| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? 16:20 - Feb 10 with 9069 views | TresBonne |
Interested in a debate over this purely because I have just met the former CEO of a gambling company at a talk he did, and I was a little shocked at how blaise he was about problem gambling and the issues surrounding his line of work.
His main argument really, and he couldn't let on too much over this because it was an 'ethics' talk (which I thought quite ironic in itself!), was that it is more the fault of the punter in the majority of cases and they should be taking more accountability for getting themselves there in the first place.
I just wonder what other people's opinions are on this? To be honest, I left the talk feeling a little sick over it. I didn't like the arrogance, smugness that he had. [Post edited 10 Feb 16:21]
|  | | |  |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:32 - Feb 10 with 4412 views | itfcjoe |
If all gambling companies allowed punters to place all their bets with them then I'd have a bit more sympathy - but they only want 'mug punters' who lose every week following their offers.
Win too much and your account gets shut, bet too smartly and lose then your account gets shut.
It's a one sided industry designed to take money of people. |  |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:40 - Feb 10 with 4364 views | Vaughan8 |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:32 - Feb 10 by itfcjoe |
If all gambling companies allowed punters to place all their bets with them then I'd have a bit more sympathy - but they only want 'mug punters' who lose every week following their offers.
Win too much and your account gets shut, bet too smartly and lose then your account gets shut.
It's a one sided industry designed to take money of people. |
Years ago I had a go at matched betting and made a few quid.
As you say, as soon as they realise you aren't a "mug" bettor, they restrict your account or it gets shut down, sometimes without any notification. Just you can't log back in.
The measures in place also seem a bit half hearted. On one, they did this questionaire to to establish deposit limits, and it basically came to about 3 months net wages I could deposit a month............!
It always seems like they are doing things, I.e. when the fun stops, stop, but its not that simple for people who are addicted. Its like telling a alcoholic to stop drinking...... |  | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:43 - Feb 10 with 4333 views | Mullet |
Sounds like the perfect type of scumbag who should be running a gambling company. No different to loan sharks, smack dealers and other predators. But legalised akin to the tobacco companies who used to target vulnerable groups intentionally.
I hate how ubiquitous gambling is in football and how normalised it is. |  |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:52 - Feb 10 with 4236 views | J2BLUE |
This is very common.
They hate smart bettors who use things like matched betting, arbing and just generally have some sort of edge. The head of StarSports did an interview where he basically called matched bettors scum. Geoff Banks, the now employer of a famous TWTD gambler, is open about how much he hates matched bettors etc.
They just want mugs. If you lose money they will send you more offers. If you lose money on slots and show you cannot control yourself they will send you free spins.
They take every advantage they can. They have now embraced affordability checks which sounds good but they are mainly weaponised against anyone who makes a profit.
The entire bookmaker industry badly needs regulating and made fairer for the user. If they put a price up they should have to take £100 from anyone on that selection.
It's the ultimate legal grift. |  |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:53 - Feb 10 with 4231 views | TresBonne |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:32 - Feb 10 by itfcjoe |
If all gambling companies allowed punters to place all their bets with them then I'd have a bit more sympathy - but they only want 'mug punters' who lose every week following their offers.
Win too much and your account gets shut, bet too smartly and lose then your account gets shut.
It's a one sided industry designed to take money of people. |
I actually challenged him on this exact point. I asked him, if its punters choice then fair enough, but you restrict winners to pennies as you don't want them.
He admitted to me that there are algorithms in place that will work out if you will win over time. Knew this already of course, but it was a bit 'argh' hearing it from the horses mouth.
Another thing I challenged him on was - during the talk he was referring to people as 'high-spending customers'. I explicitly told him I think he means high losing, rather than high spending, and he actually agreed which I thought was even more arrogant. Also asked him about what would constitute a 'high-spending' customer, to which he replied 5,000 in a year (lost). I wonder just how many of these there are, and which of these actually get contacted and asked a few questions etc? [Post edited 10 Feb 16:59]
| | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:54 - Feb 10 with 4211 views | Zx1988 |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:40 - Feb 10 by Vaughan8 |
Years ago I had a go at matched betting and made a few quid.
As you say, as soon as they realise you aren't a "mug" bettor, they restrict your account or it gets shut down, sometimes without any notification. Just you can't log back in.
The measures in place also seem a bit half hearted. On one, they did this questionaire to to establish deposit limits, and it basically came to about 3 months net wages I could deposit a month............!
It always seems like they are doing things, I.e. when the fun stops, stop, but its not that simple for people who are addicted. Its like telling a alcoholic to stop drinking...... |
Even that slogan appears incredibly dodgy - using the word 'fun', and having the word in big flashy letters. They know precisely what they're doing.
Case in point - this study from the Lancet, which found that a number of people were actually more likely to gamble irresponsibly after having seen the message:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(21)00279-6/fullt | |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:54 - Feb 10 with 4212 views | TresBonne |
He was also asked about this. He blamed it on Meta's advertising procedures rather than them sharing data (which he also said didn't actually happen, well...there's clear proof of it so I don't know how that works).
His response to this particular question was very 'out of sight, out of mind', which was also largely his response when asked about banning problem gamblers and if they will switch to another bookmaker instead.
Sad. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:57 - Feb 10 with 4182 views | TresBonne |
To add to the article that DJR posted:
https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/legal/high-court-sbg-breached-data-
He was asked about this too, some of it actually took place while he was CEO. He literally smirked when arguing against it, said that the information in the article was wrong, and mainly the media had reported it wrongly. Maybe they have, I obviously don't know, but it went in front of a High Court judge who ruled Sky were in the wrong so that's good enough for me to disbelieve him. | | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:59 - Feb 10 with 4166 views | J2BLUE |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:53 - Feb 10 by TresBonne |
I actually challenged him on this exact point. I asked him, if its punters choice then fair enough, but you restrict winners to pennies as you don't want them.
He admitted to me that there are algorithms in place that will work out if you will win over time. Knew this already of course, but it was a bit 'argh' hearing it from the horses mouth.
Another thing I challenged him on was - during the talk he was referring to people as 'high-spending customers'. I explicitly told him I think he means high losing, rather than high spending, and he actually agreed which I thought was even more arrogant. Also asked him about what would constitute a 'high-spending' customer, to which he replied 5,000 in a year (lost). I wonder just how many of these there are, and which of these actually get contacted and asked a few questions etc? [Post edited 10 Feb 16:59]
|
They have multiple different algorithms. If you place 5 £20 bets over one week on horses who then go off at a shorter price you are considered to be 'taking value' and you will find yourself restricted.
I keep my accounts open a lot longer than average based on what I have learnt but eventually they get you.
A few years ago I noticed NetBet had higher prices on very short odds bets. I was making £3-4 per bet and there were 3-4 opportunities each day. I was going all in while laying off at the exchange for a guaranteed profit. I thought they will never restrict me because i'm smashing short prices and they can see I will eventually lose every time. A week later they restricted me to £4.50. They would rather restrict anyone who can make a profit even if over a year I would have lost tens of thousands to them all while securing my profit on the exchange. | |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:59 - Feb 10 with 4164 views | DanTheMan |
They design games that encourage people with addiction problems to keep going. There's enough data to prove how destructive it is but there's so much money in it (and tax) that I cannot see it ever going away.
It comes down to whether you want to protect people from themselves. |  |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:01 - Feb 10 with 4148 views | TresBonne |
Oh and just to add a final point to this, it's all coming back to me now.
My mate asked him about the risks of Sky Bet sponsoring the EFL, with kids watching, etc.
His response was that there are also other issues with Carabao sponsoring the cup, as their energy drinks are also harmful...
...ludicrous! | | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:07 - Feb 10 with 4084 views | JakeITFC |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:52 - Feb 10 by J2BLUE |
This is very common.
They hate smart bettors who use things like matched betting, arbing and just generally have some sort of edge. The head of StarSports did an interview where he basically called matched bettors scum. Geoff Banks, the now employer of a famous TWTD gambler, is open about how much he hates matched bettors etc.
They just want mugs. If you lose money they will send you more offers. If you lose money on slots and show you cannot control yourself they will send you free spins.
They take every advantage they can. They have now embraced affordability checks which sounds good but they are mainly weaponised against anyone who makes a profit.
The entire bookmaker industry badly needs regulating and made fairer for the user. If they put a price up they should have to take £100 from anyone on that selection.
It's the ultimate legal grift. |
A tangent from the original point, but they are right to be anti-match betting and (especially) arbing surely? Effectively just stealing from them and probably a fairly large reason as to why thinks like minimum pricing that you mention won’t take off.
A good bookmaker should post a fair price for a fair stake and stand by it, but I think a good punter should be fairly honest in their side of the bargain too (which arbing, palp hunting and matched betting (to a lesser extent) don’t really do. |  | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:15 - Feb 10 with 4036 views | J2BLUE |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:07 - Feb 10 by JakeITFC |
A tangent from the original point, but they are right to be anti-match betting and (especially) arbing surely? Effectively just stealing from them and probably a fairly large reason as to why thinks like minimum pricing that you mention won’t take off.
A good bookmaker should post a fair price for a fair stake and stand by it, but I think a good punter should be fairly honest in their side of the bargain too (which arbing, palp hunting and matched betting (to a lesser extent) don’t really do. |
Stealing? How so? They have a offer. You lock in a profit. Not necessarily from the bookmaker.
It's like Tesco banning you from any items on offer in their store. | |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:15 - Feb 10 with 4032 views | itfctilidie |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:32 - Feb 10 by itfcjoe |
If all gambling companies allowed punters to place all their bets with them then I'd have a bit more sympathy - but they only want 'mug punters' who lose every week following their offers.
Win too much and your account gets shut, bet too smartly and lose then your account gets shut.
It's a one sided industry designed to take money of people. |
Cash is king. Take it offline and into their shops and no algorithms can stop you. I had a couple of accounts closed so now just do cash - not as convenient though. They are proper shifty these gambling companies. |  | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:21 - Feb 10 with 3981 views | J2BLUE |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:15 - Feb 10 by itfctilidie |
Cash is king. Take it offline and into their shops and no algorithms can stop you. I had a couple of accounts closed so now just do cash - not as convenient though. They are proper shifty these gambling companies. |
You can easily get restricted in shops. WH and Paddy Power now make you link an account to a card for their best prices and offers. I know a lot of people who have been restricted heavily. [Post edited 10 Feb 17:24]
| |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:26 - Feb 10 with 3906 views | itfctilidie |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:21 - Feb 10 by J2BLUE |
You can easily get restricted in shops. WH and Paddy Power now make you link an account to a card for their best prices and offers. I know a lot of people who have been restricted heavily. [Post edited 10 Feb 17:24]
|
If you go signing up for things and using account cards it is the same as being online. Whereas randomly walking into a bookies in Cambridge/London or wherever you have never been in before, they cannot stop you.
Edit - the reason why hey want you on account cards is so they can track you [Post edited 10 Feb 17:28]
| | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:29 - Feb 10 with 3820 views | DJR |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:53 - Feb 10 by TresBonne |
I actually challenged him on this exact point. I asked him, if its punters choice then fair enough, but you restrict winners to pennies as you don't want them.
He admitted to me that there are algorithms in place that will work out if you will win over time. Knew this already of course, but it was a bit 'argh' hearing it from the horses mouth.
Another thing I challenged him on was - during the talk he was referring to people as 'high-spending customers'. I explicitly told him I think he means high losing, rather than high spending, and he actually agreed which I thought was even more arrogant. Also asked him about what would constitute a 'high-spending' customer, to which he replied 5,000 in a year (lost). I wonder just how many of these there are, and which of these actually get contacted and asked a few questions etc? [Post edited 10 Feb 16:59]
|
For many, it will also be "highly indebted" |  | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:30 - Feb 10 with 3796 views | J2BLUE |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:26 - Feb 10 by itfctilidie |
If you go signing up for things and using account cards it is the same as being online. Whereas randomly walking into a bookies in Cambridge/London or wherever you have never been in before, they cannot stop you.
Edit - the reason why hey want you on account cards is so they can track you [Post edited 10 Feb 17:28]
|
Oh yes, of course, if it's a completely different bookie there's no way to tell.
Matched bettors in London often hit every William Hill they can when they have an offer on. Some used to put photos with £100 in bet vouchers etc from various promos. | |
| |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 18:08 - Feb 10 with 3604 views | Funge |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:52 - Feb 10 by J2BLUE |
This is very common.
They hate smart bettors who use things like matched betting, arbing and just generally have some sort of edge. The head of StarSports did an interview where he basically called matched bettors scum. Geoff Banks, the now employer of a famous TWTD gambler, is open about how much he hates matched bettors etc.
They just want mugs. If you lose money they will send you more offers. If you lose money on slots and show you cannot control yourself they will send you free spins.
They take every advantage they can. They have now embraced affordability checks which sounds good but they are mainly weaponised against anyone who makes a profit.
The entire bookmaker industry badly needs regulating and made fairer for the user. If they put a price up they should have to take £100 from anyone on that selection.
It's the ultimate legal grift. |
I self-excluded when COVID hit, and have never gone back - and agree with every single word of this.
Geoff Banks is an absolute, absolute wrong 'un. |  | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 18:16 - Feb 10 with 3555 views | Funge |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:07 - Feb 10 by JakeITFC |
A tangent from the original point, but they are right to be anti-match betting and (especially) arbing surely? Effectively just stealing from them and probably a fairly large reason as to why thinks like minimum pricing that you mention won’t take off.
A good bookmaker should post a fair price for a fair stake and stand by it, but I think a good punter should be fairly honest in their side of the bargain too (which arbing, palp hunting and matched betting (to a lesser extent) don’t really do. |
Interesting post, the fundamentals of which I disagree with.
There are very few 'good' bookies out there, and, IMO, outside of the Cheltenham and Royal Ascot festivals, there are few instances where bookies 'post a fair price for a fair stake'.
I really don't consider Matched Betting to be stealing - an offer is made by the bookie, the punter utilises themselves of said offer. Even if we assume a generous weighting of 1 in every 10 punters is sharp, and taking value, the remaining 9 mug punters pay for them many times over.
The entire industry is so massively, massively weighed in the bookies favour. Caan Berry on YouTube is a good source of the shenanigans they pull, regularly.
TL:DR - why on earth should punters play fair when the system against them is so heavily weighted? | | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 18:17 - Feb 10 with 3545 views | Funge |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 17:30 - Feb 10 by J2BLUE |
Oh yes, of course, if it's a completely different bookie there's no way to tell.
Matched bettors in London often hit every William Hill they can when they have an offer on. Some used to put photos with £100 in bet vouchers etc from various promos. |
As an aside, interestingly enough we tried Sharbing around the various Ladbrokes in Towun a few Chelts Festivals ago - to our great embarressment, it turned out that the staff rotate from shop to shop. | | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 18:51 - Feb 10 with 3406 views | JakeITFC |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 18:16 - Feb 10 by Funge |
Interesting post, the fundamentals of which I disagree with.
There are very few 'good' bookies out there, and, IMO, outside of the Cheltenham and Royal Ascot festivals, there are few instances where bookies 'post a fair price for a fair stake'.
I really don't consider Matched Betting to be stealing - an offer is made by the bookie, the punter utilises themselves of said offer. Even if we assume a generous weighting of 1 in every 10 punters is sharp, and taking value, the remaining 9 mug punters pay for them many times over.
The entire industry is so massively, massively weighed in the bookies favour. Caan Berry on YouTube is a good source of the shenanigans they pull, regularly.
TL:DR - why on earth should punters play fair when the system against them is so heavily weighted? |
I don’t disagree with the general principle (that is to say that bookies are scum) however I just think that I think the argument is stronger for measures that would actually help (no offers (or at least not the bombarding of advertising about them), no limiting accounts, online casinos being regulated much more etc.) from a position of genuine good faith rather than from those who are playing the bad guy but just from the punters side.
I am a genuine believer in the art and principle of bookmaking and I think we’ve got so far away from it that I worry it will be dead at some point quite soon. I’d much rather it was fixed than a few people being able to nick a few quid out of its rotting corpse. | | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 18:59 - Feb 10 with 3396 views | KingsCrossBlue |
Really interesting thread. I worked in online gambling in its infancy and it was absolute wild west in terms of data theft, sharing, shonkiness. It has become far more regulated but almost pointless betting online now, as they’ll cancel, restrict, ban.
My moment of looking in to a mirror and thinking ‘you c***’, came after analysing data of female, online bingo players in the north. I tracked deposit dates (most were every other Friday in line with factory wages), which I knew was payday. So we’d offer to match a deposited stake if they doubled their normal deposit, exactly at payday via email and push notification. If they couldn’t afford it, we could add it the charge to their mobile phone bill (only O2 as I did the deal). Said company made millions.
Barely gamble anymore despite loving horse racing - but I’d always put on a physical bet in a shop now. F*** the online options | | | |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 19:04 - Feb 10 with 3365 views | Dubtractor |
| Gambling harms - punter vs bookmaker, who's at fault? on 16:43 - Feb 10 by Mullet |
Sounds like the perfect type of scumbag who should be running a gambling company. No different to loan sharks, smack dealers and other predators. But legalised akin to the tobacco companies who used to target vulnerable groups intentionally.
I hate how ubiquitous gambling is in football and how normalised it is. |
"I hate how ubiquitous gambling is in football and how normalised it is."
This. x100. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
