Boyles acting the maggot again

Scott Tenorman · 17-04-2019 8:36pm

My wife used to work in a bookies. Most of the errors are due to capturing errors (cashier manually entering details from a screenshot of the bet). Nothing sinister in it

Motivator · 17-04-2019 9:36pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

I can see that a few of you on here don't know any bookies and have certainly never had a chat with them. They will tell you that the biggest problem they have is finding trustworthy staff. With so many mugs coming in to them afraid or unable to figure out what's due to them on a multiple it's a goldmine for a rogue clerk.

Paddy Power or John Boyle told you this did they?

I worked in the industry, in security, and believe me a rogue cashier or manager is caught very rapidly. In just over 6 years I can remember having to deal with two incidents. One was a guy who should never have been given the job in the first place, he literally couldn’t count. Irregularities in the shops balancing reports were flagged up after a certain amount of wrong balances. We monitored the shop and spoke with the manger. Manager worked on a couple of shifts with him and it transpired he wasn’t robbing anyone. He was thick and lacked confidence. It happens. The second incident the cashier was sacked for her disciplinary issue. Nothing major but she was a bad egg and she was dealt with. Two incidents in 6 years for a major company is fair going and I don’t agree with some of the comments about betting shop staff.

The majority are treated like garbage day in day out and I admire anyone that does it full time.

WicklowBrave · 17-04-2019 10:16pm

Wrap up this thread ffs

realdanbreen · 18-04-2019 8:25am

Motivator wrote: »

Paddy Power or John Boyle told you this did they?

Sounds like you were never at a race meeting. If you ever decide to go you will notice a bunch of guys standing on little steps usually in front of the stands with satchels and boards with horses names on it. They are called bookmakers.

RivetingRoger · 18-04-2019 9:22am

Same Boyles shop yesterday
did a double on Thomas Cambell and Johnsons horse "Mahler" in the previous race
Did it on FOBT
Johnsons yoke was 5/1, Thomas Campbell was 6/1
Dickies horse won @ 6/1, TC went NR....SO.....double becomes a single, BOG on singles.......nope......paid out at the 5/1

I didn't even bother protesting, it was a small bet
Just never going in there again

Its enough to make a fella go to Ladbrokes.....................eeuugghhh

Mostly Harmless · 18-04-2019 9:23am

That's the way bets are settled, same as doing a patent and having only one winner you won't get BOG.

This thread needs closing.

realdanbreen · 18-04-2019 9:29am

A few guys on here getting very touchy about this topic of short changing being brought up...hhmmm I wonder why....

RivetingRoger · 18-04-2019 9:37am

Mostly Harmless wrote: »

That's the way bets are settled, same as doing a patent and having only one winner you won't get BOG.

This thread needs closing.

2 Points

1. You possibly work in a bookies reading your comments here, so you may have skin in the game

2. FOBT singles are BOG, if one horse goes NR in a double, the bet is a single and BOG applies, or at least it SHOULD

Mostly Harmless · 18-04-2019 9:41am

I don't work in a bookies and never have, I have spent a good bit of time in betting shops over the years and do know what to expect.

Whether you believe a double with a non runner should be settled with BOG doesn't matter sadly, essentially it is a multiple bet with a non runner and is therefore settled as a multiple so does not get BOG unless BOG applies to multis too. Like I said a patent bet has three singles in it and these don't get BOG applied as it is a MULTI (see also lucky 15s) - sure if you checked the Ts&Cs there would be one to cover this.

Wish people would stop looking for scandal where there is none.

RivetingRoger · 18-04-2019 9:47am

Mostly Harmless wrote: »

I don't work in a bookies and never have, I have spent a good bit of time in betting shops over the years and do know what to expect.

Whether you believe a double with a non runner should be settled with BOG doesn't matter sadly, essentially it is a multiple bet with a non runner and is therefore settled as a multiple so does not get BOG unless BOG applies to multis too. Like I said a patent bet has three singles in it and these don't get BOG applied as it is a MULTI (see also lucky 15s) - sure if you checked the Ts&Cs there would be one to cover this.

Wish people would stop looking for scandal where there is none.

If i had to put a bet on wether of not I think you work in a bookies I would go 1/2 you do !!

You are just plain wrong re doubles MH, a Double with a NR becomes a single, or at least it 100% does in PP, and mate, i know that for a fact as it has happened to be on numerous occasions and they always pay BOG
Boyles.......sure who knows :rolleyes:

Mostly Harmless · 18-04-2019 9:52am

RivetingRoger wrote: »

If i had to put a bet on wether of not I think you work in a bookies I would go 1/2 you do !!

You are just plain wrong re doubles MH, a Double with a NR becomes a single, or at least it 100% does in PP, and mate, i know that for a fact as it has happened to be on numerous occasions and they always pay BOG
Boyles.......sure who knows :rolleyes:

Would not want to be following your prices in that case if you make me 1/2 to be working a betting shop.

Might seem far too simple but may I suggest you just bet with Paddy if you know they offer better terms.

Just wrecks my head that some people feel the need to always cry foul and bang on about being ripped off when basic rules are being applied - see it going on in shops all the time. Don't hate the player, hate the game etc

realdanbreen · 18-04-2019 10:18am

Celtic bookmakers, now there was a firm where a right few quid was made.
Ivan Yates did a lot of things right setting up the firm but proper oversight of the shops was not one of them.

PhuckHugh2 · 18-04-2019 10:32am

Now we are dealing with dodgy FOBT's as well as dodgy staff. This thread has taken an interesting turn.

What will happen next. [Grab's popcorn]

Mostly Harmless · 18-04-2019 10:38am

realdanbreen wrote: »

Celtic bookmakers, now there was a firm where a right few quid was made.
Ivan Yates did a lot of things right setting up the firm but proper oversight of the shops was not one of them.

Ivan Yates did a lot more wrong than right with that firm, that's why they went bankrupt. But from a punters point of view their absurdly generous specials and massively stale early prices were a goldmine for anyone with half a clue.

FatRat · 18-04-2019 10:49am

In my opinion, the #1 selling point of online bookies is traceability, reliability and accountability. Zero Human Factor error unless their system itself is broken - and this will be logged so will be fixed eventually.

I think people are living in the dark ages continuing to bet in shops. The rare occasion I find myself in a shop I still bet online inside there. I have never had an issue with a bet - nothing major enough that I remember anyway. This ranting thread/conspiracies etc. simply wouldn't exist if everyone did the same. A funny thing on this is that I actually would be super prone to errors in shops since I have placed so few physical bets that I'm not even confident I can do it error-free/properly.

Completely different topic/thread but I don't agree with the excuse of not having an online account because you'll lose your rag. If this is a possibility for someone they should not be gambling in the first place. Shops are just as accessible if living in a town/city and also less sociable with lads spending a full day inside there when you can bet on the go online. Really surprises me the amount of people on here who still spend days/place all their bets in shops. There's my opinion anyway.

realdanbreen · 18-04-2019 11:08am

FatRat wrote: »

In my opinion, the #1 selling point of online bookies is traceability, reliability and accountability. Zero Human Factor error unless their system itself is broken - and this will be logged so will be fixed eventually.

I think people are living in the dark ages continuing to bet in shops. The rare occasion I find myself in a shop I still bet online inside there. I have never had an issue with a bet - nothing major enough that I remember anyway. This ranting thread/conspiracies etc. simply wouldn't exist if everyone did the same. A funny thing on this is that I actually would be super prone to errors in shops since I have placed so few physical bets that I'm not even confident I can do it error-free/properly.

Completely different topic/thread but I don't agree with the excuse of not having an online account because you'll lose your rag. If this is a possibility for someone they should not be gambling in the first place. Shops are just as accessible if living in a town/city and also less sociable with lads spending a full day inside there when you can bet on the go online. Really surprises me the amount of people on here who still spend days/place all their bets in shops. There's my opinion anyway.

IMO online gambling is a bit like drinking at home, sure it's convenient but
you can't beat a bit of human interaction.

realdanbreen · 18-04-2019 11:12am

Mostly Harmless wrote: »

Ivan Yates did a lot more wrong than right with that firm, that's why they went bankrupt. But from a punters point of view their absurdly generous specials and massively stale early prices were a goldmine for anyone with half a clue.

A mate of mine had a great 'relationship' with a celtic shop when it came to phone in bets.

Imhof Tank · 18-04-2019 12:02pm

Mostly Harmless wrote: »

Would not want to be following your prices in that case if you make me 1/2 to be working a betting shop.

Might seem far too simple but may I suggest you just bet with Paddy if you know they offer better terms.

Just wrecks my head that some people feel the need to always cry foul and bang on about being ripped off when basic rules are being applied - see it going on in shops all the time. Don't hate the player, hate the game etc

The whole "Paddy Justice" culture of entitlement is to blame for a lot of this.

Any bookie not following suit and just sticking to the rules is automatically a boll*x :rolleyes: Even Paddy himself gets grief if there isn't a "Justice" concession declared in certain hard luck cases.

realdanbreen · 18-04-2019 12:18pm

Imhof Tank wrote: »

The whole "Paddy Justice" culture of entitlement is to blame for a lot of this.

Any bookie not following suit and just sticking to the rules is automatically a boll*x :rolleyes: Even Paddy himself gets grief if there isn't a "Justice" concession declared in certain hard luck cases.

I agree with you. If you win X amount on a multiple bet then you are 'entitled' to collect X amount not X minus whatever the clerk skims off the top for himself.

Imhof Tank · 18-04-2019 12:23pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

I agree with you. If you win X amount on a multiple bet then you are 'entitled' to collect X amount not X minus whatever the clerk skims off the top for himself.

OK and are you "entitled" to BOG on multiples which become singles because of non runners in Boyles just because Paddy gives it and you've therefore assumed its an industry rule?

realdanbreen · 18-04-2019 12:33pm

Imhof Tank wrote: »

OK and are you "entitled" to BOG on multiples which become singles because of non runners in Boyles just because Paddy gives it and you've therefore assumed its an industry rule?

I don't make any assumptions re bookmakers but I KNOW and have experience of all sorts of chicanery taking place -on both sides of the counter mind you!

PhuckHugh2 · 18-04-2019 12:34pm

Imhof Tank wrote: »

OK and are you "entitled" to BOG on multiples which become singles because of non runners in Boyles just because Paddy gives it?

IMO and this wont be a popular one. But BOG is the worst thing to happen to betting this century. It has created less efficient markets with huge over rounds. SP manipulation seems to be a lot more prevalent since its introduction. It has also caused a shift in how bookmakers do business. I have pretty much given up betting in the last 5 or so years as it really isnt possible to beat the markets at a consistent rate while remaining to be able to get on.
This all came from BOG, Extra places, Justice Refunds and any other specials IMO. It has basically ruined the game and lads want more of it.

Motivator · 18-04-2019 6:36pm

realdanbreen wrote: »

Sounds like you were never at a race meeting. If you ever decide to go you will notice a bunch of guys standing on little steps usually in front of the stands with satchels and boards with horses names on it. They are called bookmakers.

Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about on course bookies did they?

lemush · 18-04-2019 7:13pm

Anyone backing horses on the fobts is an absolute idiot especially in this age of concessions for non starters, extra places etc. which do not apply to machine bets.

RIALTO1 · 18-04-2019 7:46pm

FatRat wrote:

I think people are living in the dark ages continuing to bet in shops. The rare occasion I find myself in a shop I still bet online inside there. I have never had an issue with a bet - nothing major enough that I remember anyway. This ranting thread/conspiracies etc. simply wouldn't exist if everyone did the same. A funny thing on this is that I actually would be super prone to errors in shops since I have placed so few physical bets that I'm not even confident I can do it error-free/properly.

FatRat wrote:

In my opinion, the #1 selling point of online bookies is traceability, reliability and accountability. Zero Human Factor error unless their system itself is broken - and this will be logged so will be fixed eventually.

FatRat wrote:

Completely different topic/thread but I don't agree with the excuse of not having an online account because you'll lose your rag. If this is a possibility for someone they should not be gambling in the first place. Shops are just as accessible if living in a town/city and also less sociable with lads spending a full day inside there when you can bet on the go online. Really surprises me the amount of people on here who still spend days/place all their bets in shops. There's my opinion anyway.

Plenty of folk bet in shops because they can't get a bet online.

RIALTO1 · 18-04-2019 7:49pm

IAMAMORON wrote:

I am sure if you go to page 5 of their employee handbook you will see the " skimping " section. I think it is here that employees are encouraged to disgruntle customers by ripping them off. I think sections 3 and 4 itemise preferred methods of ripping off clients and section 5 details lame and made up excuses.

I've been around the betting game long enough. As I say, constantly have bets settled incorrectly, mainly on sports not horses. And always settled under, with them settling on wrong markets (e.g. total goals instead of total team goals) or claiming prices had moved. As I say, ALWAYS settled under.

Morgans · 19-04-2019 12:00am

a question for those working in bookies and know the business.

The bets that are taken after the off or no more bets sign goes up. Obviously, are voided when the punter goes up to collect and is refused.
There must be hundreds of bets each week that are voided and over the years, it must mount up to millions. Must be tempting for the company to treat these as losing bets. Has there ever been a punter who comes up requesting that they think their bet was placed innocently after the off?

whiteshorts · 19-04-2019 12:14am

It's easy enough to check the NMB time on a race.

I heard of one major bookmaking chain that fired all their staff in one shop due to the staff voiding bets for customers (if they were losing bets) and paying as winners (if they won) and they got a "%" of the winnings.
Bets were placed seconds after the NMB and staff were able to use their discretion regarding payment.

realdanbreen · 19-04-2019 8:23am

Motivator wrote: »

Nobody in this thread mentioned anything about on course bookies did they?

Correct, but you probably needed to read the earlier posts before you replied.

Healio · 19-04-2019 3:15pm

Morgans wrote: »

a question for those working in bookies and know the business.

The bets that are taken after the off or no more bets sign goes up. Obviously, are voided when the punter goes up to collect and is refused.
There must be hundreds of bets each week that are voided and over the years, it must mount up to millions. Must be tempting for the company to treat these as losing bets. Has there ever been a punter who comes up requesting that they think their bet was placed innocently after the off?

Pre-computer introduction, the sleepers were only guaranteed for 6 months. Bets outstanding over a certain amount, were at that point logged in a notebook; in all my years behind the counter, I never saw anyone else, let alone myself pay one out from this notebook.

In the computer age, you appear to be at the mercy of the operator. No mention in any of their rulebooks online, or in shops (albeit i haven't read a shop one in over 6 months).

What way they are accounted for at that point from the bookmakers viewpoint/balance sheet, is anyone guess; we'd all have our suspicions I suppose.

whiteshorts wrote:

I heard of one major bookmaking chain that fired all their staff in one shop due to the staff voiding bets for customers (if they were losing bets) and paying as winners (if they won) and they got a "%" of the winnings.
Bets were placed seconds after the NMB and staff were able to use their discretion regarding payment.

I have heard a similiar story as well in the recent past.

Motivator wrote:

I worked in the industry, in security, and believe me a rogue cashier or manager is caught very rapidly. In just over 6 years I can remember having to deal with two incidents. One was a guy who should never have been given the job in the first place, he literally couldn’t count. Irregularities in the shops balancing reports were flagged up after a certain amount of wrong balances. We monitored the shop and spoke with the manger. Manager worked on a couple of shifts with him and it transpired he wasn’t robbing anyone. He was thick and lacked confidence. It happens. The second incident the cashier was sacked for her disciplinary issue. Nothing major but she was a bad egg and she was dealt with. Two incidents in 6 years for a major company is fair going and I don’t agree with some of the comments about betting shop staff.

That is either a very small operation or a very naive security team.

Boyles acting the maggot again

Comments