# Bookmaker Profits



## QED (27 Aug 2008)

Paddy Power have estimated 2008 Profits to be approx €80,000,000.

This means that the public are expected to lose a net total of €80m plus Paddy Power costs in 2008!! (The Punters Pal ???) 

This is a huge amount of money and I suspect that a lot of it will be lost over the internet. Paddy Power is only one of a large number of bookmakers making ten's of millions each year.

Does anyone else think that there is a case for tighter regulation or full closure of the bookmaker sites?


----------



## ClubMan (27 Aug 2008)

QED said:


> Does anyone else think that there is a case for tighter regulation or full closure of the bookmaker sites?


Why should grown adults not be able to choose what they do with their own money?


----------



## QED (27 Aug 2008)

Then what if I want to buy lots of bombs and guns and heroin.

Why stop me damaging myself and people close to me??


----------



## ClubMan (27 Aug 2008)

QED said:


> Then what if I want to buy lots of bombs and guns and heroin.


They are illegal. Gambling is not.


> Why stop me damaging myself and people close to me??


Personally I don't believe that legislation should aim to circumscribe what consenting adults choose to do as long as it *does *not harm the person or property of other non consenting third parties. Even if it does harm the individual themselves. For example I would not be averse to currently illegal drugs being legalised but obviously that is not the case and it is unlikely to happen. Some people are always going to (ab)use such drugs and all the legislation in the world is obviously not stopping that. Legislating for such matters just drives the problem underground and plays into the hands of criminals. Obviously we already do have legislation that does circumscribe what individuals can do even if is essentially their own private business (e.g. your guns and heroin non sequitur above) and I respect such laws but I don't see the need for extending state interference into the lives of individuals. Basically as an ideal I toe a pretty standard _Libertarian _line.


----------



## LDFerguson (27 Aug 2008)

QED said:


> Then what if I want to buy lots of bombs and guns and heroin.
> 
> Why stop me damaging myself and people close to me??


 
I think there's a huge difference between gambling and the examples you cite.  

Lots of people (myself included) enjoy an occasional bet without becoming addicted or harming themselves or anyone close to them.  Ditto alcohol.  

Can you say the same about heroin?  

Or planting bombs?


----------



## rmelly (27 Aug 2008)

QED said:


> Does anyone else think that there is a case for tighter regulation or full closure of the bookmaker sites?


 
No


----------



## Caveat (27 Aug 2008)

Have to say I've never understood the whole betting thing.

_Handing over money with only an outside chance of profiting from it, and doing it again and again? _

No thanks.  I've never placed a bet in my life and never will.

However, I don't think there is any need for tighter control/regulation etc either.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Aug 2008)

Some very interesting stats in the PP statement. About half the profit comes on-line, and of this about 1/3rd from Ireland. So doing a GWB on it and banning internet gambling in Ireland would take about 1/6th off that 80M profit. Or do you mean ban bookies altogether? Used to be the case, went underground. It is the case in France where the State is only official bookie.

PP reports a 9% profit on sporting bets struck. I personally prefer Betfair where the percentage is about 2%.

The real statistic that we want is what is the average percentage of punter's disposable income lost in gambling. Very hard to estimate that but 80M is about 1 per mil of GNP. Yes there are other bookies and not everyone bets, but no real evidence that this is sapping the economic fibre of the nation.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Aug 2008)

Harchibald said:


> no real evidence that this is sapping the economic fibre of the nation.


Maybe others such as the original poster is worried about something else - e.g. "moral" fibre?


----------



## z106 (27 Aug 2008)

QED said:


> Then what if I want to buy lots of bombs and guns and heroin.
> 
> Why stop me damaging myself and people close to me??


 
That's a nonsensical argument.

Bombs and guns and heroin have a serious nehagtive effect on society.
Therefore - for the greater good they are banned.

Gambling has a minimal effect on society as a whole.

Not so minimal for the people involved who suffer an addiction or whatever.

But you can't ban teh whole thing for everybody due to the tiny minority that can't control their addiction - particularly when it doesn't an adverse on society as a whole.

By that argumnet you would also outlaw alcohol.


----------



## Sunny (27 Aug 2008)

QED said:


> Does anyone else think that there is a case for tighter regulation or full closure of the bookmaker sites?


 
I did feel like that straight after Cheltenham this year.


----------



## Teabag (27 Aug 2008)

Mr Patrick Power has a lot of Teabag's money and Teabag wants it back.

In fairness, my 6 part accumulator was all resting on Armagh beating Wexford (SFC) for the windfall that I deserve. A certainty !!
Alas no, Durty Wexicans !! What do they know about football ?!


----------



## Green (27 Aug 2008)

QED said:


> Does anyone else think that there is a case for tighter regulation or full closure of the bookmaker sites?


 
I agree with Clubmans and others earlier comments except in one regard, to the best of my knowledge there is no legal recourse to an individual who is not paid by a bookmaker...in others words, there is no piece of legislation which makes it illegal for a bookermaker not to pay out on a winning bet.


----------



## MOB (27 Aug 2008)

"Gambling has a minimal effect on society as a whole.

Not so minimal for the people involved who suffer an addiction or whatever."

It is the business of any business to increase its profits.   The most profitable customers for any gambling operator are those who cannot control their gambling.   So the business has a strong inbuilt incentive to target those who are most likely to be victims.   


This is why it is appropriate to regulate gambling.   Whether such regulation should be a light touch or a heavy touch is a whole are of debate beyond the scope of this discussion.

While my views are mostly leaning in a libertarian direction, I also like to have a sort of cost benefit analysis:  Does the relatively mild pleasure given to many people by the widespread availability of gambling more than outweigh the relatively extreme distress which this availability brings to a small minority?   

I must admit that I am not at all sure it does.    

As a practising solicitor, I have daily access to very large sums of other people's money.   I would not ever use any sort of online gambling site for fear of the (admittedly remote) possibility that if I got in the habit,  I might someday become a problem gambler.   I would have no difficulty whatever with a rule which forbade any practising solicitor from using online gambling sites.   

I do feel that gambling is a little different to many other businesses in one sense:  for many gambling operations, it is virtually impossible to lose money.  If we ever get a casino in this country, it is a guaranteed moneymaker.   The right to make a guaranteed profit is not something which should lightly be handed over to the private sector.   The inexplicable and seemingly endless desire of the public to lose their money is,  in a sense,  a national resource, and it should be priced properly before being leased, licenced or sold.

As I understand the 'Betfair' type business, this is a sort of exchange where gamblers are both placing and taking bets, while the operator takes a 'skim' off the top.  I understand that the same applies to online poker and such like.   This at least has a veneer of democracy to it.   It seems to me that this is a slightly less objectionable form of gambling, in that there is no 'house' to lose all your money to, and you only lose lots if you are, on average, worse.  Probably the worst form of gambling is the dreadful 'fixed odds terminal' aka one armed bandit.


----------



## z106 (27 Aug 2008)

MOB said:


> Does the relatively mild pleasure given to many people by the widespread availability of gambling more than outweigh the relatively extreme distress which this availability brings to a small minority?
> 
> I must admit that I am not at all sure it does.


 
I definitely think it does. 

In my book it's pretty hard to beat a sunday nights entertainment in front of sky sports watching the last day of a USPGA tour event while sitting on front of betfair with teh odds shifting after each shot.

Also - keep in mind that if betting was outlawed teh whoel horse racing industry woudl basically be non-existant in this country.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Aug 2008)

MOB said:


> I do feel that gambling is a little different to many other businesses in one sense: for many gambling operations, it is virtually impossible to lose money.


Gambling is no different from any other business - if it is virtually impossible to lose money that would be because of lack of competition, not because of something inherent in the economic activity. There is these days very great competition amongst bookies, especially those on-line. Betfair margins are very thin indeed. Like other businesses, competition has led to consolidation and an industry being dominated by a few big conglomerates who have the economies of scale.  Believe me, I know punters get a far far better deal these days than in the past, and far superior to France where the state monopoly leads to awful value.

Bookies, like many industries, still have pockets of limited competition, e.g. the local bookies' shop, but some day betting activity will surely *all* be online and then it will be every bit as competitive as that most perfect of markets, the stock exchange itself.


----------



## MOB (28 Aug 2008)

"Gambling is no different from any other business - if it is virtually impossible to lose money that would be because of lack of competition, not because of something inherent in the economic activity.  There is these days very great competition amongst bookies"

I accept that this is probably the case with bookmakers.   However, it is not the case with all forms of gambling and in particular, if we get a casino in this country (as has frequently been mooted) it will be a guaranteed money machine.  I hope the State gets its fair cut when this necessary amenity is finally visited upon us.


----------



## ClubMan (28 Aug 2008)

YOBR said:


> to the best of my knowledge there is no legal recourse to an individual who is not paid by a bookmaker...in others words, there is no piece of legislation which makes it illegal for a bookermaker not to pay out on a winning bet.


Does normal contract law not apply?


----------



## jhegarty (28 Aug 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Does normal contract law not apply?



Nope , gambling debts are not enforceable from either side...


----------



## ClubMan (28 Aug 2008)

MOB said:


> It is the business of any business to increase its profits.   The most profitable customers for any gambling operator are those who cannot control their gambling.   So the business has a strong inbuilt incentive to target those who are most likely to be victims.


You could make the same arguments (regardless of its basis in fact) about, say, lenders targeting spendaholics, drinks companies targeting alcos, fast food companies targeting fatsos, leisure companies targeting layabouts, quack therapists and religions organizations targeting the gullible etc. Hard cases make bad law and, in my opinion, the majority who can make reasonably responsible decisions about consuming the various goods and services on offer should not be penalised by legislation framed to protect the minority who cannot *from themselves *and their poor decisions.


> Does the relatively mild pleasure given to many people by the widespread availability of gambling more than outweigh the relatively extreme distress which this availability brings to a small minority?
> 
> I must admit that I am not at all sure it does.


Based on what analysis of hard data?   Or is it just a hunch/prejudice of yours?


> As a practising solicitor, I have daily access to very large sums of other people's money.   I would not ever use any sort of online gambling site for fear of the (admittedly remote) possibility that if I got in the habit,  I might someday become a problem gambler.   I would have no difficulty whatever with a rule which forbade any practising solicitor from using online gambling sites.


So maybe the issue here is that solicitors' access to clients' funds should be more strictly regulated and circumscribed rather than targeting the availability of gambling services to the general public or any subset of same?


----------



## MOB (28 Aug 2008)

"You could make the same arguments (regardless of its basis in fact) about, say, lenders targeting spendaholics, drinks companies targeting alcos, fast food companies targeting fatsos, leisure companies targeting layabouts, quack therapists and religions organizations targeting the gullible etc. Hard cases make bad law and, in my opinion, the majority who can make reasonably responsible decisions about consuming the various goods and services on offer should not be penalised by legislation framed to protect the minority who cannot from themselves and their poor decisions."

You could indeed make the same arguments.  They are already made and enforced to some extent.  That is why, for example, we have restrictions on both alcohol and tobacco advertising.  Indeed, though I think myself that some of them go too far, we also have restrictions on advertising by lenders. 



"Based on what analysis of hard data? Or is it just a hunch/prejudice of yours?"

Hunch.  I don't think we have the technology available to measure aggregate gambling pleasure.


"So maybe the issue here is that solicitors' access to clients' funds should be more strictly regulated and circumscribed rather than targeting the availability of gambling services to the general public or any subset of same? "

This may well be the road we should go - though of course there are downsides.  If, for example, client funds had to go into individual escrow accounts, and if joint authority of client and solicitor were then required to release funds, it would add quite a bit to transaction costs (for which the client would ultimately pay) but it would free me from the worry that I will have to put my hand in my pocket again to pay for the transgressions of another solicitor who did not understand the basic concepts of mine and thine.   

However, in the meantime, I don't think it at all inappropriate that solicitors (and indeed stockbrokers, auctioneers and others who control large sums of other people's money) should be prohibited- at a minimum - from having a situation where an online gambling facility and client funds are or can be accessed from the same computer.  

My own view - which is perhaps a little Spartan- is that people who handle client money should not gamble online, period.


----------



## ClubMan (28 Aug 2008)

MOB said:


> My own view - which is perhaps a little Spartan- is that people who handle client money should not gamble online, period.


Obviously you should live by your own principles so. But you should not expect others to necessarily do likewise never mind be forced to by legislation.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

I don't agree. If I give my hard earned money to an auctioneer, solicitor or other deposit-handling business, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the State to take measures to protect my funds. If this means prohibiting the deposit-handler from certain activities, so be it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2008)

Getting back to the OP. The internet has been a marvellous boon to the punter. I think bookies have mixed views. They certainly scramble for a piece of the action, I myself have picked up about €500 in "free" bets in this scramble. 

In my youth I used to have the odd bet on the horses. I knew the sums and resented them. Bookies mark-up was about 25% and there was a further 20% tax. Now I can bet on Betfair with a c. 3% mark-up, or if patient, no mark-up at all and 0% tax - yep, the Internet is undoubtedly responsible for the taxman being unable to get his cut.

As for MOB and the temptation to divert client funds to his bookie, what about to his stockbroker? It is rather hard to envisage a solicitor placing 100K of his client's funds on the 2.30 at Redcar, but not at all hard to see him buying 100K worth of XYZ shares.


----------



## Mpsox (28 Aug 2008)

MOB said:


> "Does the relatively mild pleasure given to many people by the widespread availability of gambling more than outweigh the relatively extreme distress which this availability brings to a small minority?
> 
> I must admit that I am not at all sure it does.
> 
> .


  Change the word gambling in the above quote to any of the following
Drinking
Smoking
the Internet
McDonalds or any fast food outlets
Day trading for shares

Life would be a bit more boring. In fact, why not ban everything that could be harmful to someone?

Seriously, gambling in Ireland is regulated and to me the balance between what is allowed and not allowed whilst not perfect, is not the worst in the world. For example I would not like to see more slot machines and casinos.


----------



## Ceist Beag (28 Aug 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Obviously you should live by your own principles so. But you should not expect others to necessarily do likewise never mind be forced to by legislation.



Absolutely agree with this. I'm quite surprised at some of the conservative views on this. With talk often cropping up about this becoming too much of a nanny state what some people are looking for here sounds like just that to me.


----------



## ClubMan (28 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I don't agree. If I give my hard earned money to an auctioneer, solicitor or other deposit-handling business, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the State to take measures to protect my funds. If this means prohibiting the deposit-handler from certain activities, so be it.


As I said above surely the issue is putting in place suitable restrictions on access to the clients' funds (e.g. escrow accounts etc. as suggested above) rather than necessarily circumscribing what activities the professional in question can engage in in his/her role as a private individual? Either way (also as pointed out above) additional regulation in such matters will presumably add to the cost of doing business and to the bottom line as invoiced to the client.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 Aug 2008)

ClubMan said:


> As I said above surely the issue is putting in place suitable restrictions on access to the clients' funds (e.g. escrow accounts etc. as suggested above) rather than necessarily circumscribing what activities the professional in question can engage in in his/her role as a private individual? Either way (also as pointed out above) additional regulation in such matters will presumably add to the cost of doing business and to the bottom line as invoiced to the client.



As a regulated professional, I must accept that some of my own activities as a private individual may impact on my professional status, and because of this it is in my interests to avoid such activities. 

For example if I was a director of a failed company, or if I was the subject of an undischarged judgement debt or if I was convicted of certain offences outside the area of my work, I would as a matter of routine be sanctioned and disciplined by the body who regulates me.

I can't see how these restrictions add to the cost of my doing business.


----------



## Vanilla (28 Aug 2008)

I read the above posts by my colleague MOB with a little horror. More regulation? We surely must be one of the most heavily regulated professions in the country. 

I don't believe that my personal freedom should be curtailed by my occupation any more than it already is.  I'm not in the least interested in gambling but don't agree that I should not be allowed to do it. 

More regulation would also increase the cost of legal services to the average client. Take the example of individual accounts which would need to be signed by both the solicitor and their client to access funds. This would mean at least one more appointment with the solicitor on every purchase, sale, and potentially probate and others. Every appointment will take up more time, because there are individual accounts I can only presume this will entail extra bookkeeping, and all of that would have to add to the costs. It would also be inconvenient for most clients. In my experience people just don't want or or find it hard to take time off work to go to their solicitor.  if you take the typical file where a client is drawing downs funds by stage payment on a build you could have an extra 5 or more visits by the client.


----------



## ClubMan (28 Aug 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I can't see how these restrictions add to the cost of my doing business.


I would have assumed that additional regulation involved additional costs to the business to ensure compliance? After all that's what the likes of _ISME _and the _SFA _etc. are always telling us. Good to hear that this might not actually be the case though. Although _Vanilla _seems to disagree...


----------



## MOB (28 Aug 2008)

Hi Vanilla,

I should say that I am not actually advocating regulation of client accounts in the manner set out above - though I would not personally lose any sleep if such a level of regulation were brought in.  (I might add that in my opinion it would certainly add to costs, which would certainly end up borne by clients).  I do advocate that a computer in a solicitor's office should not under any circumstances be used to access an online gambling site of any sort.  It is not an undue imposition to require that a person who likes to gamble and who also has access to client funds should keep his\her work and his gambling absolutely separate.  That is about as far as I would go.  

I recognise that mine may not be a consensus opinion on this issue.

Incidentally, Harchibald, I am highly gratified at the suggestion that I might ever instruct my stockbroker to buy €100k of anything.  It gives me something to aim at.......


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2008)

What restrictions are in place to ensure that a solicitor treats client funds in an appropriate manner? Does the law society have rules or guidelines in place for this? Recent cases have shown that this is a real issue within the industry/profession.


----------



## Vanilla (28 Aug 2008)

Purple said:


> What restrictions are in place to ensure that a solicitor treats client funds in an appropriate manner? Does the law society have rules or guidelines in place for this? Recent cases have shown that this is a real issue within the industry/profession.


 
First of all we are all trained in solicitors accounts as part of our examinations/training.

Secondly we have Solicitors Account Regulations which must be adhered to. These are lengthy and complex. They detail exactly what you must do in your accounts and are extremely strict. At the heart of it all is that obviously you can never allow a deficit on a client account but it is much much more technical and difficult than that.

We have to have Continuing Legal Education - a minimum number of the yearly hours must be in practice management- without which the law society will not issue a practicing cert.

Two yearly month end reports must be done on your accounting system and filed for your audit. Every year every practice is audited by their own auditors who then send a solicitors accounts report to the law society. Unless this is sent every year and on time you will be up for disciplinary hearing and most likely you will have a law society audit. Auditors have their own professional body to account to and their own set of regulations so are not likely to risk their professional integrity by falsifying accounts. Believe me when I say we generally dread the annual audit. Not that I or indeed most solicitors have any misappropriation of funds fear but the regulations are so complex it is easy to make a simple mistake ( I hasten to add which would not affect clients money) that would be a breach of the regulations.

About every three years there is a law society audit. Or there can be an audit if they receive a complaint. These are very thorough. 

Any problems in the accounts can lead to fines/disciplinary hearings/being struck off.

Those are the basics we all live by. No matter how much solicitors are regulated there will always be a small percentage of those who will not comply. But that goes for every profession and every business and every walk of life.

Difference being that we are heavily insured and there is a compensation fund available.


----------



## MOB (28 Aug 2008)

To what Vanilla has stated, I would add this:

1.  I can recall various high profile clients of Elio Malocco on the airwaves moaning and barging about how awful it was that he had been able to take their money.  I cannot recall the same publicity being given to the fact that every single former client of that odious person who proved their loss had every single penny refunded by myself and my colleagues in the legal profession.  It is the same every time a solicitor does a bunk with client money.   If there is someone out there who was a client of an Irish solicitor, who had money in the solicitor's custody, who had the solicitor dishonestly take that money and who has not been refunded in full, I have yet to hear of them.

2.   Those who love soundbites will no doubt love the catchphrase, trotted out whenever a solicitor goes bad "this proves that self regulation does not work".     But it's not 'self regulation' and it does work.   Before doing away with a system which works relatively well, it behoves us to examine the alternatives.  Ask any disgruntled former Morroghs clients if they are satisfied with the regulatory regime for client money implemented in the stockbroking sector.  If this regime was as comprehensively pro-client as that of the legal profession,  Davys, NCB et. al. would have had to make up this shortfall.


----------



## Complainer (28 Aug 2008)

To get back on the topic of gambling for a moment, watch out for the Govt to roll over to the betting industry and allow the introduction of the highly-addictive FOBT (fixed odds betting terminals) soon, to take even more money off those who can least afford it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Aug 2008)

Isn't there a law that bookies can only bet were there is a "skill" factor? The same law which gives rise to these ridiculous tie breakers in newspaper competitions, like who is US President? A. George Bush B. Tony Tree or C. Paul Plant.

But ever go into a PP shop? He has this Lucky Numbers game. There is a big pretence that there is skill involved. The commentator will tell you which number has been the longest not coming out, which number has been most prevalent in the last week etc. etc. How does PP get away with that?

Then there is this really sad nonsense - Virtual Racing. I tell no lie, computerised races, with poor graphics. Where is the skill there? 

Of course "non skill" betting games like casino etc. are currently legal on the Internet usually out of Gibraltar or somewhere.

Whilst I tend towards the libertine school I would have some sympathy if "non skill" betting was properly banned.


----------



## bond-007 (31 Aug 2008)

> Whilst I tend towards the libertine school I would have some sympathy if "non skill" betting was properly banned.


I agree that non skill betting should be outlawed. Virtual Racing is a scam pure and simple, no skill involved and the outcome is decided by the bookmaker. It is no more skill than pulling the handle on a slot machine. 

The Gaming and Lotteries act is so far out of date. It needs major revision to outlaw all those stupid tie breaker questions, lucky numbers, virtual racing and all forms of non skilled gambling.


----------



## z106 (31 Aug 2008)

bond-007 said:


> I agree that non skill betting should be outlawed. Virtual Racing is a scam pure and simple, no skill involved and the outcome is decided by the bookmaker. It is no more skill than pulling the handle on a slot machine.


 
I would disagree with the above statement in that it is no more a scam that betting on anything else with the bookies such as soccer,golf, gaa or whatever else.

I don't think that virtual racing is any more guilty than any other event.

The pioint is that the odds are structured whereby the bookie wins on average in every event.

You can argue that there is more of a skill in betting in say,soccer - but that is incorrect.
If you continue to bet on anything with the bookies, in the long term you will lose.

Be it horse racing, virtual racing, golf or dogs or whatever else - these are all only opportunities for teh bookie to give out bad vale odds.
Virtual racing is no more guilty than any of teh other ones in my book.


----------



## bond-007 (31 Aug 2008)

Virtual racing can be rigged.

With soccer, horse racing, golf etc the bookie cannot influence the outcome.


----------



## z106 (31 Aug 2008)

bond-007 said:


> Virtual racing can be rigged.
> 
> With soccer, horse racing, golf etc the bookie cannot influence the outcome.


 
WHy would they rig it ?

Firstly - if they were caught, their reputation would go down the tubes - and i imagine there would be serious financila repercussions.
Hardly worth it for something that brings in only a tiny fraction of their profits

But secondly,and more imortantly, they have no need to rig it.
The odds are structred whereby the punter will lose over the long run.

It's a bit like flicking a coin - if a bookie was to offer odds he would most likely offer 5/6 on heads and harps as opposed to the actual odds of evens.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Sep 2008)

The point is that public "no-judgement" gaming is against the law, unless of course you are the National Lottery. 

I agree that VR is not rigged but it is like a roulette wheel - no judgement whatsoever. If PP set up a roulette wheel in his offices, he would be quickly stopped. If he bet on televised roulette from Gibraltar, he would be stopped, I think. 

How does he get away with Lucky Numbers (forget VR for a while)? Does anyone know how he dodges the law here? I suspect it's because it is one of those laws that needs a member of the public to object and nobody has bothered.


----------



## bond-007 (1 Sep 2008)

Are these the same numbers as drawn by the National Lottery?


----------



## z106 (1 Sep 2008)

Harchibald said:


> The point is that public "no-judgement" gaming is against the law, unless of course you are the National Lottery.
> 
> I agree that VR is not rigged but it is like a roulette wheel - no judgement whatsoever. If PP set up a roulette wheel in his offices, he would be quickly stopped. If he bet on televised roulette from Gibraltar, he would be stopped, I think.
> 
> How does he get away with Lucky Numbers (forget VR for a while)? Does anyone know how he dodges the law here? I suspect it's because it is one of those laws that needs a member of the public to object and nobody has bothered.


 
Ok - I suspect that with virtual racing, all the horses have some 'form' coming into teh race and it is possible that the bookie might argue that there is indeed some skill involved as each horse clearly doesn't have an equal chance given that their odds vary.
That's only pure speculation on my part though.

As for lucky numbers I have no idea how this could in any way be considered skilled gaming.


----------



## Simeon (1 Sep 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Why should grown adults not be able to choose what they do with their own money?


See what happened to this poor misfortunate! In the 70's an Irishman went to America to make his fortune and come back to Ireland to buy a farm, settle down and have sprogs. He saved and saved, worked at two jobs and after 30 years had the most of a million. Never drank, smoked or, er, you know what I mean. Anyway, he decided to treat himself to one bit of luxury - and sail home in style. Got all his dosh in readies and dollar drafts. Boarded, got settled in and repaired to the lounge where he was offered champagne. He downed a few glasses and liked the feeling. He had never felt as good. Soon he made his way to the casino where he decided to try Lady Luck on the wheel. He took to it like a duck to water and after the first two days he was up over $15,000. He really had the bit between his teeth and got a phenomenal buzz each time the ball began to slow. Unfortunately, before he reached Ireland, Lady Luck had long deserted him and, chasing his money, finished skint. Feeling extremely low ...... 30 years of deadly hard slog down the drain ..... how would he face them at home ....... eyes cast downward as he walked the pavement. Suddenly he sees a E50 note. He picks it up and looking heavenward sees a sign for a fortune teller. "Madam Zsa-Zsa sees all". He goes in and she informs him that today is his lucky day ....... 7 being his lucky number. He paid her the E20 and walked into the next betting shop that he saw. Looking through the runners and riders he sees 'Seventh Son' running in race 1. True to form he puts the E30 on it and it obliges at 66/1. Next race there is a Seventh Heaven going ........ so after leaving briefly to get a breakfast roll, he's back in time to put the lot on this one. It also coms in at 14/1. Next race 7th Avenue ......... tears home at 10/1. His head is spinning ....... last race ....... nothing with 7 in it except the horse number. Obvious isn't it. He puts the lot on No 7. It too scoots home at 2/1. He collects cash to the tune of 10k or more and a bookmakers cheque for E1,000,000 plus.
 He staggers into the daylight and boks into Cork's finest hotel. A quick word (and E50) to the doorman sees his luggage upstairs where he requests the company of a nubile Eastern princess complete with _bindi_. Shortly after, the porter arrives with the champagne and soon he was joined by this sultry princess of Eastern promise. A few scoops later and things were heading for the four poster. After hours of horizontal jogging she falls asleep in his arms. Looking ast her placid features, he rubs her _bindi_ and finds that it is loose. He lifts it off and underneath is printed *You have won a car.*


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Sep 2008)

bond-007 said:


> Are these the same numbers as drawn by the National Lottery?


No but that is an interesting point. I have watched this development over the years. It started with the National Lottery. Bookies were hopping mad. Then PP started to bet on the NL. He got away with it. Problem was only a few times a week, using both UK and Irish versions. Short step to Lucky Numbers, runs all day every day.

I think I see the legal loophole. The law probably states that you can't *operate* pure luck public gaming. PP's lawyers were probably poised to argue that they weren't operating the NL, simply betting on it. I presume that LN is run by a company independent of PP.

But this is a farce, as is the practice of silly tie-breakers. Change the law either to be perfectly liberal in this area or, my preference, properly ban pure luck public gaming.

_Alphabet _I never really looked into the VR thing too deeply. But I suspect there is no "form". The computer "choses the horses" at random. Yes different odds, that's easy. The computer "knows" the odds, which are deterministic and non judgemental. Hence this is simply roulette with graphics.


----------



## z106 (1 Sep 2008)

Simeon said:


> See what happened to this poor misfortunate! In the 70's an Irishman went to America to make his fortune and come back to Ireland to buy a farm, settle down and have sprogs. He saved and saved, worked at two jobs and after 30 years had the most of a million. Never drank, smoked or, er, you know what I mean. Anyway, he decided to treat himself to one bit of luxury - and sail home in style. Got all his dosh in readies and dollar drafts. Boarded, got settled in and repaired to the lounge where he was offered champagne. He downed a few glasses and liked the feeling. He had never felt as good. Soon he made his way to the casino where he decided to try Lady Luck on the wheel. He took to it like a duck to water and after the first two days he was up over $15,000. He really had the bit between his teeth and got a phenomenal buzz each time the ball began to slow. Unfortunately, before he reached Ireland, Lady Luck had long deserted him and, chasing his money, finished skint. Feeling extremely low ...... 30 years of deadly hard slog down the drain ..... how would he face them at home ....... eyes cast downward as he walked the pavement. Suddenly he sees a E50 note. He picks it up and looking heavenward sees a sign for a fortune teller. "Madam Zsa-Zsa sees all". He goes in and she informs him that today is his lucky day ....... 7 being his lucky number. He paid her the E20 and walked into the next betting shop that he saw. Looking through the runners and riders he sees 'Seventh Son' running in race 1. True to form he puts the E30 on it and it obliges at 66/1. Next race there is a Seventh Heaven going ........ so after leaving briefly to get a breakfast roll, he's back in time to put the lot on this one. It also coms in at 14/1. Next race 7th Avenue ......... tears home at 10/1. His head is spinning ....... last race ....... nothing with 7 in it except the horse number. Obvious isn't it. He puts the lot on No 7. It too scoots home at 2/1. He collects cash to the tune of 10k or more and a bookmakers cheque for E1,000,000 plus.
> He staggers into the daylight and boks into Cork's finest hotel. A quick word (and E50) to the doorman sees his luggage upstairs where he requests the company of a nubile Eastern princess complete with _bindi_. Shortly after, the porter arrives with the champagne and soon he was joined by this sultry princess of Eastern promise. A few scoops later and things were heading for the four poster. After hours of horizontal jogging she falls asleep in his arms. Looking ast her placid features, he rubs her _bindi_ and finds that it is loose. He lifts it off and underneath is printed *You have won a car.*


 
I don't get this story - am i missing something?
Or is the story missing something?


----------



## Simeon (1 Sep 2008)

I just thought it was funny. As a young fellow I used to read the Reader's Digest and you got these tabs in a coloured page exhorting you to lift them and see what you had won. "You have won a car " was the usual answer. I'm sure the small print explained that you were far from winning a car but that if you didn't return the voucher, you had no chance. Also the fact that luck goes in runs occasionally. Hope this fills in the voids.


----------



## Purple (1 Sep 2008)

Vanilla, MOB; thanks for the info. It looks as if there are indeed tight controls in place (given that they have to allow the business to function).


----------



## Flax (8 Sep 2008)

Caveat said:


> However, I don't think there is any need for tighter control/regulation etc either.


 
I used to work for a bookies. A big famous Irish bookies.

There was an unofficial policy of not getting into conversation with the customers as they'd expose their gambling problem and we'd have to close their accounts.

The vast majority of customers (99.999%) lost money and we could see how much money each customer had lost. It was very easy to see who had a gambling problem - their erratic and frequent bets, etc.

What makes all this even worse is winning accounts were closed. The bookie only allowed losing accounts.

It's a very scummy industry and needs to be heavily regulated.

Saying all that, I do enjoy the odd bet and would not like the industry shut down.


----------

