Arbusers

dealer wins wrote:

Bubbles wrote:

dejected wrote: I think arbing is an easy way to ensure a profit from a bonus, but there may be other ways of doing it. It was just an example of how having duplicate / third party accounts can in some cases be classed as committing fraud.

dejected, but he WAS committing a fraud regardless of whether he was a bonus abuser or an arber. He's fraud was falsifying documents. I don't think anybody here would advise you doing this. Asking a friend or a friend of friend, a real person with real id, for a help is entirely different story. And as YY stressed it's not a crime, in fact you can have a written contract/agreement with your friend in which you clarify conditions on which your friend asks you for help (because he's so bad at betting ). It wouldn't be illegal, just against bookies T&C. Where we really cross the line is somewhere else and it's better to leave it in the shadow

In both examples it would be fraud, although falsifying documents and making up fictitious people would be the more serious of the 2 frauds.

I disagree. As Luctens rightly put it “in that Andrei Osipau case, he was not convicted because he created duplicate, third party or multiple accounts at bookmakers, he was convicted purely because he was using stolen and fake identities.”

Alfa1234 wrote:

luctens wrote:

dejected wrote: Well said Alfa. It is the job of the softbook to get as much mug money in to the industry as possible. Its in everybody's interest including luctens if he really is a successful arber,  Softbooks used to be bookmakers in the true sense of the word, but the marketplace has changed. Now they are basically acting as casinos where people who can beat the odds are not welcome. He thinks it would make a difference if the general public know this. Really? Everyone knows casinos don't allow winners, yet they do OK I bet luctens thinks the base books want restrictions to be implemented too

I'm not concerned about card counters etc getting thrown out of casinos, as it's widely accepted that you can't win on casino games, because they are games of pure chance with an inbuilt margin that you can do pretty much nothing about, so it's very widely accepted that you are guaranteed to lose in the long term on casino games as they are classed as and widely accepted as games of pure chance.

But with sports betting, it isn't a game of pure chance, as skill and knowledge can overturn the inbuilt margin in your favour, so it is widely accepted that although it's very hard to win on sports betting in the long term, it is possible to win if you're smart enough.

But the bookmakers are trying to change that into that the overwhelming majority will lose with them, but even if you are one of that extremely small minority that are smart enough, you're not allowed to win either. And that's simply an immoral and unfair situation that the bookmakers are trying to manufacture for themselves, and that needs to change.

Being smart enough to beat them at "fair" odds is not the same as beating them consistently by taking lines that have not had a chance to be lowered yet.  This is what they want to end, not the occasional "smart" punter that comes along.  The point is, arbers are beating them by what they consider unfair practises as they are only betting value lines.  Value lines = card counting = cheating =/ profitable customer.  You are not supposed to be able to win long term, that's what the juice is for and that's what their entire business model is based upon.  Sport betting for them, is supposed to be gambling.  You can win every now and then but over the long term, every client is supposed to be a profitable client.

There is no such thing as "fair" odds. Sports betting is a prediction market, so naturally with loads of bookmakers you are going to have different predictions on the probabilities of something going to happen, which translates into different odds at each bookmaker, so there is no "fair" odds, as nobody knows what the true odds should be, so what you are saying there is complete rubbish.

You saying that the bookmakers have odds on their sites that have "not had a chance to be lowered at" holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. They post their lines, and they are free to change their lines whenever they want to, and if they aren't changing their lines as quickly as they think they should be doing and if this is "what they want to end", then they need to get better at their job and change their prices as quickly as think they should be changing them, it's as simple as that.

The reality is that the bookmakers don't care if you're an "occasional smart punter", if you're a long term winner and they think you're smart, they want you out, and they want every last single smart punter like you out until there's none left, it's as simple as that.

Arbers are most definitely not beating the bookmakers by "unfair practices" or "cheating", they are simply betting on the odds that are put there by the bookmaker, and if the bookmaker doesn't want to offer that price, then don't offer that price, it really is very simple.

You say "You are not supposed to be able to win long term, that's what the juice is for and that's what their entire business model is based upon.  Sport betting for them, is supposed to be gambling.  You can win every now and then but over the long term, every client is supposed to be a profitable client."

Guess what, this is sports betting where the juice can be overcome by people smart enough to overcome it, this isn't a form of gambling that is pure chance that cannot be overcome by skill or knowledge. And although obviously in a perfect world for a bookmaker, "every client is supposed to be a profitable client", this isn't a perfect world, and if "that's what their entire business model is based upon", then the bookmakers need to wake up and get back in the real world, as that's never going to happen, as again as sports betting is a form of gambling where the margin can be overcome by people smart enough, bookmakers are therefore never going to have only losers that bet with them, that's just the way it is, bookmakers need to wake up to that fact, and winners should be allowed to win in the long term if they are good enough.

Either you don't really know how the sports markets work, or you are playing dumb.  I think you do know how they work, so you are just posting a distorted point of view there to be able to claim you are right.

The comment about "betting is a form of gambling where the margin can be overcome by people smart enough" is complete rubbish.  Being smart enough, in the case of sports bettors, means betting value.  The only way the margin can be overcome is by only betting value lines.  Value lines are outliers, either errors or odds that have not dropped yet to be in line with the market so bookmakers consider people that bet on only those lines cheaters, it's as simple as that. 

Either way, they are private companies that are not legally obliged to take all customers, it's that simple. 

Bubbles wrote:

dejected wrote: Thanks Bubbles. So are you really saying there are no arbers out there that are using methods similar to Osipau? I did not say all, even many are doing it, but I bet there are some that are.

I'm sure there are some and Osipu is the best prove for that. Having said that, I think they belong a different category than most arbers who try to do it the right (maybe using term “legal” would be too much ) way. I mean I know people who use ids on an industrial scale but they are real ids of real people who gave their consent.

“To do that they offer generous prices and offers, but can only do that because of account restrictions.”

I agree with that and also for the reason I mentioned before: they would either all have to sharpen their lines or, even worse, create a cartel.

Yes they would have 3 options really. Lose lots of money to arbers, Sharpen their prices considerably, or the more likely option, all increase their margins (or as you put it become a cartel).

Arbs have become easier to find recently because the soft books have reduced their margins down to very little to boost turnover and attract more mug money. For example on a Saturday morning it is not uncommon to find horse racing books betting below 100% at best prices. The softbooks only do it because they get to keep a big proportion of the mug money they attract, restrictions help them do that. That is not going to happen if restrictions are taken away. I remember the days of minimum trebles on sports book. OK it might not get that bad, but I could see all the 10/11s going back to the 5/6s like it used to be. Removing restrictions is not going to benefit anyone in the industry long term, and that includes arbers. But its all academic ,  it is the way the industry has chosen to go forward and they are very unlikely to take a step backwards.

By the way luctens, you might not believe it but it is possible to beat a casino and turn the odds in your favor. How an knowledgeable arber can say its accepted that it is not possible to beat a casino is beyond me. You are living proof that you don't have to be that intelligent to be a successful arber, again taking your word for it that you are! Blackjack using a traditional shoe is a game of skill, yes luck plays a part, but the casino margin, which is pretty small anyway, about 0.5% can be overcome using skill. If you are good at card counting, and get caught, you get banned from every casino in the world. They have face recognition technology to spot you as you walk in.They don't do that for no reason! Bookies restriction algorithms are just doing a similar thing.

I don't think he is playing Alfa. I think he really is that dumb! See what arbing services have done 

Alfa1234 wrote: Either you don't really know how the sports markets work, or you are playing dumb.  I think you do know how they work, so you are just posting a distorted point of view there to be able to claim you are right.

The comment about "betting is a form of gambling where the margin can be overcome by people smart enough" is complete rubbish.  Being smart enough, in the case of sports bettors, means betting value.  The only way the margin can be overcome is by only betting value lines.  Value lines are outliers, either errors or odds that have not dropped yet to be in line with the market so bookmakers consider people that bet on only those lines cheaters, it's as simple as that. 

Either way, they are private companies that are not legally obliged to take all customers, it's that simple.

I know exactly how the sports betting markets work, and I'm most definitely not "playing dumb", I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm not "posting a distorted view" whatsoever, I am very simply posting an extremely common sense and accurate view of the matter at hand.

The comment about "betting is a form of gambling where the margin can be overcome by people smart enough" is not complete rubbish whatsoever, it's a very accurate statement. Of course the only way to win at sports betting in the long term is to bet on value lines, that's very obvious, but you've got to have the skill and knowledge to be able to spot a value line. Spotting a value line is a very subjective thing, as what is a value line to one smart bettor may not be a value line to another smart bettor, as sports betting is a prediction market where different people have different opinions and nobody knows what the true odds should be, so there obviously there isn't just a set of value lines out there that every smart bettor bets on, as one smart bettor may think something is a value line, but another smart bettor won't think that is a value line, and the skill and knowledge is needed to spot whether something is a value line or not.

There are multiple reasons why a bookmaker may be offering what is thought of as a "value line". It is not always ones they haven't got round to shortening yet, sometimes it is that the bookmaker is taking an opinion on a line and is therefore going best price, after all, that is what sports betting is, a prediction market, based around opinions of what is and isn't the correct odds, so it's natural for a bookmaker to have a different opinion to another bookmaker and therefore be a better price than them.

Value lines are most definitely not errors, as an error would be a palpable error, and it is obvious to distinguish between a value line and a palpable error. So something considered as a "value line" is not an error whatsoever, it is very simply either when a bookmaker is taking an opinion on something, or it is when they want to have changed the price quicker than they have done, but they haven't. And if the bookmaker is taking an opinion on something, then all is well and good, or if a bookmaker thinks that they wanted to have shortened that price quicker than they did do, then they need to get better at their job, as very simply, if you don't want to offer that price, then don't offer that price, plain and simple.

If bookmakers look upon bettors that are betting on what are thought of as value lines as cheaters, criminals and all the rest of it, then they need to get back into the real world, these people that only bet on value are simply part of the game as bookmakers can't have it all their own way all of the time and the fact is that some people will have the skill and knowledge to win long term and the bookies need to accept that and deal with it. All these people are doing is betting on odds that are publicly available with them, that's all, they're obviously not doing anything of a cheating or criminal nature. It's either a case that the bookmaker was happy to take an opinion at those odds that those value bettors were betting on, or if they weren't happy to lay those prices, then they need to get better at their job and quite simply, if they don't want to offer that price, then don't offer that price, it really is simple.

They are private companies, but they are legally obliged to hold a UKGC licence in order to be able to take bets from UK residents, and if the UKGC were to add a condition to that licence that the bookmakers have to accept bets from everybody, then there's absolutely nothing whatsoever that the bookmakers could do about it. It's happening in Australia, so there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that it can't happen here as well.

dejected wrote:

Bubbles wrote:

dejected wrote: Thanks Bubbles. So are you really saying there are no arbers out there that are using methods similar to Osipau? I did not say all, even many are doing it, but I bet there are some that are.

I'm sure there are some and Osipu is the best prove for that. Having said that, I think they belong a different category than most arbers who try to do it the right (maybe using term “legal” would be too much ) way. I mean I know people who use ids on an industrial scale but they are real ids of real people who gave their consent.

“To do that they offer generous prices and offers, but can only do that because of account restrictions.”

I agree with that and also for the reason I mentioned before: they would either all have to sharpen their lines or, even worse, create a cartel.

Yes they would have 3 options really. Lose lots of money to arbers, Sharpen their prices considerably, or the more likely option, all increase their margins (or as you put it become a cartel).

Arbs have become easier to find recently because the soft books have reduced their margins down to very little to boost turnover and attract more mug money. For example on a Saturday morning it is not uncommon to find horse racing books betting below 100% at best prices. The softbooks only do it because they get to keep a big proportion of the mug money they attract, restrictions help them do that. That is not going to happen if restrictions are taken away. I remember the days of minimum trebles on sports book. OK it might not get that bad, but I could see all the 10/11s going back to the 5/6s like it used to be. Removing restrictions is not going to benefit anyone in the industry long term, and that includes arbers. But its all academic ,  it is the way the industry has chosen to go forward and they are very unlikely to take a step backwards.

By the way luctens, you might not believe it but it is possible to beat a casino and turn the odds in your favor. How an knowledgeable arber can say its accepted that it is not possible to beat a casino is beyond me. You are living proof that you don't have to be that intelligent to be a successful arber, again taking your word for it that you are! Blackjack using a traditional shoe is a game of skill, yes luck plays a part, but the casino margin, which is pretty small anyway, about 0.5% can be overcome using skill. If you are good at card counting, and get caught, you get banned from every casino in the world. They have face recognition technology to spot you as you walk in.They don't do that for no reason! Bookies restriction algorithms are just doing a similar thing.

It is very widely accepted that casino games realistically can't be beaten, as there's a reason that casino games are known as games of pure chance, and that sports betting isn't.

Try moving with the times luctens. Your arguments may have held true when the soft bookmakers were acting as bookmakers, but the industry has changed. Competition and technological advancements make it very difficult to make a book any more, so the bookmakers have changed strategy. They are no longer acting like a bookmaker, they are acting like a casino. It is their business, it is their choice how they operate, as long as it is within the law. The GC have said restrictions are perfectly legal.

dejected wrote: Try moving with the times luctens. Your arguments may have held true when the soft bookmakers were acting as bookmakers, but the industry has changed. Competition and technological advancements make it very difficult to make a book any more, so the bookmakers have changed strategy. They are no longer acting like a bookmaker, they are acting like a casino. It is their business, it is their choice how they operate, as long as it is within the law. The GC have said restrictions are perfectly legal.

The bookmakers are only operating within the law to accept bets from UK residents if they they have a valid UKGC licence, and if the UKGC adds a condition to their sports betting licence that says that bookmakers must take bets from everybody, then to stay within the law they would have to take bets from everybody, and there's nothing whatsoever that the bookmakers would be able to do about it. It's happened in Australia, so there's absolutely no reason whatsoever why it can't happen here.

As I've said previously, the UKGC take a lot of lobbying and protesting to get them to do anything, but recent developments obviously show that they are starting to listen and take notice of the campaigners and protesters, so there is certainly a significant chance that the UKGC will act in putting minimum bet rules in place for all of it's sports betting licencees. Alternatively, as I've said previously, Jimmy Justice who is most definitely in the know and on the inside of this CMA investigation, thinks that as a result of this inquiry and changes to the displaying and wording of the bookmakers' terms and conditions, he thinks that the bookmakers may be forced into taking bets from everybody in order to avoid them having to put up a message clearly on their registration page stating that long term winners will be closed down, so there are are multiple avenues where the change that is needed can be achieved.

You seem to think Jimmy is some sort of super being. When I see him interviewed he does not put his point across very well. Bookmakers and their suppliers now employ some of the smartest minds in country. They go after the graduates that used to go in to management consultancy and investment banks. The GC have repeatedly said they do not have an issue with restrictions. Good luck if you think he is going to get the right to bet in the UK, but my money would be firmly on the bookmakers. If Jimmy does get his way the UK market will look considerably different to what it is now. How often can you bet at less than 100% on Australian racing? There is a big reason any man and his dog can currently spot arbs, that reason is restrictions.

luctens wrote: Spotting a value line is a very subjective thing, as what is a value line to one smart bettor may not be a value line to another smart bettor, as sports betting is a prediction market where different people have different opinions and nobody knows what the true odds should be, so there obviously there isn't just a set of value lines out there that every smart bettor bets on, as one smart bettor may think something is a value line, but another smart bettor won't think that is a value line, and the skill and knowledge is needed to spot whether something is a value line or not.

Luctens, the above really shows you have absolutely no idea how the markets work nowadays.  Value is not a matter of perspective, but a matter of mathematics and there is absolutely nothing subjective about it.  Your view is based upon something from years ago. This explains your view on bookie practises as well.  Matter closed for me.

dejected wrote: You seem to think Jimmy is some sort of super being. When I see him interviewed he does not put his point across very well. Bookmakers and their suppliers now employ some of the smartest minds in country. They go after the graduates that used to go in to management consultancy and investment banks. The GC have repeatedly said they do not have an issue with restrictions. Good luck if you think he is going to get the right to bet in the UK, but my money would be firmly on the bookmakers. If Jimmy does get his way the UK market will look considerably different to what it is now. How often can you bet at less than 100% on Australian racing?

I don't think Jimmy Justice is "some sort of super being" whatsoever, but when it comes to this CMA investigation which he is widely credited as being the main instigator of, he knows a lot more than anybody on here about what the likely outcomes of that CMA investigation will be, so it's only common sense to be seeing what he thinks will happen on the matter.

Whenever I've seen him interviewed, he puts across his points very well indeed. He simply says it as it is that the bookmakers are targeting anybody with any ability to possibly win in the long term and is closing down anybody they identify of that subscription, and that needs to change. And what that message he is putting out is very clearly exactly what is going on in this industry and these unethical and immoral bookmaker practices clearly have to be stopped.

You say "Bookmakers and their suppliers now employ some of the smartest minds in country. They go after the graduates that used to go in to management consultancy and investment banks." That is a completely pointless and nothing comment that has nothing to do with what has been discussed on this issue.

As I've said previously, the UKGC are an extremely tough organisation to deal with that need serious lobbying and protesting to get any change out of, but they are now starting to listen, so there is now a significant chance that they will act.

As I said previously, there is also the chance that as a result of this CMA investigation that the bookmakers will have to state clearly on their registration page that long term winners will be closed down, and that they may be forced into taking bets from everybody in order to avoid doing that.

We'll simply have to see what the UK market would look like if minimum bet rules came in place. And regarding Australia, I don't know what margins they bet to, but by all accounts from Australian punters, there has been no noticeable change in the prices at all when comparing the two applicable Australian states before the minimum bet rules and after them, with the only difference now obviously being that every punter can now get a guaranteed bet on every time.

luctens wrote: You say "Bookmakers and their suppliers now employ some of the smartest minds in country. They go after the graduates that used to go in to management consultancy and investment banks." That is a completely pointless and nothing comment that has nothing to do with what has been discussed on this issue.

As I've said previously, the UKGC are an extremely tough organisation to deal with that need serious lobbying and protesting to get any change out of, but they are now starting to listen, so there is now a significant chance that they will act.

You missed the point again. Who do you think is lobbying the GC? The bookies have some of the brightest guys in the country who understand the current market completely, have all the real figures on closed accounts and you have Jimmy, his guesswork and a few (in the real scale of things) disgruntled punters.

luctens wrote: We'll simply have to see what the UK market would look like if minimum bet rules came in place. And regarding Australia, I don't know what margins they bet to, but by all accounts from Australian punters, there has been no noticeable change in the prices at all when comparing the two applicable Australian states before the minimum bet rules and after them, with the only difference now obviously being that every punter can now get a guaranteed bet on every time.

Again you just keep blowing away your own argument. I did give you a clue why the Australian prices have not changed that much but you did not seem to pick up on it!

Bloody SMF ignore function not working!

dejected wrote:

luctens wrote: You say "Bookmakers and their suppliers now employ some of the smartest minds in country. They go after the graduates that used to go in to management consultancy and investment banks." That is a completely pointless and nothing comment that has nothing to do with what has been discussed on this issue.

As I've said previously, the UKGC are an extremely tough organisation to deal with that need serious lobbying and protesting to get any change out of, but they are now starting to listen, so there is now a significant chance that they will act.

You missed the point again. Who do you think is lobbying the GC? The bookies have some of the brightest guys in the country who understand the current market completely, have all the real figures on closed accounts and you have Jimmy, his guesswork and a few (in the real scale of things) disgruntled punters.

luctens wrote: We'll simply have to see what the UK market would look like if minimum bet rules came in place. And regarding Australia, I don't know what margins they bet to, but by all accounts from Australian punters, there has been no noticeable change in the prices at all when comparing the two applicable Australian states before the minimum bet rules and after them, with the only difference now obviously being that every punter can now get a guaranteed bet on every time.

Again you just keep blowing away your own argument. I did give you a clue why the Australian prices have not changed that much but you did not seem to pick up on it!

Bloody SMF ignore function not working!

Of course the bookmakers have some bigwigs that think they're all that lobbying on behalf of them, so what, that's obvious, it doesn't make a difference, if that put off any protester or campaigner then nobody would be doing any campaigning anywhere. You've got to be much stronger than that rather than give up just because a few bigwigs are standing in front of you. And you say the bookies have the real figures, and all Jimmy Justice has is his guesswork. Jimmy Justice clearly says that he thinks the approximately 2% of long term winners are getting closed down along with an increasing significant number of recreational punters. You seem to be trying to say that the bookies' real figures if revealed would be somewhat different from Jimmy Justice's estimates. We all know that bookmakers are trying to close down every long term winning smart punter they've got so that's a given, and it's obvious that a significant amount of recreational punters are caught up in this as well, so Jimmy Justice is likely very accurate with his estimates on how many people are being closed down.

You may think that the scale of customers getting closed down is just a few, but it goes back to the very core of sports betting. Even if it is only 2% of people are getting closed down but those 2% are the only long term winners that a bookmaker has, then it goes back to the very valid argument that although 2% doesn't sound like a lot, if that is every long term winner that is getting closed down, then sports betting has turned into a game where you can lose as much you like long term but you can't win long term, and that is no different from licenced theft, plain and simple, and it has to be stopped.

The Australian horse racing market is fiercely competitive so I expect the Australian horse racing market is just as competitive with margins and all the rest of it as it is in the UK. And the leader of that campaign for minimum bet rules in Australia is a professional horse racing punter and he says that after these minimum bet rules have come into place, that he hasn't seen any difference in the pricing and all the rest of it and he can still get a good bet on at the same price he would have been able to get on before the minimum bet rules and that he is still a successful professional horse racing punter. Also, any bookmaker talk about the Australian minimum bet rules has been positive as well.

So there we have it, the minimum bet rules have come into place in a fiercely competitive Australian market, by all accounts the pricing and all the rest of it hasn't changed after the minimum bet rules were put in place, professional punters and bookmakers alike are happy with the setup, no bookmakers have handed their licences in as a result and within two years there will likely be minimum bet rules in Australia for all horse racing and all sports. A clear working example of what exactly is happening in Australia, and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that it can't happen in the UK.

I just read two lines of this thread and it got me so upset. Every time there is a topic or opinion that tries to help arbers or review bookies greedy terms, someone who claims to know it all just emerges and argue away the real point and just ends the topic.
What are we fighting about one point bookies are coming with impossible terms simple and if you don't agree with it go away.
What upset me most is the the owner of this website is just reading and passing. Not that I am sure of what he should do though.
All the same please all does we have complain should send to the commissions email maybe they can help in this fight now that they woke up finally.