@bobmunro what’s your take on the below, surely this can’t be correct, I had 6 just in front on the freeze frame in the shop. If there was no photo to determine the winner, surely it should be a dead heat or void race they can’t just pick the winner from a replay.
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Fair enough, I guess that is akin to insider trading but would also be curious about those that do real legitimate research on presumably more obscure sports or less followed football leagues etc where someone is simply smarter than your own odds setters even with the imbedded margin.
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Seems to be the case and industry standard. I was betting on greyhounds that regularly got backed in, allowing me to cash out on a hefty bet to cover a smaller bet which I'd leave running. Took me about 6-8 weeks to get completely restricted. Funny thing is, I was also capped on football despite not winning a football bet since like... ever.
@bobmunro what’s your take on the below, surely this can’t be correct, I had 6 just in front on the freeze frame in the shop. If there was no photo to determine the winner, surely it should be a dead heat or void race they can’t just pick the winner from a replay.
That's a joke. I'd be fuming with that. Seen a couple of questionable ones in my time where it looks like the favourite has just about got up, only for the outsider to be given the nod.
I've even seen a photo where it was claimed a dog had won despite not even being in the picture! Technology not always 100% reliable.
My old man got banned from betting shops in the 60s for taking systematic advantage of an anomaly which existed to a greater extent then (and still to a lesser extent now).
In short find 8 horse races with a very short priced favourite and a clear but longer odds second favourite. Place a substantial each way bet on the second favourite.
In short, each way prices are a straight fraction of the odds to win, yet in the above scenario this is the wrong way to assess the each way chances which are far better than this would imply.
The reason you choose 8 horse races is that the addition of one extra (relatively useless) horse suddenly increases each way payout from first 2 to first 3.
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Seems to be the case and industry standard. I was betting on greyhounds that regularly got backed in, allowing me to cash out on a hefty bet to cover a smaller bet which I'd leave running. Took me about 6-8 weeks to get completely restricted. Funny thing is, I was also capped on football despite not winning a football bet since like... ever.
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Seems to be the case and industry standard. I was betting on greyhounds that regularly got backed in, allowing me to cash out on a hefty bet to cover a smaller bet which I'd leave running. Took me about 6-8 weeks to get completely restricted. Funny thing is, I was also capped on football despite not winning a football bet since like... ever.
Filth ;-)
Haha yeah was fuming when I next tried to bet with you guys and was met with a message saying: "This figure exceeds the maximum allowed (£3.33)" - the dog was 2/1 haha. Game over. And it won!
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Fair enough, I guess that is akin to insider trading but would also be curious about those that do real legitimate research on presumably more obscure sports or less followed football leagues etc where someone is simply smarter than your own odds setters even with the imbedded margin.
We operate at a margin of between 3% and 4% and that margin takes some management.
There will naturally be people out there amongst our tens of millions of customers who are better than our odds compilers/traders and if that's the case then we will restrict. Otherwise we become the punter and they become the bookmaker!!
If any business realised that it was selling goods for less than they were paying for them to be manufactured, they wouldn't continue to sell them!
My old man got banned from betting shops in the 60s for taking systematic advantage of an anomaly which existed to a greater extent then (and still to a lesser extent now).
In short find 8 horse races with a very short priced favourite and a clear but longer odds second favourite. Place a substantial each way bet on the second favourite.
In short, each way prices are a straight fraction of the odds to win, yet in the above scenario this is the wrong way to assess the each way chances which are far better than this would imply.
The reason you choose 8 horse races is that the addition of one extra (relatively useless) horse suddenly increases each way payout from first 2 to first 3.
Oldest trick in the book! The place book is inevitably over broke in races like that and backing the clear second favourite each-way when the favourite is odds on in races of 8-10 runners will net you a profit in the long run.
@bobmunro what’s your take on the below, surely this can’t be correct, I had 6 just in front on the freeze frame in the shop. If there was no photo to determine the winner, surely it should be a dead heat or void race they can’t just pick the winner from a replay.
It happens, Marc. If the photo-finish equipment fails then it goes to the judge - them's the rules. We can only payout on the official result.
That said the judge is probably some doddery old git with glasses about an inch thick!
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Fair enough, I guess that is akin to insider trading but would also be curious about those that do real legitimate research on presumably more obscure sports or less followed football leagues etc where someone is simply smarter than your own odds setters even with the imbedded margin.
We operate at a margin of between 3% and 4% and that margin takes some management.
There will naturally be people out there amongst our tens of millions of customers who are better than our odds compilers/traders and if that's the case then we will restrict. Otherwise we become the punter and they become the bookmaker!!
If any business realised that it was selling goods for less than they were paying for them to be manufactured, they wouldn't continue to sell them!
Agree up to a point, but you're implying that you will continue to offer odds to mug punters but will close down anyone who proves they are smarter at probability than you are.
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Fair enough, I guess that is akin to insider trading but would also be curious about those that do real legitimate research on presumably more obscure sports or less followed football leagues etc where someone is simply smarter than your own odds setters even with the imbedded margin.
We operate at a margin of between 3% and 4% and that margin takes some management.
There will naturally be people out there amongst our tens of millions of customers who are better than our odds compilers/traders and if that's the case then we will restrict. Otherwise we become the punter and they become the bookmaker!!
If any business realised that it was selling goods for less than they were paying for them to be manufactured, they wouldn't continue to sell them!
Agree up to a point, but you're implying that you will continue to offer odds to mug punters but will close down anyone who proves they are smarter at probability than you are.
Not 'mug punters' but punters who are not ultra-selective. They can still win.
We will restrict someone who is an expert/ultra-selective/informed and who we know we will not make a margin from. A bit like your old man in the 60s ;-)
We will offer our products to customers who we might win from, but not to customers who we won't win from! Sports betting is not about pure probability!
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Fair enough, I guess that is akin to insider trading but would also be curious about those that do real legitimate research on presumably more obscure sports or less followed football leagues etc where someone is simply smarter than your own odds setters even with the imbedded margin.
We operate at a margin of between 3% and 4% and that margin takes some management.
There will naturally be people out there amongst our tens of millions of customers who are better than our odds compilers/traders and if that's the case then we will restrict. Otherwise we become the punter and they become the bookmaker!!
If any business realised that it was selling goods for less than they were paying for them to be manufactured, they wouldn't continue to sell them!
Agree up to a point, but you're implying that you will continue to offer odds to mug punters but will close down anyone who proves they are smarter at probability than you are.
Not 'mug punters' but punters who are not ultra-selective. They can still win.
We will restrict someone who is an expert/ultra-selective/informed and who we know we will not make a margin from. A bit like your old man in the 60s ;-)
We will offer our products to customers who we might win from, but not to customers who we won't win from! Sports betting is not about pure probability!
I appreciate your candour Bob... But it doesn't seem to be a very good defence of bookies on a thread discussing whether these companies have integrity or not! Don't get me wrong I understand the business reasons behind restricting big winners or "experts"
It sort of reminds me a bit of that Simpson's episode where Homer gets kicked out of the all you can eat restaraunt...
"But the sign said all you can eat!!" (as Homer is dragged away)
Out of interest what is Bet365's policy towards closing down accounts of punters who are (legitimately) winning a lot of money?
It depends entirely on the nature of their business. If they give a good business mix that should deliver a margin but isn't at the moment because they have had a good run, then not a problem.
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
Fair enough, I guess that is akin to insider trading but would also be curious about those that do real legitimate research on presumably more obscure sports or less followed football leagues etc where someone is simply smarter than your own odds setters even with the imbedded margin.
We operate at a margin of between 3% and 4% and that margin takes some management.
There will naturally be people out there amongst our tens of millions of customers who are better than our odds compilers/traders and if that's the case then we will restrict. Otherwise we become the punter and they become the bookmaker!!
If any business realised that it was selling goods for less than they were paying for them to be manufactured, they wouldn't continue to sell them!
Agree up to a point, but you're implying that you will continue to offer odds to mug punters but will close down anyone who proves they are smarter at probability than you are.
Not 'mug punters' but punters who are not ultra-selective. They can still win.
We will restrict someone who is an expert/ultra-selective/informed and who we know we will not make a margin from. A bit like your old man in the 60s ;-)
We will offer our products to customers who we might win from, but not to customers who we won't win from! Sports betting is not about pure probability!
I appreciate your candour Bob... But it doesn't seem to be a very good defence of bookies on a thread discussing whether these companies have integrity or not! Don't get me wrong I understand the business reasons behind restricting big winners or "experts"
It sort of reminds me a bit of that Simpson's episode where Homer gets kicked out of the all you can eat restaraunt...
"But the sign said all you can eat!!" (as Homer is dragged away)
I've always tried to be as open as possible and I understand sometimes that leads to criticism, but I would rather tell it as it is rather than try to hide.
No company, whether a bookmaker or even a maker of books, would knowingly sell at a loss.
The perception (false) is that bookmakers are obliged to offer their service to anyone at any time on the customer's terms - which is a nonsense. If the customer likes the price and the bookmaker is willing to take the risk then all well and good. If the customer doesn't like the price or the bookmaker isn't prepared to take the risk then 'nothing done' as they say in the trade. No different to an insurance underwriter calculating risk and premium - if the risk is too high then the insurer will refuse cover.
Never thought about it in that way (the insurance comparison) that's a really interesting comparison I hadn't even considered. For what it's worth I appreciate your openness. It's great to get a perspective from the bookies POV too.
At half time on Saturday I turned to my wife and said “we’ll lose this 2-1”. I have an online account with Sky, but I didn’t have a punt. Double gutted at full time ffs.
At half time on Saturday I turned to my wife and said “we’ll lose this 2-1”. I have an online account with Sky, but I didn’t have a punt. Double gutted at full time ffs.
LOL i said to a mate at work we will lose 2-1, he put £1 on it to return £35, muggins here didnt even look at the bet on the day haha
Some very good points on this thread, pretty much agree with @Manicmania here, i spend £10 weekly max (might increase if a big event or horses which i dont bet often).
My biggest thing is once i have won say £150, i will withdraw £100 and use the rest to keep betting, but as essentially free money/ money won i will just bet every day on random stuff to try and build the pot. Most times it works well as i will get more than a few weeks out of it and sometimes another withdrawal, which effectively i save the £10 i would be spending.
Comments
If they only bet on for example warm horses in Irish 2-y-o maidens then whether or not they are winning they will likely be restricted.
The same policy applies with pretty much every bookmaker.
I've even seen a photo where it was claimed a dog had won despite not even being in the picture! Technology not always 100% reliable.
In short find 8 horse races with a very short priced favourite and a clear but longer odds second favourite. Place a substantial each way bet on the second favourite.
In short, each way prices are a straight fraction of the odds to win, yet in the above scenario this is the wrong way to assess the each way chances which are far better than this would imply.
The reason you choose 8 horse races is that the addition of one extra (relatively useless) horse suddenly increases each way payout from first 2 to first 3.
There will naturally be people out there amongst our tens of millions of customers who are better than our odds compilers/traders and if that's the case then we will restrict. Otherwise we become the punter and they become the bookmaker!!
If any business realised that it was selling goods for less than they were paying for them to be manufactured, they wouldn't continue to sell them!
That said the judge is probably some doddery old git with glasses about an inch thick!
We will restrict someone who is an expert/ultra-selective/informed and who we know we will not make a margin from. A bit like your old man in the 60s ;-)
We will offer our products to customers who we might win from, but not to customers who we won't win from! Sports betting is not about pure probability!
It sort of reminds me a bit of that Simpson's episode where Homer gets kicked out of the all you can eat restaraunt...
"But the sign said all you can eat!!" (as Homer is dragged away)
No company, whether a bookmaker or even a maker of books, would knowingly sell at a loss.
The perception (false) is that bookmakers are obliged to offer their service to anyone at any time on the customer's terms - which is a nonsense. If the customer likes the price and the bookmaker is willing to take the risk then all well and good. If the customer doesn't like the price or the bookmaker isn't prepared to take the risk then 'nothing done' as they say in the trade. No different to an insurance underwriter calculating risk and premium - if the risk is too high then the insurer will refuse cover.
Some very good points on this thread, pretty much agree with @Manicmania here, i spend £10 weekly max (might increase if a big event or horses which i dont bet often).
My biggest thing is once i have won say £150, i will withdraw £100 and use the rest to keep betting, but as essentially free money/ money won i will just bet every day on random stuff to try and build the pot. Most times it works well as i will get more than a few weeks out of it and sometimes another withdrawal, which effectively i save the £10 i would be spending.