-----Original message-----
From: "Fords" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:15:40 -0500
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [racebase] Bookies eh! Who would have them.
> Tim,
>
> As you probably know the Tote is a very much smaller operation in UK.
> They used to let winning credit accounts run indefinitely, then much longer> than private company bookies, so many bigger punters reluctantly used them> in the past, for convenience sake. Telephone bets were supposed to go into> the on-course pool but perhaps in reality they did not and the Tote took t> he risk. Bookmakers take Tote odds bets but that money does not go into the> pool - perhaps the Tote followed their lead. I have no knowledge of why, b> ut it was decided that regularly winning Tote credit accounts got closed. P> erhaps the management got alarmed when they found out (once client records > were computerised) that the cash profit that was meant to be supporting rac> ing went to private punters instead. Many faces in London were even refused> cash bets at their offices, as well as the normal refusal at private bookm> aker shops, and your mug-shot appeared on the office shop wall and was cir> culated around.
>
> Robert
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Collins
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 2:50 AM
> Subject: RE: [racebase] Bookies eh! Who would have them.
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Can you give an example of the UK tote closing a winning account and the > rationale behind it?
>
>
>
> TC - http://www.racepert.com You Can Bet On It!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------> ---
>
> From: Fords [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 December 2004 7:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [racebase] Bookies eh! Who would have them.
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
>
>
> It has little to do with setting odds.
>
> For racing, the course sets the market not the off-course bookies.
>
> However, they still try to feed in small amounts to cancel any large shop> liabilities.
>
> In the good old days when Bookmakers were gamblers and there were no comp> uterised records of every activity then you could hold long term winning ac> counts. Nowadays, it is run by accountants, every shop and office has to ma> ke a weekly profit or else.
>
> What modern business gives cash to its customers, is the accountant's min> dset. Anyone who appears like they may know what they are doing is quickly> dealt with, as damage limitation. In UK, bookie shop punters are just as h> appy betting on cartoon video racing and pokies so it is now actively encou> raged to be "just a bit of fun". Even the UK Tote close winning credit acc> ounts, so the only meaningful salvation is the exchanges.
>
>
>
> Robert
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Peter Harrop
>
> To: [email protected]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 2:07 AM
>
> 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 - the> y
> > 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 sho> e
> > 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 sur> e
> > 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 Sponsor
>
> Get unlimited calls to
>
> U.S./Canada
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------> -
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/racebase/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Servi> ce.
>
>
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
|
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.
