If Carlsberg did bookmakers.......

Q

Quixall Crossett

Amateur Rider
Joined
Apr 29, 2024
Messages
175
Location
Ings Farm
They definitely wouldnt be any of the garbage that are around today. And some of todays "bookmakers" (fraudsters) wouldnt be within a zillion miles of Carlsberg or any other reputable alcoholic beverage. And the likes of Skybet and a few others would be compared to those pissy 6 bottles for a quid lager that can be bought at our local friendly foreign owned corner shop.
I was just looking at a race where a mate has a fancy and it is embarrassing to view. The name of the game for EVERY firm in the "good old days" was to have as much black type in the grids as was possible. Nowadays, it seems as though some firms think they will contract the Lurgy if they ever go top price about a horse.
The race where my mates horse runs is the 4.13 at Newton Abbot. Bet365 and most of the other firms are betting to around 120%. Skybet, as i type, are betting to 134%. Now they will say that they are betting 4 places but that doesnt wash with me. Not a single horse in black type. I, and many other people with other firms back in the day, would have had our bollocks cut off and fed to the pigeons for having a line of prices like that on show to the world.
In the first race there, as i type, again, no black type whatsoever, and they are betting 3 places like everyone else. They are betting to 136%, Bet365 are betting to 125%.
And when you go thru all the races, it makes for embarrassing reading if you are associated with them.

Rant over :)
 
Carlsberg is pish an' a'...

I think I mentioned before that Sky recently imposed restrictions on me but at least they emailed me.

PP restricted me a number of years ago then lifted the restrictions (maybe I wasn't betting enough with them) but I've noticed over the last week or so they're restricting me to peanuts.

It's pathetic really.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Carlsberg is pish an' a'...

I think I mentioned before that Sky recently imposed restrictions on me but at least they emailed me.

PP restricted me a number of years ago then lifted the restrictions (maybe I wasn't betting enough with them) but I've noticed over the last week or so they're restricting me to peanuts.

It's pathetic really.
Click to expand...
:)
I dont think i have ever drank it mate and if i have it would only be one. I was never a lager drinker. It was always bottles of Double Maxim or Newcastle Brown for me. And then i moved into the cider years.

As for the fraudsters, we both know that they are all as bad as each other. But some are even worse.

And i know what you mean but i wouldnt be giving Skybet a brownie point just for emailing you. :)
 
If you're a net winning punter unhappy about restrictions, ask yourself this: "If YOU were the bookmaker, how would YOU handle YOU?"

No good saying they make fortunes so they can afford to lay your bets, that's infantile analysis - in the real world no one reduces their profits by so much as a penny by endlessly tolerating anyone or anything that isn't profitable.

It's the game, the modern game anyway, and exchanges and "beards" are the way to go if you want to actually do anything about it.

Sorry for being blunt - call it tough love.
 
Supermarkets have 'loss leaders', while small businesses can go hours/days/weeks without customers thereby making a loss over that period but knowing that over a financial year they will be healthy enough.

Bookmakers are making billions a year and I'd have thought they could afford to have a small number of customers take them for a grand here and there.

They're like the kids playing football in the park and the one that owns the ball is losing so he picks the ball up and goes home crying to his maw.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Bookmakers are making billions a year and I'd have thought they could afford to have a small number of customers take them for a grand here and there.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, they can afford it, but ask any of their accountants and they would say: "Why would we want to do that? What's in it for us? You simply want to reduce our profits and we're not having it - in fact, we have a duty to our owners/shareholders to not be having it."

This is why so many winning punters get others to put on for them - until they run out of family and friends.
 
I totally understand your logic Ian, and that’s what’s been happening but in a totally over the top way where even losing accounts that back horses that end up at shorter prices have been closed or restricted. That was fine when they had a never ending supply of suckers being lured into gambling on their phones but the chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for them now .

If you’re not willing to take a decent stake on a bet ( which most of them aren’t) and you’re not willing to take the chances with someone who may be winning a bit year on year, then you’re totally reliant on milking mug punters. Except you can’t do that anymore because once they’ve lost a certain amount, you have to stop them from betting into they’ve jumped through hoops to prove that they can afford to (which many can’t, and even more will just refuse to do)

Bookies need to wake up to the fact that they need to either take a few more risks (you know, like bookmakers ) or see their turnover shrink.

And you can say that they don’t care about horse racing and will just milk the football punters but they are subject to the same restrictions regarding how much they can lose.

The days of printing money are over.
 
Interesting debate and I take everything everyone says onboard.

I guess where I'm coming from on this is that I read this recurring theme online and, especially having worked in the betting industry myself, my take is that while I find it every bit as annoying as anyone else (just had something like my 15th account restricted) the reality is they're simply trying to tighten up on winners, or potential winners, everything winning punters say bookies should be doing would benefit those winning punters, not them and the bookies do actually know how to run their businesses and maximise profits.

And whether that's true or not, this isn't going to change and, with the exchange having very little early liquidity nowadays, anyone wanting to get a stand-out price in 2024 needs "beard" accounts.
 
Last edited:
ONEDUNME said:
I totally understand your logic Ian, and that’s what’s been happening but in a totally over the top way where even losing accounts that back horses that end up at shorter prices have been closed or restricted. That was fine when they had a never ending supply of suckers being lured into gambling on their phones but the chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for them now .

If you’re not willing to take a decent stake on a bet ( which most of them aren’t) and you’re not willing to take the chances with someone who may be winning a bit year on year, then you’re totally reliant on milking mug punters. Except you can’t do that anymore because once they’ve lost a certain amount, you have to stop them from betting into they’ve jumped through hoops to prove that they can afford to (which many can’t, and even more will just refuse to do)

Bookies need to wake up to the fact that they need to either take a few more risks (you know, like bookmakers ) or see their turnover shrink.

And you can say that they don’t care about horse racing and will just milk the football punters but they are subject to the same restrictions regarding how much they can lose.

The days of printing money are over.
Click to expand...
Good stuff mate.

You are not being blunt Ian, you are just giving your honest view. And everybody is entitled to do that. But bookmakers DO have people winning money off them and they tolerate it. Granted, nowhere near as many as years gone by but they still have some all the same. Long standing customers, punters whose account balances go up and down like a yo yo. And this next lot will be nowhere near as many as it was back in the day because as we all know, opinions are not allowed in the trading room. But there were punters who may have been winning who i/we thought we would beat in the long run. I/we would make a judgement call by looking at his business and seeing how he was making his decisions. And the ones who were in front but had no rhyme or reason to their bets and just looked as though were having one of those runs where nothing could go wrong, would be taken on. They could have their bets and we would get them in the long run. That, sadly, doesnt happen now. Everybody on here can rattle off tales of bets knocked back, restricted and/or closed accounts. Its a daily occurance for some. But if these people who sit in trading rooms now (i wont call them "traders") were actually allowed to make a judgement call, to take a chance based on their knowledge and experience,
they would be shocked as to how some of those accounts ended up. But all they do is follow the bot. Obey what the bot and the system tell them. Who to knock back, who to restrict, the ones to close, the ones who are winning a few quid, the ones who follow tipping lines, the arbers, the ones who beat SP 80% of the time or whatever.
They are actually robots themselves. All doing what Big Bot tells them.
Could you think of a more mind numbingly boring job ??!!!!!!!!!
 
Take the early price too often, Ian, and you’ll soon be shown the door, if you haven’t already.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Supermarkets have 'loss leaders', while small businesses can go hours/days/weeks without customers thereby making a loss over that period but knowing that over a financial year they will be healthy enough.

Bookmakers are making billions a year and I'd have thought they could afford to have a small number of customers take them for a grand here and there.

They're like the kids playing football in the park and the one that owns the ball is losing so he picks the ball up and goes home crying to his maw.
Click to expand...
And that is the important point mate. They just dont give it time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As i have explained in my post above, this is where judgement, experience, knowledge should be used. Just by closing someone or restricting them after just a couple of bets is complete lunacy. How do they know that the punter wont go on and have 50 losers in a row after that. The answer is they dont ! But as we all know, and as Ian has just mentioned, that is the way of the betting world now and it isnt gonna change.

And your mention of "loss leaders" reminded me of a conversation i had with someone about 20 years ago. I was at Sandown one afternoon and had been invited in a private box and was stood chatting with three or four other people. And one of them was an area manager for a large Supermarket firm. And he was talking about different suppliers and different prices and he said that milk was one of their loss leaders. To which the gentleman on my right said, "There are no loss leaders in any firm i own". And he then went on to say, "And there are no such thing as "fun" bets, there is no fun in losing money" !!!!!!!!
And that gentleman was Michael Tabor.
 
I’m not completely au fait with the workings of a bookmaker, but I thought the idea was to set your prices to ensure that whatever horse won you’d make a percentage profit (over round). Doing that is one thing, but it’s different from where the running balance is leaving you as your commitments build up. To cater for that, I thought you would adjust prices and/or lay off where you were over committed. B.O.G. can’t be helpful in that since you never know what your net commitments might be until the SP is set. Is that too naive?
 
Most on course bookmakers - unless they are "taking a view" - will take bets to lose in the fav, break even or lose a bit ("a taker") on the second in, win a bit on the third fav and have a decent winning result (or even a "skinner") on the "rags" (outsiders).

Online firms take a lot more bets and probably find it easier to have a balanced book.

But it's not as easy as it looks and if you take a big bet early at say 8/1 and the horse ends up 3/1 near the Off, that can be your margin gone.
 
barjon said:
I’m not completely au fait with the workings of a bookmaker, but I thought the idea was to set your prices to ensure that whatever horse won you’d make a percentage profit (over round). Doing that is one thing, but it’s different from where the running balance is leaving you as your commitments build up. To cater for that, I thought you would adjust prices and/or lay off where you were over committed. B.O.G. can’t be helpful in that since you never know what your net commitments might be until the SP is set. Is that too naive?
Click to expand...

I was about to say something in similar vein, Bj.

There was a discussion on here not long ago about how we, as punters, are not betting against bookmakers; rather, we're betting against other punters with bookies merely the vehicles for the transactions, taking their cut via the over-round. And that's how it should be. But they're fleecing punters at every turn: restricting accounts, minimising stakes, closing accounts and all the while the over-rounds are hugely in their favour.

Sharp enough punters can occasionally take advantage of bookies' mistakes but ultimately they aren't taking money off the bookies, they're taking it it out of what other punters have put into the bookies' satchels.

I remember one day at Ayr having a poor day. It got to the last race on the card and there was a long odds-on favourite -something like 1/7 - in an eight-runner race. I don't know if it's still the case but back then the Tote's minimum payout was £1.10 so I emptied my pockets and put everything I had on me, bar the loose change, on the favourite, place-only. The horse did hack up and I at least clawed back some of my losses but it's probably the only time I've really felt the bookies were giving me something.
 
It's definitely punter v punter, not punter v bookie.

That's why, hand on heart, if I ever do think I have an edge, I daren't share it, not even on a niche forum because, if I'm right, others will get on the band wagon, the market will soon shift and the value will go out of that particular edge.
 
Last edited:
Oddschecker is a failing business model - bookmakers don't really want price-sensitive punters anyway, so aren't keen to pay Oddschecker to be listed, and price-sensitive punters don't want to have to pay to see price comparisons because they are, well, price sensitive!
 
Ian_Davies said:
Oddschecker is a failing business model - bookmakers don't really want price-sensitive punters anyway, so aren't keen to pay Oddschecker to be listed, and price-sensitive punters don't want to have to pay to see price comparisons because they are, well, price sensitive!
Click to expand...
But the stupid thing is Ian, i cant view any of the prices on my laptop but i can see them all on my phone.
 
I don't understand why that would happen (oddschecker blocking you).

Is there a change at oddschecker whereby people are being charged to use the site?

I've just remembered another bookie who have never informed me of any restrictions but whenever I visit the site in search of a price it's always lower as soon as I click on it. No 'the price has changed' message either. It's as though they're subtly trying to piss me off (and it works).
 
Desert Orchid said:
I don't understand why that would happen (oddschecker blocking you).

Is there a change at oddschecker whereby people are being charged to use the site?

I've just remembered another bookie who have never informed me of any restrictions but whenever I visit the site in search of a price it's always lower as soon as I click on it. No 'the price has changed' message either. It's as though they're subtly trying to piss me off (and it works).
Click to expand...
Yes. Ten pounds a month to view the price history and a few other totally worthless items. I would be amazed if anyone has taken them up on it.
 
I suppose bookies see oddschecker as a necessary evil.

When Ladbrokes/Coral opted out I don't think I had a bet with them in all the time they were absent from oddschecker. It's my first port of call when looking for prices.

There's no way I'm going to trawl through site after site looking for a price.

Oddschecker is merely a one-age version of the rails bookies at the track. A quick walk up and down and you see who's going what. Oddschecker lays it out right in front of your eyes.

They did obviously kow-tow - as did the Pricewise grid - to the bookies in removing the over-round figure at the bottom of each column. Basterts.
 
Back
Top