Geoff Banks Bookmaker

[Michael5482]

Unbelievable that he's contacted the police regarding an incorrect pay-out by his staff at York

Like bookmakers pay-out big wins no questions asked, don't restrict or ban people for winning and uphold the most highest morals when it comes to gambling What an absolute melt he is.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain ... N47t0G7Nb/

[ikky]

I totally disagree.

The “punter” intentionally attempted to receive and successfully was paid credits he 100% knew it wasn’t his. That it theft.

Your opinion that he is at fault is most distasteful to me.

But each to their own.

[Euler]

I'm not completely sure where the law is on this. Gambling debts used to be unenforceable, but they may be now. You also have this issue of contract, which may or may not be in place here.

[Fugazi]

Do people expect bookies to let successful punters keep betting?

They would be bankrupt within weeks

[Big Bad Barney]

Do people expect bookies to let successful punters keep betting?

They would be bankrupt within weeks

Maybe they should be then? Bankrupt that is... i.e. if they can't offer a service to all, should the service exist at all.

Depends on the society people agree on I guess. Seems to me exchange model is better for everyone but then, some people want more entertainment, brought to them on a silver platter! I guess its kind of good that that service exists....

[Michael5482]

Do people expect bookies to let successful punters keep betting?

They would be bankrupt within weeks

With your logic absolutely everyone would be a net looser other than the bookmakers of course, the people who do win their only "crime" is being better than them. Bookmakers don't differentiate between luck and an edge, they ban or restrict both.

Of course they'll be bookmakers who struggle probably be those who go to Sedgefield on a cold December afternoon but by and large bookmakers have operated with impunity for years, this one of the reasons there's a massive spotlight on gambling harm as they ban more and more winners (no matter if it's luck or a genuine edge) and the result is more people are loosing.

Winners need to be part of the gambling eco system and bookmakers should be forced to accept that risk. It's not as if net winners represent a massive amount of punters, there's plenty of bunce in there for them the bookmakers just want more profit. A few net winners won't bankrupt anyone.

[Fugazi]

Do people expect bookies to let successful punters keep betting?

They would be bankrupt within weeks

With your logic absolutely everyone would be a net looser other than the bookmakers of course, the people who do win their only "crime" is being better than them. Bookmakers don't differentiate between luck and an edge, they ban or restrict both.

Of course they'll be bookmakers who struggle probably be those who go to Sedgefield on a cold December afternoon but by and large bookmakers have operated with impunity for years, this one of the reasons there's a massive spotlight on gambling harm as they ban more and more winners (no matter if it's luck or a genuine edge) and the result is more people are loosing.

Winners need to be part of the gambling eco system and bookmakers should be forced to accept that risk. It's not as if net winners represent a massive amount of punters, there's plenty of bunce in there for them the bookmakers just want more profit. A few net winners won't bankrupt anyone.

The problem is that if you are better than the bookie, one person could just scale up over time and take all their money. Bookmaking simply wouldn't work of you couldn't limit winning customers. If you are truly better than the bookie then why not offer odds yourself and be a bookmaker? Seems easy?

Also, there's not really such thing as small winners. Well except the odd customer that gets super lucky then walks away forever. If you have an actual edge over the bookie you can can just scale until you take their lot.

People seem to think because they use a website to find arbs that they deserve an infinite supply of free money for life

[Michael5482]

Do people expect bookies to let successful punters keep betting?

They would be bankrupt within weeks

With your logic absolutely everyone would be a net looser other than the bookmakers of course, the people who do win their only "crime" is being better than them. Bookmakers don't differentiate between luck and an edge, they ban or restrict both.

Of course they'll be bookmakers who struggle probably be those who go to Sedgefield on a cold December afternoon but by and large bookmakers have operated with impunity for years, this one of the reasons there's a massive spotlight on gambling harm as they ban more and more winners (no matter if it's luck or a genuine edge) and the result is more people are loosing.

Winners need to be part of the gambling eco system and bookmakers should be forced to accept that risk. It's not as if net winners represent a massive amount of punters, there's plenty of bunce in there for them the bookmakers just want more profit. A few net winners won't bankrupt anyone.

The problem is that if you are better than the bookie, one person could just scale up over time and take all their money. Bookmaking simply wouldn't work of you couldn't limit winning customers. If you are truly better than the bookie then why not offer odds yourself and be a bookmaker? Seems easy?

Also, there's not really such thing as small winners. Well except the odd customer that gets super lucky then walks away forever. If you have an actual edge over the bookie you can can just scale until you take their lot.

People seem to think because they use a website to find arbs that they deserve an infinite supply of free money for life

Why should people arbing not deserve the money they make, it's not as if they work off big margins? Arbing is more a bit of extra money for people now, the days of long untold riches are long gone tbf. It's perfectly legal and breaks no rules?

Again bookmakers should be forced to accept the risk, if they put up odds of their choosing why should they complain/ban/restrict people when people take the odds they advertise?

[Fugazi]

With your logic absolutely everyone would be a net looser other than the bookmakers of course, the people who do win their only "crime" is being better than them. Bookmakers don't differentiate between luck and an edge, they ban or restrict both.

Of course they'll be bookmakers who struggle probably be those who go to Sedgefield on a cold December afternoon but by and large bookmakers have operated with impunity for years, this one of the reasons there's a massive spotlight on gambling harm as they ban more and more winners (no matter if it's luck or a genuine edge) and the result is more people are loosing.

Winners need to be part of the gambling eco system and bookmakers should be forced to accept that risk. It's not as if net winners represent a massive amount of punters, there's plenty of bunce in there for them the bookmakers just want more profit. A few net winners won't bankrupt anyone.

The problem is that if you are better than the bookie, one person could just scale up over time and take all their money. Bookmaking simply wouldn't work of you couldn't limit winning customers. If you are truly better than the bookie then why not offer odds yourself and be a bookmaker? Seems easy?

Also, there's not really such thing as small winners. Well except the odd customer that gets super lucky then walks away forever. If you have an actual edge over the bookie you can can just scale until you take their lot.

People seem to think because they use a website to find arbs that they deserve an infinite supply of free money for life

Why should people arbing not deserve the money they make, it's not as if they work off big margins? Arbing is more a bit of extra money for people now, the days of long untold riches are long gone tbf. It's perfectly legal and breaks no rules?

Again bookmakers should be forced to accept the risk, if they put up odds of their choosing why should they complain/ban/restrict people when people take the odds they advertise?

If you arb, you don't have to work off small margins.

Don't bother with the lay bet. Back only with the bookmaker. You're then not relying on the liquidity of the exchange or being too slow and the price changes.

In an arb, the money ultimately comes from the bookermaker not the exchange in the long run. This is why Bookies ban arbing - the value comes from the bookmaker. Someone (i.e me) would negate the exchange side and start whacking on 10k bets.

I've actually spun my bet365 account to 10k in profit through selective 2up football bets (not arbing). I accept eventually I'm going to get gubbed. Sucks as its free money, but, I understand.

[Michael5482]

The problem is that if you are better than the bookie, one person could just scale up over time and take all their money. Bookmaking simply wouldn't work of you couldn't limit winning customers. If you are truly better than the bookie then why not offer odds yourself and be a bookmaker? Seems easy?

Also, there's not really such thing as small winners. Well except the odd customer that gets super lucky then walks away forever. If you have an actual edge over the bookie you can can just scale until you take their lot.

People seem to think because they use a website to find arbs that they deserve an infinite supply of free money for life

Why should people arbing not deserve the money they make, it's not as if they work off big margins? Arbing is more a bit of extra money for people now, the days of long untold riches are long gone tbf. It's perfectly legal and breaks no rules?

Again bookmakers should be forced to accept the risk, if they put up odds of their choosing why should they complain/ban/restrict people when people take the odds they advertise?

If you arb, you don't have to work off small margins.

Don't bother with the lay bet. Back only with the bookmaker. You're then not relying on the liquidity of the exchange or being too slow and the price changes.

In an arb, the money ultimately comes from the bookermaker not the exchange in the long run. This is why Bookies ban arbing - the value comes from the bookmaker. Someone (i.e me) would negate the exchange side and start whacking on 10k bets.

I've actually spun my bet365 account to 10k in profit through selective 2up football bets (not arbing). I accept eventually I'm going to get gubbed. Sucks as its free money, but, I understand.

You've described the difference between arbing and a potential value bet nothing more. When people arb most want a quick in and out without the variance straight betting brings, I understand that. Some people just arb and don't have a clue about variance they don't need to I understand that. Others are scared of variance, I understand that also but it's nothing to fear and should be embraced as a bettor/trader if you ask me.

There's no right and wrong everyone is different and have different tolerance levels.

Anyway the point still stands bookmakers produce, set and extensively advertise their own odds and shouldn't complain or be able to ban/restrict people when they are taken. They don't offer odds under duress after all.