Bookmaker Profits

Q

QED

Registered User
Messages
222
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?
 
QED said:
Does anyone else think that there is a case for tighter regulation or full closure of the bookmaker sites?
Click to expand...
Why should grown adults not be able to choose what they do with their own money?
 
Then what if I want to buy lots of bombs and guns and heroin.

Why stop me damaging myself and people close to me??
 
QED said:
Then what if I want to buy lots of bombs and guns and heroin.
Click to expand...
They are illegal. Gambling is not.
Why stop me damaging myself and people close to me??
Click to expand...
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.
 
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??
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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??
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ?!
 
QED said:
Does anyone else think that there is a case for tighter regulation or full closure of the bookmaker sites?
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Does normal contract law not apply?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Based on what analysis of hard data? Or is it just a hunch/prejudice of yours?
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register