Online Bookies Closing Clients' Accounts

[Mark]

The above named bookie is an advertiser on here so I'm guessing they are up for some publicity, be it good or bad. This is a company that regularly spouts on about letting punters on for millions of dollars. yesterday i had a bit of luck and won a sum less than $4000. Today I find I have been banned. They have got to be joking. Don't win with this mob because you'll find yourself on the outer.

At the risk of being TOU'ed here, this is a ********weak decision by a mob of gutless wonders. And if I do get rubbed out here as well, then so be it, I won't be back. I will however be spreading this story and seeking advice from the Ombudsman, if their is one that covers betting companies.

[Mark]

Don't ever be a winner in this game. It would seem that IAS have also banned my business. Unbelievable.

[Shaun]

Just when things were looking up hey Mark, this was what i was afraid would happen.

The fact is the way this idea was working in the end you would probably have lost more with the books than you would with betfair so they would make money off you in the end.

[UselessBettor]

At least you know this won't happen with betfair or the totes. Even though they may not be as good % wise.

Some bookies allow you to keep your account providing you are willing to be one of their VIP customers. The minimum bet for this though is usually $1000 per bet. I do not know if sportbet is one of those bookies.

[Chrome Prince]

Mark this is rife throughout the corporates now.
Even Luxbet!
I believe if you bet via Dynamic Race Odds or Odds Broker you can get around this.
I'm not vouching for them, ask around before you use any of them though.

[Shaun]

Dynamic Odds won't help as you still need the bookie accounts to use them, the odds broker is different but from what i have heard they are still monitored and if one of the books want you banned then it is done.

[partypooper]

Whilst my profits are minute compared to yours Mark (I suspect) I have managed to escape the wrath so far by having many accounts, and also my relies, and spread everything thinly.

But just recently, a relative opened an account with Sportsbet and at the same time opened one with IAS, only to be refused and a guy ringing from IAS to inform him that Sportsbet was OWNED by IAS.

[norisk]

Had a couple of accounts closed many years ago & swore off using the corporate's again as it's all a huge bluff & a waste of time IMHO

BF & the TAB's have their issues but at least you can always get on

[Chrome Prince]

Allegedly even Tom Waterhouse is restricting winners.

When IAS was owned by Mark Read, they never restricted winners, in fact Alex Read welcomed them, because they gave them better knowledge.

Perhaps try Rob Waterhouse, I know he would look after you.

[Mark]

CP, can't find a website for RW.
The thing that really gets me is my a/c was going nowhere for literally years, until yesterday when it all fell into place. So it's one winning day and you're gone. They don't mind it when you lose, and in the long run (because of what I was doing) they wouldn't have been far behind if at all.

[partypooper]

I know this comment will "pooped" but I really think that the punter should be covered by legislation here, dear me, they only want losers???? well they are about 98% safe anyway, they should be forced by law to accept wagers from 2% winners as well, pre requisite to hold a license!!

[lomaca]

CP, can't find a website for RW.
The thing that really gets me is my a/c was going nowhere for literally years, until yesterday when it all fell into place. So it's one winning day and you're gone. They don't mind it when you lose, and in the long run (because of what I was doing) they wouldn't have been far behind if at all.Commiseration Mark,
I posted early on but my post seems to have disappeared into the ether.
Anyway I was saying that I was surprised at the suddenness of it, I have my accounts restricted by a few outfits but only after I started to win consistently.

They offered me an option to bet big but my basic bet is only $200 for one thing, the other more important reason why I refused was that the odds offered were substantially less.

It left me with the TAB and Betfair, but Betfair is too inconvenient to wager $200 on horses at the odds I work at in one go and sometimes not getting matched at all for more than a pittance.

I signed up with Luxbet but now I read here that they do restrict you as well.
Not what the gent told me?
We shall see.
The bottom line is bookies do not like to pay out, fair enough, but after just one win? Crickey how glass jawed are they?
Good luck

[Raven]

a mob called sportsbetting.com.au are using the punters show to spruik their business, it's probably all bluff as well. I don't use the corporates, i use BF exclusively.

i guess when i finally get slugged with PC i may have to give this game up. i never really thought about that prospect before.

[Shaun]

Mark,
I say they knew what you were doing as they would have access to betfair prices and didn't want to take the chance of results going the other way or didn't like you making a profit at there expense even if they would have been in front.

[lomaca]

I know this comment will "pooped" but I really think that the punter should be covered by legislation here, dear me, they only want losers???? well they are about 98% safe anyway, they should be forced by law to accept wagers from 2% winners as well, pre requisite to hold a license!!I agree with you in principle but you'll will find that your numbers in this case are way out.

I think there are more than 2% winning punters, but be it as it may, what's more important is that the great majority of losing punters don't actually bet with the bookies.

This brings the margins between winning or losing much closer for the bookies.
But as you said, if they are prepared to take your bet when you lose they should be prepared to take it when you are winning.

good luck

[partypooper]

Lomaca, the 98% was surely pulled out of the air, but otherwise I have to differ as we have already established the corporates' will only accommodate losing punters and they all seem to be doing ok! (the bookies that is) so they must have plenty of losers.

PS by the way I have to agree on your point about trying to get set on BF, I just gave it up as a joke, like my biggest bet is $200, and usually $100, half the time I couldn't get set for $20, an absolute waste of time!

[lomaca]

Lomaca, the 98% was surely pulled out of the air, but otherwise I have to differ as we have already established the corporates' will only accommodate losing punters and they all seem to be doing ok! (the bookies that is) so they must have plenty of losers.

Yes with hindsight, you are probably right, they (bookies) are good at weeding out the winners.
As to bfoolyou it has one redeeming feature the ability to lay.

But for us backers, you certainly know as well as I how frustrating it is to try to place a bet against a robot.

Anyway I have been rebuked here before for speaking about bf.

Can't repeat it often enough I do not knock it, it doesn't suit me and my style of betting but if it suits someone else use it!

[Bhagwan]

I too was dropped by Spotsbet after 1 fortunate day.
No probs , I just go to the next one
I find Betezy very good.
They pride themselves on not dropping punters.
They are owned by Paddy Power.
One of the largest Bookie organisations in the World .

[Shaun]

Same owners as IAS and Sportsbet so that is no option.

[Mr. Logic]

I believe bookmakers standing at any race meeting must accept a bet to win a minimum dollar amount from any punter. They cannot ban a punter for winning. Same rules should apply to ALL online bookmakers operating here.

[jose]

Spot on Mr L.
Can't see why this has not been legislated for.

[lomaca]

I believe bookmakers standing at any race meeting must accept a bet to win a minimum dollar amount from any punter. They cannot ban a punter for winning. Same rules should apply to ALL online bookmakers operating here.Sorry not true.

I've been seen around the tracks some years back helping out a bag man and when a certain man of the cloth initials "J" approached, the instruction was " No more than "$20!!"
It is not illegal to refuse service in your shop for any reason whatever, same in racing.
If you are talking morality, now that is a different matter altogether.

As I said earlier, if they are prepared to take your money when you are losing they ought to take it when you are winning.

But when did moral values ever come in the way of greed?

[garyf]

SCHEDULE 1 – BETTING LIMITS –BOOKMAKERS

An authorised electronic betting bookmaker or authorised telephone bookmaker

that accepts a bet is obliged to lay the odds displayed if demanded by the

backer, except that the bookmaker is not compelled to lose on any one bet, when

the bet is accepted via the telephone at approved betting premises or

electronically (wherever located), more than:

a) Where Bookmakers total annual Net turnover exceeds $3 million

Bets on a Metropolitan Meeting -

Win only bet the sum of $3,000;

Each way bet the sum in total of $3,000;

Win and Place bet the sum in total of $3,000;

Place only bet the sum of $1,200.

Bets on a Non Metropolitan Meeting or a Non Thoroughbred Meeting-

Win only bet the sum of $1,500;

Each way bet the sum in total of $1,500;

Win and Place bet the sum in total of $1,500;

Place only bet the sum of $ 600.

b) Where Bookmakers total annual Net turnover is less than $3 million

Bets on a Metropolitan Meeting -

Win only bet the sum of $1,500;

Each way bet the sum in total of $1,500;

Win and Place bet the sum in total of $1,500;

Place only bet the sum of $ 600.

Bets on a Non Metropolitan Meeting or a Non Thoroughbred Meeting-

Win only bet the sum of $1,000;

Each way bet the sum in total of $1,000;

Win and Place bet the sum in total of $1,000;

Place only bet the sum of $ 400.

The bookmaker must publish the Minimum bet limits to which they are bound.

c) When the backer claims the bookmaker for a win and place bet which is

greater than the limits prescribed by this rule, the bookmaker must bet

the backer the proportional equivalent of an each-way wager.

d) Once an official price fluctuation or bookmaker’s own price fluctuation has

changed the bookmaker is not compelled to accept any bet or alternatively

is not compelled to bet the minimum limits prescribed at the pre-changed

When i was going to the tracks around Victoria it used to be $5,000 grand for rails bookmakers $3,000 grand for off the rails.

Obviously the rules have changed based on turnover now.

Cheers.

[garyf]

Woops that should be $5,000 or 5 grand for rails bookies
$3,000 or 3 grand for off the rails bookies.

Not $5,000 grand as i reported earlier.

Cheers.

[lomaca]

Obviously the rules have changed
Cheers.
So Gary where do we stand?
Are you saying that it's unlawful to restrict or refuse punters?
To whom are we to complain?

Gary I speak of less the 15 years ago and I suppose you know or at least heard of the person I was referring to and he had no objections to being restricted on course!

[jimbob]

ive never had any probs with them https://imageshackau.com/sports/131/b/happy.gifhttps://imageshackau.com/sports/133/b/happy.gifhttps://imageshackau.com/sports/138/b/happy.gif
https://imageshackau.com/sports/123/b/happy.gif

[reded]

I too was dropped by Spotsbet after 1 fortunate day.
No probs , I just go to the next one
I find Betezy very good.
They pride themselves on not dropping punters.
They are owned by Paddy Power.
One of the largest Bookie organisations in the World .
Sportsbet is owned by Irish gaming giant Paddy Power, which bought a 51 per cent stake in the company for $49 million in May 2009 . Then in September 21 2009 Sportbets bought IAS.

[garyf]

Unfortunately this rule only applies to on course bookmakers.


You are correct in your previous post regarding the refusal of services,
Such as corporates do unfortunately they are a law unto themselves.

When i was banned for a second time i went to my lawyer it was a while.
Ago now but from what i remember when you sign up there is a clause that,
States at any time they can refuse to accept a bet from you at their discretion and cancel your account.

It went something like that, my reason given to me was they only accept bets,
From recreational punters which they deemed i obviously was not.

My lawyer told me once i agreed to the terms i didn't have a leg to stand on.
I am currently with T-M W----HOUSE the only thing that happened eventually was that i was barred from placing bets via the internet.

But i could continue betting using the phone service.

I am fast running out of options if they close me down,
And betfair is not an option after several bad experiences.
I will have to go to the tote.

Cheers.

[Benny]

I'm back early from our trip to Europe as my wife broke her leg in the lobby of a leading French Hotel.

Any way I sent an email to sportsbet. I told them that I bet when the odds are in my favour basicly betting on the overlays and said that they won't close my account, that would be up to me weather I close it.

Started with $200 and the balance is now $391 since march this year

food for thought.

[Rogan Josh]

Hope the wife is mending well Benny

[NitroPunter]

I cant believe that accounts are being closed over such little wins

The theory of bookmaking is as follows...

A bookie has complete control over the odds he offers, but initially he doesn’t know the volume of bets that will be made at those prices. What he is basically trying to do is adjust the odds he offers in order to take bets in the right proportions to take in enough stakes across the board so that the amount he pays out is less than the stakes he takes in from the losing selections. If he achieves that goal then he will not be concerned which horse wins.

So if the above is true then why would they care if you won $4000 when in reality they more than likely won on the race regardless?

I bet in large amounts and never have I had an account closed or limited. My mates who only bet on the specials and "offers" who bet small amounts have those offers taken away but never closed.

Just my thoughts....

[Chrome Prince]

Nitro I agree with you 100%.
For example, if I'm backing outsiders, surely I am helping them balance their book, it's money they wouldn't have because most of it goes on the first two favourites or something fancied that steams in.
The problem is the automated risk management software they use, it reports people who constantly pick off the top odds they offer, special deals, and winning accounts.
Once you're flagged, you're limited or banned.
It's no longer a bookmaking decision, it's a risk management decision.
It also depends how much you win in a certain window of time and if you keep betting with that money and losing.

[Chrome Prince]

Here's a gem!

Opened an account with Stan James, deposited a mere $50.00
It was simply a trial run.
First bet $20 which converted to around 13 pounds to get the free 10 pound bet offer. Horse won which resulted in a win of around $30.00
From that moment I was limited to less than $5.00 on all bets, even rank outsiders or odds on favourites.

Beggars belief.

[Mark]

This sort of thing is crazy.
When they pull stunts like this, their licence should be immediately revoked, no excuses no second chances. The licencing commissions have a lot to answer for letting them get away with rubbish like this.

[Chrome Prince]

O.K. I'm not even complaining now, because it's very funny.
I laughed myself silly.
It's not Stan James, it's Sid James - "Carry On Bookmaker"

I had a bet of $3.23, yes only allowed $3.23 on Fraserburgh in the first at Hamilton tonight.
They gave me $7.50 odds, as I completed my slip the bet was accepted and they immediately moved the odds on the site to $5.00.

Oh Matron!

http://www.vinmag.com/online/media/gbu0/prodlg/TS055.jpg

[Stix]

Whilst my profits are minute compared to yours Mark (I suspect) I have managed to escape the wrath so far by having many accounts, and also my relies, and spread everything thinly.

But just recently, a relative opened an account with Sportsbet and at the same time opened one with IAS, only to be refused and a guy ringing from IAS to inform him that Sportsbet was OWNED by IAS.

I too spread my bets over 5 books, aggregated it's a decent bet, but as an individual bet it's should fly under the radar - so far it has). I'm just worried about the cumulative affect being monitored...which I'm sure the do...

Also saves dumping into small pools, as I place bet.

[Mark]

Nevr mind CP, come across to Markbet, I'll let you on to win $30. (so long as you don't win, don't withdraw, bet at least an hour before the race, take unders, etc etc etc)

[Management]

As this thread is about more than one online bookmaker closing clients' accounts we have changed the thread title to make it more relevant, rather than it focusing on just one online bookmaker.

[norisk]

Time to start complaining people -

Deputy Chief Minister
Hon Delia Phoebe Lawrie MLA

Treasurer
Minister for Business and Employment
Minister for Trade
Minister for Asian Relations
Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing
Minister for Alcohol Policy
Minister for Defence Support

Contact:
GPO Box 3146
Darwin NT 0801
Telephone: 08 8901 4047
Facsimile: 08 8901 4169
Email: minister.lawrie@nt.gov.au

[Chrome Prince]

I don't understand how these guys are still able to make money at all.
In these times of competition, turnover tax, lagging interest by the general population etc. How are they surviving?

I'm starting to get a picture of the SJ operation, that it's some bloke in his bedroom with a server!
They won't take more than $5.00 on anything remotely fancied, and won't give the FREE joining bet to Australians (in fine print in the terms and conditions).


Dear xxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for forwarding the email to us.
The email is a standard new customers email sent to all customers opening accounts.
Within the terms and conditions of the new customer offer is the clause regarding eligible regions.
I appreciate this could be made clearer and maybe a second standard email for non eligible customers could be sent.
I apologise for any confusion caused, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Kind regards,
xxxxxxxxxxx


I hear Bet365 aren't too bad, haven't tried them yet.
Surely there is a massive opportunity for some big bookmaker like Rob Waterhouse, or a Read to come along and offer a full no limit service with a simple stand to lose no more than clause like the rails bookies.

[Shaun]

I think it comes down to market share, in order for your idea to work you need enough market share to make your book.

Our past bookies have built up the current operations to the huge names they are, that's the main reason they were bought out instead of these clowns just starting there own.

[Chrome Prince]

That's very true Shaun, but word travels extremely quickly both with poor service bookies and very good service bookies.

[norisk]

I hear Bet365 aren't too bad, haven't tried them yet.


Afraid I have heard the exact opposite CP, apparently they are as bad as it gets when limiting/closing accounts.

It appears that these 'bookmakers' are really only interested in their Sports books & that because they probably don't really know what they are doing Racing is just not profitable so at the sniff of a winner they will close you down.

What I want to know is how these pommy/irish firms have been able to gobble up every Aussie corporate they wanted, then put the squeeze on, & I assume now that profits head straight overseas.

Regulators have got a lot to answer for & I encourage everyone that's had a bad experience to detail it in an email to the relevant minister(s).

[Chrome Prince]

That's interesting news norisk, I had heard they were not quite as bad as the others, but it seems they are all tarred with the same brush.
The only thing I can think of, is to play the game and make it appear like you are a losing mug by having big bets occasionally and transferring it back to Betfair by laying the same horse.

But probably that won't work either because they will limit their exposure.

[Mark]

Norisk, I wasted my time lodging a complaint with the NT Licencing Commission. Until they make the rules they are a toothless tiger. As it stands the bookies make their own rules and so long as they abide by their own rules there's nothing that can be done. The reply I received went along the lines of "when you sign up you've agreed to their conditions and if their conditions say that they can ban or restrict any account without reason, then you're stuffed".

[UselessBettor]

I do all my betting via betfair so haven't run into this issue.

It feels wrong that they can do this, but at the same time there probably wouldn't be as many bookmakers if they didn't do this. Letting them ban winning punters gives more options to those who lose.

I can't understand how being a bookie could be that hard. Wouldn't you just put all your odds less then betfair and automatically lay them all off at the corresponding prices. Your commission would be reduced due to the discount and it would be semi-easy cash as its all automated. I have rarely seen a bookie with prices higher then betfair in my travels.

[norisk]

I hear you Mark, so in addition I suggest contacting your local members & relevant state Govt ministers.

End of the day I haven't used a corporate for years & never will again so allof the stories coming to light do not surprise me.

Why anyone would want to use a corporate is beyond me considering the complete contempt these organisations hold for their 'clients' - but if one must use a bookie why not open a phone account with an on-course bookmaker.

[Chrome Prince]

Well after sticking to all the rules, I have had most of my accounts closed down.
Some accounts were in loss, others I am limited severely and almost all have had best odds guarantee removed. I am not a big fish by any means.
I even ensured that where the money was going, I was going elsewhere, so it meant that the bookies had a more balanced book.

It is plain and clear that all offers, enticements and freebies are for the Saturday $10 punter who gives it all back.
Further it is also clear that the publicized acceptance of "we took $50,000 on this and $20,000 on that" is pure myth and spin.

The upside of all this is that I found one standout bookie for sports being Pinnacle, the only account still alive and kicking. Such a pity their model isn't applicable to horseracing.

In September on prominent bookie got hold of the Australian Rugby Union database and sent everyone on it this email:

''BACK THE WALLABIES WITH xxxxxx.COM.

MONEY BACK IF THEY LOSE.

''Hi xxxxxx,
As a Wallabies Supporter, this weekend I'm taking on the Springboks …
And giving you a money back offer. So back the Wallabies now …''

This is the reply this bookie received....

"Hi xxx,

Any chance you'd get out of my face? People like me who handed over our details to the ARU did NOT do so to be harassed with brain-dead offers like yours, let alone have our kids exposed to it. And what about a little truth in advertising? What about you add to your spiel, ''I'm prepared to take a little hit, just once, just to get you on the gambling hook, in the hope that I can then shake you down for decades to come!''

Do NOT send me your awful offal again. And shame on the ARU for serving up its dwindling supporter base to the likes of you. It is acting well outside its charter to serve the interests of the game, and will face an outright revolt if it continues. Be told."

Disgraceful stuff from a bookie.

Finally, punters may like to read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald.


http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/its-official-only-losers-bet-on-the-net-20121019-27wrd.html?skin=text-only

Let the rebellion begin!

[moeee]

I use SuperTab and Betfair.
I have won close to 10 grand.
about 5 Grand on each.
No issues at all.

I figure that if a Punter need SPECIAL OFFERS to make a dollar at Punting , then best he give it away.

[Chrome Prince]

moeee, it's not a matter of needing offers at all.
It's a matter of utilizing differences in prices to create arbitrage opportunites.

[moeee]

moeee, it's not a matter of needing offers at all.
It's a matter of utilizing differences in prices to create arbitrage opportunites.
So you are not doing any Form study then?
And you have not taken advantage of any Bonus Bet Offers? - Or do you in fact have a large amount that are making Profits and the Corporates are well aware?

[Lord Greystoke]

Well after sticking to all the rules, I have had most of my accounts closed down.
Some accounts were in loss, others I am limited severely and almost all have had best odds guarantee removed. I am not a big fish by any means.
I even ensured that where the money was going, I was going elsewhere, so it meant that the bookies had a more balanced book.

It is plain and clear that all offers, enticements and freebies are for the Saturday $10 punter who gives it all back.
Further it is also clear that the publicized acceptance of "we took $50,000 on this and $20,000 on that" is pure myth and spin.

The upside of all this is that I found one standout bookie for sports being Pinnacle, the only account still alive and kicking. Such a pity their model isn't applicable to horseracing.

In September on prominent bookie got hold of the Australian Rugby Union database and sent everyone on it this email:

''BACK THE WALLABIES WITH xxxxxx.COM.

MONEY BACK IF THEY LOSE.

''Hi xxxxxx,
As a Wallabies Supporter, this weekend I'm taking on the Springboks …
And giving you a money back offer. So back the Wallabies now …''

This is the reply this bookie received....

"Hi xxx,

Any chance you'd get out of my face? People like me who handed over our details to the ARU did NOT do so to be harassed with brain-dead offers like yours, let alone have our kids exposed to it. And what about a little truth in advertising? What about you add to your spiel, ''I'm prepared to take a little hit, just once, just to get you on the gambling hook, in the hope that I can then shake you down for decades to come!''

Do NOT send me your awful offal again. And shame on the ARU for serving up its dwindling supporter base to the likes of you. It is acting well outside its charter to serve the interests of the game, and will face an outright revolt if it continues. Be told."

Disgraceful stuff from a bookie.

Finally, punters may like to read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald.


http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/its-official-only-losers-bet-on-the-net-20121019-27wrd.html?skin=text-only

Let the rebellion begin!

Good post CP. Some of the best 'tips' I have seen on here to date, assuming one delves further (most won't?)

Cheers LG

PS nice work on the article

[Chrome Prince]

moeee, no form study.
The fact is that almost all the corporate accounts are losing accounts, the Betfair account is the winning account. So the corporates could not be aware.
It's not like I'm just fleecing them everytime their prices are out, I'd cop that as a restriction, all I'm doing is looking at very early markets and backing anything that I can lay at betfair for a profit. And 99.9% of those contenders are well outside the top few favourites that have the biggest liability for a bookmaker.
Ergo, I am helping him balance his book on contenders there is little money for.
I also only stake a fixed amount, never try and dutch bet to a percentage.
It's just the fact they don't want anyone who bets in reasonable amounts with discipline.

Give us back the old days when the private bookie would take on a punter and match wits rather than restricting via software analysis. It is what it is I guess, but in an age where bookies are against the wall with competition and taxes, it seems they are party to their own demise.
And so be it.