Bookmakers Don’t Need 95% of Their Customers

Clued up punters have a problem. Bookmakers don’t want to take their money.

I have enjoyed some success over the years but we are now entering a new phase.

If you’ve any idea what you’re doing, you’ve virtually no chance of getting a decent bet filled nowadays.

The Gambling Commission provides useful pieces of information from time to time. It estimates that 85% of bookmakers’ profits come from around 5% of the accounts.

Bookmakers will be highly aware of that, certainly judging by all the special offers they hand out to new customers and the restrictions they place on other clients.

People will be aware of the challenges I had when William Hill decided they didn’t want to pay me out and insisted on repeated requests for my source of funds, even though I explained why I placed bets when I did and provided them with details of savings accounts, along with 3 months of bank statements.

When they paid me, the circumstances hadn’t changed except that I had filed a complaint against them. I received an email from them saying that I was no longer allowed to place further bets with William Hill, something they would have been aware of for the duration of the 9 months when they were refusing to pay me out.

They know what they are doing. It’s relatively easy to work out how clued up a customer is, but the net has been widened now. It used to be that if you were making money from them then they would shut you out but there appears to be a new approach in town. If you aren’t in that 5% of customers who regularly lose money you are of little interest to them. Maybe you drop £100 a year – waste of their time when there are rich pickings to be had elsewhere.

I feel sorry for the Racing Post. I used to be in contact about some of the bookmaker shenanigans and they would keep them straight, but those days are gone. The bookmakers pay the wages and dictate what they can and can’t do. I sent a letter which was critical of William Hill. They printed a watered- down version and never mentioned William Hill by name, thus removing most of the significance of my letter.

Bookmakers can use the Know Your Customer (KYC) checks for their own nefarious means obtaining information about their clients that banks wouldn’t be asking for.

I’m not sure that bookmakers want much to do with racing. Times have changed. Punters who bet on horse racing are more likely to have a certain awareness as they are investing in something where an opinion counts.

People playing casino games have no chance of winning over time and bookmakers know that, so why waste time with opinion-based betting. The money tree is elsewhere.

I have a model in my head of how it works. There are professional punters. They must be removed as they take money out of the coffers. Then there are the reasonably clued up, not really worth the bottom line. There are people who hand over their money on a regular basis, better if they are playing games of chance as it that will guarantee the continued hand over of funds and then there’s the group who haven’t a clue or have an addiction. These are the people bookmakers have to target to keep their profits up. Punters who don’t know when to stop.

By default, this is how it is. If I blatantly block somebody who knows what they are doing then I need to encourage somebody who doesn’t understand the market or who isn’t in control of what they are doing. Imagine I can also ask for all their information and they can afford their losses. Jackpot time!

Of great concern is all this talk about the black market. These are sites that aren’t regulated, that if you can’t get on with other bookies you might go to. The Gambling Commission is right about responsible gambling and the so-called reputable bookies have taken liberties, so imagine what it would be like if they didn’t have any responsibility placed upon them – enter the black market.

I can’t imagine heading off there. After all, it’s been difficult enough to get paid out by a supposedly respectable bookmaker, so I dread to think what the challenges could be with a company that’s not regulated, but it’s a growing problem the Gambling Commission need to find a solution to. By trying to ensure regulated bookmakers have a conscience they might find a new market takes its place.

I’ve given my opinion in previous articles on some of the steps that could be taken. This is a serious issue that ranks low in a list of government priorities, unfortunate yet understandable. We’ve had a White Paper on football regulation. It’s time for the review into gambling to be published but it needs to be produced with a comprehension of how betting operates, not an external view from afar.

Perhaps there are more problem gamblers than originally thought or, whisper it quietly, maybe more money launderers.