Bet 365 best paid boss hits £323m

[spxy]

also add to that  in inadequate taxation.

 

[Exiled Canadian]

1 minute ago, spxy said:

for point 2. Why have they learnt a lot of cash from a successful business? Overpriced good or services? Fraud? Monopoly? 

who knows - if their product was overpriced you'd have expected others to enter the market and compete away the profits, fraud would clearly be immoral, monopoly - if through the creation of a new product which is patented would seem to be a reward for innovation.

[Bluestone59]

1 hour ago, Exiled Canadian said:

My point was that I have concerns about the sector - fwiw I think that the rise of online gambling is very worrying.

My point was that if I ignored my concerns over the sector then a founder making money from a business they had successfully founded seems fine to me.

 

A list came to my notice because it was called "top 100 online bookies", suggesting more than 100 which not long ago, there were. 

You'll be pleased to hear that they are disappearing as the sector was oversubscribed, to say the least. A couple of biggies have ceased trading.

As I'm far away from being a fan of B365 - and I hate to say it - many of these firms made Coates' outfit look like a model of integrity, some were literally stealing from the few punters who stayed on board long enough to draw out money.

A few minutes spent on Trustpilot would prove illuminating, and shocking.

 

 

[Bluestone59]

1 hour ago, Exiled Canadian said:

who knows - if their product was overpriced you'd have expected others to enter the market and compete away the profits, fraud would clearly be immoral, monopoly - if through the creation of a new product which is patented would seem to be a reward for innovation.

If you can hold your nose tightly enough for long enough, the Mail, and others, have features today about Bet365 and Coates. Her house is interesting.

I already knew the layers were using algorythms but I believed it was to price up sporting events in a way that all but eliminates big priced surprise winners. It seems B365 are using them on the clients to get rid as soon as they show signs of what could prove to be costly skills. It was said they are first to do so.

There is some concensus imho among anyone hoping/trying to make a few bob that winning is by far the hardest it has ever been. Then again nobody has to bet on anything, or they should seek help.

[spxy]

2 hours ago, Exiled Canadian said:

who knows - if their product was overpriced you'd have expected others to enter the market and compete away the profits, fraud would clearly be immoral, monopoly - if through the creation of a new product which is patented would seem to be a reward for innovation.

she made 323million, the product is overpriced

[Orb]

Here's the mail one. It's worth a read. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7821167/Betting-firm-Bet365-uses-backdoor-algorithms-block-potential-big-winners.html#comments

 

[Bluestone59]

19 minutes ago, Orb said:

Here's the mail one. It's worth a read. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7821167/Betting-firm-Bet365-uses-backdoor-algorithms-block-potential-big-winners.html#comments

 

Having read a few of the comments and the B365 PR puff piece I found myself on the verge of changing sides tbh. 

As they themselves said and similar to what I said above, "there is no statutory right to bet." A US friend commented to me (not about this story) about the utter rubbish that only Brits put up with and things that happen here that wouldn't anywhere else; arguably this pay package seemingly in exchange for the punters' right to have even less chance of winning than with the competition is yet another example. "I don't understand Britain at all", he ended with. "Nor do we", I replied.

Either that or some folk really do think they represent value.  The Victorians openly believed in the freedom to enter into a disadvantageous contract.

[Pop321]

My original post was regarding director pay and how this example differs from plcs.......but I can see how Bet365 raises its own moral questions. 

Other than the traditional grand national I am lucky (certainly luckier than the ‘lucky’ customers at Bet365) because I have never bet. Those who do are daft but so are those who spend more money than than they can afford on drink and cigs...but I guess that’s how an addiction works so I genuinely don’t unfairly judge individuals. I guess many Bet365 customers are addicted to different extents and will not be worried about ‘odds or algorithms’ nor are they making considered decisions.

The business model and these companies seem hugely unfair preying on some of the most vulnerable people. All in order that one person can cream off £323m to buy nice stuff for themselves and live in a big house.

It’s an unfair world and the majority seem to think that’s ‘fair’ including many who are on the wrong side of luck. Fairness isn’t an attribute we seem value much at the moment. 

[GregBowman]

On 23/12/2019 at 13:44, Bluestone59 said:

If you can hold your nose tightly enough for long enough, the Mail, and others, have features today about Bet365 and Coates. Her house is interesting.

I already knew the layers were using algorythms but I believed it was to price up sporting events in a way that all but eliminates big priced surprise winners. It seems B365 are using them on the clients to get rid as soon as they show signs of what could prove to be costly skills. It was said they are first to do so.

There is some concensus imho among anyone hoping/trying to make a few bob that winning is by far the hardest it has ever been. Then again nobody has to bet on anything, or they should seek help.

Just another example of tech leveraging advantage over the client for any business - the tech is new the idea not so - casinos, race courses, betting chains have always banned successful punters 

[GregBowman]

23 hours ago, Pop321 said:

My original post was regarding director pay and how this example differs from plcs.......but I can see how Bet365 raises its own moral questions. 

Other than the traditional grand national I am lucky (certainly luckier than the ‘lucky’ customers at Bet365) because I have never bet. Those who do are daft but so are those who spend more money than than they can afford on drink and cigs...but I guess that’s how an addiction works so I genuinely don’t unfairly judge individuals. I guess many Bet365 customers are addicted to different extents and will not be worried about ‘odds or algorithms’ nor are they making considered decisions.

The business model and these companies seem hugely unfair preying on some of the most vulnerable people. All in order that one person can cream off £323m to buy nice stuff for themselves and live in a big house.

It’s an unfair world and the majority seem to think that’s ‘fair’ including many who are on the wrong side of luck. Fairness isn’t an attribute we seem value much at the moment. 

The moral questions it raises aren’t specific to that industry - substitute alcohol, cigarettes , fast cars, fast food, motorcycles that achieve 200mph for £13k ( I like those .....?) 
 

Society agrees the trade off - societal acceptance - the fairness - a trade off between damage done  and tax raised 

 

 

[regprentice]

On 23/12/2019 at 16:07, Orb said:

Here's the mail one. It's worth a read. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7821167/Betting-firm-Bet365-uses-backdoor-algorithms-block-potential-big-winners.html#comments

 

This is true of every bookie. Walk Into any branch of ladbrokes, William hill etc and after a few winning bets in row they will ask you not to come back. 

Bookies have been tempting punters in with big bonuses (£100) requiring large amounts to be bet before the free bet can be withdrawn (having to bet anything from £100 to £1200). Plenty of punters have been 'trapped' with £800 or £900 of bets left to place to bet their original deposit back, and been 'limited' to bets of no more than £2 on odds of no more than 2.0 (evens). Some bookies will happily confiscate your winnings and close your account.

Iirc bet365 offer a free £200 which can't be withdrawn until you have bet a total of £1200.

My wife quit her job when my second child was born and matched betting bookmakers offers kept me in holidays, days out and pocket money for the next 3 years. The govt needs to recognise that bookmakers offer the same function as stock markets, and that the same rules should apply. In fact betting through a bookmaker on currency or equity markets is more tax efficient as it isn't subject to tax. 

Hargreaves lansdown won't close my account because I made a profit, why should William hill, ladbrokes, bet365 be allowed to?

[Bluestone59]

5 hours ago, regprentice said:

This is true of every bookie. Walk Into any branch of ladbrokes, William hill etc and after a few winning bets in row they will ask you not to come back. 

Bookies have been tempting punters in with big bonuses (£100) requiring large amounts to be bet before the free bet can be withdrawn (having to bet anything from £100 to £1200). Plenty of punters have been 'trapped' with £800 or £900 of bets left to place to bet their original deposit back, and been 'limited' to bets of no more than £2 on odds of no more than 2.0 (evens). Some bookies will happily confiscate your winnings and close your account.

Iirc bet365 offer a free £200 which can't be withdrawn until you have bet a total of £1200.

My wife quit her job when my second child was born and matched betting bookmakers offers kept me in holidays, days out and pocket money for the next 3 years. The govt needs to recognise that bookmakers offer the same function as stock markets, and that the same rules should apply. In fact betting through a bookmaker on currency or equity markets is more tax efficient as it isn't subject to tax. 

Hargreaves lansdown won't close my account because I made a profit, why should William hill, ladbrokes, bet365 be allowed to?

The reason Hargreaves Lansdowne won't close your account is because they make money while it's open, irrespective of how your investments are doing.  It's not the same at all. 

Neither is incorporating a joint stock company especially similar to laying bets, unless I've missed the point. Wait a minute, maybe if a pension fund starts to struggle the trustees should get on a plane to Vegas and stick it all on red, which really is not much different to what Equitable Life did.

Do you actually believe Government should start telling bookies how to run their businesses (apart from with respect to the moral issues already discussed) given their record?

I think you'll find the precipitate closing of accounts is largely the on liners. If you were betting successfully on the high street you'd last a whole lot longer, unless they suspected you were money laundering or an ARBer.

[regprentice]

11 hours ago, Bluestone59 said:

The reason Hargreaves Lansdowne won't close your account is because they make money while it's open, irrespective of how your investments are doing.  It's not the same at all. 

Neither is incorporating a joint stock company especially similar to laying bets, unless I've missed the point. Wait a minute, maybe if a pension fund starts to struggle the trustees should get on a plane to Vegas and stick it all on red, which really is not much different to what Equitable Life did.

Do you actually believe Government should start telling bookies how to run their businesses (apart from with respect to the moral issues already discussed) given their record?

I think you'll find the precipitate closing of accounts is largely the on liners. If you were betting successfully on the high street you'd last a whole lot longer, unless they suspected you were money laundering or an ARBer.

A bookmaker with a properly balanced book makes money irrespective of who wins of loses as well. The idea that you can take the bookies to the cleaners or that they 'lose' when a outsider wins is a fallacy.

All bets made go into a pot, the winnings go to whoever bet on the winning side, that's usually 93-97% of what's in the pot. The bookie keeps the remaining 3-7% of what went into the pot. The odds offered are simply a representation of the proportion of cash in the pot already. Using the link above you can take the odds offered on any betting event and work out what percentage of the pot the bookmaker is keeping as profit.

In particular when a bookmaker like Bet365 pays out on a horse that came second, or pays out on a team to win the league even though there 2 games left to play, this is just a marketing gimmick, and Bet365s treasury team will have placed offsetting trades to ensure that they have locked in their profit (or a small loss they will class as a marketing cost) on the bets they are paying out as winning prior to announcing the payout.

So I'm arguing that, like Hargreaves Lansdown, the bookmaker profits no matter how much or how little I make. 

I'm also arguing that, in certain cases such as arbing as you point out, using a bookmaker or an exchange like Betfair performs broadly the function of an investment or in certain cases the stock market. The perceived added benefit being you don't pay tax on betting profits. 

Yes I'm an matched bettor, I haven't the patience for arbing. 10 years ago when I first started it wasn't well known. Today there are literally thousands of websites offering matched betting calculator, advice on matching bets, odds matching services. It's the sort of thing you hear young lads talking about at the bar on a Saturday afternoon. It gets recommended as a way to make extra money by websites like money saving expert where there is a matched betting forum. 

So my broader argument is that, whether bookies like it or not, a small but growing part of their customer base are using them as if they were the stock market, or hargreaves lansdown, and if that's an emerging financial service then it should be understood better by the government and regulated if possible go protect those people from having their accounts closed or money confiscated. Whether that user base is in the thousands or tens of thousands I've no idea.

Edited December 26, 2019 by regprentice

[Bluestone59]

2 hours ago, regprentice said:

A bookmaker with a properly balanced book makes money irrespective of who wins of loses as well. The idea that you can take the bookies to the cleaners or that they 'lose' when a outsider wins is a fallacy.

All bets made go into a pot, the winnings go to whoever bet on the winning side, that's usually 93-97% of what's in the pot. The bookie keeps the remaining 3-7% of what went into the pot. The odds offered are simply a representation of the proportion of cash in the pot already. Using the link above you can take the odds offered on any betting event and work out what percentage of the pot the bookmaker is keeping as profit.

In particular when a bookmaker like Bet365 pays out on a horse that came second, or pays out on a team to win the league even though there 2 games left to play, this is just a marketing gimmick, and Bet365s treasury team will have placed offsetting trades to ensure that they have locked in their profit (or a small loss they will class as a marketing cost) on the bets they are paying out as winning prior to announcing the payout.

So I'm arguing that, like Hargreaves Lansdown, the bookmaker profits no matter how much or how little I make. 

I'm also arguing that, in certain cases such as arbing as you point out, using a bookmaker or an exchange like Betfair performs broadly the function of an investment or in certain cases the stock market. The perceived added benefit being you don't pay tax on betting profits. 

Yes I'm an matched bettor, I haven't the patience for arbing. 10 years ago when I first started it wasn't well known. Today there are literally thousands of websites offering matched betting calculator, advice on matching bets, odds matching services. It's the sort of thing you hear young lads talking about at the bar on a Saturday afternoon. It gets recommended as a way to make extra money by websites like money saving expert where there is a matched betting forum. 

So my broader argument is that, whether bookies like it or not, a small but growing part of their customer base are using them as if they were the stock market, or hargreaves lansdown, and if that's an emerging financial service then it should be understood better by the government and regulated if possible go protect those people from having their accounts closed or money confiscated. Whether that user base is in the thousands or tens of thousands I've no idea.

Well argued and much better than your previous.  Bookies have been known to go broke, as you'll know, and are often caught out by big gambles, usually Irish it seems, so an unbalanced book is maybe not that rare?  I'm even quite impressed by the suggestion that the   M Os of the stock market and the layers are to an extent converging.  I still reckon though that a lot of people would find that laughable even though it makes more sense than I'd have thought.

You are clearly much more intelligent than I (not sarcasm) and I'd say that the weak spot in yours is that there's virtually no chance of the average MP taking this line of reasoning on board let alone working to change anything.

As long as HG have the freedom to close one's account, which I'm sure they do have even if it's not worthwhile to do so, then the bookies are likely to be able to retain that freedom also, despite the divergence in the respective financial outcomes.

Thanks for posting the interesting links.

[winkie]

Lots of money to be made from vulnerable people looking for hope, something short-term instant gratification.... something to kill the pain addiction......this time of year so much surface level all is good well being... but much deep sadness all around....the middle and upper are no different to those below, all be it they are more able to better hide it.....blessings, love and peace to all in the forthcoming 2020 vision decade......

[Pop321]

On 25/12/2019 at 07:29, GregBowman said:

...Society agrees the trade off - societal acceptance - the fairness - a trade off between damage done  and tax raised 

 

16 hours ago, winkie said:

Lots of money to be made from vulnerable people looking for hope, something short-term instant gratification.... something to kill the pain addiction......this time of year so much surface level all is good well being... but much deep sadness all around....the middle and upper are no different to those below, all be it they are more able to better hide it.....blessings, love and peace to all in the forthcoming 2020 vision decade......

Two very different styles but probably underlying the same Christmas messages.

Sorry Greg, hallmark have not accepted your application for a vacancy.?

Ps...not a dig at either of these two established Veterans, rather a holiday attempt at identifying a humorous contrast. ??

I like Greg’s harsh reality which is absolutely true. Raises X in tax, kills Y number of people = tipping point to keep it. No wonder the world is really being run by the hidden 0.05% hidden (or not so hidden) behind the muppet politicians. 

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

I’ve only been matched betting for about 3.5 years. Bet365 and their adoption of early payout offers have been a goldmine. Clear value and very scalable. Until they shut you down that is.

 

There has always been one thing that bothers me though. People are putting thousands of pounds a week (a day for some of them) through bet365 with no discernible income and yet bet365 ask very little questions. I know we tended to be in profit or slight loss so despite the turnover weren’t actually that bad but still, who is legitimately spending all this money through them? 
 

Especially as the matched betting crowd are betting in the names of other people to take advantage of the offers with very little challenge.

Edited January 2, 2020 by EmmaRoid #FBPE#JC4PM#GTTO

[wighty]

 

The sports betting is a better way to earn profit in long term. Over the short term when playing casino game it is of course possible to win and win big. That's why I play here - https://casinohex.co.uk/online-casinos/aspers/ . This casino gives me a chance to play 30+ types of board games. I never get bored.

• Players from United Kingdom not accepted