Arbusers

Alfa1234 wrote:

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.

So you think if you presented what you thought was a value line to another smart bettor that they automatically would think it would be a value line? Don't be silly. And that's the same with bookmakers, you ask two different bookmakers what they think the odds should be on something and you will get two different answers, as you see by pretty much every bookmaker's odds being different than each other. At the end of all of the analysis and probabilities, different smart bettors and different bookmakers will still come to a different conclusion about the probabilities of something happening, as nobody knows what the true odds should be, and in the end it comes down to opinion and subjectiveness on whether one smart bettor or another or one bookmaker or another sees a line as value or not.

alimma wrote: 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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-investigation-into-online-gambling

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-gambling

Gambling@cma.gsi.gov.uk

If you call 3 totes and about 8 online bookmakers fiercely competitive! From what I've read Australian off course lines open at about 130%. Stop believing Jimmy he is just guessing. I prefer to listen to the GC rather than what he thinks will happen, and the GC have said they have NO ISSUE WITH BOOKIES RESTRICTING ACCOUNTS.

From Luctens links, this is what the CMA are actually investigating...

We are especially concerned that players may be losing out as a result of:

Being locked into complex and strict requirements linked to gaming promotions that are difficult to understand and may be unachievable.
Companies having a wide discretion to cancel bets or alter odds after bets have been accepted, because they made a mistake when the odds were first set.
Terms restricting players’ ability to challenge a company’s decision.

NO MENTION OF RESTRICTIONS! Not even a mention about terms and conditions in regard to being able to win. Only unobtainable playthrough requirements, definition of a palp, and complaint investigation procedure.  And you think Jimmy is getting somewhere because he says so?

Dejected!
As far as I understand and from the email the commission replied to me, they are not focused on closed account or limit but on bookies unfair terms. A term that allows bookies to change the odds after the event is harmful to everyone one be it arber or value bettor or genius or fool it is just wrong. It is like I play a game with you and when I lose I lose real value and when you lose you modify my payment.

I think you are too smart for arbing maybe you can design a software or computer like bill gate or steve jobs but let the point stand.

Also the last time I checked this is called Arbuser. Arb plus users so it is a forum for arbers and not otherwise. If you are not one what are you doing here?

dejected wrote: If you call 3 totes and about 8 online bookmakers fiercely competitive! From what I've read Australian off course lines open at about 130%. Stop believing Jimmy he is just guessing. I prefer to listen to the GC rather than what he thinks will happen, and the GC have said they have NO ISSUE WITH BOOKIES RESTRICTING ACCOUNTS.

There's actually around 25 Australian horse racing bookmakers, and I expect individual Australian off course books open at that sort of margin, just like UK books do, but if you compare the whole Australian market, I expect the best book is obviously much lower than that, just like the UK market is. It's obviously a good enough market that the leader of the campaign in Australia sees it as a good enough market to be a successful professional punter in and still has exactly the same outlook on that after the minimum bet rules were introduced.

You don't seem to get that as part of lobbying and campaigning, you'll often find that the powers that be will be resistant for a long time and naysay on your arguments, quotes from which time that the UKGC that I expect you are reading from, which are obviously from the stage where they weren't listening to campaigners on this issue.

But now they're starting to listen, but even now you're not going to get the UKGC coming out saying we publicly support this or that and we're going to do this or that to listen to punters' concerns, it just doesn't happen. But you can read into the fact that the UKGC have initiated this CMA investigation on the back of campaigners continually banging on the door of the UKGC that they are starting to listen, so now there is a real chance of them implementing the changes that are needed.

dejected wrote: From Luctens links, this is what the CMA are actually investigating...

We are especially concerned that players may be losing out as a result of:

Being locked into complex and strict requirements linked to gaming promotions that are difficult to understand and may be unachievable.
Companies having a wide discretion to cancel bets or alter odds after bets have been accepted, because they made a mistake when the odds were first set.
Terms restricting players’ ability to challenge a company’s decision.

NO MENTION OF RESTRICTIONS! Not even a mention about terms and conditions in regard to being able to win. Only unobtainable playthrough requirements, definition of a palp, and complaint investigation procedure.  And you think Jimmy is getting somewhere because he says so?

It says a number of times on those links about unfair terms and conditions, and the three topics that are focused are just the main topics that are being looked at, but this is a review of general unfair terms and conditions, obviously the CMA can't list every single potential problem that they think there is so they're only going to list some topics, but one obvious reason that they are doing this investigation is to pick out any unfair or unclear terms and conditions that the bookmakers have.

And as I've said before, Jimmy Justice says that their review of terms and conditions will likely include the obvious very important term about closing players' accounts, and he thinks that the CMA may force the bookmakers to put a very clear message on the registration page stating that long term winners will be banned, and to avoid this the bookmakers may be forced into taking bets from everybody.

And given that Jimmy Justice is widely credited with instigating this CMA investigation and so obviously knows more than most about the likely outcomes of the investigation, and given that he has absolutely no advantage whatsoever to gain from lying about what he thinks may happen as a result of this CMA investigation, of course I will go with what he's said as he knows a great deal more about this investigation than anybody here does.

alimma wrote: Dejected!
As far as I understand and from the email the commission replied to me, they are not focused on closed account or limit but on bookies unfair terms. A term that allows bookies to change the odds after the event is harmful to everyone one be it arber or value bettor or genius or fool it is just wrong. It is like I play a game with you and when I lose I lose real value and when you lose you modify my payment.

I think you are too smart for arbing maybe you can design a software or computer like bill gate or steve jobs but let the point stand.

Also the last time I checked this is called Arbuser. Arb plus users so it is a forum for arbers and not otherwise. If you are not one what are you doing here?

I'm a value punter alimma . The 2 are explicitly linked so arbing interests me immensely. Arbing, although it has always existed, it is now a much bigger part of how the whole betting industry functions. So it is in my interest to learn as much about it as possible. I want to learn more about the statistics of betting and how the bookies use mathematical models to price sports markets. Basebooks are very good at that so anything that is part of how they function is of interest to me. I believe arbing only exists in its current form because of the industries need for new mug money. This thirst results in decreased softbook margins to tempt the mug money in. Restrictions allow softbooks to work with the low margins arbers require to function. This is the most important issue arbers are facing. It amazes me that a lot of arbers don't understand the effect it would have on the arbing "industry" if restrictions were removed!

I'm not going to answer Luctens any more, we are just going round in circles, he is not going to change his mind and neither am I. I just don't get how he can not understand when the GC have explicitly stated that are happy with restrictions that he thinks this review is going to change that. He seems to think Jimmy knows more about the investigation than the people conducting it.

dejected wrote:

alimma wrote: Dejected!
As far as I understand and from the email the commission replied to me, they are not focused on closed account or limit but on bookies unfair terms. A term that allows bookies to change the odds after the event is harmful to everyone one be it arber or value bettor or genius or fool it is just wrong. It is like I play a game with you and when I lose I lose real value and when you lose you modify my payment.

I think you are too smart for arbing maybe you can design a software or computer like bill gate or steve jobs but let the point stand.

Also the last time I checked this is called Arbuser. Arb plus users so it is a forum for arbers and not otherwise. If you are not one what are you doing here?

I'm a value punter alimma . The 2 are explicitly linked so arbing interests me immensely. Arbing, although it has always existed, it is now a much bigger part of how the whole betting industry functions. So it is in my interest to learn as much about it as possible. I want to learn more about the statistics of betting and how the bookies use mathematical models to price sports markets. Basebooks are very good at that so anything that is part of how they function is of interest to me. I believe arbing only exists in its current form because of the industries need for new mug money. This thirst results in decreased softbook margins to tempt the mug money in. Restrictions allow softbooks to work with the low margins arbers require to function. This is the most important issue arbers are facing. It amazes me that a lot of arbers don't understand the effect it would have on the arbing "industry" if restrictions were removed!

I'm not going to answer Luctens any more, we are just going round in circles, he is not going to change his mind and neither am I. I just don't get how he can not understand when the GC have explicitly stated that are happy with restrictions that he thinks this review is going to change that. He seems to think Jimmy knows more about the investigation than the people conducting it.

As I've said previously, Jimmy Justice doesn't expect that as a result of this investigation, the CMA or the UKGC are going to say to bookmakers you must take bets from everybody. But what he does think they will say is that if you're going to ban long term winners, put it in a clear sign on your registration page as the current term relating to this is too vague and not prominent enough on your websites. And he thinks that there's no chance the bookmakers will put a sign up on their registration page saying long term winners will be banned, and if they aren't going to do that, the only option left to the bookmakers is to take bets from everybody, so in that way he thinks the bookmakers may be forced to take bets from everybody as a result of this investigation.

Jimmy Justice will certainly know more than most about this investigation, so he's the best person to listen to when looking at what the most likely outcomes are of this investigation, and he isn't stating anything that the UKGC haven't already said previously, as the UKGC have already said that their current stance on the matter is that at this point they won't intervene and say bookmakers have to take bets from everybody, but their main focus is on the clarity and the prominence of such terms and conditions and that they will do something if they come to the conclusion that the term banning long term winners is too vague and not clear enough where it is positioned on the bookmakers' websites.

So whilst the UKGC will most likely not be saying to the bookmakers at this stage you must take bets from everybody, they may well force the bookmakers to put such an important term in much clearer dialogue clearly saying long term winners will be banned and to put it on the registration page of their websites rather than buried in their terms and conditions. And Jimmy Justice thinks there's no chance that the bookmakers will put a sign saying long term winners will be banned on their registration page, and as their only alternative apart from doing that would be to take bets from everybody, he thinks in that way the bookmakers may be forced into taking bets from everybody as a result of this investigation.

Grrrr. I said I would not reply again

It is just not true that you can not win long term, so if they were forced to put that in their terms and conditions they would be lying. I am a long term winner and have unrestricted accounts. I have people that pay me for my selections and staking plan because of it. They too have unrestricted accounts because they know how to bet. Online you will only be restricted if you fall foul of their algorithms. If you bet in a way that does not trigger them, you will not be restricted. As I said the bookies have the information that makes Jimmy's argument look wrong. If I know he is wrong when he says you are not allow to win, you can be pretty sure the bookies do. They will have thousands of accounts like mine lined up to show the GC. They probably have done it already hence the GCs position.

I think the most that will happen is they may have to make it more prominent that they have the right to refuse a bet, but everyone knows that anyway! They might even do that voluntarily because of whats coming to the shops. The bookies are so far ahead of the curve these days you will be shocked.

In a betting shop you can easily win unrestricted, although it will become more difficult soon. When that happens, refusals in betting shops will become more common, so the right to refuse a bet will probably have to be more prominent to help prevent the in shop arguments anyway.  Wait and see what they have planned when FOBTs are stake restricted.

dejected wrote:

alimma wrote: Dejected!
As far as I understand and from the email the commission replied to me, they are not focused on closed account or limit but on bookies unfair terms. A term that allows bookies to change the odds after the event is harmful to everyone one be it arber or value bettor or genius or fool it is just wrong. It is like I play a game with you and when I lose I lose real value and when you lose you modify my payment.

I think you are too smart for arbing maybe you can design a software or computer like bill gate or steve jobs but let the point stand.

Also the last time I checked this is called Arbuser. Arb plus users so it is a forum for arbers and not otherwise. If you are not one what are you doing here?

I believe arbing only exists in its current form because of the industries need for new mug money. This thirst results in decreased softbook margins to tempt the mug money in. Restrictions allow softbooks to work with the low margins arbers require to function. This is the most important issue arbers are facing. It amazes me that a lot of arbers don't understand the effect it would have on the arbing "industry" if restrictions were removed!

you are not just dejected, you are also jealous, you are jealous of arbers and their success and you resent this,
you told me in your pm you couldn't afford a holiday so obviously you are not making that much at your value betting and you said yourself you joined here because you were disillusioned or some other nonsense and that's why you picked your silly name "dejected"

how can you talk about being amazed by a "lot of arbers" when only a handful respond to you on here
and the big guys never say a word, you hear a few newbies mostly and come out with all your wise conclusions,

you claim you have no interest in arbing so why spend hours writing about it on here, if it's not we're all fraudsters
and money launderers, it's that we're too stupid and not nearly as smart as you to realise the effect of some
probe by the UK government on UK books, a lot of the guys on here hardly use UK books.

I'm a UK arber and I couldn't give a toss about some some "probe" what happens happens and we evolve
until the day we can't and then we say "thanks for the journey" it's been great fun

you on the other hand will stay dejected, wishing you knew how to arb, were making the profits that a lot
of the arbers on here and elsewhere are making, guys who can afford to go on holiday

dejected wrote: Grrrr. I said I would not reply again

It is just not true that you can not win long term, so if they were forced to put that in their terms and conditions they would be lying. I am a long term winner and have unrestricted accounts. I have people that pay me for my selections and staking plan because of it. They too have unrestricted accounts because they know how to bet. Online you will only be restricted if you fall foul of their algorithms. If you bet in a way that does not trigger them, you will not be restricted. As I said the bookies have the information that makes Jimmy's argument look wrong. If I know he is wrong when he says you are not allow to win, you can be pretty sure the bookies do. They will have thousands of accounts like mine lined up to show the GC. They probably have done it already hence the GCs position.

In a betting shop you can easily win unrestricted, although it will become more difficult soon.

I think the most that will happen is they may have to make it more prominent that they have the right to refuse a bet, but everyone knows that anyway! That won't stop the mugs betting.

Obviously some people like you and your subscribers will slip through the net and keep their accounts open long term, but it is the bookmakers aim to identify and close down every single smart punter that is currently, or they think will in the future, win in the long term, of that there is no doubt.

So if you want to play semantics with it, the bookmakers would have to say on their registration page "If we identify you as a smart bettor that is currently or will likely win in the long term, you will be banned". It is very simply the opportunity for the bookmakers to close people down just because they are smart and they think may win in the long term that needs to be stopped.

Jimmy Justice's argument isn't wrong, he clearly says that the bookmakers' aim is to identify any players with any ability to win in the long term, and to close them down, and that obviously is what is currently happening, plain and simple. Just because some people like you and your subscribers have managed to slip through the net doesn't disprove his argument whatsoever, the thousands of accounts the bookies will have shut down precisely because the bookies have identified those people as smart long term winners conclusively proves his argument.

And the bookies showing accounts like yours to the UKGC doesn't prove the bookies point at all, as if the UKGC decide to take proper action on this issue, then they would obviously ask for figures like how many accounts the bookmaker has, how many accounts they've closed, and what were the reasons for closing those accounts. Just having some accounts like yours to show the UKGC wouldn't hold any weight whatsoever if that bookmaker also has thousands of closed accounts for being smart long term winners also on their books.

Betting shops shouldn't be any different to online betting either, they shouldn't be allowed to ban smart punters just like online bookmakers shouldn't be able to.

You can state your views about what you think the CMA will do all you want, but Jimmy Justice thinks as a result of this investigation the bookmakers may be forced into taking bets from everybody, and as he is widely credited with instigating this investigation and he obviously knows more than anybody else on here about what the likely outcomes will be, anybody with any common sense is obviously going to go with Jimmy Justice's views on what is likely to happen in this CMA investigation rather than yours.

Quite happy with my life yorkjoss. I don't need to go on holiday. I am holiday everyday, I like my simple life. I'm quite capable of arbing if I wanted to, I can find them myself, dont need a service, have programs I have written to do it already. I was very suprised how easy they are to find but I guess that is not the hard part at the moment. I could even have a pretty good go at staying under the radar and not being restricted. I manage that with my value bets. Yes part of the reason is I don't try and make 6 figures, but I don't need to There are several ways I could do that if I wanted to. In the days when I could be bothered to work, I did

I know you understand the game. I know you will react to changes. You were probably doing it long before the softbooks margins dropped and arbing services became prominent. My first experiences of arbing were when working in the city 30 years ago! I'm not having a go at the likes of you and the arbers that stay quiet. Sorry if my reference to arbers sounds like that. I'm having a go at the ones that responded to me saying things that just don't make sense. Ones that have jumped on the band wagon without understanding why it works. Maybe I'm wrong and all arbers are as smart as you, but in my limited time here it seems like some are not. Hopefully they will learn something from my arguments. They do not seem to understand what will happen to all the "easy" arbs if restrictions were removed whereas I'm sure you do.

dejected wrote: Quite happy with my life yorkjoss. I don't need to go on holiday. I am holiday everyday, I like my simple life. I'm quite capable of arbing if I wanted to, I can find them myself, dont need a service, have programs I have written to do it already. I was very suprised how easy they are to find but I guess that is not the hard part at the moment. I could even have a pretty good go at staying under the radar and not being restricted. I manage that with my value bets. Yes part of the reason is I don't try and make 6 figures, but I don't need to There are several ways I could do that if I wanted to. In the days when I could be bothered to work, I did

I know you understand the game. I know you will react to changes. You were probably doing it long before the softbooks margins dropped and arbing services became prominent. My first experiences of arbing were when working in the city 30 years ago! I'm not having a go at the likes of you and the arbers that stay quiet. Sorry if my reference to arbers sounds like that. I'm having a go at the ones that responded to me saying things that just don't make sense. Ones that have jumped on the band wagon without understanding why it works. Maybe I'm wrong and all arbers are as smart as you, but in my limited time here it seems like some are not. Hopefully they will learn something from my arguments. They do not seem to understand what will happen to all the "easy" arbs if restrictions were removed whereas I'm sure you do.

I most definitely have not "learnt" anything from your arguments. As I said before, we would just have to see what would happen in the UK market if minimum bet rules came in, but these are urgent changes needed to restore some balance to the industry and to allow absolutely everybody that is good enough, to be allowed to win in the long term.

I would not expect you to learn anything Luctens, nor teach me anything either.

yorkross are you recommending that if someone responds to me with something that does not sit well I should just ignore them, I guess you did warn me about that. But I did warn everybody I like an argument I'll try not to generalise by using the term arber in the future. Would "some less experienced arbers" work better?