December 06, 2016, 05:42:23 AM
News: If it is not in arbusers, it doesn't exist.

Account closed ratio and correlation between willingness to restrict betting a

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »
Author Topic: Account closed ratio and correlation between willingness to restrict betting a  (Read 1554 times)
Arbusers
Administrator
Pro
*****

Karma: 298
Posts: 2517



View Profile WWW
« on: October 05, 2016, 05:51:25 PM »

I found these 2 graphs in twitter and thought would be food for thought.
Original sources: SecretBettingClub and Joseph Buchdahl


« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 01:45:50 PM by Arbusers » Logged

dealer wins
Probably a Pro
****

Karma: -19
Posts: 320



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2016, 06:09:20 PM »

The top 3 (and possibly all of them) are not bookmakers.  They begrudgingly run a book to try and get addicts and casino players.
Logged

Never trust a goose!!!

MaxShalamar
Pro
*****

Karma: 25
Posts: 1403


Not a pro :D


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2016, 08:06:29 PM »

TBH a bookie that closes an account instead of merely limiting will always get a lower score in any poll so it's really not a surprise

A limited account is still useful so won't be rated as badly
Logged

dealer wins
Probably a Pro
****

Karma: -19
Posts: 320



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2016, 11:28:48 PM »

The only "limited account" that is really of any usefulness to me is B365.  And I think they only tolerate it as my GF likes to play on slots every now and then lol

Im a strictly BF v MB v Pinny arber now, give me an unlimited soft book for 6 months and I would be a millionaire!
Logged

Never trust a goose!!!

Bubbles
Has some experience
**

Karma: 1
Posts: 169


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2016, 02:50:19 AM »

I think what Max meant was that limits are not “set in stone”. With the right league and adds one may still put a decent bet through a limited account. B365 you mentioned is a good example.
Plenty more opportunities for ppl with small bankrolls willing to work hard..
Logged

MaxShalamar
Pro
*****

Karma: 25
Posts: 1403


Not a pro :D


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2016, 11:10:45 AM »

I think what Max meant was that limits are not “set in stone”. With the right league and adds one may still put a decent bet through a limited account. B365 you mentioned is a good example.
Plenty more opportunities for ppl with small bankrolls willing to work hard..

Yes - I've said a few times you can still get £5000 bets on at B365 and a little less at Unibet/32Red/10Bet etc of you choose the right markets

Some people think that if you are limited to £2 on most events then the account is useless and should be thrown away - it's clearly not the case

I'm sure if the likes of Ladbrokes, Corals, Victor etc didn't close accounts but merely limited them then you'd get the same amounts on at those sites too and things would be a hell of a lot easier to make very good money at this game
Logged

luctens
Probably a Pro
****

Karma: -42
Posts: 339


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2016, 07:47:26 PM »

Firstly, all bookmakers are guilty of closing down/restricting customers so there's no good guy in this fight, but it is pretty clear that the bookmakers with the least aggressive algorithms are generally doing the best of a bad bunch. That isn't to say that their algorithms not being as aggressive means they are keeping plenty of smart players in play as they aren't as they'll get shut down soon enough, but these less aggressive algorithms are preserving the bookmakers' recreational customers, so their recreational customers aren't getting caught nearly as much as in the crossfire.

I think that the way the bookmakers' with the most aggressive algorithms are at the moment, for every 1 smart punter those aggressive algorithms are chucking out, it is probably chucking out 9 or 10 recreationals at the same in the crossfire, and that's just simply not good business for a bookmaker to be doing. So the bookmakers with the less aggressive algorithms means that maybe for a a very short while they are keeping a few smart bettors, but at the same time they are keeping their most important customers, the mugs, whilst minimising them getting caught in the crossfire of these closures.

It is simply fact that there about 100 times more mugs than smart bettors, so it is simple common sense to say that if bookmakers' like the ones with the most aggressive algorithms, if they go on an endless crusade to get rid of every smart bettor going as they are doing, they may well reach that goal at some point of not having one smart bettor on their books, but in achieving that goal they would have wreaked so much havoc by closing down so many recreationals in the crossfire, that the value of recreational business they have chucked away vastly outweighs any savings they've made by chucking out smart bettors.

So although none of these bookmakers want any smart bettors, it's the smarter bookmakers that know they can't go all guns blazing and restrict everybody in sight, they need a far more nuanced approach in that it may take slightly longer to shut down the smart bettors, but by taking that more careful approach, they will have preserved many of their recreational customers and significantly minimised the number of recreational customers getting caught up in the crossfire.

I'm still of the very firm belief though that absolutely all bookmakers, even the bookmakers' with the least aggressive algorithms would still be better off not having any algorithms or restriction policies at all compared to the mess they are currently in with so many mugs getting shut down with their current algorithm and restriction set-up, but although the bookmakers with the least aggressive algorithms are still losing net profits as a result of these algorithms and restrictions, they are at least limiting the damage compared to the rest.

With an at best 1 out of 100 long term winner ratio, any algorithm simply isn't going to be accurate enough to get anywhere near just the 1 out of 100 smart bettors to shut down and will inevitably end up in shutting down a disproportionate number of mug bettors, therefore any algorithm shutting down customers is going to have a negative effect on profits for any bookmakers that uses them. What the bookmakers need to realise and accept is that there really aren't that many smart bettors out there that even have a chance of beating them in the long term, so rather than going on a crusade shutting down all smart bettors and inevitably shutting down loads of mugs in the process, they should stop the algorithms and restrictions and let the 1% or less of long term winners bet with them with the trade-off that there will be no algorithms or restriction policies that stupidly shut down any mug punters, as the value of recreational business being chucked out by these algorithms far outweighs the value of any savings made on chucking out any smart bettors, so getting rid of algorithms and restrictions altogether will have a positive effect on absolutely all bookmakers' profits.
Logged

risilloch
Newbie
*

Karma: 7
Posts: 48


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2016, 09:26:28 PM »

If what you say were true a side effect of the less aggressive tactics would be that the recreational punters disabled by the aggressive bookmakers would need to find new places to gamble ie with the less aggressive bookmakers.

So, by being less aggressive, they would benefit from a steady influx of recreational punters fleeing the inhumane regime of the aggressive bookmakers.
Logged

luctens
Probably a Pro
****

Karma: -42
Posts: 339


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2016, 02:19:15 AM »

If what you say were true a side effect of the less aggressive tactics would be that the recreational punters disabled by the aggressive bookmakers would need to find new places to gamble ie with the less aggressive bookmakers.

So, by being less aggressive, they would benefit from a steady influx of recreational punters fleeing the inhumane regime of the aggressive bookmakers.
As I said, the bookmakers with the less aggressive algorithms are going to get more recreational customers and retain more recreational customers compared to the rest as they don't have as aggressive algorithms as the rest. But as I said, it doesn't make what these bookmakers are doing right in any way, that just makes them the best of a bad bunch which isn't hard against such amateur bookmakers at the bottom of the pile.

I would estimate that the most aggressive algorithm bookmaker probably close down 10% of all customer accounts, whilst the least aggressive algorithm bookmaker probably closes down 6% of all customer accounts. So they would both be shutting down the 1% or less of smart bettors, but the most aggressive bookmaker would be shutting down 9% of recreational business and the least aggressive bookmaker would be shutting down 5% of recreational business.

So the less aggressive bookmaker is doing better by retaining 4% more recreational business than the most aggressive bookmaker, so they are at least better in that regard than their competitors, but even with the less aggressive bookmaker, that 5% of recreational business they are shutting down would be worth much more than the 1% or less of smart business, so even for the least aggressive bookmakers, these algorithms are still costing them millions in net profits.

So that's my point, I think that if every single bookmaker threw away these algorithms and restrictions tomorrow and bet everybody, it would be a positive to every single one of their profits, even the least aggressive algorithm bookmakers. As obviously in a utopian world the bookmakers would build algorithms that only found smart bettors and banned them and left every single other mug to play unrestricted, but the truth and reality is that you will never get an algorithm that delivers that or delivers anything like that. I think the algorithms of the 6% getting banned with 5% of them being recreational are about as good as a bookmaker can get them, as if the bookmaker eased those algorithms any further, then they risk letting in a lot more smart bettors for a lot longer period of time whilst still risking banning a significant amount of mugs, so ease them any further and they might have an even worse result by letting in way more smart bettors whilst still banning a load of mugs.

So I think the algorithms at banning 1% smart and 5% mugs are about as good as the bookmakers can realistically get them, and even that best in the business 1% smart and 5% mug split would still be costing those bookmakers millions in lost profits from the value of recreational business lost vastly outweighed by the value of the smart business they have saved money on, and when you have a system that even at it's every best is losing the bookmakers millions, then the bookmakers' need to change and scrap this idiotic, tired, old, failed system of algorithms and restrictions.

What has driven this crusade against smart bettors by the bookmakers is a paranoia from the bookmakers that everybody's an arber, a trader, a value bettor, everybody knows something about something. They look at every bet placed by anybody with suspicion rather than happiness that their turnover has just increased and they have an ideological vendetta against any smart bettors that it is the bookmakers' noble right to win, and that nobody but nobody is allowed to win a penny off them in the long term. This has driven them to the situation they are in today where they seem to be so keen to fulfil their ideological vendetta and crusade against smart bettors that they seem either prepared or unaware to the obvious realities which is that these algorithms and restriction policies are costing them millions and they need to get off their high horse, accept for once that there has to be some give and take in this game, and they need to accept that for the bookmakers' to reach their full potential of profit, they need to bet everybody to ensure none of their treasured mug customers are every shut down again. That will mean that some customers win off them in the long term, that's just the way it is, but the increased profits with the vast increase of recreational business they would get should be what they are thinking most about and the greater net profit gained by ditching these algorithms and restriction policies. They are far too worried about the likes of arbers and the like who in reality are extremely small in number and would do very little relative damage to a bookmaker, and they have let that focus on arbers and the like completely distract them from their core customer base, the mugs.

So they need to get back to basics, get back in the real world and realise that they're never going to be able to get anywhere close to just banning the smart bettors and nobody else besides and that these algorithms and restriction policies are always going to cost them millions in net profit and they need to start betting everyone which would actually be a positive on all fronts. I wouldn't give a toss whether bookmakers betting everyone would have a significant impact on their profits whatsoever and whatever the impact would be they still should be betting everyone, but the reality is that betting everyone would increase bookmakers' net profits by millions in comparison with the best case scenario of their current algorithm and restriction tactics, so betting everyone would be a positive for bookmakers, arbers, mug bettors who have previously been banned, it would be a positive for everybody involved.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2016, 02:37:37 AM by luctens » Logged

Bubbles
Has some experience
**

Karma: 1
Posts: 169


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2016, 04:34:25 PM »

With the amount of money they make on ultramugs from machines what we're talking here will soon become their secondary market. Also, today I read that the number of ppl with severe gambling problem in the UK doubled in just three years. Business is so good that bookies just can afford a crusade against smart punters and I'm in no doubt that in the long run when the dust of the battle will settle it will be them, not us, left standing...
Logged

luctens
Probably a Pro
****

Karma: -42
Posts: 339


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2016, 08:40:36 AM »

With the amount of money they make on ultramugs from machines what we're talking here will soon become their secondary market. Also, today I read that the number of ppl with severe gambling problem in the UK doubled in just three years. Business is so good that bookies just can afford a crusade against smart punters and I'm in no doubt that in the long run when the dust of the battle will settle it will be them, not us, left standing...
I hear that argument a lot with people saying the bookmakers make so much on the machines they don't care about the rest. Firstly, we are talking about online restrictions and closures, not regarding in-shop, and also, there are only 7-8 small to major bookmakers online that have any sort of in-shop presence, but there are countless other online only operations that don't have any shops and don't have any FOBTs, so the excuse that the bookmakers rely on the FOBTs that they close down so many other bettors, that obviously doesn't ring true with all of the online only operations that are rife with restrictions and closures even though they don't have one penny of income from FOBTs or anything.

Secondly regarding FOBTs, there is no way that FOBTs will be become the main market for bookmakers with them and sports betting a secondary market, as there is a very good chance that at the end of the year after this triennial review surrounding FOBTs, that FOBTs will be extinct from the high streets for good, taking away a total of £1.6bn gross profits per year, the majority of which are from just 7-8 bookmakers who will be hit extremely hard, so if that happens there will be no market for FOBTs whatsoever, and the bookmakers will then have to think again about their business model and ways to try and recoup some of those profits as that cash cow will be well and truly turned off for good.

But FOBTs really is a complete side issue when it comes to this matter, whether we are talking about bookmakers that have FOBTs or don't, the simple thing is that these algorithms and restrictions are costing the bookmakers that use them millions, so whether bookmakers have FOBTs or not, these algorithms and restrictions are simply extremely bad business for them, and it doesn't matter whether a bookmakers has FOBTs and gets them banned at the end of the year or has FOBTs forever, or if it is an online only bookmaker that doesn't have a finger in the FOBT pie and therefore doesn't particularly care about FOBTs, that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, as regardless of that, bookmakers are always looking for ways to increase profits and cut costs, and scrapping these algorithms and restrictions is most certainly one major way of doing exactly that as their profits would increase and the number of customer profiling/risk management etc load of crap staff that they have could be severely reduced or removed altogether if they weren't paying people to sit around and close down accounts all day so millions would be saved on those sort of staff not being needed anymore.

You only have to look to Australia where bookmakers have been forced to bet everyone on certain horse races, the bookmakers that have complied with and embraced those new laws report increased turnover and increased profits, Coral who have introduced minimum bet guarantees for all horse racing in their shops, and they have reported that it is working very well for them, and Black Type Bet have reported that they are going very well with their no restriction policies.

So these are stories of soft bookmakers who have either been forced to or chosen to bet everybody, they have all said it is going well for them and not one of them has come out and said that betting everybody has been a negative at all, everybody that has commented that has embraced these changes have all said it has been a positive, so I think the lazy and failed approach of restrictions and closures are starting to be seen by bookmakers as not the way to go, as these policies are not saving them millions like they would like to believe, these policies are actually costing them millions, and as the only word the bookmaker knows is the word profit and they don't care how they get hold of it, I think there will be some further major movements in this area soon as more and more bookmakers realise and accept that scrapping these algorithms and restriction policies and betting everyone is a proven way to significantly increase their profits.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 09:52:03 AM by luctens » Logged

vinciguerra
Has some experience
**

Karma: 16
Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2016, 10:38:42 AM »

great, if you know better, start your own book without any limitations and don't forget to send me an invite.

of course a book without any restrictions would not make more money than a book that limits heavily. you seem to miss the point mugs don't bet 100's of pounds, euro's, whatever, and sharps, arbers do. by limiting down agressively a book might possibly turn off a few whales in the process, but most mugs won't even care as they don't bet the max anyway. one decent arber with limits in the 1000's or even 100's can destroy the profits made on tens (if not hundreds) of mugs easily.  you're underestimating the financial risk of running a book with odds that are not sharp enough, and cause you to continuously get hit on your weak lines.  it just doesn't make up for a mug betting 10 quid every now and then.

you are writing very long posts, with a lot percentages, but they all seem made up. do you have some sort of a source (which would be interesting) rather than your own assumptions?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 10:40:40 AM by vinciguerra » Logged

Alfa1234
Probably a Pro
****

Karma: -5
Posts: 306


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2016, 11:30:36 AM »

Luctens,

Do you have any statistics or true data at all about this or is it just guesswork?  I agree with your basic thinking but it's based on estimates which could be way, way off.  Who says bookies have not made the same calculations you had, based on actual data and have come to a completely different conclusion, explaining their current behaviour?

I'm talking about these things in particular:
1 in 100 is a smart punter.
10% accounts closed by agressive algorythm...6% by less agressive algorythm.

What if your stats are way, way off and bookies are helping their bottom line by doing this?  What about my guestimate that 1 smart player, betting 5k value bets or arbing could take away the profit of 200 low amount bet recreational customers?
Logged

dealer wins
Probably a Pro
****

Karma: -19
Posts: 320



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2016, 11:38:36 AM »

I do think books can spot an arber a mile away.  I would at if a owned a book within a few bets.

And I would start by giving people max bet limit of £200, and increase/decrease that on a review every now and then.
Logged

Never trust a goose!!!

my_username
Has some experience
**

Karma: -3
Posts: 101


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2016, 11:43:51 AM »

dafuq is fobt? i too like making shit up.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Print
« previous next »