The integrity of sport and bookmakers.

iainment

Saw a big picture of Frankie Dettori promoting Ladbrokes, I think, in a betting shop window.
How can the Jockey Club, or whoever runs racing now, allow that?
Who is he riding for?
Fairly for the punter, on orders from the owners or to help the bookies steal more money from the punters?
It stinks.

bobmunro

Nonsense.

Any jockey is employed by the owner to ride to obtain the best possible placing. The fact that Dettori, or any other high profile jockey, promotes betting is not a conflict of interest at all. Horse racing and betting go hand in hand, always have. No betting, no horse racing - simple.

Betting pays for the sport through the Levy - one could argue that the levy should be more but ultimately racing would not exist without betting. That's another argument of course for the animal rights brigade but there is nothing wrong with a jockey promoting a betting company.

I would add that bookmakers contribute to the integrity of all sports. If any sporting event is rigged then who pays? The bookmakers.

http://www.eu-ssa.org/

Off_it

I don't think bookies generally "steal money". They don't need to. If they simply do their jobs properly then mugs will give them their cash without needing to steal it.

Fixed odds betting terminals though, that's a different thing ......

cafcfan

We currently have a plague of gambling in the UK. £13.9 bn gross at the last count. Much of the advertising (which is also a plague) is specifically designed to extract maximum amounts of money from cretins who can least afford it.

So, no, they have no integrity and, yes, they are stealing money. But probably not too much from horse racing. This article https://cips.org/en-GB/supply-management/analysis/2017/october1/will-betting-at-sporting-events-be-tightened/ suggests seven out of ten bets are on football.

It also exposes why all those "so-and-so to score in the second half", etc bets are so heavily advertised. They are massive profit-makers for the bookies.

This article suggests that some footie bets have a profit margin in excess of 30% for the bookies. theconversation.com/why-football-bets-are-far-more-profitable-to-bookmakers-than-gambling-machines-70830 With even the vanilla bets - say, Man City to win - having a built-in 4-5% margin. As soon as you can sucker a sucker into thinking they are an infallible football pundit and they can predict the exact score and who will score first, then it's gold-rush time for the industry. It also helpfully explains why the drift away from all matches kicking off at 3pm on Saturday was such a massive bonus for the bookies.

In 2015 - the most recent figure I could find - UK gamblers lost £12.6bn. That's around £300 per adult. But around £600 for each mug punter as "only" around half the population bet.

Hopefully we will have some advertisement restrictions in place in the not too distant future if only to get that arsewipe Ray Winstone off our screens.

catfordmorry

The industry is out of control, how can that be right that the average punter is losing £600 per year. That means of course that many, many punters are losing a lot more than that.
My father and grandfather were on course bookmakers and they would refuse to take a bet from anyone who was intoxicated or had an air of desperation about them.
Whatever one’s opinion of bookmakers, that was integrity.

seth plum

When the fun stops, stop.
Don't gamble your own and your family's money to the point of impoverishment.

DaveMehmet

seth plum said:

When the fun stops, stop.
Don't gamble your own and your family's money to the point of impoverishment.

The problem is that for a lot of people, by the time the fun has stopped, it’s too late already.

Valiantphil

The original post is way off the truth.
If you want to look at big business integrity - ask Amazon and Google about those tax figures that were published this week.

At least Lads, Hills etc pay their fair share to the taxman - as do Frankie, Winstone etc from from their fee.

As for the £600 loss per gambler, don’t forget good old Camelot in your calculations.

Gambling is a pastime, same as booze. It is only when taken to excess that they become a problem.

Henry Irving

catfordmorry said:

The industry is out of control, how can that be right that the average punter is losing £600 per year. That means of course that many, many punters are losing a lot more than that.
My father and grandfather were on course bookmakers and they would refuse to take a bet from anyone who was intoxicated or had an air of desperation about them.
Whatever one’s opinion of bookmakers, that was integrity.

Is £600 a year that much?

Works out as £12 a week so less than a takeaway or about three pints. Less than we'd spend on Charlton if we have a season ticket and go to a few away games/buy shirts etc

If that is someone's hobby and, crucially, they can afford it then I don't see £600 as a huge amount.

I agree about the huge amount of advertising and that often they seem to be offering "no lose" bets ie cashout, money back, free bet if.... etc and for some people gambling is a huge problem but the same can be said for alcohol.

Leuth

I have gambled once, as a schoolboy. The bet was on a Chelsea-Charlton match in 2005. The rules were: if Charlton won, one of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If there were six or more goals in the match, another of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If Chelsea won by 4 or more goals, I had to run around the schoolyard naked. Only two results would ensure that *only* I would have to do the run - 4-0 and 5-0. It finished 4-0. I have never gambled since

seth plum

I tend to agree.
I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit.
Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster.
Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?

Halix

How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.

Halix

Valiantphil said:

The original post is way off the truth.
If you want to look at big business integrity - ask Amazon and Google about those tax figures that were published this week.

At least Lads, Hills etc pay their fair share to the taxman - as do Frankie, Winstone etc from from their fee.

As for the £600 loss per gambler, don’t forget good old Camelot in your calculations.

Gambling is a pastime, same as booze. It is only when taken to excess that they become a problem.

I wonder if the reason so many bookies like William Hills registered companies (especially online betting) overseas in countries like Gibraltar, was to make it easier to pay their UK tax over here? Highly doubtful.

Lincsaddick

bobmunro said:

Nonsense.

Any jockey is employed by the owner to ride to obtain the best possible placing. The fact that Dettori, or any other high profile jockey, promotes betting is not a conflict of interest at all. Horse racing and betting go hand in hand, always have. No betting, no horse racing - simple.

Betting pays for the sport through the Levy - one could argue that the levy should be more but ultimately racing would not exist without betting. That's another argument of course for the animal rights brigade but there is nothing wrong with a jockey promoting a betting company.

I would add that bookmakers contribute to the integrity of all sports. If any sporting event is rigged then who pays? The bookmakers.

http://www.eu-ssa.org/

what you write is fundamentally true .. BUT (of course) .. say that Frankie was booked to ride a red hot favourite that Ladbrokes stood to lose millions on if it won .. and it lost .. there would be a hint of a cloud over the result given that 'the magic sign' and Dettori are joined at the hip

bobmunro

Halix said:

How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.

So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.

Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.

I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?

bobmunro

seth plum said:

I tend to agree.
I certainly don't like any examples of bookmakers allowing gambling on credit.
Maxing out a series of credit cards is a disaster.
Could gambling only be done in cash or direct debit or immediate bank transfers?

80% plus of all online betting transactions in the UK are via debit card - and those that fund with credit cards are monitored very closely. Multiple cards and/or the use of sub-prime high interest credit cards would result in the account being suspended.

Very few bookmakers now offer credit account facilities.

cafcfan

seth plum said:

When the fun stops, stop.
Don't gamble your own and your family's money to the point of impoverishment.

Come on, what fun? There is no fun. The fun doesn't start. Just misery.

Even that sign should be banned.



Look at it:

The word "fun" is in a nice friendly neon light style with much bigger font size than anything else. Whereas the word stops is standard boring size and then followed by something that is the most boring, tedious thing in the universe - a stop sign. And to top it off there's the background colour. In the psychology of advertising yellow is associated with joy, happiness, optimism and energy. It is a colour that stimulates mental activity. Look where it features in this:




If the industry was serious about helping people with gambling problems, the background would be brown, the word fun would be in small font with tears dripping down from it and the word stop would be in a nice cheerful multicoloured font followed by a picture of a happy family or something.

SuedeAdidas

Leuth said:

I have gambled once, as a schoolboy. The bet was on a Chelsea-Charlton match in 2005. The rules were: if Charlton won, one of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If there were six or more goals in the match, another of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If Chelsea won by 4 or more goals, I had to run around the schoolyard naked. Only two results would ensure that *only* I would have to do the run - 4-0 and 5-0. It finished 4-0. I have never gambled since

This explains a lot....

bobmunro

Lincsaddick said:

bobmunro said:

Nonsense.

Any jockey is employed by the owner to ride to obtain the best possible placing. The fact that Dettori, or any other high profile jockey, promotes betting is not a conflict of interest at all. Horse racing and betting go hand in hand, always have. No betting, no horse racing - simple.

Betting pays for the sport through the Levy - one could argue that the levy should be more but ultimately racing would not exist without betting. That's another argument of course for the animal rights brigade but there is nothing wrong with a jockey promoting a betting company.

I would add that bookmakers contribute to the integrity of all sports. If any sporting event is rigged then who pays? The bookmakers.

http://www.eu-ssa.org/

what you write is fundamentally true .. BUT (of course) .. say that Frankie was booked to ride a red hot favourite that Ladbrokes stood to lose millions on if it won .. and it lost .. there would be a hint of a cloud over the result given that 'the magic sign' and Dettori are joined at the hip

Are you really suggesting that Frankie Dettori would throw a race at the request of Ladbrokes, or even that people would believe such a thing could happen?

Seriously?

Halix

bobmunro said:

Halix said:

How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.

So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.

Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.

I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?

Lighten up man, but Dick Francis could probably have got a whole book out of it.

Lincsaddick

bobmunro said:

Lincsaddick said:

bobmunro said:

Nonsense.

Any jockey is employed by the owner to ride to obtain the best possible placing. The fact that Dettori, or any other high profile jockey, promotes betting is not a conflict of interest at all. Horse racing and betting go hand in hand, always have. No betting, no horse racing - simple.

Betting pays for the sport through the Levy - one could argue that the levy should be more but ultimately racing would not exist without betting. That's another argument of course for the animal rights brigade but there is nothing wrong with a jockey promoting a betting company.

I would add that bookmakers contribute to the integrity of all sports. If any sporting event is rigged then who pays? The bookmakers.

http://www.eu-ssa.org/

what you write is fundamentally true .. BUT (of course) .. say that Frankie was booked to ride a red hot favourite that Ladbrokes stood to lose millions on if it won .. and it lost .. there would be a hint of a cloud over the result given that 'the magic sign' and Dettori are joined at the hip

Are you really suggesting that Frankie Dettori would throw a race at the request of Ladbrokes, or even that people would believe such a thing could happen?

Seriously?

bobmunro said:

Lincsaddick said:

bobmunro said:

Nonsense.

Any jockey is employed by the owner to ride to obtain the best possible placing. The fact that Dettori, or any other high profile jockey, promotes betting is not a conflict of interest at all. Horse racing and betting go hand in hand, always have. No betting, no horse racing - simple.

Betting pays for the sport through the Levy - one could argue that the levy should be more but ultimately racing would not exist without betting. That's another argument of course for the animal rights brigade but there is nothing wrong with a jockey promoting a betting company.

I would add that bookmakers contribute to the integrity of all sports. If any sporting event is rigged then who pays? The bookmakers.

http://www.eu-ssa.org/

what you write is fundamentally true .. BUT (of course) .. say that Frankie was booked to ride a red hot favourite that Ladbrokes stood to lose millions on if it won .. and it lost .. there would be a hint of a cloud over the result given that 'the magic sign' and Dettori are joined at the hip

Are you really suggesting that Frankie Dettori would throw a race at the request of Ladbrokes, or even that people would believe such a thing could happen?

Seriously?

what I'm saying is that if the scenario I laid out were to happen, there could be a suspicion that e.g. Dettori (other jockeys are available) did throw the race, and a lot of potentially disgruntled punters could believe or suspect that he had .. are you saying that a jockey has never thrown a race at the behest of either a gambler or bookmaker ? .. I'm playing Devils advocate here ..

cafctom

I did let out a sigh of frustration this weekend whilst watching the live games at the return of the seemingly constant flow of betting adverts.

I do an accumulator every now and then, like a lot of people, but don’t feel the need to take it up as a hobby thankfully.

The advertising on this stuff needs a serious reconsideration though.

smiffyboy

seth plum said:

When the fun stops, stop.
Don't gamble your own and your family's money to the point of impoverishment.

That is the most stupid slogan ever, it’s not as simple as just stopping, I wish I could some days but I can’t. That has no consideration for addiction it’s like telling a crack head to stop doing crack.

It’s a 2 bob token gesture to pretend that things are being done to warn people.

My problem lies with horses and dogs luckily I stay away from FOBT because my life would be over if I went near them.

When I looked on my yearly statement for my main betting account in the past year I had staked £74k with a return of £81k so I was infornt but that doesn’t mean I enjoy it or good at it it means I’m heavily addicted to it and some stupid slogan telling me to stop does absolutely fuck all.

Lincsaddick

smiffyboy said:

seth plum said:

When the fun stops, stop.
Don't gamble your own and your family's money to the point of impoverishment.

That is the most stupid slogan ever, it’s not as simple as just stopping, I wish I could some days but I can’t. That has no consideration for addiction it’s like telling a crack head to stop doing crack.

It’s a 2 bob token gesture to pretend that things are being done to warn people.

My problem lies with horses and dogs luckily I stay away from FOBT because my life would be over if I went near them.

When I looked on my yearly statement for my main betting account in the past year I had staked £74k with a return of £81k so I was infornt but that doesn’t mean I enjoy it or good at it it means I’m heavily addicted to it and some stupid slogan telling me to stop does absolutely fuck all.

very honest post .. from what I read on here you are a knowledgeable (semi pro/pro?) gambler .. alas there are hundreds like you who are also 'addicted' but have neither your patience nor knowledge to form any kind of strategy .. they gamble through frustration, boredom whatever .. they're the ones who's yearly accounts would show big losses that most would find difficult to justify or sustain, other than to feed their addiction

cafcfan

bobmunro said:

Lincsaddick said:

bobmunro said:

Nonsense.

Any jockey is employed by the owner to ride to obtain the best possible placing. The fact that Dettori, or any other high profile jockey, promotes betting is not a conflict of interest at all. Horse racing and betting go hand in hand, always have. No betting, no horse racing - simple.

Betting pays for the sport through the Levy - one could argue that the levy should be more but ultimately racing would not exist without betting. That's another argument of course for the animal rights brigade but there is nothing wrong with a jockey promoting a betting company.

I would add that bookmakers contribute to the integrity of all sports. If any sporting event is rigged then who pays? The bookmakers.

http://www.eu-ssa.org/

what you write is fundamentally true .. BUT (of course) .. say that Frankie was booked to ride a red hot favourite that Ladbrokes stood to lose millions on if it won .. and it lost .. there would be a hint of a cloud over the result given that 'the magic sign' and Dettori are joined at the hip

Are you really suggesting that Frankie Dettori would throw a race at the request of Ladbrokes, or even that people would believe such a thing could happen?

Seriously?

No, but.....

Frankie Dettori is an "ambassador" for Ladbrokes: he knows where his money comes from. Should that even be allowed to happen? Surely the jockeys should be perceived to be neutral in the battle between bookmakers and punters?

But does Dettori care at all about punters? This suggests not one single iota:

https://casino.ladbrokes.com/en/games/frankie-dettoris-magic-seven

bobmunro

cafcfan said:

bobmunro said:

Lincsaddick said:

bobmunro said:

Nonsense.

Any jockey is employed by the owner to ride to obtain the best possible placing. The fact that Dettori, or any other high profile jockey, promotes betting is not a conflict of interest at all. Horse racing and betting go hand in hand, always have. No betting, no horse racing - simple.

Betting pays for the sport through the Levy - one could argue that the levy should be more but ultimately racing would not exist without betting. That's another argument of course for the animal rights brigade but there is nothing wrong with a jockey promoting a betting company.

I would add that bookmakers contribute to the integrity of all sports. If any sporting event is rigged then who pays? The bookmakers.

http://www.eu-ssa.org/

what you write is fundamentally true .. BUT (of course) .. say that Frankie was booked to ride a red hot favourite that Ladbrokes stood to lose millions on if it won .. and it lost .. there would be a hint of a cloud over the result given that 'the magic sign' and Dettori are joined at the hip

Are you really suggesting that Frankie Dettori would throw a race at the request of Ladbrokes, or even that people would believe such a thing could happen?

Seriously?

No, but.....

Frankie Dettori is an "ambassador" for Ladbrokes: he knows where his money comes from. Should that even be allowed to happen? Surely the jockeys should be perceived to be neutral in the battle between bookmakers and punters?

But does Dettori care at all about punters? This suggests not one single iota:

https://casino.ladbrokes.com/en/games/frankie-dettoris-magic-seven

"So, Frankie, what do you think your chances are today in the big race?"

"I'm sorry, I cannot comment on that because I must remain neutral in the battle between bookmakers and punters".

cafcfan

bobmunro said:

Halix said:

How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.

So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.

Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.

I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?

Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?

Johnnysummers5

Leuth said:

I have gambled once, as a schoolboy. The bet was on a Chelsea-Charlton match in 2005. The rules were: if Charlton won, one of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If there were six or more goals in the match, another of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If Chelsea won by 4 or more goals, I had to run around the schoolyard naked. Only two results would ensure that *only* I would have to do the run - 4-0 and 5-0. It finished 4-0. I have never gambled since

Thank you, for giving us the bare facts

JaShea99

It seems like a lot of people misunderstand the ‘when the fun stops, stop’ slogan. It clearly does nothing for people who already have problems, the aim is to stop those whose weekly acca could turn into an addiction when it stops becoming fun.

bobmunro

cafcfan said:

bobmunro said:

Halix said:

How about a betting firm like, say BETDAQ, that pays large money sponsoring both sides in a football match? would they be able to influence a last minute goal? nah surely that could never be allowed to happen.

So betdaq (substitute with any other bookmaker who sponsors a football team) would somehow influence the result of a game because they sponsor the club (or even if they didn't sponsor the club). They would risk their entire business for the sake of fixing a result and saving a few bob? - because their business would be closed overnight if it were discovered.

Of course it wouldn't happen. Match-fixing takes place among shady underworld villains who might attempt to buy off a goalkeeper of bowler for a few grand.

I'll say it again - why would any bookmaker fix or attempt to fix a result when the reason for fixing a result is to hit the bookmakers?

Maybe because the bookies get hit when the favourite wins but make a killing if an outsider trots home?

Really?

In horse racing 30-35% of favourites win - that means 65-70% lose. Bookmakers don't need any help getting favourites beat and the favourite is the first horse they want in the book.

Backing favourites in every race would result in a loss for the punter of between 5% and 10% of stakes placed.

A-R-T-H-U-R

Leuth said:

I have gambled once, as a schoolboy. The bet was on a Chelsea-Charlton match in 2005. The rules were: if Charlton won, one of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If there were six or more goals in the match, another of my friends had to run around the schoolyard naked. If Chelsea won by 4 or more goals, I had to run around the schoolyard naked. Only two results would ensure that *only* I would have to do the run - 4-0 and 5-0. It finished 4-0. I have never gambled since

Pure filth.
Thanks.

Sorry to hear you lost the shirt off your back through gambling.