'Consultation over the Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes board' blog discussion

tobiascurious

I found this from a thread in 2007

Tim_L wrote:

I have to say that if I could I would already have suspended the board.

Matched betting works extremely well. You can make plenty of money from it if you follow the instructions, as most of us here are aware.

However there's an increasing tendency towards feeding frenzies. Today's thread demonstrates this, and in a situation where people didn't actually know what they were doing disasterous results were pretty much inevitable.

I can't watch the forum 24/7 to warn against problems, and in any case it's not my job to do that. It's sad, but I think it's far better to shut down the board than to risk further problems. So I suggest that those involved who want to stay in touch make themselves known to each other soon, and the authors of the guide make copies and so on. I'm going to be recommending that the board be suspended pretty much immediately.

tobiascurious

And this, also in the same thread from 2007 after something went wrong on betfair

misskool wrote:

Much as I love this forum (and I do post on here 24/7!!) i voted for it to be closed.

We all tout it as risk free but if you take a long hard look, it isn't. we give many warnings and today was a classic example of how everyone should have taken a look before diving in.

I am not judging anyone who suffered a loss today however I feel that something not completely risk free is suitable for MSE.

CountryLad

tobiascurious wrote: »

I found this from a thread in 2007

You've quoted out of context. That thread is here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=4437182&postcount=9

and was posted in the immediate aftermath of the 1am FGS scandal. I'm pretty sure that, unlike the current situation, it was simply a bit of posturing aimed at reigning in some of the behaviour at the time. The moderation and BG rules here make it difficult, and some imagination was needed at times to keep things under control.

tobiascurious

CountryLad wrote: »

You've quoted out of context. That thread is here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=4437182&postcount=9

and was posted in the immediate aftermath of the 1am FGS scandal. I'm pretty sure that, unlike the current situation, it was simply a bit of posturing aimed at reigning in some of the behaviour at the time. The moderation and BG rules here make it difficult, and some imagination was needed at times to keep things under control.

Thank you for linking to the post, you are right in that context is very important for such quotes. Here's the entire thread by the way
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/4437182#Comment_4437182

jobbingmusician

I may have been the cause of some of the concern from the MSE team about complex offers. Do the GIOL members remember a recent thread about some form of spread betting/trading? I remember that the technique recommended by those who advocated its risk-freeness was to open trades and close them immediately.

As I posted on the thread, I felt torn. I don't 'do' spread betting. Half the posters on the thread were saying it was risk free, the other half that it wasn't, so I said I'd ask MSE Towers for advice. Sounds like they didn't know either!

It also sounds, from previous posts on the closure discussion threads, as if spread betting should be on the stocks and shares board. That in itself might help the GIOL board.

So we have the situation where I was unable to evaluate the risk of an offer, and MSE Towers admit that they sometimes also struggle. The interesting thing about this particular offer is that it had nothing to do with gambling - it was a trading and shares offer. FAR more socially acceptable than that nasty 'g' word! And, as other posters have pointed out since, spread betting and shares loopholes should actually be on the stocks and shares board. So suddenly we have another board which shares the same problem that Martin has identified with GIOL, in having complex offers which the MSE team cannot evaluate. Does this progress the analysis of the problem in any way?

What I tend to do at the moment is to lock doubtful threads and invite people to PM me if they disagree. In fact the thread in question had been locked and re-opened before I asked the MSE team for advice. Other threads have been locked in the past, but have now been 'cracked' by clever people on the forum and can now be done in a risk free way. An example of this would be the 'what if' offers where the two positions are not contingent: both can happen. For years the logical amongst us recommended avoiding these offers, but more recently a clever poster has produced a spreadsheet which produces a small profit on these offers if the odds are favourable.

There are two ways in which non risk free (NRF) offers sneak through on this forum.

1. Because the BG doesn’t spot them, evaluates them wrongly, or doesn’t understand them.
2. Because the offers themselves are RF but participants don’t understand them and so do them wrongly, making them NRF.

A type 1 error is policed very well by other forum members, who will call loudly for the thread to be locked. The only problem occurs when there is disagreement about this, and there seems to be a clear decision on this thread that people would rather the BG locked too many threads rather than too few.

A type 2 error is more difficult to avoid, and raises the question to what degree we should be prepared to protect people from their own stupidity. It would, however, be solved by the suggestion which has been mooted several times of having an open board for the most simple introductory offers, and a more advanced locked sub board for those who had registered and could demonstrate that they understood the basics.

meher

thelawnet wrote: »

Agreed, he was very good. What exactly happened to him?

I've no clue; much as I fantasised, he was not my slave :snow_grin to keep reporting to me.

thelawnet wrote: »

This is quite risky IMO. Editorial judgement is compromised by affiliate payments. There are plenty of websites where people receive financial compensation from gambling firms, and it does affect things, a lot.

that's just doubtmongering stuff - if it were my site, I'd have had none of it

thelawnet wrote: »

Not really sure what you mean.

I didn't mean a lot as you made out. I don't mean that use of site should be charged. Essentially what I meant is that, I'm only assuming btw, if the board has to run smoothly, it needs someone with expertise to keep it as risk free as it could practically get. And my guess is it would cost. A lot. Time, money and human resource for the expertise. I'm not entirely sure if they need to be obliged to be equipped with all of that when gambling is not the highlight of mse, but that's just my point of view.

thelawnet wrote: »

As a matter of general principle, information on the internet is available for free.

So?

thelawnet wrote: »

MSE earns ample revenue, the gambling board, not so much. There are a few gambling sites that have experimented with charging people for access, but it doesn't really work, you just end up with sharks who don't want to share with their fellow sharks. Besides which, the revenue that can be raised is only a few thousand per year, an irrelevancy for a site like this.

Sorry, may be you misunderstand me, I didn't speak about charging anyone. Simply use of affiliate links, for instance, to generate revenue so that everyone could have their way. That was just a passing thought.

thelawnet wrote: »

Socialist values?

This site generates countless millions in revenue each year. I don't really see that offering financial advice is a socialist value. It's a successful brand providing useful content, but it's no more socialist than Google.

A business from which users benefit on a social level is socialist, in fact dynamic considering how resourceful it is and all for free, imo. I don't think will never agree on this so shall we leave it at it?

Achilles2000

I have sat back for the last couple of days to see who would pop out of the wood work to post negative comments on here.

It amazes how many posters names I do not recognise in this thread who either do not actually participate in Mbing or are just taking advantage of the situation to push the knife in further and get GIOL closed.

I would strongly suggest MSE towers do a post count on the GIOL board and perhaps consult with the regulars posters who know how Mbing actually works. I for one would be more than happy to sit down and explain how all the genuine offers can be done risk free.

I have made 21k from Mbing in two years since I found this forum.This place has been a good send for me on how to make extra income risk free.
You have most probably the biggest match betting forum in the world and with the greatest respect to misskool we only really see jobbingmusician on her own managing this whole forum.
If you are concerned about offers then maybe you should give her some help as others have suggested.
Don't be fooled by the amount of negative comments that you read these people want to see this forum closed because they believe GIOL are killing the bookies offers because of the amount of people that are taking advantage of them. Greed is a terrible thing sharing is not a natural thing for alot of humans to do.
I agree with some posters who say that from time to time some offers are posted are not risk free but Jobbing does a good job of nipping these in the bud considering she is mainly on her own.

I'm not is favour of telling you 'leave our forum alone' but encourage you to actually research Giol further.

I officially offer my help,knowledge and advice if you want to Pm me and I am sure that there are plenty of other who would be happy to do the same

BlackDouglas

I have found the GIOL forum to be an excellent resource as I have gradually learned the different techniques of matched betting over the last 18 months (£4,500+ profits without going near any remotely questionable books). There are many folk who willing give their time and experience to help newcomers to find their feet and the faq's and spreadsheets are invaluable (in fact you could put a value on them as there are quite a number of examples for sale, which are much less comprehensive than something like Ultimatcher).

It would seem from Martin's blog post that moves are afoot to close or severely restrict the forum. This seems a real shame as it will make it then become much more difficult for newcomers to find such a supportive and open fraternity to support their early steps in what is a very useful moneymaking enterprise. (I have for example introduced my student daughter to the forum and techniques and she supplements her income through it).

The main problem Martin seems to have is that he and his senior forum team members find it difficult to get their heads round some of the sophisiticated techniques that have been invented to extract value from things like "refund if" offers and so on and are therefore not sure whether what is being put forward is "GAMBLING" or not. They aren't - in fact they are designed as methods precisely to take the gambling out of it. However I suppose, if you don't understand something, it would be easy to get that impression.

If the forum is closed or severely circumscribed then I suppose the enthusiasts will just take themselves off somewhere else and carry on. The issue is that it will be much harder for newcomers to find such a forum as it will be much less visible than the MSE site. Thus new folk will fail to find a potentially very useful source of additional income.

OldElstonian

It's interesting to see so many current users of the GIOL board proposing "solutions" of either making the board less visible to casual browsers, and/or putting additional and more prominent warnings on the forum. They seem to miss the irony of that suggestion... if it were really risk-free then it wouldn't need any warnings!

I was reminded of one of the past 'incidents' that have plagued this board over recent years, as reported in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/mar/06/horseracing.comment#article_continue

It didn't get much attention at the time, but in the 5 years since that happened Martin has built MSE (and himself) into a much more prominent brand... should he really have to risk the reputation he has built the next time something like that happens (and it's inevitable there will be a next time)? I would imagine there are certain elements of the media who would relish such a story if it occurred now.

I think it would be best for everyone if the 'gamblers' found a new home.

Stantheman

I started MB'ing 5 years ago next week and continue to find it extremely lucrative. Its helped eased the strain of 2 redundancies and in better times has paid for holidays, home improvements and the general costs of bringing up 3 kids.

I have to say its a lot harder now but somehow I make more now than I ever did! The offers are more complex and by thier nature open to debate about the best methods so more often than not this discussion doesn't strictly fit within the board remit. A radical rethink of the term risk free and enforcement of the new rules may be enough to save the board but it sounds like the decision has already been made! For me personally I wouldn't benefit from a dumbed down board with only basic standard offers but some might so maybe its an option!

Either way I am very grateful to this board and its members for everything I've gained and I hope that wherever you all end up you find it equally profitable.