Bet as much as ya want

[Guest couchpotato]

Then just sue them if it doesn't come up!!!!

Punter sues

[+Gringo]

Nice one. I lost a million only last week...... :023:

[Canada Bob]

Most Bookies operate a self exclusion thing, after all gambling is an addiction, so they have a legal/moral/ethical obligation to have self inclusion in place, not that they are ethical or moral, it's simply to save them from litigation. The odd thing about this is, why they let the bloke carry on betting if they knew he'd sort of banned himself.

At the end of the day, business is business, it's all about taking {not making} money, I doubt that a drug dealer would want to ban one of his best "clients", what makes a Bookie any different...

On a lighter note, will Jack Duckworth get his money on that Yankee, even though he's lost his slip ? you can see how that's going right now, "no slip, no money" and I've seen that card played more than once, going back over 40 years ago. A mate of mine had a 22 quid Yankee up {a massive stake in those days}, he didn't lose his slip, it was a postal bet with Hills office in Glasgow, here's how that went...

After the first 3 went in he phones them up to ask "how much is going on the last horse" they tell him "about 700 quid" we go to watch the race in a local Bookies and the horse wins, he phones them back later to ask how much he has to draw, {about 5 grand} and they say... "we can't find the bet" !!!  {even though a settler had told him what was going on the last horse}, and that's what they stuck to for months, even though he got a Lawyer involved, finally his Lawyer was going to appeal their License... they paid him... b*stards...

Bottom line is though, Bookies are RUTHLESS, but Jack will get his money, as you would from almost any High Street Bookie these days, but some of the small fry will still argue the toss with you, IF they think they can get con you...

If you have money some r sole will want what's yours, might be a Bookie, might be a woman {even one with a wooden leg, she'll still throw it over you if you're rich enough}, but there's more animals in the pack than these, pretty sick hey.

Canada Bob.

[clacher_holiday2]

I've been thinking about this a fair bit over the past week, have to say I side with the bookie more than the punter.

Think the punter has a case for bets placed online, ive got multiple accounts with some bookies, its easily done.  But what can a bookie do when guys walk into shops with sacks of money?

This guy is a chancer IMO, if the judge has any gambling knowledge at all the case will be thrown out with no ruling other than hills having to tighten up on security when new accounts are opened.  In the wider world gambling is still frowned upon heavily, with bookmakers seen as thieves and the whole industry as being seedy and morally corrupt, so the lad has more of a chance than most punters would credit him.  He could get lucky and find a judge who will have sympathy for him, if he gets another punter then he hasnt a snowballs chance in mull.

Any ruling which compensates the punter will only go to serve stupidity and give this Calvert person a big get out of jail free ticket, as its the punter opening the case its upto him to prove if he had won the 30,000 quid bets that he wouldve owned up to excluding himself and given the winnings back (  :015: :015: :015: ).

But then is it the bookies responsibility to make sure no bets are taken whatsoever from the lad?  After all it was a voluntary self exclusion.  Why is he picking on William Hills anyway?  Theres hundreds of bookies in this country!  Every bet he placed, Hills were liable to pay out on.

From Hills terms and conditions-

Whilst most customers are able to enjoy their gambling, William Hill recognises that for a very small number of customers gambling ceases to be fun. For those customers who wish to restrict their gambling,  William Hill provides a self-exclusion facility enabling customers to close their account or accounts for a minimum period of six months up to five years as requested.

Thats exactly what they did, theres problem gambling information posted on every website and available in every shop, I think the bookies are well covered.

As above he needs a judge who will have sympathy with him rather than a judge who will see him for what he is, individuals have sued massive organisations before and won, so you never know.