Noodlum Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Mehe said: I asked if there is a restriction on successful punters there answer was no There they said only for problem punters Mehe you are either full of BS or the person you spoke to at the TAB is as big a numpty as you are. Suggest you review the Terms and Conditions on the TAB website. Assuming you have some degree of basic literacy you will find numerous clauses where the TAB can restrict your betting. I don't think there is any horse racing gambling corporation that doesn't place limits on winning. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-20/gambling-how-bookmakers-stop-winning-betters/10708394 Edited October 13, 2020 by Noodlum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodlum Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 With the new system they do it programmatically regardless of how much is bet. I've had it happen to me where after a good run of wins over a couple of weeks the moment I placed a bet the fixed odds were lowered before I could accept. After accepting the reduced odds the odds on offer were higher! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 10 hours ago, Mehe said: I asked if there is a restriction on successful punters there answer was no There they said only for problem punters That is total bullshit. You got fed a bucket load there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 10 hours ago, Mehe said: I asked if there is a restriction on successful punters there answer was no There they said only for problem punters I think you are correct. The "problem punters" referred to, are the ones that don't lose often enough! So the TAB restricts them. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Tongue in cheek of course. Forgot to put on my tongue tie this morning. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Happy Sunrise said: That is total bullshit. You got fed a bucket load there. Mehe didnt speak to anyone at the NZ TAB who said anything, he just made it up, to try and show Brodie up. No idea who he is, but jeez he has serious issues that need addressing! Even Michael Guerin and the Whale have said that they were restricted so go figure! Edited October 13, 2020 by Brodie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, Mehe said: Brodie ring the tab yourself you are calling me a liar The two guys you mention should not be betting when tipping horse's full stop Brodie call them see if they give you a letter you dumb fuck Mehe - YOU ARE WRONG! There are restrictions on certain winning punters. The Terms and Conditions and Betting Rules allow the TAB to do this. If you were in fact told that by a NZ TAB employee then you were misinformed. We don't know what the actual question was that you asked and they may have been answered honestly. However as has been pointed out many many times on BOAY many winning punters have had restrictions placed on the amount that they can win. You will find that very few if any betting agency confirms this publicly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 35 minutes ago, Mehe said: Many many times by one person who says he is only allowed to bet $100 he is full of shit he was told to call the tab and he won't He wants me to show him a letter from a phone call I called the tab thats what the told me Now Brodie and his mates are calling me a liar As I said Brodie has restricted himself he could have bet on the tote and you do find that tote odds can pay more or as much im not saying all the time But he won't do that as he don't like betting on the tote so why wouldn't you if its paying more Mehe - your obsession is becoming harming. You are making an idiot of yourself. Firstly THERE ARE BETTING RESTRICTIONS applied to some winning individuals - FACT! Secondly - you do not know if Brodie is one of those individuals. IF the TAB told you that he wasn't then Brodie is in the money - bring on the Privacy Commissioner! Thirdly - you are either a liar or you were misinformed by the numpty that you spoke to at the TAB. For your sake let's say it is the latter. Unlike the Australian State rules as far as I'm aware there is no Minimum Betting Limit in New Zealand. Now you probably don't understand what that means. In Australia there are LAWS ensuring a bookmaker must accept a bet up to a certain amount. WHAT ARE MINIMUM BET LIMITS?A minimum bet limit (MBL) determines the lowest amount a gambler can bet to win before a bookmaker is allowed to refuse a wager. These limits apply to the amount a punter stands to win, excluding the original stake. For example, let’s say the MBL for a single bet on a horse race is $2,000. If a runner’s odds of winning are $5, we can stake up to $500 on the nose for a total collect of $2,500 and a net win of exactly $2,000. These laws were introduced for a simple reason: so bookies would no longer have the right to refuse any punter with a winning record. Corporate betting operators are notorious for turning away successful gamblers and knocking back large wagers, but minimum bet limits ensure that anyone who is eligible to have a bet can do so. NEW ZEALAND HAS NO SUCH LAW! Now the Australian Bookmakers use a number of ways of getting around this with online gamblers. But we will leave that discussion for another day. There is ample evidence that the NZ TAB is limiting how much can be bet as well as, on an individual basis, lowering the odds for specific punters - call that a reverse rebate if you will. https://horsebetting.com.au/minimum-bet-limits/#:~:text=NSW%2C South Australia%2C Queensland and,on country and provincial races. NOTE: The MLB laws vary per code. Presumably because the pools are smaller Greyhounds and Harness have lower MLB's (if any) than Gallops. So there is every reason to believe Brodie's assertion that winning punters in Harness racing in NZ are particularly targeted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 33 minutes ago, Mehe said: Many many times by one person who says he is only allowed to bet $100 he is full of shit he was told to call the tab and he won't He wants me to show him a letter from a phone call I called the tab thats what the told me Now Brodie and his mates are calling me a liar As I said Brodie has restricted himself he could have bet on the tote and you do find that tote odds can pay more or as much im not saying all the time But he won't do that as he don't like betting on the tote so why wouldn't you if its paying more Mehe, do you have trouble comprehending anything? Where have I ever said I could only offload $100? Net $100 at times was less than that a couple of times awhile back!!!! WTF? Me ring the TAB to see if I am restricted? I effing well am you so why would I ring and ask them for christs sake??? Of course you are a damn liar and we all know that! You are lacking a bit of intelligence Mehe, when you are advising me to put thousands thru the tote rather than the Bookies!!! You really arent worth debating with as you have no comprehension of what is going on! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Rusty said: Tongue in cheek of course. Forgot to put on my tongue tie this morning. plus full blinds lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Given that this subject has raised a lot of angst, ire and "robust" debate let's put together a list of questions for TAB NZ. I know for a fact that they read BOAY. I'll start the ball rolling: Do you limit the individual bet amounts for some punters? Do your bookies or risk management system adjust downwards the Fixed Odds available to individual punters based on their win profile? For example if the online advertised Fixed Win Odds for a horse is $18 do you reduce this to $15 for some individuals? Do you limit the amount that can be won (similar to 2) by applying a fixed total? Your betting rules give you the right to Lay Off bets. Do you lay off Fixed Odds bets on the NZ Totalisator? If your answer is yes to 4 - do you do this at a certain time before closing betting? Do you Lay Off bets through other Betting Agencies? I.e. does the TAB NZ bet offshore?! These are rough questions done in a hurry so excuse me if they don't make sense. Feel free to add your own. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Mehe said: Once again I did ring the tab I didn't ask if Brodie was restricted god knows where that came from I was told there are no restrictions apart from problem gambling why would I be lying about it Brodie you dumb fuck your not restricted you dont bet thousands OK so we have established that you don't know if Brodie is "restricted." It appears you didn't ask the right question. Which is - "Are some punters limited in what they can bet/win?" There is ample evidence that some punters ARE limited in what they can win. Punters like Brodie aren't "restricted" in the sense they CAN'T bet (like a problem gambler) they are "limited" in how much they can win. The way the TAB does that is by limiting the amount they can put on a fixed odds bet. Please can you at least try and understand that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: There is ample evidence that some punters ARE limited in what they can win. Punters like Brodie aren't "restricted" in the sense they CAN'T bet (like a problem gambler) they are "limited" in how much they can win. The way the TAB does that is by limiting the amount they can put on a fixed odds bet. what is the actual evidence of this in relation to brodie ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, Rangatira said: what is the actual evidence of this in relation to brodie ? Why does that matter? The discussion is currently on whether or not the TAB restricts/limits the amount that some punters win. Mehe's position is that the TAB don't do that therefore Brodie can't be restricted. Don't tell me you are suddenly wearing a tinfoil hat as well? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 7 hours ago, Mehe said: Now Brodie and his mates are calling me a liar You are not a liar, you were lied to by the TAB. The semantics of questions and answers can be manipulated by the TAB. Restrictions, limits, caps...all the same thing as you can't bet freely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Have a read. There is no doubt 1-3 above happen in NZ How betting agencies restrict punters who win too often or too much By Ian Burrows Posted Sunday 20 JanJanuary 2019 at 7:53am Sorry, this video has expired Two of the same bets: One is accepted the other is rejected. Punters and anti-gambling advocates have hit out at betting agencies for restricting or shutting down the accounts of people who win too often. Key points: Punters detail how operators restrict or shut them down Betting agencies labelled "immoral and predatory" Calls for universal minimum bet laws In a little-known strategy to prevent paying out too much to the same winning punters, operators simply restrict how much they can bet or close them down altogether. There is nothing illegal about it and the right to do it is written into agencies' terms and conditions, but anti-gambling advocates say such conduct is unethical and should be illegal. "The sports betting companies are utterly immoral and predatory," Tim Costello, spokesman for the Alliance for Gambling Reform, told the ABC. "They have real-time data of who's winning and they will block people who are winning. "They have real-time data of large amounts of money being bet, maybe at 3:00am, knowing a person might have bipolar [disorder] or might be sleepless and they won't block them." Matthew* has been betting on racing and sports for years and said he had been restricted by almost all Australian-licensed agencies. "Once each company identifies you as a winning customer or basically as non-profitable for them, they will restrict or effectively ban you from betting with them," he told the ABC. "It's often done, not necessarily after being a long-term winner, but after a few bets." Same bets, same time, different outcome He provided the ABC with vision and photos of the same bet being placed with the same agency at the same time from two different accounts. Sportsbet accepts one bet but the same bet from a restricted account is rejected.(Supplied) In the first example, Sportsbet allows a $20 bet on a greyhound race in South Australia from an unrestricted account. But as Matthew tries the same bet from his account he is advised that "an error occurred" and told to try again later or contact customer service. "I think it should be a level playing field. If they offer that product to one person it should be available to everyone," he said. In another example, this time with bet365, an unrestricted account is allowed to place a $16 bet on a harness race in Queensland, while the same bet from his own account placed at the same time is rejected for being "above the maximum" bet amount. "I find it pretty outrageous that they prey on unsuccessful punters or people with gambling problems … while anyone who shows a little bit of intelligence with their betting isn't allowed those same opportunities," Matthew said. Sportsbet would not answer questions about why it restricted accounts but a spokesperson said: "Sportsbet complies with minimum bet limits as directed by racing and sporting governing bodies." The ABC contacted bet365 for comment but did not get a response. bet365 rejects one bet but accepts the same bet from a different account.(Supplied) Calls for universal minimum bet laws Matthew said a solution to the issue would be to implement minimum bet limits across the country, forcing agencies to accept bets up to a certain minimum winning amount. It's an idea supported by RMIT's Dr Anna Thomas, who was the joint author of a report for the Federal Government in 2017 into betting restrictions and online wagering in Australia. Aussies world's biggest gambling losers It is said Australians love a punt, but you'd wonder why given we appear to be the worst at it in the world — and by a fair margin at that. Read more "That was one of the recommendations within our report … to do that across the board," she said. Some racing codes and states have already implemented minimum bet rules, but they are not yet universal. "These sorts of rules are great in creating level playing fields," Matthew said. But he also pointed out that some agencies had already found ways to get around the minimum bets rules when they didn't want to accept a bet. Matthew describes a process whereby he would attempt to place a bet but rather than it going straight through he would get a message that it was "pending". A short time later he would get a message saying the bet could be accepted but at shorter odds that were no longer attractive to him. Punters turn to illegal offshore operators Australians bet more on horse racing than any other sports or events.(AAP: Hamish Blair) For their report, Dr Thomas and co-author Dr Jennifer Podesta spoke to several punters who had experienced similar restrictions to Matthew. The paper found people who were blocked from betting with Australian agencies would turn to illegal offshore operators, which presented a number of problems. Winning punters say they are often treated differently to losers.(Supplied) "First, there are control and protection issues related to under- or un-regulated offshore sites in terms of adequate consumer protections, the potential for fraud, money-laundering and sporting integrity issues (e.g. match-fixing)," the report said. "Second, there is the issue of a loss of revenue to governments and sporting bodies through taxes, license and product fees and to Australian businesses through loss of customers." Gamblers are known to then use operators in Asia, Europe and the US, which is illegal — not for the punter, but for the operator, because they are not licensed in Australia. One punter told the ABC he had to be prepared to accept that sometimes he may not be paid out by dubious overseas operators. Restricted even while losing Loses in sports betting in Australia has surged in recent years.(ABC News: Margaret Burin) Another punter the ABC spoke to said he had experienced issues with betting operators closing him down when he didn't use bonus bets or promotions in the way the agencies had wanted. "They offer you significant sign up bonuses along with various matched deposit bonuses," he said. "This is to keep you turning over money and therefore getting addicted, without necessarily using your own money." There are calls for urgent reforms to the Australian gambling industry. He said it was relatively easy to make that money work for you through safe bets then withdraw it once you had bet with it the required amount of times. "Australian betting companies are hypocritical in that they offer you bonus after bonus after bonus if you leave your own money in your account, but ban you if you withdraw to zero as soon as you win [with promotional money]." Other punters spoke of cases of being restricted even while losing money once an operator had determined your strategy would not be profitable for them. All of Australia's major betting agencies are known for restricting certain accounts. They argue that their business models would not be sustainable if they allowed people to win too much. Mr Costello told the ABC urgent reforms were needed across the gambling industry in Australia, which is number one in the world per capita for gambling losses. "The gambling environment in Australia at the moment is utterly out of control," he said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, Mehe said: Thank you happy Mehe, There is no doubt in my mind punters are 'restricted' or name it whatever one desires. Harness racing with its lower turnovers carries larger exposure for losses for the TAB. A few well placed FF bets will wipe any potential profit for them very quickly. Hence the nerves. Garrick Knight on his twitter is typical of what goes on for some. And there is this comment from a wee while back. According to him it means you can only win $1000 betting the day before? I suppose he would know. And of course, the TAB do not want anyone to know what they are up to. Spoils their bullshit marketing campaigns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeynz Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Note the date of this article,what has changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Mehe you are 100% wrong. The TAB DOES limit what punters can win and they limit some punters more than others. There is no law in New Zealand, unlike Australia, that forces the NZ TAB to accept a minimum bet. The NZ TAB uses a number of methods to minimising their losses. Now stop your obsessive crusade against one poster, stop your vulgar language and abuse and focus on what is an important topic. Or I'm afraid you will be put on moderation and if you don't change you will be banned. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Mehe said: No I said that is what I was told when I called I never said that im saying Brodie isn't a restricted punter he has restricted himself then that clown that you protect jump on here and said that i called the tab and asked if Brodie was restricted I dont even know Brodies name so how the fuck can I call the tab and ask if Brodie is restricted Well you are wrong in saying "Brodie isn't a restricted punter he has restricted himself" because you don't actually know. You've said that yourself - you don't know! The only thing you think you know is that because someone at the TAB told you that they only restrict problem gamblers and they have to ask to be restricted. So you infer that that is the case with Brodie! Which it isn't because Brodie is referring to having his winnings limited by the TAB by them restricting the size of his wagers and/or offering him lower odds than anyone else and/or limiting the total that he can win. All three methods are used as proven by other punters and are within the Terms and Conditions, Betting Rules and the Laws in NZ. Brodie may well be one of those successful punters that have their winnings limited. He isn't stopped from betting like the restricted problem gambler punter is he is just limited in how much he can win! Do you get it now? Or is your blind obsession going to continue to overpower your ability to comprehend? Oh and I'm not "defending Brodie" - I don't even know who he is. However I do have an interest in how TAB NZ operate because in my opinion they are an inefficient operation that tries to operate from a monopoly position in the NZ market. The reality is that with alternative online options they actually have a "leaky" monopoly. I find it objectionable that the TAB encourages losing bettors to lose more while restricting the amount that winning punters can win. Accepting though that all gambling operations involving skill have the means to limit their losses. Here is a question for you Mehe - in your opinion should NZ have a Minimum Bet Law like those in operation in the States of Australia? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Longshot Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 Brodie obviously isn’t as clued in on the TAB as he thinks. Regarding liabilities and restrictions, let me explain it for you as simply as I can. Lets use tonight’s Cambridge meeting as an example. And for now, we will talk about over the counter agency bets only. We’ll use Race 1, number 1, Express Play as the horse to talk about. It opened at $4 yesterday afternoon. Now, if I went in to a Tab yesterday and wanted to put a fixed odds bet on this horse, I could do this unabated until such time the collect went over $1000. So, I could put $249 on and the bet would go straight on. If I tried to put $251 on, to win $1004, the system would automatically refer the bet to a trader for assessment. At this point, the trader will accept the bet, adjust the bet (change it $120 at $4) or reject it. By race morning, this number usually doubles to $2000 and by race time, maybe around $4000. That’s not to say a higher bet to win more money won’t be accepted, but they are protecting themselves from potential stings. Now, lets talk about online accounts. You, Brodie, like many many other people are on a restricted account. One of the more common restrictions is ‘40%’. It goes without saying an account on 40% restrictions, could only get a bet on to win $400 the night before on harness, $800 the morning of, and around $1600 close to the race time. Different punters are on different thresholds, but in the case of Knight’s bet that was shared on New York Minute, where he couldn’t even get $20 on close to race time, his account was on 1%. I know quite a few on 20%, I know a couple on 5% and I even know one on 2%. Short answer is, if you are noted winner, you are chopped off at the knees. Now I am going to confuse this whole thing even further by saying that recently, trends have shown me and other punting friends that the ‘over the counter limits’ may in fact now be 50% of the online account limits. Currently, the max liability per bet for Cambridge tonight on an unrestricted account is $1500. I suspect at an agency, that might be only $750. Again, you could still potentially get higher bets on, but you will be subject to the hyper risk-averse trading desk. A couple of weeks ago, a friend tried to back one on the grass (Sunday meeting), the Saturday afternoon before the race. Quoted price was something like $8.50 to win. He tried to put $200 on. The bet got rejected (because it was over $1000) and they slashed the price to $6.50. He didn’t know it had been slashed, and when he gave the operator the $200 bet slip again, It processed and spat out at something like $153 at $6.50 (to win $1000) and then cut the price in to $5.50. This is the embarrassing way they do things now. All I can say is, if you do like one – never ever ever back it the day before. You will get on for a pittance and only alert them to a sting and they will crunch it in. At best you are going to win $1000. The better play is to wait deep until race time and have a real go at one late. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehe Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 20 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Well you are wrong in saying "Brodie isn't a restricted punter he has restricted himself" because you don't actually know. You've said that yourself - you don't know! The only thing you think you know is that because someone at the TAB told you that they only restrict problem gamblers and they have to ask to be restricted. So you infer that that is the case with Brodie! Which it isn't because Brodie is referring to having his winnings limited by the TAB by them restricting the size of his wagers and/or offering him lower odds than anyone else and/or limiting the total that he can win. All three methods are used as proven by other punters and are within the Terms and Conditions, Betting Rules and the Laws in NZ. Brodie may well be one of those successful punters that have their winnings limited. He isn't stopped from betting like the restricted problem gambler punter is he is just limited in how much he can win! Do you get it now? Or is your blind obsession going to continue to overpower your ability to comprehend? Oh and I'm not "defending Brodie" - I don't even know who he is. However I do have an interest in how TAB NZ operate because in my opinion they are an inefficient operation that tries to operate from a monopoly position in the NZ market. The reality is that with alternative online options they actually have a "leaky" monopoly. I find it objectionable that the TAB encourages losing bettors to lose more while restricting the amount that winning punters can win. Accepting though that all gambling operations involving skill have the means to limit their losses. Here is a question for you Mehe - in your opinion should NZ have a Minimum Bet Law like those in operation in the States of Australia? Look Brodie can bet many other ways but he chooses not to so he has restricted himself 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mehe said: Look Brodie can bet many other ways but he chooses not to so he has restricted himself FFS have you read what Jonny Longshot has just posted? That very good post describes exactly what happens!!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 17 minutes ago, Jonny Longshot said: Brodie obviously isn’t as clued in on the TAB as he thinks. Regarding liabilities and restrictions, let me explain it for you as simply as I can. Lets use tonight’s Cambridge meeting as an example. And for now, we will talk about over the counter agency bets only. We’ll use Race 1, number 1, Express Play as the horse to talk about. It opened at $4 yesterday afternoon. Now, if I went in to a Tab yesterday and wanted to put a fixed odds bet on this horse, I could do this unabated until such time the collect went over $1000. So, I could put $249 on and the bet would go straight on. If I tried to put $251 on, to win $1004, the system would automatically refer the bet to a trader for assessment. At this point, the trader will accept the bet, adjust the bet (change it $120 at $4) or reject it. By race morning, this number usually doubles to $2000 and by race time, maybe around $4000. That’s not to say a higher bet to win more money won’t be accepted, but they are protecting themselves from potential stings. Now, lets talk about online accounts. You, Brodie, like many many other people are on a restricted account. One of the more common restrictions is ‘40%’. It goes without saying an account on 40% restrictions, could only get a bet on to win $400 the night before on harness, $800 the morning of, and around $1600 close to the race time. Different punters are on different thresholds, but in the case of Knight’s bet that was shared on New York Minute, where he couldn’t even get $20 on close to race time, his account was on 1%. I know quite a few on 20%, I know a couple on 5% and I even know one on 2%. Short answer is, if you are noted winner, you are chopped off at the knees. Now I am going to confuse this whole thing even further by saying that recently, trends have shown me and other punting friends that the ‘over the counter limits’ may in fact now be 50% of the online account limits. Currently, the max liability per bet for Cambridge tonight on an unrestricted account is $1500. I suspect at an agency, that might be only $750. Again, you could still potentially get higher bets on, but you will be subject to the hyper risk-averse trading desk. A couple of weeks ago, a friend tried to back one on the grass (Sunday meeting), the Saturday afternoon before the race. Quoted price was something like $8.50 to win. He tried to put $200 on. The bet got rejected (because it was over $1000) and they slashed the price to $6.50. He didn’t know it had been slashed, and when he gave the operator the $200 bet slip again, It processed and spat out at something like $153 at $6.50 (to win $1000) and then cut the price in to $5.50. This is the embarrassing way they do things now. All I can say is, if you do like one – never ever ever back it the day before. You will get on for a pittance and only alert them to a sting and they will crunch it in. At best you are going to win $1000. The better play is to wait deep until race time and have a real go at one late. An excellent post. A couple of questions - Do you think that the new system applies these restrictions programmatically when betting through an account? I.e. over time the system records your strike rate and progressively applies a % limit? Is this aggressive approach reflective of the size of our pools? Or just a very risk averse trading desk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehe Posted October 14, 2020 Share Posted October 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: FFS have you read what Jonny Longshot has just posted? That very good post describes exactly what happens!!!!! Look did you read what I said he isn't restricted he chooses to you know very well he can punt on the tote he can go to a tab he can get someone else to put the bet on for him (if that is legal ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.