Corp Bookie challenged...at last
 

This post is deleted as there is no working link to the content posted. Moderator.

This post is deleted as there is no working link to the content posted. Moderator.

Interesting story this, stugots. Will you keep following it?

Cheers LG

This post is deleted as there is no working link to the content posted.
In addition, no newspaper will publish allegations against bookmakers who have been publicly identified without evidence being provided. The same laws apply to this Forum.

Moderator.

You don't even have to win, I've had losing accounts closed.

Be interesting how long this thread stays on here. The last one legitimately attacking the world's "alleged" biggest bookie was closed down.

UB, their odds may get worse but does that matter if they wont let you on anyway?

LG, will try to.

Mark I think as long as we keep the posts civil in regards to out opinions of these 'bookies', the thread will be fine.

The punter is wasting more money. Unfortunately it's in all online bookies terms and conditions, so legally he hasn't got a chance. Morally many things are wrong, but as long as they have themselves covered legally, that's that.

The punter would be better to lobby to get the legislation changed.

At least it helps create a bit of noise about an issue that appears no one really wants to know about.

Never know he might get a sympathetic hearing & be able to drag it out for a while.

Dr Turf just went off on SEN radio about this exact issue highlighting the fact that on-course bookies are compelled to take bets up to certain liabilities but these corp's can reduce/refuse bets or close accounts on a whim.

About time a bit of noise was made in the mainstream media:)

I totally agree Stugots, media attention and lobbying the local member, writng to the minister etc, will have far more effect than trying to sue the bookie which he'll lose hands down. Because he's facing a losing battle, it will all be swept under the carpet, a one liner about him losing the case and we'll hear no more.

My contention is that corporates are barring winning punters only and therefore it is only problem gamblers which are sought as long term clientele. An enquiry could prove this when reviewing each client's turnover. It would be clear that recreational punters do not make up the bulk of losing clients. In fact recreational punters basically use the tote (as a percentage).

Finally, the regulators are responsible for this, not the bookies.
The bookies are just doing what they are allowed to do.