Bookmakers were urged to “get a grip” on the subject of punters being restricted and having their accounts closed, as it was debated before a group of parliamentarians on Tuesday. A packed committee room in the House of Lords heard representatives of punters and bookmakers discuss the extent of the problem and what might be done, and the betting industry was urged by Lord Lipsey to start taking the issue seriously. “I have a slight feeling about this that it’s like the fixed odds betting terminals,” Lord Lipsey said, referring to a recent report which predicted the government will soon reduce the maximum stake for gaming machines in betting shops to just £2. This is a prospect that fills bookmakers with horror and wiped £660m off their stock market value on Monday. Lord Lipsey’s suggestion was that, left untackled, the issue of restrictions and account closures might also lead to unwanted, severe regulatory intervention. “Bookmakers need to get a grip on this,” he told those present and his thoughts were echoed by Viscount Astor, sitting alongside him. “We should be congratulating winners, not denigrating them, if we want racing and betting to grow,” he said. Those comments seem to confirm the impression of recent years, that the bookmaker lobby in parliament is no longer so powerful or effective as it used to be. The betting industry was not strong in numbers here. Richard Flint, chief executive of Sky Bet, came to put the bookmaker’s perspective and struck a conciliatory tone. “The UK gambling industry, reputationally, isn’t in a good place and you’d have to be an unusual person to disagree with that,” he said afterwards. During his speech, he accepted that bookmakers should get better at communicating with customers at risk of being restricted or having their accounts closed, adding he was happy to work with the Horserace Bettors Forum on how that might be done. But he asserted that, as far as Sky Bet were concerned, “a tiny proportion” of customers were affected and that 97% went unrestricted, even though betting on horse racing was “growing very strongly”. “Contrary to myth, we don’t close accounts simply because a customer is winning,” he said. “We run a business, not a public service. We run it to be a commercial success. We must have the ability to say no to customers who we believe will be unprofitable for us in the longer term.” But Flint did not immediately dismiss the suggestion of a “minimum bet” rule, which has been introduced in some states in Australia, requiring firms to lay advertised odds to a certain amount of money to any interested customer. However he suggested it would come at the expense of popular offers like “best odds guaranteed”, which in his view could not profitably be maintained alongside such a rule. He imagined a two-tier system, in which punters who still wanted access to such offers would have to relinquish their right to a minimum bet level. Simon Rowlands of the HBF said bookmakers were too quick to restrict customers or close them down “and the consequences for racing are harmful and are not being taken seriously enough”. Each account closure might represent a fan lost to racing, he said. Bruce Millington, editor of the Racing Post, said the problem was “affecting more punters than ever before” and that “a fair deal” was needed between the two sides. Philip Davies MP, who chaired the debate, said the all-party group “stands ready to be an honest broker between the sides and to facilitate further discussions”.
They're not true Bookmakers* any more, Accountants would be more accurate? When I watch Saturday racing on ITV, I just hit the mute button when their silly 'Songs Of Praise' advertisements appear. Can watch programmes like that on a Sunday if I want to. *Just remembered, they often used to use a posh name once upon a time, 'Turf Accountants', (is this description still used?), they're just plain vanilla bead counters now.
If you are one of the guys receiving deposit bonuses from SkyBet this month....it means they expect to get it all back
This being a principle upon which anybody runs a business that wants to remain trading (except Carillion), I am not sure what is the issue. If a large supermarket chain has 500 stores and 10 of them are running at a loss, how does the supermarket cut its losses? It closes them.
Being a bookmaker is about taking bets. They either take the risk or hedge the bet off. At least that's what they used to do. I could understand when large amounts are involved they might refuse to take the bet because they may not be able to hedge it; but the nonsense I see on here about being restricted to £10ew etc is taking the piss
They CREATE the book, they stack the deck in their favour and then they dont have the bollocks to stand their ground, They only want to play with losers and that in my world is totally ****ing immoral. Your comparison bears no relationship to the argument whatsoever........................just something to say..............................................
But there is choice (at least 15 online bookies) and of course Betfair. At the end of the day the book on any race is always stacked in the bookies favour, everyone knows that. Are the bookmakers any more immoral than the breweries who prey on alcoholics or the tobacco companies who prey on smoking addicts? Or Jeremy Kyle who preys on Chavs?
Most businesses make a profit by offering their customers what they want at a price they are willing to pay; they do not normally do so by turning away the customers they consider to be shrewder than the rest. Very few supermarkets erect a sign over the door saying "Mugs Only".
Once you start getting accounts restricted, choice begins to evaporate. All the major bookies use the same algorithms to identify and restrict not necessarily winning punters, but punters who consistently get value. Losing accounts with a history of identifying value are still often likely to end up getting closed. There is, as you say, still Betfair. And there's the on course bookies - but how often do you see punters standing in the betting ring fiddling with their phones?
If you go on Jeremy Kyle and then buy a scratchcard in a Hull petrol station, you could win £4m... then you would be a rich Chav.
Give 'em all the arse and get on the giddy goat. In no time at all, the sport will be up to it's eye balls in cash.
That sentence really shows them in a bad light ... it's called gambling not winning and it should work the same for the punter and the bookie .. shame on them
The one good loophole these days that a few people i know use who have had restrictions with bookies online, is to bet on 888 or pokerstars because they're primarily poker sites but just offer sports betting, or 32 red which is a casino but just offers sports betting, these guys don't really give a **** how much you bet or if you win/lose because they're not solely based on sports betting gains etc.
