home, the prices i had gone many times bore no resemblance to the ones now showing on Oddschecker..

So i took the decision to quit and punt. I just wish i had done it a year or so earlier.
Click to expand...
Very interesting to read a lot of ur posts, and agree with all of them in this thread.
I believe the bookies are goin the same way as the pubs, in that there will eventually just be one supersize bookie in each area pretty much, and it will be filled with as many ssbt terminals that they are allowed to have in and the max number of 4 (currently permitted) bgt's.
Over the counter business is dead nowadays and greyhound racing will very soon become a thing of the past, followed by horse racing within 50 years maximum I reckon.
 
must occasionally be manual intervention on price cuts. Had a bet on machines yesterday at 9/4 and after a 5 min walk to 2nd branch to top up was cut to 7/4. Sports not horses
 
I wanted to prove I had balls once so had 500 pounds win on a 4/1 shot in a local Coral shop. The horse won. I got paid out in a brown envelope the next day. No questions asked. No answers given.

That was about 2009. Nowadays I'd probably be given a psychological evaluation not to mention a proper financial check.

I also had a couple monkey bets that went astray, one of them was actually pulled up, but I like to think merrily about the one I landed anyway. My stakes are a lot smaller these days, unless I've got winnings to play up that is.
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top