Minimum bet discussion

[RicHep365]

As somebody who's runs a value betting service for the last 5 years, I'm really interested by the discussion that took place yesterday regarding a potential minimum bet requirement for all bookmakers. They already have this in some Australian states where bookies are forced under licence to lay $500 liability to any punter.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... are_btn_tw

In some respects this sounds like a dream, the ability to get 100s on any horse I like at any time after 10am would be amazing.

However I'm wondering what the wider affect would be:

Will the bookies just increase their overround to such an extent that there are no value/arb opportunities in the market any more.

How would the min bet affect liquidity on betfair, will the money with get spread more thinly once people can get on at bookies, especially earlier in the day?

Does anybody here get involved with arbing/value betting, how do you think it will play out?

[ShaunWhite]

It's easy to go bookie bashing, and the exploitation of the weak via FOBTs is disgraceful but I do want to defend their margins and their freedom to operate as they see fit. They have huge overheads with high street rents etc and employ 1000s of people in the shops and offices. It's absolutely critical that they are allowed an environment to thrive partly because via their advertising they keep bringing new customers to the industry.

It's in our interests to encourage a heathy profitable bookmaking industry because without them BF liquidity would nose dive. Casual punters who are deterred from using bookies won't move to Betfiar. They'll go and spend their leasure £ somewhere else and the choices of where that is are wider than ever.

We really do need to keep in mind where all the lovely liquidity comes from and it's not from the hardcore gambling community, it's from the army of people who see gambling as entertainment rather than a road to riches. I want to see bookies shops stuffed with people and bookies making enough money to keep driving sales.

[LeTiss]

I disagree with your defence of the bookies Shaun. I started out as a Ladbrokes betting shop manager in Southampton in 1989/90. Back then, Ladbrokes and their competitors were proper bookies, and would happily take bets on - they saw this as part of the game. We had monitored customers, i.e. big punters who quite often won, but I NEVER heard of a single punter being banned or having reduced stakes. My mate worked in a shop in Portswood, and one of his customers once walked in with £10k in cash, and wanted to put it all on Stoke to win league 1 - they were 9/4 and Ladbrokes took the whole bet, and didn't even offer him reduced prices (they finished 4th).

Unfortunately, we don't recognise these bookmakers anymore. The internet changed the industry, as it made it easier to monitor unprofitable customers, and made it easier to lay their liabilities off. The upshot is, they have forgotten their roots, and what it's like to take punters on. This is why they have pushed Poker, online games and virtual bullshit, as they are programmed to make a guaranteed profit. This is why they push FOBT's, because they are programmed to win, but if you try to get a decent bet on, you'll either struggle, or only be offered £2 bets in the future, if it wins

Tossers!

[ShaunWhite]

I disagree with your defence of the bookies Shaun.

You know much more about it than I do, so I do listen to your opinion. It's a tough world for business at the moment, I'm just cautious about biting the hand that feeds us.

You're spot on though, they're not bookies they're casinos. Cost savings at HQ probably mean they can't work out the odds better than Mr Punter who has some serious tech these days? Plus the internet gives people a way to target the best prices so they'll get destroyed if they price wrong.

Your fella might have got his 10k on at 9/4, but if every punter in the country had known that 9/4 was the best price anywhere, and they could get on with a click instead of catching a bus, would they have taken 50k? 500k? I'm not so sure. Stoke to win anything should have been bigger then 9/4 so I'm not so sure they were doing him any favours

[RicHep365]

I disagree with your defence of the bookies Shaun.

You know much more about it than I do, so I do listen to your opinion. It's a tough world for business at the moment, I'm just cautious about biting the hand that feeds us.

You're spot on though, they're not bookies they're casinos. Cost savings at HQ probably mean they can't work out the odds better than Mr Punter who has some serious tech these days? Plus the internet gives people a way to target the best prices so they'll get destroyed if they price wrong.

Your fella might have got his 10k on at 9/4, but if every punter in the country had known that 9/4 was the best price anywhere, and they could get on with a click instead of catching a bus, would they have taken 50k? 500k? I'm not so sure. Stoke to win anything should have been bigger then 9/4 so I'm not so sure they were doing him any favours

I completely agree that bookies shouldn't have to take every bet, they would be bankrupt in the space of a few months if they did, I guess the question is what's reasonable. I would be happy if i could get 200 liability on a horse at each bookie, I'd have to spread my bets around but at least I'd know I could get on.

The potential issue that could arise from a horse racing perspective is, if forced to take a minimum bet with say £1000 liability, some bookies may decide that they don't want to be involved in the sport at all. I know from my system alone that with largely unrestricted accounts we could take hundreds of thousands off the bookies every month. So the move could end up being bitter sweet for us.

[ShaunWhite]

They'll find a way to keep the shareholders sweet whatever they legislate. Maybe they'll just offer worse prices (Joe public doesn't really care cos they're hidden in all the acca offers and gimmicky specials anyway) . Or maybe they'll just close a book entirely if they've reached liability limits. Or a sliding scale of prices vs stakes like it often was, "you can have £100 at 9/2 and the rest at 4s Sir" was the standard reply for donkey's years. At least these days you've got betfair to gamble on and isn't the standard line that you get better prices on BF anyway?

On balance the health of the industry as a whole outweighs the needs of a very small band of profitable people to put their bets on. 95% benefit from the 5% who are restricted. Bookies are businesses not a public service. With all due respect I'd rather see a dozen new high street shops and related jobs, and a thriving exchange instead of making life easier for a few pro punters.

[Derek27]

While most bookies have barred me, William Hill, to their credit, limited me to a liability of about £200 and kept that up for several months, before reducing it to about £5.

I think a £200 minimum liability would be reasonable. There should be a law preventing bookies from advertising prices if they're not willing to take more than a few quid on them.

[ShaunWhite]

There should be a law preventing bookies from advertising prices if they're not willing to take more than a few quid on them.

When the supermarket offers a deal you can't just buy as much as you want. No different. But the limits should be clearly shown so the customer is aware of the terms.

I'd actually scrap the need to obtain a bookies' license in the first place, I don't see why the government should be involved in who can compete against the present cartel and how they go about doing it. To many laws and too much government everywhere you look.

But if you were a bookie, would you accept all bets? If you were a landlord would you serve all drinkers? I doubt it.

[Derek27]

All bookies have to have limits to how much they will take - no bookie as infinite resources. But if they really take the piss and limit you to £0.53 on a 7/2 shot, they shouldn't be advertising a horse at 7/2. Some people may even argue that accepting a £20 bet from one punter but not another is discrimination.

Perhaps their odds should be accompanied with a warning: prices only available to customers who lose long-term!

[RicHep365]

All bookies have to have limits to how much they will take - no bookie as infinite resources. But if they really take the piss and limit you to £0.53 on a 7/2 shot, they shouldn't be advertising a horse at 7/2. Some people may even argue that accepting a £20 bet from one punter but not another is discrimination.

Perhaps their odds should be accompanied with a warning: prices only available to customers who lose long-term!

Exactly, surely the whole point in being a bookie is to manage your book. If you take a lot of money on one outcome you reduce the odds. That's the a bookies job.

It shouldn't matter who is backing it at your advertised odds, your odds should be a representation of how much money you're willing to take on the outcome.

What's frustrating is the people running the books at the big firms are either machines tracking betfair, or individuals with little experience who also use betfair as their pricing engine.

[ShaunWhite]

Exactly, surely the whole point in being a bookie is to manage your book. If you take a lot of money on one outcome you reduce the odds. That's the a bookies job.

A bookies only job is to make money for their shareholders, how they do it should be their perogative if you believe in free market economics. If nobody's offering what you're asking for, it's obviously a non starter as a business proposition.

Everyone's talking as though the business has changed, known sucessful punters have never been able to get large amounts on at the full price. At least now you can have your tenner on at 20 different bookies while you sit at home rather than walking up and down the high street to do it.

[RicHep365]

Exactly, surely the whole point in being a bookie is to manage your book. If you take a lot of money on one outcome you reduce the odds. That's the a bookies job.

A bookies only job is to make money for their shareholders, how they do it should be their perogative if you believe in free market economics. If nobody's offering what you're asking for, it's obviously a non starter as a business proposition.

Everyone's talking as though the business has changed, known sucessful punters have never been able to get large amounts on at the full price. At least now you can have your tenner on at 20 different bookies while you sit at home rather than walking up and down the high street to do it.

Yeah but this is the point, I can't get a tenner on across 40 bookmakers, if i could get a tenner on at each bookie I'd be a happy man.

I only really got involved in horse betting about 5 years ago and even that short time ago you could expect to win about 10k from a ladbrokes account, 5k from will hill, coral, betfred, bet vic etc... befoe restrictions kicked in, and even then the restrictions would allow a reasonable bet, now you're lucky if you can put 5-10 bets on before it's curtains, win or lose.

Some bookies have restricted my account before I've even placed a bet, others have restricted me to pennies after I've placed a couple of bets, and they did it before the races had been run.

They might as well have a sign above the door that says, "we only accept customers that lose" and while I agree that they shouldn't be expected to take anything people throw at them, surely there has to be some sort of balance.