Large scale ladbrokes Scam

Kid Charlemagne

My opinion is that there should be an obligation on all bookies to pay a bet if they've taken the stake. How they can get away with refusing it on the basis that the bet was made late or that they put the wrong price up is beyond me.

Likewise this crack of closing winning punters accounts is a bit dodgy, fair enough I dont think its the govt's right to force bookies to accept bets but certainly the bookies could be obliged to identify destructive betting patterns and contact punters who are clearly getting themselves into a lot of trouble - and put them in contact with GA or whoever, rather than just take every penny with a "no-one forced hit to bet" attitude.

As it stands they have it every way.

Howjoe1

Kid Charlemagne wrote: »

My opinion is that there should be an obligation on all bookies to pay a bet if they've taken the stake. How they can get away with refusing it on the basis that the bet was made late or that they put the wrong price up is beyond me.

.

Kid,


So a horse is 10/1 ..your girl friend works in the bookies. You write 100/1 on your docket and its put through the system.

Think about it !

Put yourself in the bookies shoes and I think your attitude would change.

phantasmagoria

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Going back to the lucksin downs thing for a sec. Everyone seems to be blaming the punter for coming up late but I don't get that. What of he's in a queue and gets to the teller at 20 secs left and it takes a few seconds to read the bet and then put it through. If the customer receives their docket with 8 seconds to go, they may not know it but their bet is now void.

Betting shop etiquette these days is such that somebody wanting to place a bet
on a race about to go off is given priority as they push themselves to the front and fan out around the person in front (i.e. the customer's bet which might not be so pressing from a timeliness point of view) - so realistically these bets should not be presented late. We've all seen it in shops - an example is the hare is running bell and there's 3 lads running towards the counter, who will inevitably get their bets on 99 times out of 100 with no problem. The hare is running is supposed to signal no more bets (in practice bets are still taken at this point) , likewise lucksin downs off no more bets message means if it hasn't been stamped/processed you are probably going to be late

Kid Charlemagne

Howjoe,
sorry - no thats not what im on about.
like yourself ive nothing against the people working the the shops at all - and if a punter makes up his own odds he has no right to expect to be paid on them.

what im on about is if the bookies put up a wrong price on their system - say for example two teams are playing, one is 1/5 and the other is 3/1 - but they put the 2 prices on the wrong teams. Then I back the 1/5 shot at 3/1 to take advantage of their error.
As it stands they would be able to cancel the bet and give me back my stake if I go to collect. If my bet lost anyway - theyd still have my dosh, unless it was placed online.

what rankles with me is that if i was to accidentally back the wrong team etc, i havent an icecubes of seeing my stake back, whereas whenever they make an errror they can correct it. as far as im concerned they should have to pay for their mistakes. sure its not like they would ever lose huge sums because they red-flag any unusual betting patterns and mistakes are quickly rectified.

Arnoldcob

Hi guys,

We've been alerted to this and will send someone to Ladbrokes tomorrow to investigate.

We're Gambling Reform & Society Perception (GRASP) Group in case anything else comes up.

abouttobebanned

phantasmagoria wrote: »

Betting shop etiquette these days is such that somebody wanting to place a bet
on a race about to go off is given priority as they push themselves to the front and fan out around the person in front (i.e. the customer's bet which might not be so pressing from a timeliness point of view) - so realistically these bets should not be presented late. We've all seen it in shops - an example is the hare is running bell and there's 3 lads running towards the counter, who will inevitably get their bets on 99 times out of 100 with no problem. The hare is running is supposed to signal no more bets (in practice bets are still taken at this point) , likewise lucksin downs off no more bets message means if it hasn't been stamped/processed you are probably going to be late

Firstly, there is no "no more bets" message at lucksin downs. The punter will presume that at o seconds he can no longer have a bet. (incidentally, the horses do not leave the stalls until a further second after that.

I'll say this for the last time. If a punter has has his bet placed, it's gone through the system and he has his copy of the docket and there is still 5 seconds left...he doesnt know it, but his bet is void.

They had an 8 second time difference that they exploited in full.

The chap who thought he was ripped off the other day asked a legitimate question as he was about to collect his winnings. "what would have happened if the horse lost?". Sadly, the answer is, nothing.

If the banks were withholding as much of our money as bookmakers are there would be riots on the streets. But because they're bookies, we almost accept and are used to them taking our money.

Wake up lads, please!

okidoki987

My opinion is that there should be an obligation on all bookies to pay a bet if they've taken the stake.How they can get away with refusing it on the basis that the bet was made late or that they put the wrong price up is beyond me

.

Bookies would be bust in a month.
It's a business and it's them against the punter.
If someone puts up 3/1 on a 1/5, it will be paid at 1/5.
There's no chance of getting paid at 3/1.

Likewise this crack of closing winning punters accounts is a bit dodgy, fair enough I dont think its the govt's right to force bookies to accept bets but certainly the bookies could be obliged to identify destructive betting patterns and contact punters who are clearly getting themselves into a lot of trouble - and put them in contact with GA or whoever, rather than just take every penny with a "no-one forced hit to bet" attitude.

You haven't had many bets have you?
Having been restricted in a couple of firms, it's a pain but you live with it, it's
the name of the game.
Happens to loads of people and there nothing that can be done about it.
I'm sure bookies would contact GA :rolleyes:
Sure if they are losing a fortune, the bookies would be kicking themselves in the foot as they would lose a losing punter.
Ain't gonna happen.

Kid Charlemagne

okidoki987 wrote: »

.

Bookies would be bust in a month.
It's a business and it's them against the punter.
If someone puts up 3/1 on a 1/5, it will be paid at 1/5.
There's no chance of getting paid at 3/1.


As I say - this is not what im talkin about - see my response to howjoe.



You haven't had many bets have you?

I dont know how you would define many but ive been betting for about 15 years - within my means and without any problems, unsustainable losses etc. Dont really see the relevance anyway. Seems like your trying to be patronising and set yourself up as some bigtime gambler character. Good for you Ace, good for you.

Having been restricted in a couple of firms, it's a pain but you live with it, it's
the name of the game.
Happens to loads of people and there nothing that can be done about it.
I'm sure bookies would contact GA :rolleyes:
Sure if they are losing a fortune, the bookies would be kicking themselves in the foot as they would lose a losing punter.
Ain't gonna happen.

Aint gonna happen when the industry is unregulated - very easy to impose rules on bookies that would jeopradise their licence if they were found to be in breach. likewise very easy to alter civil law to place a proportion of blame on bookies who ignore telltale signs and continue to take money from addicts. Its not nescessarily about losing a fortune either - a lad on the dole could get himself in serious trouble by losing a grand or two which certainly wouldnt be a fortune at all by anyones standards.

ceadaoin.

Kid Charlemagne wrote: »

Aint gonna happen when the industry is unregulated - very easy to impose rules on bookies that would jeopradise their licence if they were found to be in breach. likewise very easy to alter civil law to place a proportion of blame on bookies who ignore telltale signs and continue to take money from addicts. Its not nescessarily about losing a fortune either - a lad on the dole could get himself in serious trouble by losing a grand or two which certainly wouldnt be a fortune at all by anyones standards.

The industry is regulated.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/default.aspx

There already are rules in place as to how bookmakers deal with problem gamblers which bookies must follow if they want to keep their license. If someone does not admit they have a problem then I don't see what you expect the bookies to do.

Social responsibility code provision
Licensees must make information readily available to their customers on how to gamble
responsibly and how to access information about, and help in respect of, problem gambling.
The information must cover:
• any measures provided by the licensee to help individuals monitor or control their
gambling, such as restricting the duration of a gambling session or the amount of money
they can spend
• timers or other forms of reminders or ‘reality checks’ where available
• self-exclusion options
• information about the availability of further help or advice.
The information must be directed to all customers whether or not licensees also make available
material which is directed specifically at customers who may be ‘problem gamblers’.
For gambling premises, information must be available in all areas where gambling facilities are
provided and adjacent to ATMs where these are not located in a gambling area. As a minimum, 24 LCCP 11/04
information must be displayed prominently on posters appropriate to the size and layout of the
premises and contained in leaflets that may be taken away. Licensees must take all reasonable
steps to ensure that this information is also readily accessible in locations which enable the
customer to obtain it discreetly.

Edit: I also find it highly doubtful that Ladbrokes, a reputable bookmakers who turnover hundreds of millions of pounds a year, are purposely scamming people who bet on this one virtual race meeting

abouttobebanned

No offence, but what substance is there in what you think? Scam is a rough word, but whatever way you look at it, it's exactly what they were doing.

Banks have done it. Governments have done it. Building societies have done it. "reputable companies" have done it.

But no way would ladbrokes do it. Jesus the naivety is actually becoming a bit unsettling now.

ceadaoin.

abouttobebanned wrote: »

No offence, but what substance is there in what you think? Scam is a rough word, but whatever way you look at it, it's exactly what they were doing.

Banks have done it. Governments have done it. Building societies have done it. "reputable companies" have done it.

But no way would ladbrokes do it. Jesus the naivety is actually becoming a bit unsettling now.

Why do people think that the bookies are out to get them? I've worked in the industry for years and can say that this isn't the case.

abouttobebanned

Lol I've heard it all now. You work in the industry years so you can say that it isnt the case that many bookies use underhand tactics to take more money off punters.

I didn't make a generalisation that bookies are out to get people, I gave specific examples. If you'd like to argue those then please, go ahead. But I really can't believe that you think you can speak for the integrity of the whole industry.

CiaranC

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Lol I've heard it all now. You work in the industry years so you can say that it isnt the case that many bookies use underhand tactics to take more money off punters.

I didn't make a generalisation that bookies are out to get people, I gave specific examples. If you'd like to argue those then please, go ahead. But I really can't believe that you think you can speak for the integrity of the whole industry.

You are talking through your hat. This elaborate scheme you think ladbrokes have set up to defraud you can be defeated by putting your bets on 2 minutes before the off. These are fixed odds races, the prices do not fluctuate.

Seriously, you are making a fool of yourself.

*edit* Frankly mate, if you are the sort of punter running up to the counter at the off for Lucksin downs, Ladbrokes dont need a scam to take your money off you.

abouttobebanned

You need to learn to read. I've never backed a virtual horse in my life. I'm done talking to you now because, every offence intended, you're a bit slow.

abouttobebanned

Anyone else think I'm making a fool of myself by the way? I'd be very interested to see if there are others who seem to think I'm some kind of deluded and disgruntled punter.

ft9

I don't think you are making a fool of yourself at all.

You are dead right in fact to pull Ladbrokes up on this.

I do however not understand how you can back virtual things like this that a bookmaker has full control of the outcome. Also you know they are cheating to give them an extra edge.

But yeah your point stands that something should be done about it, but I think my point also stands that you should avoid virtuals like the plague.

ft9

And Ive just read your last post that you never backed a virtual, my apologies, and good luck with your quest.

Howjoe1

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Anyone else think I'm making a fool of myself by the way? I'd be very interested to see if there are others who seem to think I'm some kind of deluded and disgruntled punter.

i think you've over reacted a bit.

btw ..without you placing a series of bets on luckins down, how can you establish that Ladbrokes any engaged in a PERSISTENT and deliberate abuse of off times ?

CiaranC

abouttobebanned wrote: »

You need to learn to read. I've never backed a virtual horse in my life. I'm done talking to you now because, every offence intended, you're a bit slow.

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Ladbrokes are endangering their ability to trade and their entire business specifically in order to take money from people betting in the last 20 seconds before the off at Lucksin downs. That is COMPLETELY ABSURD.

Ive worked extensively with designing, building and supporting betting shop AV and IT systems like this one. There is no scam. There is no need for one, the overround locks in a profit and the punters are the easiest in the whole industry to take money from.

The sports betting industry is infested and surrounded by hysterical lackwits. Im glad I got out.

abouttobebanned

Ladbrokes must be happy that they have so many friends in the gambling fraternity.

I can't tell you how I know that it has been going on for over 8 months now, but I just know. Like I know that since I made the complaint to ladbrokes the off time is now registered when the horses leave the stalls.

Couple of points..I have nothing against people who back virtual racing...as I've said, I think certain horse races are just as weighted in the bookie's favour, some even more so.

Also, you asked a good question there, I can't give you the answer cause it could get someone in trouble, but I am more than happy to answer anyone who is questioning any of the things I have said. What annoys me is people who are just blindly saying that I'm talking nonsense.

Think for a second about what the banks have been up to over the past 5 years. If someone opened a thread in the finance forum speculating about what was going on he'd be called a conspiracy theorist...people would call BS etc...

CiaranC

So you think the Board at Ladbrokes cooked up this scheme at an EGM then? Maybe the CEO ran on a secret platform of ripping off 2 quid from virtual backers to boost their 200 million pound turnover? Would you get a grip mate.

abouttobebanned

CiaranC wrote: »

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Ladbrokes are endangering their ability to trade and their entire business specifically in order to take money from people betting in the last 20 seconds before the off at Lucksin downs. That is COMPLETELY ABSURD.

Ive worked extensively with designing, building and supporting betting shop AV and IT systems like this one. There is no scam. There is no need for one, the overround locks in a profit and the punters are the easiest in the whole industry to take money from.

The sports betting industry is infested and surrounded by hysterical lackwits. Im glad I got out.

Call it what you want, they kept an 8 second delay on virtual racing for many months. This is fact.

We're getting to the point know where people are actually arguing with something that is fact.

You make a good point though, bookies have enough things in their favour without having to resort to underhand tactics. But they do.

Howjoe1

So there is millions that has been won on Luckins Downs that customers weren't paid because they were told there bet was late?


and customers regularly walk away from the counter and accept this?

abouttobebanned

Also, ciaran, what makes you think they are endangering anything by doing this?

abouttobebanned

Howjoe1 wrote: »

So there is millions that has been won on Luckins Downs that customers weren't paid because they were told there bet was late?


and customers regularly walk away from the counter and accept this?

I wouldn't say millions, as apparently bets on these races are generally small, but yes there have been many, many people who have been told they can't be paid because their bet was "late". There have also been thousands of people whose bets were voided but they never knew because the horse lost.

ft9

What about all the losing bets placed within those 8 seconds? Basically whatever Lads took in those 8 seconds they could not lose, only profit

Howjoe1

abouttobebanned wrote: »

I wouldn't say millions, as apparently bets on these races are generally small, but yes there have been many, many people who have been told they can't be paid because their bet was "late". There have also been thousands of people whose bets were voided but they never knew because the horse lost.

Have Ladbrokes admitted an ongoing error? should I contact them on this matter?

abouttobebanned

CiaranC wrote: »

So you think the Board at Ladbrokes cooked up this scheme at an EGM then? Maybe the CEO ran on a secret platform of ripping off 2 quid from virtual backers to boost their 200 million pound turnover? Would you get a grip mate.

Who knows. It may have I initially been a glitch but it was never fixed. You can take that patronising tone with me all you want but this is not me speculating about something happening. I'm reporting facts to you now. The races WERE delayed. Punters were told that their winners were losers. And this did happen for many months. I'm not here to tell you why it was happening, just that it WAS happening.

Now, I'm certainly not obsessed with it, it's just something that tickled my interest. I'm not sure why so many people are arguing with me and defending ladbrokes, but it does help me understand why ireland is in the situation that it's in now. People put their trust in big companies 100% just because they assume they will work under a moral code of practise. They just can't accept - even in this case when ladbrokes have been proved to be using wrong times - that a big company would do something to swing the odds even more in their favour.

All I'll say is, you are all entitled to believe what you want, but less of the patronising please.

abouttobebanned

ft9 wrote: »

What about all the losing bets placed within those 8 seconds? Basically whatever Lads took in those 8 seconds they could not lose, only profit

The bets that were taken in that 8-10 second period were always going to be voided and ladbrokes would hold on to the money unless the customer came to collect. Of course this would only happen in two circumstances

1. If the horse won.
2. If the punter didn't watch the race and asked of the docket was a winner.

Google the term "sleepers" in relation to gambling. It makes for very interesting reading.

abouttobebanned

Howjoe1 wrote: »

Have Ladbrokes admitted an ongoing error? should I contact them on this matter?

Ladbrokes have admitted there was a glitch but it would be very difficult from here to prove where how and when you were owed money from them.

(apologies for the multiple replies -, on my phone)