Bookmakers or Not?

ladbrokes are a firm I know very well,had dealings with their previous MD.
But this is laughable and highlights the state of the bookmaking industry.


Ladbrokes’ investigation overshadows half-baked betting system for punters
While the bookmaker focuses on insider knowledge claims concerning The Great British Bake Off, horse racing and other sports may find it more difficult to recruit new fans if they are constantly restricted or refused when wanting a gamble

Ladbrokes turned down 90% of a £10 win bet on Treve for the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe, in which she finished fourth.

On Sunday night, a Twitter follower sent me a screenshot of a Ladbrokes online betting slip. It showed the result of an attempt, much earlier in the day and several hours before the race, to put £10 on Treve to win the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe at what was, at the time, an advertised price of 6-4. Ladbrokes, one of the world’s biggest betting brands, had baulked at laying £15 to a tenner, and offered the punter £1 at 6-4 instead.

On Tuesday, The Sun claimed an exclusive with a story that The Great British Bake Off, the final of which attracted 13 million viewers the following evening, had been “rocked by claims of a £10,000 betting scandal involving BBC employees.” The paper claimed that a bookmaker – Ladbrokes, as it happens – had “launched a full-scale probe” after they allegedly “found 42 new gambling accounts had been created with links to BBC workers and the independent production company behind Bake Off. In total [Ladbrokes] have taken 529 bets through the suspicious accounts and reckon the sting will rake in about £10,000.”


Ladbrokes investigating Great British Bake Off insider betting allegations
Read more
The Sun’s story was supported by quotes from an unnamed “source” at Ladbrokes, including a claim that insiders had “been using their own names to open accounts” and that “a quick Google and you can see two or three are in TV and have close links to the BBC and GBBO’s production company.”

The pick of the quotes, though, was probably this one: “They must think we’re a bit thick but we know how to sniff out funny business like this. Placing everything on one baker again and again immediately set off red flags.”

Yes, well, it probably would – given that the final was recorded four months ago, in front of an outside broadcast crew and at least 150 spectators. All of them left the party with a slice of cake, a 24-carat nugget of inside information and four months to try to keep it to themselves. Ladbrokes – and Hills, for that matter – then gave them, and anyone else they had let in on the secret, the opportunity to turn that information into cash. Perhaps the only real surprise in this “betting scandal” is that Ladbrokes’ payout on Nadiya, the winner, was apparently only £10,000.



Yet this is the same bookmaker that turned down 90% of a £10 win bet on Treve in one of the most prestigious and competitive races of the season – in which, as it turned out, she finished fourth. In its own way, that is a “betting scandal”, too.

Placed side by side, these two stories say a good deal about the short-termism, and also the naked cynicism, of the modern corporate bookmaker.

In essence, the “Bake Off” episode is really only a twist on the bookies’ favourite marketing ploy of the moment: the daft price “for new customers only”. They offer grossly inflated odds against a relative certainty – 5-1 that Manchester United will win a corner, for instance – to a limited stake, such as £5. As a result, they sign up hundreds, and possibly thousands, of new clients, who all now have £30 in their account and will soon find their email bombarded with suggestions on how they can play it up.

This is the scattering of the seeds. The next step, as any gardener will tell you, is “thinning out”. The new customers who fritter away their winnings on “mug” bets are the ones to cultivate. Those who simply bank the cash, or place subsequent bets only at the top of the market, are either pruned, via restrictions, or pulled out by the roots. Offering only £1 at 6-4 to a punter who wanted a tenner might seem to be an extreme example but, as many punters will tell you, it is not.

On the face of it, Ladbrokes’ use of Bake Off as a marketing tool was not too smart: 42 new accounts for £10,000, or about £240 each, is on the high side when you can pick up hundreds for £30 apiece. However, the publicity value of editorial copy in the Sun, which is second only to the Daily Mail in terms of circulation, is immense. Several other media outlets, the Guardian included, picked up on the story, too.


In any case, if their “full-scale probe” suggests prior knowledge of the result, Ladbrokes could cancel the winning bets or void the market entirely. That would mean a refund for punters who, in good faith, managed to back a loser when the bookie, almost certainly, knew precisely which contestant had already stashed the trophy under her bed.

Some may shrug and say that a scruple-free bookie is hardly breaking news but there has been a distinct change in outlook at the major firms as the internet has eaten into their margins, as it has in so many businesses. Even 15 years ago, the boards of most big operators, Ladbrokes included, were packed with people who had started out as settlers or shop manag

Bookies used to love taking on punters , the advent of chains brought the need into monitoring bets and limits.. In the good old days you went to a bookie put a bet on the counter and 99/100 it was accepted, the Internet ruined that !

Whilst I was still an 18yo school kid I often handed my rhodesian$1 bill to my bookie, Mr Ray Muir, for a bet on some good thing. His response to me was always "thank you Sir!" He made me feel so important.

My question is - If the bookies curb bets continually how are they making any money? Surely it's about turnover and it seems they are trying NOT to take bets except if they have zero chance of succeeding. How do they pay staff etc if they continue to restrict or are they making money of people taking dream multiple bets?

mr hawaii wrote: My question is - If the bookies curb bets continually how are they making any money? Surely it's about turnover and it seems they are trying NOT to take bets except if they have zero chance of succeeding. How do they pay staff etc if they continue to restrict or are they making money of people taking dream multiple bets?

They accept someone will get lucky from time to time but a regular winner is no good to them. They rake in loads on the other things they offer, on-line casino games etc. By stopping those punters that win on horses, they simply increase their overall profits and there are plenty mugs still out there that lose day after day, I used to be one of them. They don't play big but they play and there is enough of them to keep it ticking over and they have no clue about what happens if you win. It is all about profit today and managed by fools with no common sense... imo It will backfire eventually but no-one cares about tomorrow, they just want to be seen as Mr Profit today.
I was point blank told by one bookie that shut me down that they simply didn't see themselves making a worthwhile profit out of me. Another restricts me because "you do quite well on SA racing" and another, from an employee friend who looked at my account for me, said they were restricting me basically because they were too lazy to do their jobs properly. But, I do believe that on a daily basis more and more are becoming aware of how sh1t they treat punters. And there are people like me who don't shut up lol and I am still considering a law suit myself against two bookies on a slightly different but somewhat related matter, I was advised by one of their "overseers" that I should look to sue them on the basis of the Fair Trade Laws.

For you horse racing fundi's...any reason why a system like Singapore or Hong Kong wouldn't be better in SA...purely based on the tote and no bookmakers...it seems to work there..unless I'm naive...

rhodieace wrote: For you horse racing fundi's...any reason why a system like Singapore or Hong Kong wouldn't be better in SA...purely based on the tote and no bookmakers...it seems to work there..unless I'm naive...

why would a punter want to copy that? would you want to get told you cant bet on a race in the uk or you cant take your 17yo son racing etc?

tote monopolies are only good for racing insiders

Bob you can go racing in those venues and watch and bet on any race....the tote determines the betting and not the bookmaker...

rhodieace wrote: Bob you can go racing in those venues and watch and bet on any race....the tote determines the betting and not the bookmaker...

Why would you want to give racing insiders 25% of your money, for them to treat you with disrospect..

Ps over 18`s only on track and i think they only race twice a week? what would we do the other 5 days

Ok I didn't realise that you give 25% away ...that's why I asked the ? Thank you

rhodieace wrote: For you horse racing fundi's...any reason why a system like Singapore or Hong Kong wouldn't be better in SA...purely based on the tote and no bookmakers...it seems to work there..unless I'm naive...

some good punters tend to favour hk.

I mean there has to be a reason a punter like this would favour it right ???

www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-ton...ags-riches-story-149

interesting story btw gents