The house does NOT always win.. Thankfully

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
Are you are saying I am using weasel words?
No, sorry, betfred not you.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
Poshshire
Their defence was pretty hollow, claiming a "software glitch" and then failing to provide and technical evidence of such.

With their own legal costs, interest, and a contribution towards the claimants legal fees, they could have saved themselves the thick end of a million bu simply paying out when they should have done. They clearly don't understand their own business well enough to know when to hold, and when to fold...
 

Dan77

Well-Known Member
Location
Worcester
If this glitch awarded a prize of say £50 Billion, I am sure the Court would not have awarded the sum even if the same faulty terms and conditions exist. I think the company did not want to appeal to avoid further negative publicity.

Anyway, I am not in favour of gambling. The high % of returns per £1 waged is misleading. The way gambling works is that most clients will lose most of the time.The pooled losses then goes to a lucky client and a small % goes to the house. That small % going to the house adds up due to millions waged. No matter what, the house get that small % each and every time. This is where the issue of morality lies.
That is true for the casino type games. It most certainly is not the case for betting though where margins are still fairly tight and bookies can and do regularly get it wrong. There are lots of unknown factors and they have to compile odds to these low margins at their risk. It's not easy.

The big companies make huge profits because of scale. They get it right more often than they get it wrong and they take millions and even billions in at least one case.

The single trader bookie on the racecourse is hanging on to a dying trade though. People often bet on their phones instead even if they do go to the course. They themselves hedge online rather than with their counterparts reducing takings further. Their prices are largely now determined by the online market. So it's small margins on ever decreasing takings, high expenses and odds are easily manipulated by the big companies. Plus they haven't been able to work for a year. I have known many of them go bankrupt over the years. It used to be an interesting trade which was full of characters and differing opinions. You had to look around for the best price.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
Denise Coates has earned over £1bn in salary in just 4 years from Bet365:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...enise-coates-pay-may-exceed-1bn-in-four-years
it's a very lucrative business
When I saw this thread I thought of Ms Coates.

Truly startling sums, and the company seems permanently awash with money, so there's every expectation she could pay herself hundreds of millions every year for years to come.

Much as I support capitalism, I can't help thinking the likes of Bet365 suck money out of communities which can least afford it.

Bet365 trades internationally, so it's not just British people who they are pushing further into poverty.

Still, the company bought Stoke City FC and gives away a few tens of millions, so that's alright then.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
Their defence was pretty hollow, claiming a "software glitch" and then failing to provide and technical evidence of such.

With their own legal costs, interest, and a contribution towards the claimants legal fees, they could have saved themselves the thick end of a million bu simply paying out when they should have done. They clearly don't understand their own business well enough to know when to hold, and when to fold...
It was accepted as evidence.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
Poshshire
And discredited. Discredited evidence is, not really, evidence of anything.

The evidence presented was largely heasay, ie, "the software peolle tell us this happened..." The reporting shows there was no actual technical evidence with reproducible results, just lots of "it was a software glitch, our tech heads told us so, hand on heart, honest guv", which was quickly and convincingly dismissed as meaningless.

What they needed was an accredited evidentual expert in the field of software, pooters, or whatever, and page after page of verifiable data confirming their stated position - Both expert and substantiation were noteworthy for their absence, and BetFred kew this was the case when they made a desperate offer of 60 gees and a schtum clause to the claimant.

Don't believe a word BetFred say, particularly if you work for them - believe the public record, and the considered findings of the High Court.
 
Last edited:
That is true for the casino type games. It most certainly is not the case for betting though where margins are still fairly tight and bookies can and do regularly get it wrong. There are lots of unknown factors and they have to compile odds to these low margins at their risk. It's not easy.

The big companies make huge profits because of scale. They get it right more often than they get it wrong and they take millions and even billions in at least one case.

The single trader bookie on the racecourse is hanging on to a dying trade though. People often bet on their phones instead even if they do go to the course. They themselves hedge online rather than with their counterparts reducing takings further. Their prices are largely now determined by the online market. So it's small margins on ever decreasing takings, high expenses and odds are easily manipulated by the big companies. Plus they haven't been able to work for a year. I have known many of them go bankrupt over the years. It used to be an interesting trade which was full of characters and differing opinions. You had to look around for the best price.
You are right. I should have been clear. It more towards remote gaming, gaming machine and casinos etc, not the bookie when it comes to these odds. They can go bust.

Some countries run state lotteries for this very reason as it is easy money. At least the money from state lotteries etc goes to the public purse. OZ has high taxes on gaming and they control the machine payouts by regulations. We should do more in reducing this sort of gaming.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
When I saw this thread I thought of Ms Coates.

Truly startling sums, and the company seems permanently awash with money, so there's every expectation she could pay herself hundreds of millions every year for years to come.

Much as I support capitalism, I can't help thinking the likes of Bet365 suck money out of communities which can least afford it.

Bet365 trades internationally, so it's not just British people who they are pushing further into poverty.


Still, the company bought Stoke City FC and gives away a few tens of millions, so that's alright then.
Where would you draw the line though? Beer? Fags? SKY tv?The obligatory new car every 2-3 years?

It's the debate I alluded to last night - the whole 'pile on' re betting is the classic Middle Class scandal on behalf of the working classes. We must protect these poor wretches and all that.

Or we put adequate checks & balances* in place and allow sensible people to choose their discretionary leisure spend, which is what it is for 99%+ of people.

*Better, not perfect, but an awful lot better than after deregulation in 2007.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
And discredited. Discredited evidence is, not really, evidence of anything.
I think you're missing the central legal point of the case, which was, given that the game was defective, did the Bookmaker's Terms have the ability to be enforced v-a-v the withholding of what was also accepted as a very inflated win. The defect was the cause, but the case was about the Terms.
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
I think you're missing the central legal point of the case, which was, given that the game was defective, did the Bookmaker's Terms have the ability to be enforced v-a-v the withholding of what was also accepted as a very inflated win. The defect was the cause, but the case was about the Terms.
In which case they must have had very poor legal advice to take it that far.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
It would seem you have a vested interest in the betting industry @Bonefish Blues would you care to tell us what it is?
I covered this in a post last night. I am ex industry. I'd say I have (useful?) knowledge, but not a vested interest, and am trying to put out a perspective that will allow people to form a more balanced view than they might otherwise get from simply reading the media's presentation.
 
Top Bottom