Telling It As It Is.

Slim, the whole point is that betting on horses is now viewed as an inconvinience by British bookmakers, FOBT's provide them with massive risk free profits, generated by a single manned High Street unit, allowing them to get rid of excess staff that were needed to run their old now defunct traditional bookies, that involved an element of risk to them everytime a punter placed a bet, both frontline shop staff and backroom head office staff can be cut, now they take all racing business online, where they can fully control who they want and who they don't want, all automated, boosting what was a less performing side of their business into a solely winning racing business due to only entertaining racing mug punters. Also forcing all racing business through online channels, gives them the added bonus, through tracking cookies of being able to see who has a Betfair account and other bookie accounts, easy peasy to seperate out the mugs, when it's all their onscreen in front of them at the push of a button.

Roll Up, Roll Up, free matched bet, open an account with us, place your first bet, £25 a loser, email received, sorry we are closing your account, why I just had one losing bet, well how do I use my promised free matched bet, sorry you can't, your account is closed, traders decision (we can't tell you the real reason but we saw through cookies you have been on Betfair or elsewhere), is there anything else I can help you with? Goodbye, Mr. X, thanks for using xyz.

That's the reality.
 
Last edited:
Gambler said:
Slim, the whole point is that betting on horses is now viewed as an inconvinience by British bookmakers, FOBT's provide them with massive risk free profits, generated by a single manned High Street unit, allowing them to get rid of excess staff that were needed to run their old now defunct traditional bookies, that involved an element of risk to them everytime a punter placed a bet, both frontline shop staff and backroom head office staff can be cut, now they take all racing business online, where they can fully control who they want and who they don't want, all automated, boosting what was a less performing side of their business into a solely winning racing business due to only entertaining racing mug punters. Also forcing all racing business through online channels, gives them the added bonus, through tracking cookies of being able to see who has a Betfair account and other bookie accounts, easy peasy to seperate out the mugs, when it's all their onscreen in front of them at the push of a button.

Roll Up, Roll Up, free matched bet, open an account with us, place your first bet, £25 a loser, email received, sorry we are closing your account, why I just had one losing bet, well how do I use my promised free matched bet, sorry you can't, your account is closed, traders decision (we can't tell you the real reason but we saw through cookies you have been on Betfair or elsewhere), is there anything else I can help you with? Goodbye, Mr. X, thanks for using xyz.

That's the reality.
Click to expand...

It's not. The reality is FOBT players will do their stones either way. The horse racing punter is a different breed. Account management is not 'automated' by the way.
 
And even laying just mugs horse racing bets is not profitable unless the product is priced efficiently and accounts managed correctly. If a new sportsbook went up tomorrow morning laying Bet365 prices with no limits it would be worse than the banking crisis. They would lose EVERYTHING.
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
You're so wrong here. Bet365's model is simple. A high street presence would hinder not help their brand. All the smart money is in the shops these days and the overheards are massive.
Click to expand...
I'm unsure about that. Unsure enough to not contradict the statement, but I have doubts.
A high street presence helps a brand, I would have thought. A high street presence may be a loss-leader in itself, but it can be a positive influence on the overall end-of-year balance sheet of a company.

I'm remembered of the early days of shops in the 60's. The Big Three that have survived and thrived to this day are the ones who made a strong and determined decision to maintain a Rails pitch at all the main racecourses -- the one place where the smart money was. They were betting to the most "shrewd" of clientele ( the bettors who were more clued in than the regular shop habitue), but by doing so it kept the brand in the public eye and built the brand image.
A physical presence underwrites a brand.
 
Slim, I have no agenda, the very reason that I tend to read forums and not take any active part in them is because of guys like you, yet when I do decide to contribute, as is my right, guys like you, who display an inability to even read what was actually written, then decide that my contribution is not worthwhile, because it doesn't agree with your view.

Even though I am Irish and living in Ireland, this does not mean that I should not voice an opinion about what's effectively a UK problem, just like I contributed to Comic Relief, Save The Children and other worldwide charities, it's because I happen to care and not because I have an agenda.
 
Slim, it's obvious that you have an agenda, it's also obvious that you don't know what you're talking about generally, I'll leave it at that, good luck with your punting.

What's the weather like in Stoke?
 
icebreaker said:
I'm unsure about that. Unsure enough to not contradict the statement, but I have doubts.
A high street presence helps a brand, I would have thought. A high street presence may be a loss-leader in itself, but it can be a positive influence on the overall end-of-year balance sheet of a company.

I'm remembered of the early days of shops in the 60's. The Big Three that have survived and thrived to this day are the ones who made a strong and determined decision to maintain a Rails pitch at all the main racecourses -- the one place where the smart money was. They were betting to the most "shrewd" of clientele ( the bettors who were more clued in than the regular shop habitue), but by doing so it kept the brand in the public eye and built the brand image.
A physical presence underwrites a brand.
Click to expand...

You make some valid points but think more about how Bet365 prices. It would be completely unsustainable on the high street.
 
Last edited:
Gambler said:
Slim, I have no agenda, the very reason that I tend to read forums and not take any active part in them is because of guys like you, yet when I do decide to contribute, as is my right, guys like you, who display an inability to even read what was actually written, then decide that my contribution is not worthwhile, because it doesn't agree with your view.

Even though I am Irish and living in Ireland, this does not mean that I should not voice an opinion about what's effectively a UK problem, just like I contributed to Comic Relief, Save The Children and other worldwide charities, it's because I happen to care and not because I have an agenda.
Click to expand...

I'd rather people contributed to forum then shove their agendas down my throat. I'm fully entitled to call you out if I disagree. The thread title implies you're telling an untold truth but the educated members on here are fully aware on the facts on this issue.
 
SlimChance said:
You make some valid points but think more about how Bet365 prices. It would be completely unsustainable on the high street.
Click to expand...
But Bet365, although it has positioned itself as an online-only bookmaker still does not positively compare on prices with the "best-of-class" in that internet environment.
I refer, of course, to Pinnacle which manages to beat every other bookie hands down on both odds and limit. Pinnacle can do 1.97/1.98 on two Evens chances in a head-to-head matching, and allow a £40,000 limit on each bet.
How do Pinnacle (established for over 20 years) operate on such low "juice" and offer high limits?
Because, I would suggest, their business model is a Market/Book Management policy rather than an Account Management one vis-a-vis Bet365 and all other firms nowadays.
 
There is a touch of "we know whats best for you" in the opposition to these machines. I don't like them and would rather they didnt exist but its naturally reflexive to push back against the likes of Harriet Harman with her inarticulate patronising bleating

Im also not so convinced that there are any more lice covered kids surviving on Pedigree chum and sleeping in wheelie bins than at any time in the past

Nutter gamblers (who always have struck me as either self pitying wrist slashers or basically plankheads) have always existed and always will
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
But Bet365, although it has positioned itself as an online-only bookmaker still does not positively compare on prices with the "best-of-class" in that internet environment.
I refer, of course, to Pinnacle which manages to beat every other bookie hands down on both odds and limit. Pinnacle can do 1.97/1.98 on two Evens chances in a head-to-head matching, and allow a £40,000 limit on each bet.
How do Pinnacle (established for over 20 years) operate on such low "juice" and offer high limits?
Because, I would suggest, their business model is a Market/Book Management policy rather than an Account Management one vis-a-vis Bet365 and all other firms nowadays.
Click to expand...

They don't bet on horse racing!
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
There is a touch of "we know whats best for you" in the opposition to these machines. I don't like them and would rather they didnt exist but its naturally reflexive to push back against the likes of Harriet Harman with her inarticulate patronising bleating

Im also not so convinced that there are any more lice covered kids surviving on Pedigree chum and sleeping in wheelie bins than at any time in the past

Nutter gamblers (who always have struck me as either self pitying wrist slashers or basically plankheads) have always existed and always will
Click to expand...

Exactly. I wish I had invented FOBTs so I could bleed them dry.
 
SlimChance said:
. I just think its counter productive to worry about these things. There is literally money to be made every day betting so why waste time worrying about bookmakers and/or FOBTS?
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree with this.
The debate might be better served if the focus was on how best to undermine the bookmaker's sharp-practice in closing accounts.
Complaining about it, making videos about it, or writing letters to MP's is kinda futile.

The modern bookmaking industry brings with it the inevitable closure of accounts, and the limiting of bets to flagged customers. We just gotta live with that fact, and deal with it.
I do find it hard to sympathise with those who bitch about the situation. There are workarounds -- deleting Iesnare from your computer and changing your M.A.C. address is a start. It's an ongoing battle with bookmakers -- that has never changed since the days of chariot racing in the Colosseum. Just nowadays, the battlefield and strategies have changed a bit. Like the Slimster says, you evolve or die. You move with the times and change your weapons accordingly.
No progress or profit will be made by just complaining about things.
 
SlimChance said:
They don't bet on horse racing!
Click to expand...
The player with a dedication to winning-above-all should be prepared to look outside the narrow confines of horseracing punting, would you agree?
But the point was, Bet365 compares negatively on prices with Pinnacle even though 365 is an internet-only book also.
I am proposing that this is because Bet365, like most books, is an Account Management operation rather than Pinnacle's style of market management.
 
icebreaker said:
The player with a dedication to winning-above-all should be prepared to look outside the narrow confines of horseracing punting, would you agree?
But the point was, Bet365 compares negatively on prices with Pinnacle even though 365 is an internet-only book also.
I am proposing that this is because Bet365, like most books, is an Account Management operation rather than Pinnacle's style of market management.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about Pinnacle except that their lines are seriously good. I had a bet with them the other night on Under 5.5 in an ice hockey match but it was only marginal value. Bet365 on the other hand lay ricks by the lorry load. Pinnacle are far smarter.
 
It is self evident from the growing number of betting shops in parts of the UK that the FOBTs are drawing in more people than the traditional forms of gambling. It is also well known from New South Wales and elsewhere that FOBTs are more addictive than other forms of betting.

The argument offered by Slim, Grassy and others that if FOBTs were restricted the people doing their brains on them would find some other way of losing their money is disingenuous and is based in any case on assumption rather than fact.

These machines weren't always banned in Ireland, by the way. In the 1980s they were the mainstay of the amusement arcades that were proliferating in Irish town centres in the way that betting shops are now spreading in the UK. However, when it became apparent in the 1980s that the social consequences were unacceptable every local authority in Ireland - bar one, Bundoran Urban District Council, I think - decided to ban them.
 
SlimChance said:
I had a bet with them the other night on Under 5.5 in an ice hockey match but it was only marginal value. Bet365 on the other hand lay ricks by the lorry load. Pinnacle are far smarter.
Click to expand...
The thing is, tho', that no-one ever in the history of betting has had their account closed by Pinnacle. :)
Bet365, on the other hand ....................
 
Grey said:
It is self evident from the growing number of betting shops in parts of the UK that the FOBTs are drawing in more people than the traditional forms of gambling. It is also well known from New South Wales and elsewhere that FOBTs are more addictive than other forms of betting.

The argument offered by Slim, Grassy and others that if FOBTs were restricted the people doing their brains on them would find some other way of losing their money is disingenuous and is based in any case on assumption rather than fact.

These machines weren't always banned in Ireland, by the way. In the 1980s they were the mainstay of the amusement arcades that were proliferating in Irish town centres in the way that betting shops are now spreading in the UK. However, when it became apparent in the 1980s that the social consequences were unacceptable every local authority in Ireland - bar one, Bundoran Urban District Council, I think - decided to ban them.
Click to expand...

I hate machines and I hate problem gambling but it's not my fight. It's not for punters to worry how bookmaker make their money.
 
A gambling addict is an addict no matter what the temptation or format.

Addicts are addicts.

And isnt it also and "assumption" that so many are blowing their weekly wages on these machines? Maybe the vast majority of users are playing just within their means.. thank you very much


this is like the stupid argument that if you open more pubs you get more alcoholics. Total rubbish
 
Last edited:
Back
Top