FOBT's cut to £2 maximum stake

[Doobs]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/25/william-hills-asks-for-rent-cuts-to-offset-loss-in-fixed-odds-income

Hills managed their over the counter business terribly for 20 years since the cash cows arrived now want the landlords to take the hit because they can't make their core business pay.  You couldn't make it up.  Get your prices right and lay a bet and then your pre 2000 business might return.  Remember you are called William Hill bookmakers not william hill casino.

I have been pretty heavily restricted for a while, so didn't have a bet with hills for 6 months.   I thought they might let me have a bit more on.   Just to test the water, I bet 3 horses, no dirty each way, all were just £25 each way.  Two well and truly lost; the other was Frodon.   I took 7/1 fifth first 3, but could have got quarter first 3 elsewhere and 8/1 was available on the morning.   Pretty sure I could have done better on betfair too. Of course Frodon shortened, but was well exposed and no dark horse, and the 7/1 was still available for some time after my bet.   

I got a further restrictions letter straight after Cheltenham.  They should be massively embarassed about that.

[Marky147]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/25/william-hills-asks-for-rent-cuts-to-offset-loss-in-fixed-odds-income

Hills managed their over the counter business terribly for 20 years since the cash cows arrived now want the landlords to take the hit because they can't make their core business pay.  You couldn't make it up.  Get your prices right and lay a bet and then your pre 2000 business might return.  Remember you are called William Hill bookmakers not william hill casino.

I have been pretty heavily restricted for a while, so didn't have a bet with hills for 6 months.   I thought they might let me have a bit more on.   Just to test the water, I bet 3 horses, no dirty each way, all were just £25 each way.  Two well and truly lost; the other was Frodon.   I took 7/1 fifth first 3, but could have got quarter first 3 elsewhere and 8/1 was available on the morning.   Pretty sure I could have done better on betfair too. Of course Frodon shortened, but was well exposed and no dark horse, and the 7/1 was still available for some time after my bet.  

I got a further restrictions letter straight after Cheltenham.  They should be massively embarassed about that.

I got one the week after Chelts, too.

After a recent trading review, we wish to advise you that your account has had all sports and gaming concessions* removed and stake restrictions may apply moving forward.

They were a bit slow with their a/r markets, and I got on Tiger @ 4/1 & Early Doors @ 16/1 when Tiger was much shorter for the X-C & Early was shorter in most h/cap markets.

That said, I had an absolute bunch of a/r bets with them and they got ironed out. Definitely somewhere I'll be more careful next year.

[Doobs]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/25/william-hills-asks-for-rent-cuts-to-offset-loss-in-fixed-odds-income

Hills managed their over the counter business terribly for 20 years since the cash cows arrived now want the landlords to take the hit because they can't make their core business pay.  You couldn't make it up.  Get your prices right and lay a bet and then your pre 2000 business might return.  Remember you are called William Hill bookmakers not william hill casino.

I have been pretty heavily restricted for a while, so didn't have a bet with hills for 6 months.   I thought they might let me have a bit more on.   Just to test the water, I bet 3 horses, no dirty each way, all were just £25 each way.  Two well and truly lost; the other was Frodon.   I took 7/1 fifth first 3, but could have got quarter first 3 elsewhere and 8/1 was available on the morning.   Pretty sure I could have done better on betfair too. Of course Frodon shortened, but was well exposed and no dark horse, and the 7/1 was still available for some time after my bet.  

I got a further restrictions letter straight after Cheltenham.  They should be massively embarassed about that.

I got one the week after Chelts, too.

After a recent trading review, we wish to advise you that your account has had all sports and gaming concessions* removed and stake restrictions may apply moving forward.

They were a bit slow with their a/r markets, and I got on Tiger @ 4/1 & Early Doors @ 16/1 when Tiger was much shorter for the X-C & Early was shorter in most h/cap markets.

That said, I had an absolute bunch of a/r bets with them and they got ironed out. Definitely somewhere I'll be more careful next year.

I wasn't even best pricing, just 3 bets which clearly weren't that great at the time.   I assumed they let me bet "so big" because max limits were much bigger for Cheltenham.   If I'd put a big bet on some massive ante post price on a future favourite in a novice event, or I'd took some of the 6 places in a 12 runner race, I'd get why they put restrictions on.  But it was £25 each way on a well known horse in a feature race with lousy each way terms.

I figure someone could have just fecked up and took restrictions off for Cheltenham (wish I'd known!), but I suspect they genuinely think that I had a great bet simply because it won.

[Marky147]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/25/william-hills-asks-for-rent-cuts-to-offset-loss-in-fixed-odds-income

Hills managed their over the counter business terribly for 20 years since the cash cows arrived now want the landlords to take the hit because they can't make their core business pay.  You couldn't make it up.  Get your prices right and lay a bet and then your pre 2000 business might return.  Remember you are called William Hill bookmakers not william hill casino.

I have been pretty heavily restricted for a while, so didn't have a bet with hills for 6 months.   I thought they might let me have a bit more on.   Just to test the water, I bet 3 horses, no dirty each way, all were just £25 each way.  Two well and truly lost; the other was Frodon.   I took 7/1 fifth first 3, but could have got quarter first 3 elsewhere and 8/1 was available on the morning.   Pretty sure I could have done better on betfair too. Of course Frodon shortened, but was well exposed and no dark horse, and the 7/1 was still available for some time after my bet.  

I got a further restrictions letter straight after Cheltenham.  They should be massively embarassed about that.

I got one the week after Chelts, too.

After a recent trading review, we wish to advise you that your account has had all sports and gaming concessions* removed and stake restrictions may apply moving forward.

They were a bit slow with their a/r markets, and I got on Tiger @ 4/1 & Early Doors @ 16/1 when Tiger was much shorter for the X-C & Early was shorter in most h/cap markets.

That said, I had an absolute bunch of a/r bets with them and they got ironed out. Definitely somewhere I'll be more careful next year.

I wasn't even best pricing, just 3 bets which clearly weren't that great at the time.   I assumed they let me bet "so big" because max limits were much bigger for Cheltenham.   If I'd put a big bet on some massive ante post price on a future favourite in a novice event, or I'd took some of the 6 places in a 12 runner race, I'd get why they put restrictions on.  But it was £25 each way on a well known horse in a feature race with lousy each way terms.

I figure someone could have just fecked up and took restrictions off for Cheltenham (wish I'd known!), but I suspect they genuinely think that I had a great bet simply because it won.

Really odd. I remember Padraig banning me ages ago, and then they started letting me get on to win 5/600 on some races.
They let me have a score on Theatre Territory for the Topham, so all is not dead.

[SuuPRlim]

The big bookies are defo in some bother, imo. For years the strat has been not to employ proper traders and just stick someone in on a junior salary to sit there with a checklist of what they dont wanna see and ban anyone who touches the list, the guys who's job is it to primarily stop people who are making winning bets obviously will be quite nitty as they'll never get pulled in monday and asked, "why you ban this guy" but they'll defo get the "WTF how did you let this guy bet" chat, also when you add in the cost of processing money there's a lot of small losing punters the firms dont even want. It's probably been a prudent strategy over the years as top traders are expensive given they will always earn more punting themselves or working with the syndicates and that money could get pushed into the every present PR/Marketing war that rages between the big guns, hard to ever not make money running a huge bookie like this, and let the cash-cow of the retail element (FOBTS) pay all the bonuses.

Now the FOBT business is hit and the AML restrictions make it all the more difficult to actually attract the right punters, they probs need to re-asses the business model, this is me shooting from the hip but i seriously wonder if huge, now completely corporate businesses are even capable of the changes needed, might be they're actually just not good enough and maybe we'll see one of the big guns fade away at some point. Lads/Coral under the GVC umbrella could just get binned off if they can't turn the retail side round, betfred have the worst online software and no partnership, who knows, 10 years ago you'd have laughed anyone out of the room who said Billy Hills might go out of business. I'm not saying starting to take punters on properly is absolutely what they should be doing but I think they need to do something different.

I never been massively aggravated by bookies restricting people, just all part of the game, I wanna make bets, they don't wanna take my bets, like a sporting contest, they certainly aren't obligated to take my business just as a carpet fitter would be perfectly entitled to turn to me and say "Im not fitting your carpets because I don't like your face"

[Chompy]

Shame about Hills, they're been the pick of a poor bunch in recent times. Guess it was only a matter of time though.

Things will get worse before they get better imo. Betbright and 188 will be far from the last to vanish.

[arbboy]

The big bookies are defo in some bother, imo. For years the strat has been not to employ proper traders and just stick someone in on a junior salary to sit there with a checklist of what they dont wanna see and ban anyone who touches the list, the guys who's job is it to primarily stop people who are making winning bets obviously will be quite nitty as they'll never get pulled in monday and asked, "why you ban this guy" but they'll defo get the "WTF how did you let this guy bet" chat, also when you add in the cost of processing money there's a lot of small losing punters the firms dont even want. It's probably been a prudent strategy over the years as top traders are expensive given they will always earn more punting themselves or working with the syndicates and that money could get pushed into the every present PR/Marketing war that rages between the big guns, hard to ever not make money running a huge bookie like this, and let the cash-cow of the retail element (FOBTS) pay all the bonuses.

Now the FOBT business is hit and the AML restrictions make it all the more difficult to actually attract the right punters, they probs need to re-asses the business model, this is me shooting from the hip but i seriously wonder if huge, now completely corporate businesses are even capable of the changes needed, might be they're actually just not good enough and maybe we'll see one of the big guns fade away at some point. Lads/Coral under the GVC umbrella could just get binned off if they can't turn the retail side round, betfred have the worst online software and no partnership, who knows, 10 years ago you'd have laughed anyone out of the room who said Billy Hills might go out of business. I'm not saying starting to take punters on properly is absolutely what they should be doing but I think they need to do something different.

I never been massively aggravated by bookies restricting people, just all part of the game, I wanna make bets, they don't wanna take my bets, like a sporting contest, they certainly aren't obligated to take my business just as a carpet fitter would be perfectly entitled to turn to me and say "Im not fitting your carpets because I don't like your face"

Who would have thought 10 years ago lolbrokes and jokals would have to merge to even remotely stay relevant and bf would have a sporttsbook and need to merge with paddy power to remotely stay relevant to Denise.  Skybet would be 'Britains biggest bookmaker.  Stan James 'the original in running firm' doesn't even exist anymore.  Hills and Bald have just stood still and ten years on from 2009 online poker is so irrelevant to any decision any gaming company makes it wouldn't have been beleived in 2009.

I wouldn't like to have had a market leading business with Denise and Co right up my arse about to swallow me up.

They haven't helped themselves though.  Unsurprising how the FOBT's were the huge cash cow but the three biggest firms in the uk now (apart from bf's small number of paddy shops) have zero exposure to fobts at all for a decade.  The arrogance and laziness fobt's caused in the firms that had them has ultimately killed them all off as serious players in the market place.  The key years for online growth and market share hoovering was the same years the fobt's were having it off.  Ultimately the FOBT firms have killed the goose that laid the golden egg by taking the easy money short term but losing out massively long term in market share in the online game where in 2020 that is all that matters.

[youthnkzR]

The big bookies are defo in some bother, imo. For years the strat has been not to employ proper traders and just stick someone in on a junior salary to sit there with a checklist of what they dont wanna see and ban anyone who touches the list, the guys who's job is it to primarily stop people who are making winning bets obviously will be quite nitty as they'll never get pulled in monday and asked, "why you ban this guy" but they'll defo get the "WTF how did you let this guy bet" chat, also when you add in the cost of processing money there's a lot of small losing punters the firms dont even want. It's probably been a prudent strategy over the years as top traders are expensive given they will always earn more punting themselves or working with the syndicates and that money could get pushed into the every present PR/Marketing war that rages between the big guns, hard to ever not make money running a huge bookie like this, and let the cash-cow of the retail element (FOBTS) pay all the bonuses.

Now the FOBT business is hit and the AML restrictions make it all the more difficult to actually attract the right punters, they probs need to re-asses the business model, this is me shooting from the hip but i seriously wonder if huge, now completely corporate businesses are even capable of the changes needed, might be they're actually just not good enough and maybe we'll see one of the big guns fade away at some point. Lads/Coral under the GVC umbrella could just get binned off if they can't turn the retail side round, betfred have the worst online software and no partnership, who knows, 10 years ago you'd have laughed anyone out of the room who said Billy Hills might go out of business. I'm not saying starting to take punters on properly is absolutely what they should be doing but I think they need to do something different.

I never been massively aggravated by bookies restricting people, just all part of the game, I wanna make bets, they don't wanna take my bets, like a sporting contest, they certainly aren't obligated to take my business just as a carpet fitter would be perfectly entitled to turn to me and say "Im not fitting your carpets because I don't like your face"

Who would have thought 10 years ago lolbrokes and jokals would have to merge to even remotely stay relevant and bf would have a sporttsbook and need to merge with paddy power to remotely stay relevant to Denise.  Skybet would be 'Britains biggest bookmaker.  Stan James 'the original in running firm' doesn't even exist anymore.  Hills and Bald have just stood still and ten years on from 2009 online poker is so irrelevant to any decision any gaming company makes it wouldn't have been beleived in 2009.

I wouldn't like to have had a market leading business with Denise and Co right up my arse about to swallow me up.

They haven't helped themselves though.  Unsurprising how the FOBT's were the huge cash cow but the three biggest firms in the uk now (apart from bf's small number of paddy shops) have zero exposure to fobts at all for a decade.  The arrogance and laziness fobt's caused in the firms that had them has ultimately killed them all off as serious players in the market place.  The key years for online growth and market share hoovering was the same years the fobt's were having it off.  Ultimately the FOBT firms have killed the goose that laid the golden egg by taking the easy money short term but losing out massively long term in market share in the online game where in 2020 that is all that matters.

Sorry to hijack but Tikay if you were reading the heads up table thread in the sky poker forum this is exactly what spin ups are doing.

[SuuPRlim]

The big bookies are defo in some bother, imo. For years the strat has been not to employ proper traders and just stick someone in on a junior salary to sit there with a checklist of what they dont wanna see and ban anyone who touches the list, the guys who's job is it to primarily stop people who are making winning bets obviously will be quite nitty as they'll never get pulled in monday and asked, "why you ban this guy" but they'll defo get the "WTF how did you let this guy bet" chat, also when you add in the cost of processing money there's a lot of small losing punters the firms dont even want. It's probably been a prudent strategy over the years as top traders are expensive given they will always earn more punting themselves or working with the syndicates and that money could get pushed into the every present PR/Marketing war that rages between the big guns, hard to ever not make money running a huge bookie like this, and let the cash-cow of the retail element (FOBTS) pay all the bonuses.

Now the FOBT business is hit and the AML restrictions make it all the more difficult to actually attract the right punters, they probs need to re-asses the business model, this is me shooting from the hip but i seriously wonder if huge, now completely corporate businesses are even capable of the changes needed, might be they're actually just not good enough and maybe we'll see one of the big guns fade away at some point. Lads/Coral under the GVC umbrella could just get binned off if they can't turn the retail side round, betfred have the worst online software and no partnership, who knows, 10 years ago you'd have laughed anyone out of the room who said Billy Hills might go out of business. I'm not saying starting to take punters on properly is absolutely what they should be doing but I think they need to do something different.

I never been massively aggravated by bookies restricting people, just all part of the game, I wanna make bets, they don't wanna take my bets, like a sporting contest, they certainly aren't obligated to take my business just as a carpet fitter would be perfectly entitled to turn to me and say "Im not fitting your carpets because I don't like your face"

Who would have thought 10 years ago lolbrokes and jokals would have to merge to even remotely stay relevant and bf would have a sporttsbook and need to merge with paddy power to remotely stay relevant to Denise.  Skybet would be 'Britains biggest bookmaker.  Stan James 'the original in running firm' doesn't even exist anymore.  Hills and Bald have just stood still and ten years on from 2009 online poker is so irrelevant to any decision any gaming company makes it wouldn't have been beleived in 2009.

I wouldn't like to have had a market leading business with Denise and Co right up my arse about to swallow me up.

They haven't helped themselves though.  Unsurprising how the FOBT's were the huge cash cow but the three biggest firms in the uk now (apart from bf's small number of paddy shops) have zero exposure to fobts at all for a decade.  The arrogance and laziness fobt's caused in the firms that had them has ultimately killed them all off as serious players in the market place.  The key years for online growth and market share hoovering was the same years the fobt's were having it off.  Ultimately the FOBT firms have killed the goose that laid the golden egg by taking the easy money short term but losing out massively long term in market share in the online game where in 2020 that is all that matters.

agree Arb. Very well said, time for a 'proper bookie' to emerge perhaps, problem is starting today utterly suffocated by AML/RG/KYC means it's very difficult.

[arbboy]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/30/bookmakers-prepare-for-store-closures-as-fobt-stake-cut

Got to love some of the punters comments in this piece!

[Chompy]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/01/bookmakers-bet-on-roulette-style-games-to-bypass-new-fobt-rules?CMP=share_btn_tw

[atdc21]

What amazes me is that, people are amazed the bookies have instantly introduced 'similar' but 'different' games, whether on a machine or over counter. prob easier for them to think up a new game and get around the law than to try and teach someone to work out odds on real events.

[Longines]

PP and BetFred have pulled the new games with immediate effect.

[arbboy]

PP and BetFred have pulled the new games with immediate effect.

Took them a day to realise that machine wagons have no idea what a pen and a betting slip are/or even exist in a betting shop. 

[arbboy]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/02/paddy-power-and-betfred-pull-games-as-regulator-investigates