Hi, The analogy of Bookies to shopping is akin to saying you saw a product on special and insisted on buying 100 sets, even though the store only had a few left at that price. The Bookie has every right to say "buy now, only two left at this price". That is why the inherent fairness in a pari-mutuel pool makes it the ideal wagering medium. You will always get your bet on. And in expectation of the subject of excess commissions, remember in NSW it was once a Government agency with a divine right to slice the pie as it saw fit. Although I believe it was done at the levels set to ensure many things including the integrity of Racing with a Government watchdog overseeing the racing fraternities own regulatory system. In NSW following the Kinsella Royal Commission the people were offered a legal, managed wagering system over SP Bookies and "fly by night" shonks, and they bought it. Now it is no longer Government owned so it has to compete, which I for one firmly believe it can and will do so, along with its legally sanctioned competitors to the benefit of all parties in racing,
TC - http://www.racepert.com You Can Bet On It! > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Harrop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 22 December 2004 9:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [racebase] Bookies eh! Who would have them. > > > Fair enough Robert. > But I wonder if there is any point in me hoping that bookmakers are > allowed to operate in this country if I am to be eventually banned if I > win. My whole intention to being a punter is to win and I would only > ever use a bookmaker if I thought I could long-term. > Are bookmakers therefore telling us that they aren't actually very good > at setting markets ? The maths are already on their side in that > long-term they should win if they set the market correctly. > Peter. > > Fords wrote: > > > > Peter, > > > > You could say it also unethical for bookmakers to take bets from > > losing punters. > > Bookmakers are mostly very honourable business men and go to great > > lengths to ensure that payment is made out on any winning bets with > > them. It is unethical (as on-course Australia) to force them to take > > bets they do not wish to take. > > > > If the bookmaker accepts the punters' offer of a bet then that is > > different from refusing to accept their custom at all. The former is > > contractual (but even so, a bet is not legally enforceable to be paid > > out in UK, at present). The latter is just commercial judgement - they > > are not charities. There is no contract made for the latter - in fact, > > the opposite applies. I wonder what the whingers would say if the shoe > > was on the other foot, and the bookmaker claimed that he should be > > able to force the punter to back what the bookmaker decided and at > > what price and what amount. Bookmakers read these forums and I am sure > > that certain names are now blackballed throughout the industry. Some > > of these Aussies do not live in the real world. > > > > Robert > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Peter Harrop > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 5:27 AM > > Subject: Re: [racebase] Bookies eh! Who would have them. > > > > Fords wrote: > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > What's new? > > > This is a long-standing standard practice in UK. > > > Thou shalt not win! > > > In a free market, you decide what you want to bet - they > > decide > > > whether to accept or not. > > > > Don't get me wrong, I would love to see bookies here in NZ. > > The more > > competition the better, and it would offer better choices, > > at least for > > those that are losers. It just seems to me completely > > unethical that > > someone who was winning is banned. It is akin to an > > insurance company > > refusing your custom because you have had a run of bad luck > > and you've > > been making too many claims. Hang on .... they do ban those > > people don't > > they ! > > I vaguely remember doing a uni paper on commercial law and > > from this > > vague memory I have an even vaguer one about a law of offer > > and > > acceptance. Somebody offers their goods for sale at a > > certain price. > > This is the offer. Someone picks up the said goods and takes > > them to the > > counter. This is the acceptance. At this point the contract > > is made. The > > seller can't then say ... 'Oh that price tag is wrong, it is > > $1.20 not > > $1'. The seller also can't say .... 'I don't like the look > > of you, I > > won't sell it to you'. I can't see why there should be any > > difference > > for the bookies. I guess it must be legal to refuse a bet > > because they > > do it and no one has successfully sued them as far as I am > > aware. > > Peter. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > > [click here] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/racebase/ > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! > > Terms of Service. > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/9cOolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/racebase/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
