In a recent article in the Betting Business Magazine “December Edition,” written by John Samuals for IBAS, “If you cant win you cant lose”
Fascinated me only because the writer seemed at a loss to understand gambling rights fully.
The 2005 Gambling Act states
A bet can be a wager on an event that has already taken place and were one party of the bet knows the result,
Many bets taken in running are not first past the post, doctrine, so a wager were a horse pulls up. still requires, a stewards interpretation of the weigh in, before all bets can be concluded.
So even if a horse does pull up. odds can still be offered, there are many other happenings were the race or event, is still active take for instance football were a team could have been relegated, and yet betting still occurs. for days, offering relegated teams, until it is clear that non of the teams safe from relegation, have not done some thing during the season that will not cause any FA enquiry and a point deduction. altering the original result.
Betting in running is a very technical transaction, certainly in many events too many to explain in this short, feature.
In the case of “The Great British Bake Off” the Bookmaker obviously knew the result along with 90% of his new customers created by leaving the betting up. on offer even though the result was known.
This in my opinion comes into a category known as “Punter Theft” a specialty being a well known Irish Bookmaker.prepared to pay heavily short term to build long term customer base.
As every one must be aware during the past decade, internet and mobile technology has revolutionised off course betting the main reason is the removal of bad debts, owing to change of the Gambling Act for Debt Recovery. this and the fact that it is convenient, to bet using a debit or credit card.it is also compulsive.
These changes created a Diamond and Gold Rush, expedition, in creating as massive a customer base as possible once again William Hill was left behind, firms like Bet365.
The start of the period I call, The Bonus or Conscien War’s between Bookmakers, began in 2005 and has never eased. only a betting turnover tax, of 15% Point of Consumer being contemplated by foolish politicians, will alter the whole structure. but this will cost punters so much and will create the largest Illegal Gambling Industry since the American Roaring 20s that they will soon see the error of Parliaments ways.
And the following poem will become popular once again.
Mother’s in the kitchen
Washing out the jugs;
Sister’s in the pantry
Bottling the suds;
Father’s in the cellar
Mixing up the hops;
Johnny’s on the front porch
Watching for the cops.
I am no poet so to alter the concept to Bookmaker and bets, Dope and Hope as against Hops and Cops. may be easy for some but not me.
Until this happens, It is continuous to see free bets, money back, so attractive that it is possible to be in a no lose only win state, but like smoke and mirrors, it is only short term I am afraid. it is clearly a policy of enticement to bet.
Of course the paragraph “Some would argue that the Bookmaker offering bets after the result was known would make many say that they deserved to have there fingers burnt.”
Requires a response.
The Bookmaker in question certainly did not have his finger burnt, simply because he had created a large customer interest many of which would become hooked into a account , with the firm. the cost to the Bookmaker minimal. and no more than a Free Bet, concession. however as for those 10% who did not back the known winner will certainly get there losing wagers refunded, already I am sure of that.
I assume that of the bets taken and all refunded would place this Bookmaker in a short list of very clever operators.
I will explain the history of Money Back, if 2nd for I am the only racecourse Bookmaker who offered this concession, in its history all though a Wolverhampton Greyhound Bookie offered the concession in the 50/60s I did it in 2000 to 2004. and found it to be better than Without the Favourite betting that made John Gillibrand a multi million£ before he died tragically in the early 2000s,
In the 50s this Wolverhampton Greyhound Bookmaker offered this money back concession at the Dogs, so successfully that no Bookmaker has ever been allowed to do so since. the complaints being to powerful for the racecourse to stomach,
By way of offering an historic story, of why Bookmakers, would bet on an event were the result is known, is very simple,
The question is how many people know the result. a five thousand, lets say, the wager is limited, so that the Bookmaker is purchasing a list of customers, who now have a £5 Free bet, but there credit details are locked in permanently, even if the customer only bets on the Derby and the Grand National. the plan would have been a massive success. of the 5000 how many compulsive gamblers has the Bookmaker landed.
In 1960s I was betting at Royal Ascot, in the silver ring on the colour of Her Majesty the Queen.s Hat
I only had 12 different colours, on my list happy to use my own judgment if there were differing shades of opinion.
I had calculated that there was a window of opportunity for my offer, between the the Queens Hat becoming public knowledge, as she stepped out of the front door of Windsor Castle and when many race goers using large binoculars, as the Royal Cavalcade entered the course.
I guessed that a few insiders, like the Queen Mom, would have been told of the opportunity, to back a winner for after all everyone knew that the Old Dear loved a bet.
At 12.0 I started betting and at one time I had a crowd of over 500 people congregating, all of them being entertained like only a few racecourse Bookmakers knew how to.
From time to time someone would request a wager so large that it would have placed the profitability that I demanded, for my work at jeopardy. His wager of £200 at 3/1 was quickly reduced to £10 at Evens. fortunately others did not follow his lead, even though he ranted and raved for 15 minutes, telling every one who were in the crowd that he had seen the Hat and it was Blue, before driving from Windsor, by fast motor bike.
I was entertaining the public so effectively that he was ignored when I called him a white man’s Prince Monolulu.
When I commenced the betting it was obvious that no one knew the result. other than this man who just happened to be a fellow Bookmaker. from Tattersalls. I was happy to bet all wagers, maximum of £5, after all it was a wager known in the trade as a Fun Bet. more for entertainment than gambling,
In no time I had taken £200 and was a £30 over round meaning that I could not lose anything, but could win £30, minimum.
At approx, 1.30 a very well dressed man, with a members badge into the Royal Enclosure
“WHAT IS YOU MAXIMUM AMOUNT TAKEN” Bookmaker?
I cant say that I was enlightened by the gents manner’s, after all the sign on the top of my joint (Board) clearly indicated my full christian name. as Donald.
I looked in to his pale blue eyes they were as cold as stone. he must have been 6ft 4 inch, I guessed a Guardsman working at Windsor or Buck House, I then noticed his wonderfully manicured nails I was also drawn to the size of the “Wad” he was waving about contained a minimum of £1,000 from the Queens Bank Coutts. I wouldn’t have been surprised if he been a Windsor, for there are hundreds of them,
What colour ? do you want Sir. I questioned.
Blue had been shortened so much in 2 hours that it was now 4/6. from the early 3/1 by now it was certain that Blue was the result.
Although I guessed an Eton Education,
He was out of his depth, in all gambling matters.it was then that he over played his hand. not by the way his hand shook, but the fact that instead of requesting Blue he asked for a £1000 on Cerulean.
i assumed that it was a shade of blue.
Having been educated not very well in a Small Heath Slum, Birmingham, I can assure you Cerulean had never been mentioned, during my spell there.
“If Cerulean is one of the many shades of Blue then you can have an even £10. I stated.
Standing next to the man was a punter who was indicating he required a £10 on Red. at 3/1. obviously no royalist.
The Toff, was not amused by my indication that
“Its only a Fun Bet Mate”, but you can have £1000 on White of you wish.
I will not say what the Gentleman said next, for although I understood what it meant. but not the particular phrase. I also remembered that if I had ever used the phrase in school. as a child I would have received minor capital punishment to my rear. in short sharp doses.
To conclude, The statement “If you cant lose you cant win.” may well apply and yet it is not factual.
For by opening an account you may well lose £1,000 at the end of the year.for the bet even if already known as a winner, it was just a sprat to catch mackerel.
The clerk was amazed that I was now holding £50 and Blue still won me £50
The Bookmaker will know the % of those who will draw there £5 winnings without ever placing a further wager,
This is just a further, part of the many Concessions and Free bets offered in the internet market.
Some just good value, others a guaranteed earner by the new gang of internet traders.
Paddy Power one of the leaders in what I now call no longer Fun bets but Daft bets. is happy to give quite a large Sprat, to catch even larger Mackerels. however if I see the customer base, of the many internet, firms. I will confirm that the period has been the greatest successful Trade War in History. and one of the most successful policies ever conducted in British Bookmaking.
What? you may say should IBAS do about this anomaly.
Take another quote that exists in Bookmaking parlance,
“Let the Buyer Beware” used more in The Spread Betting Market than anything else,
That is fine as long as IBAS are satisfied that all markets being promoted, are honest and truthful.
IBAS should look at all markets on there merit, if it is clear that there is definitely no chance that the backer could have ever have drawn his winnings then they have a duty of care to the british public to have the stakes refunded.
There is nothing wrong with a Bookmaker offering odds in a market already known but what about the punters, who did not know that the result was known. are they entitled to there money back.
YES They ARE. and at Once.
The final problem with IBAS is that they are Bookmaker funded but that should give them an opportunity, to explain to the Bookmakers, that Enticement to bet abused will only result in a tightening of old enticement rules. 1961. not understood by politicians. now but were then.
Any further opinion, on punters rights,just ask
I would like to end by making a statement that should be understood, by all but I am afraid it is not.
Every betting coup. gambling con, Ringer, etc, through the ages, aimed at Bookmakers, in fact, steal the Bookmakers take not necessarily his own money, the money being held by the Bookmaker in the main will have been honest punter.s wagers filling the Bookmakers odd, by backing the other horses in the race, these are not always returned when in fact if the punters that organised the coup failed to get paid, the losing punters should certainly have done so.
Gay Future was a very clever coup. organised by the Irish, the only mistake was inviting a Scotch idiot. giving him a simple but very important duty. of withdrawing the two non runners, by doing a simple engine fault to the horse box.
I always wondered how much the Cartmel racecourse customers. lost, with all due respect they had been well and truly caycuffed.
The whole event should have been cancelled.