Bookmakers, limits & claims

The Sunday Groan

The problem: On the Sportingbet thread the rep from the company included in their reply that the claiming of horse just after a bet had been placed with them is regarded as suspicious behaviour, or words to that effect.

My accounts: Two of my accounts are limited with a call for bigger, one has gone no Internet access-call only and another has gone limited to win 2000 and please don't bother calling.

My profile: I am not a big player. I generally look for value and horses well handicapped, so as a rule I avoid the shortest priced horses. I would say my range of play is from 7/2 and that I often play above 10/1.

So here's the thing. If your accounts are limited and you want to back a 33/1 shot it means you have to bet at several places. You can't have an early bet at Internet because R20 can trigger a price change and there is very often no volume which is always the problem with a long price horse, especially on exchanges. You click on your clickable accounts, and then call the call accounts hopefully before any of the click accounts claim the bet or click themselves at Interbet. Then one of these companies claim the horse and all the other ones think you are a "suspicious" individual.

The solution: as it's only fair to stop continual complaints without at least a suggestion of how things could be better here is a possible solution. Online bookmakers can add a clickable box next to the place bet button where you can select an option "only bet" or "I will be pressing for more elsewhere". that way they will know you have decided to have R600 on and you triggered the claim yourself.

The real solution is that a couple of R100 should not trigger a claim and a claim shouldn't be suspicious in itself. Perhaps its time to factor in the weakening rand and go claims 50k midweek and 100k weekend?

My most recent account closure (3 days ago) was not about a horse that won. On Tuesday I had R100 on Rabadash (4000/100).

RABADASH Sherman Brown a 59.5 4 7th of 8 runners 16.00 100.50 25/1 25/1 (official opening and SP 40/1 in-between )

Rabadash ran second last behind Empenosso Henn 7/10 and the call I got the next day was that they felt they didn't need to be laying 40/1 about horses that start 8/1. If this story is unbelievable, My account statement showing the bet and then the account closure is available. In full disclosure I must add that when I clicked on the bet, it did not go through, I called and the operator said the limit was to win R750 and it was now a call account. All news to me. Somehow they unimpressed that my account which they had now hamstrung, is in fact a nett loser and did in fact match their stated desire to service customers who play smaller bets...they remained unimpressed that my average horse bet with them ranged between 75 to 1500, perhaps R300 on average. They no longer wanted my online and I assume I remain suspicious.

Txs for post Jack, I also get a bit frustrated on line at times with limits and have to phone. It's normally for Miss Diana so it's only me that gets hurt.

Bizarre behaviour .... Although I enjoy backing with the bookies, perhaps we should campaign to have them banned (tu)

That is why I am about to close my Marshalls Online account.
I am told that if you go into their offices, then there are no limits.

And some of you still don't believe in Betfair where that shit can't happen.The present problem is that there is not enough liquidity because of the misleading warning,but wait until they are licenced...........
Until then if that treatment happens to me ,there will be no discussions .....straight to the CPA......they cannot apply discriminatory limits that differ from their general policy.
The CPA is not bound by any Bookmaker assoc or gambling board rules,in fact it is on the contrary.

@Rob
What you will find is there is a fundamental difference between businesses like bookmakers compared to retail operations or service providers for eg advertisers or IT providers when it comes down to the cpa.

A silly example, a supermarket chain can offer a weekend special, say 2L coke or milk.
They obviously can't sell more than they have, and they can limit the units per customer to be fair.
A bookmaker isn't obliged to lose any or all of his personal fortune, assets or whatever to you, or anyone.
He isn't obliged to follow the prices of anyone else either.
The long and the short of it is the obligations are different because the nature of his stock (stack, bank, limits, whatever) and the price (odds, percentages, probability, spread) are different to other businesses, and so the obligations become different. You will find (as explained to me via gambling board) it's much harder to force this position.

While you are right, the CPA isn't bound by the Gambling Board, you will find that while the Gambling Board is collecting the revenue like sars does, that while the bookmaker must follow the Gambling Board rules (especially the rule that says a bookmaker is not obliged to lay anything), that the CPA will have to go for the Gambling Board and not the bookmaker, and it might be a cooler day in hell first. As usual, just imho.

Sorry Jack but I disagree.Each bookmaker will have different limits &/or liabilities which will probably be related to the capital &/or appetite for risk by the the licensor,but most importantly to the guarantee/s provided to the fund. The point is that you can choose,as a business, your level of involvement.
Any discrimination or differing limits to different clients is a breach.
To extend your examples....yes you can limit the number of units per customer,what you can't do is have a limit of 5 units for some and 10 units for others.....if you see the point.
Similarly ,in your other example ,if a retailer is in breach,the CPA would not refer it to SARS,any more than they would refer a bookmaker to the gambling board.....that logic escapes me entirely.
Anyway this debate will be resolved the first time a reduced limit case is referred to the CPA....will be interesting

Ok Rob.
Im just reporting what happened when the gambling board and CPA was approached recently about the limits from the point of view of discrimination. Meeting took place, they felt they can't force a bookmaker to lay any bet at gunpoint.

What you do is you line up several accounts.I did it once when I had a runner which I new had a good chance.
What I did was i opened several accounts,made sure what their limit was per bet most off them were prepared to lay between R10 -R25000, the horse was 10/1 so I lined all the bets up at the same time,put in the amount and the odds and once I had lined them upI press the submit button, within a few seconds I placed the bets, I then waited for them to shorten the bet and then laid it again at 7/1 and I waited and they shortened it again to 5/1 and I hit them again. I laid these bets just after they priced up,. the horse won and I took R130 000 of them, what a pleasure.For my own protection I cannot mention the horses name.what was more lekker I got the quartet box for R360 it paid a further R23 000, and more satisfying was that I bought the horse for R20 000 3 weeks before, that was one of the best days of my life.

I think that circunstances would determine if discrimination has taken place:
a) Programming differing limits to different clients on an on-line site must surely be discriminatory,as strategically,an on-line betting site presumes bets are accepted,subject to overall chosen limits of the business.
Whilst I can see the point of "can't force a bookmaker to lay a (specific)bet" I would argue that is NOT the same as determining ,in advance, that any bet submitted by R.Faux(or A.N. Other),will not be at normal site limits.ie.applying discrimination in a predetermined,non discerning way,and unrelated to the state of the "book".
I would be interested in the opinion of someone versed in compliance issues.....interesting debate!

Interesting topic, if you are a bookie or a shop etc and you want to offer something, lets say 15/10 on a horse for 10,000?
Should it matter if you lay that to a shrewdie or a mug punter? before you shorten the odds ??

I have barred a few "wide" "shrewdies" in my life as a bookie.

You can only get a bet with the big firms in the UK if your a mug,came in handy for me a few times when I have been privy to some SA info