Many of you will have read, no doubt, of an overpayment made to a ‘customer’ at York races. The overpayment amounted to ten times what the punter had won, and he stuck his hand out, without shame, to collect what wasn’t due to him
To me? Well, it was what online we can, and do win, in a dog race, in terms of cost. But to the long standing member of staff on track, it was a crushing incident. Calling his integrity, and competence, despite an unblemished record, into sharp question.
Of course, any question of malfeasance on the part of any member of my team, is fanciful. Not up for debate. Predictably, a few twitter idiots tried to portray it as such. Some will say anything for effect. What angered me was the blazen manner in which this ‘customer’ took the money, without care for the effect on my people. It’s morally wrong. And for those who argue on Twitter for fairness between bookmaker and punter? Two blacks never have made white.
I was going to call out the punter, we have seen him before, and we will see him again no doubt. He needs to know what decent people think, and plenty weighed into the debate in that vein. And we will pursue him, until he does the right thing.
There were a few who speculated, without foundation, as to the lawful position here. Some argue that what amounts to theft is excusable, because it was gained off of a bookie. For those interested, the law of legal restitution would guarantee the return of funds handed out, which were errant. You cannot just accept monies not due to you. Romantic notions dispelled.
What was notable even graphic was the level of vitriol from mostly anonymous twitterati. It was clear some people had posted the comment I made on Twitter in various football, and bot trading based forums, and the like, and the anonymites came out in force to vent.
Of course almost none of these individuals bet with me either on track where this occurred nor online. Most of those who commented gamble, however. They were venting into modern bookmaking attitudes. Nothing personal from many.
Most gambling these days takes place between three or four supergiants in the betting world controlling more than 90% of the market so we as independence of very much are very much hostage to their behaviour. We are tarred with the same brush. Yes, there is some common ground in the world of online between Geoff Banks Online, for example, and Bet365. But the crossovers in behaviour are modest. For instance, we pick up the telephone to clients, and we are not licensed in China
Punters these days broadly fall into two categories, and we must understand why so many are disaffected.
The first is what one would describe as genuine punters, some of whom profit from their gambling, by a combination of skill and hard work. Analysing form and beating the bookmaker essentially on their odds. I fully understand and sympathise with this group of gamblers when they complain that they are either not paid on time , or cannot get their bets on because they are winners.
Bookmakers should expect people to win off them – after all it is a win and lose game. But times have changed and today’s corporate bookmaker has grown decidedly cynical. They view their business much like an accountant, only answerable to shareholders, and short term gain. This of course has made them ambivalent to the criticisms they so often receive, in this vein.
Little wonder the modern brand of anti gambling zealots prosper in such an environment, both gamblers, and media won’t support what they see as a predatory industry.
But is it as simple as the evil gambling empire, and we are all callous? Because if bookmakers reduced their bottom line, restricted less punters, would our PR improve markedly?
The short answer is no. The problem has become insurmountable.
As an independent we do not banish winning customers to the ether. It is simply bad policy,and we accept both winners and losers equally, because we know in balance we are still going to make substantial profit. To some, such a statement appears without logic, but it is central to our business plan. Annually some 30% of our client base show a profit. On track at York, we were the ONLY bookmaker betting to a 1/4 the win odds in handicaps, with the same win odds. Noone praises us for acting different.
There is a second group however that has grown up with the advent of betting exchanges, trading tools, and advanced websites highlighting bookmakers odds in real time, using scalping bots, to gain a commercial edge. Our odds are compared against the exchanges to the second against exchanges. These tools are highly advanced and give these bot traders a massive competitive advantage against the modern day bookmaker, and to retain them as customers would be commercial suicide full stop.
In Broad terms people employing these methodologies, whichever is there favoured trading medium, from actual software, to whatsapp groups, almost 100% guarantees the user a long term profit by beating the bookmaker on odds in every trade. This never used to be true. To understand the problem, you need to accept this point.
To put bot trading into perspective it’s like walking into Waitrose filling up your shopping trolley every day and walking out without paying, and expecting the supermarket to welcome you with open arms for the rest of time.
For big corp employing highly advanced trading software to counter bot traders, they can readily identify such individuals extremely quickly, sometimes before the user places a bet! For the Independent sector, however, we are mostly down to a system of hand management of accounts. Over the years my own company has become far more skilled employing Excel based tools and the like to analyse our customers pattern of behaviour, not only to control their gambling levels, but also to identify customers who routinely best the firm at the odds. With experience – comes experience.
And when you beat the bookmaker consistently and we are talking not less than 90% of every wager that is placed, you will profit in your gambling, sometimes very substantially
My point in this is to explain to people that aren’t very informed about gambling these days that the world has changed. the age of Tic Tacs and bookmakers that never turn down a bet, died when the betting exchanges exploded into the market and created an army of bot traders, with opportunities to guarantee profit from every bet they placed. How this is managed, by the users concerned, is up to the user. Some play the long game, and accept losses, as would a bookmaker, but by consistently beating the odds, they generably create more wealth than straight up arbing
I sometimes hear some media types, who throw a blanket over the entire community of gamblers, as if they are all victims of predatory tactics. This is an incredibly naive stance. The world of bookmaking is fundamentally different since Steven Little took on all comers. It is an online product, and matters are governed by sophisticated online practices, on both sides. Elements of the media and racing pods need to wise up.
So how do we, as a company, deal with such traders, many of whom of course are a collection of accounts amassed quite often by one individual. This is the practice known as ‘multi-accounting.’ People being paid so a super trader can gain access to many bookmaker accounts. The advanced trader, in this case garnering many clone accounts can make hundreds of thousands of pounds, even millions, in profit every year.
It is a constant battle between today’s bookmaker and these super traders to expunge them from our systems. It is a new war, with new rules
My own company policy is never to offer a wager to any individual which is insulting. Such as I hear about constantly. The Bet365 – £3.65 joke. What we will seek to do is control when such accounts can wager at earlier prices thereby levelling the playing field, to such a degree that the trader loses his commercial advantage over us. The job of the bookmaker is to lay the right price, for the weight of money and selection. If todays cyber tools mean that even an army of staff working our website cannot begin to compete with the bots scanning our markets and pages in real time, every market and selections (there are 165 betting opportunities in every premier league game for example) then we have to manage such customers by limiting their access to odds, until nearer the ‘off.’ They still get a bet on, and a decent one, but at a fair market price, reflective of the w.o.m. My business ethos is to lay a bet. Not lay a bet at the wrong odds over 90% of the time.
There will, naturally, be the odd village idiot, who argues that bookmakers should ‘lay every bet at the price advertised.’ Such individuals, residing in the cesspit that is Twitter, haven’t morphed since the world wide web appeared
Of course when we time manage an individual account on prices-we very often find the account becomes inactive because the commercial advantage has been removed. It is incredibly rare that we close an account, nor make them starting price only
Are some people caught in this bot trader net unfairly – when they are genuine hard working form judges? Yes there will be examples of individuals like that, who have been restricted. The system for eradication of bot traders isn’t bullet proof.
How accurate are we in practices to hold such customers to later odds? In practice it proves, in the vast majority of cases to be a very easy case of management. Most traders beat the odds in 100% of cases. They’re greedy. Or part of a multi accounting group, where the tricks are a constant across the community – like fake utility statements. It is childlike in its approach, but for them, ‘profit at all costs’ is the mantra. They’re not so different from the bookmakers they criticise, for ‘restricting’ them
Most customers in practice disappear quietly off to another gambling firm after a change of account terms, but some individuals inevitably turn to Twitter to vent their frustration at an avenue of income which has now been closed down.
When they do, to protect their identity to other bookmaker targets, they choose anonymity. Now you can say what you like about gambling companies and their practices, and very often the ventings are riddled with expletives and insults! They follow each other, with like minds. They become inured to their point of view. Everyone they follow agrees with them, except me, of course, i’m afraid I don’t follow the narrative of silence which grips other gambling companies
So I understand the vitriol from both quarters, who couldn’t care less if we gave some punter too much money. The circumstances I have outlined above have created an environment in which bookmakers have never been so unpopular. I don’t condone some of the behaviour of big corp, and those that view that follow me no I am highly vocal at what I see as unfair business practices from time to time, but all bookmakers, to differeing degrees, simply have to remove certain elements from their books, in the online world.
But let us be absolutely clear about one thing in the world of betting exchanges the age old battle between bookmaker and punter has radically changed, and not for the better
Inevitably there will be a few individuals who will claim they are not traders that they’re particularly clever that beating the bookmakers odds through skill. Such folk tell each other they’re ‘punters.’ which in many cases is a fantasy.
I’m afraid in that regard you are on a losing wicket because as the decades have gone past bookmakers have become highly competent in spotting bot traders. When you beat the odds 100% of the time? That’s neither luck nor skill on your part, or incompetence on the part of the bookmaker. A price can change in a dog card in a second from 5/1 to 5/2. Digging out that rick for a bookmaker faster than an exchange can change is practicably impossible.
So, I hope the above is helpful. I accept the vitriol will continue, from some. Like a car driver, flicking V signs from the relative anonymity of their vehicles, Twitter offers a platform to swear at the world, even if you’re normally ‘quite a nice chap’
It is time for everyone to grasp the nettle of realism, because the practice of management of those engaged in any form of trading isn’t going to end soon. I see some argue for a minimum bet offered rule. This may well solve the issue for some folk, but for all it would certainly lead to a huge rise in market overrounds. Basically everyone loses. I believe in competitive odds, plenty of returns to my customers. That is what keeps people fully engaged
Related, I would comment on one other, rather uninformed debate. In forty years of bookmaking, I’ve never avoided paying out for any return, that includes those who amuse themselves with the Sheffield greyhounds tale. Those punters, – well more accurately multi accounters, were settled. Several individuals backing 5 different dogs in yankees at the same time and odds, aren’t random. People got paid however, and it amuses me to see some individuals naively chatting about something they have little knowledge thereof. One should take caution in what you post online ‘as fact.’
It suited business to keep those operating multiple accounts guessing, that if they were dug up, their bets would be rejected, although in practice we pay up and move them on. I’ve chosen not to comment, the topic grew dull some years ago
But I say this to anyone thinking of landing big coups at flapping dog tracks, by the use of multiple accounts? There’s always the danger you might not get paid. We have rules and we keep them simple. If you expect the bookie to play fair, Then you have to accept some simple rules for the digital age, and not act as if they shouldn’t apply to you
one man – one account
Good luck to all
Geoff Banks Online Reports 