Importance of whether bookmakers restrict winners

[quincunx]

After posting a reply to dduck's post on limiting bookies and their presence in the top 10,it occurred to me that the problem may well be that while BMR was aimed at a wide cross-section of punters,and while most punters are recreational,the readers of BMR are not a random cross-section and tend to be more sophisticated and knowledgeable than most.Therefore the restriction/banning of winners by some bookmakers tends to be more of an issue to BMR readers than it would be to the average punter.
I also get the impression from reading forums that some bookmakers - notably bet365 - have become hypersensitive to bonus 'abusers' while others have become sensitive to arbers - perhaps because they now have software that tells them when they are offering arb-able odds.So more punters are having their accounts restricted or closed.Of course,bookmakers are quite entitled to restrict or close accounts,but this does make them less attractive than those that don't restrict or close accounts.

 

[pier0]

There are several issues here, one specific to the person that started the thread, which I didn't want to mention in front of everyone else, but I will if he keeps playing smart ass: over the last three years I've assisted him in at least 12 (twelve) complaints with the type of bookmakers he would like to see on top, so I'm not exactly sure why he just recently realized BMR recommends to bet only with certain bookmakers rather than the Stryyke and GoldVictory of the world.

More likely he just wanted everyone to know how good he is since every bookmaker is scared to take his bets.

Then there is a general issue, which is BMR readership is made by hundreds of recreational players that would never get involved in forums, but are the ones that eventually click on the banners that ultimately pay our commissions and our bills.

Guys like dduck, I know from experience, think me and George should work for free and irregardless of what we do they will never appreciate it because they only think about themselves, the proof being they show up only to criticize, never to contribute.

So forgive me, but it's unlikely that BMR will change its general approach to ratings because dduck thinks is funny the bookmakers at the top have limited him. I rather protect the hundreds, actually thousands, of BMR readers that are not professional players.

On a completely different note, we are getting ready to launch the focus groups where, as I mentioned in the thread, professional players will rate bookmakers for what they provide to them. The same for other types of players.

The idea is to determine what each group of players is looking for in a bookmaker and then over time have dedicated ratings so that Bet365 may be a 5 for a recreational player, but a 3 for a professional.

You are welcome to join the professional players group if you feel like it.

 

[quincunx]

Hi,Pier.Okay,thanks.I appreciate that there are things I hadn't understood before - thanks for opening my eyes.However,there are many punters out there who - while they may be recreational - still use odds comparison websites in just the same way that they would use price comparison websites to choose car insurance.Bookies like Corals and Ladbrokes are starting to restrict them,too.

 

[G-Man]

The guy dduck also admits to being a mulyiple account holder at these operators. Does that not ring alarm bells?

 

[quincunx]

I'd heard of other people opening multiple accounts after they got banned or restricted - so no,to be honest,it didn't.

 

[BMR Review]

Having multiple accounts at the same book is not allowed, reason is it is a way of circumventing the limits set in place for wagering.