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

meher

schiff wrote: »

I know it would seem odd but if only people who understood MB were able to contribute to this debate, it would be ten times more focused.

it is odd indeed because some of you appear to be missing the point that the problem isn't so much with matchbetting but related wider issues like accountability and it's presence on mse on a scale bigger than anticipated

also focusing on mb hasn't been satisfactory obviously or you'd be having concrete solutions by now, less reports and not going so much on the defensive

tobiascurious

In the interests of completeness, I would like to link to the Voler La Vedette thread on MSE because, while no one was suggesting participating, some of the discussion in there is far from a risk-free perspective

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3696777

r5cwgtt

schiff wrote: »

This is really what it's all about, isn't it. Nobody has brought up anything else other than the FGS fiasco.

No doubt you have the proof of 'substantial money'. Of course you have.

For me yes the fact that on the surface of it PRS was 100% risk free and they prayed on that exact fact by offering risk free arbs every single day.

Evil genius if you think about it and most people on this board fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Nang_Shim_Chagi

It's sad that it's come to this, but it looks to me like it's a case of when rather than if GIOL will close. If Martin was interested in changing it for the better rather than closing it he would have posted his comments in GIOL rather than in a blog. Posting them in a blog just invited negative responses from people who don't understand what we do, and probably didn't even know that GIOL existed.

I am grateful though that it existed in the first place and that I happened to stumble across it, because it has changed my life for the better in the last 2 years. I have made nearly £10k risk free and this has allowed me to pay off some of my debts. I still have a long way to go, but I hope to be debt free in the next couple of years, and all this is due to matched betting (it isn't gambling, and anyone who says that it is clearly doesn't understand it).

Most of the arguments for closing it seem to be centred around either:
1. Gambling can be addictive.
or
2. It not being risk free.

1. Whilst I agree that gambling can become addictive for some people, I dispute the fact that we are gambling at all, as none of the profits come from your bets winning. In fact I used to have the occasional small flutter on horse racing or football, but I wouldn't dream of doing that now because it becomes very apparent when matched betting, that the only winner with traditional gambling is the bookie.

2. The vast majority of the offers in GIOL are risk free just so long as you understand them. This has been a problem recently though because some new people just don't seem to be bothered trying to understand the offers. Relying on other people to spoonfeed you exactly what to do does increase the risk of a mistake being made. The non risk free offers that are posted should be deleted, but unfortunately the excellent board guide only has the power to lock them, leaving them available to still be read.


I would like to see GIOL split into 2 sections, one for simple offers that new people could still access, and a second section for the more complex ongoing offers that could be restricted to people who had demonstrated that they had the understanding to navigate them safely. I would also like to see more board guides with the power to delete threads/posts that don't conform to the risk free nature of the forum.

Hopefully GIOL will be allowed to survive in some form, as it would be a shame if others were denied the opportunity to earn thousands of pounds risk free and change their lives for the better. I fear though that the decision has already been made, and that the end is nigh.

tobiascurious

Nang_Shim_Chagi wrote: »

2. The vast majority of the offers in GIOL are risk free just so long as you understand them.

I am all for advantage play and low risk offers. But Martin insists he wants it to be risk free and unfortunately it isn't!! Because bookies can and do go under!! Things can and do go wrong at the exchanges!! A lot of it is low risk, hardly any of it is risk free

I hate it when people say "it is that simple", but it really is "that simple"!!

tobiascurious

What does risk-free actually mean?

Martin_Lewis wrote:

"Free £20 to play at an online casino". So you put £9.50 on red, £9.50 on black, £1 on zero and then took your money out.

thelawnet

schiff wrote: »

The split between the people who understand MB and those who don't just goes on and on.

Lol.

I remember, before you had even signed up to this site, starting a thread on rpoints, explaining how to make (almost) £500 from IG Index, 'guaranteed'.

I did the maths, put up a little spreadsheet, and still people ballsed it up:

http://www.rpoints.com/forum/f21/matched-betting-triumphs-intentional-otherwise-3068.html#post77747

GIOL is not a gambling website/forum as the above describes it. And I don't know where 'money savers losing money to online gambling merchants' comes from. I could almost guarantee that of the people giving MB a try, 99.5% come out with a profit, and that's probably conservative.

I'm afraid you are utterly deluded.

I've seen stats for a similar websites, and plenty of people just go in and gamble - and they lose. Assuming, because you can make a guaranteed £26.50 (except that it's not guaranteed because the price can move against you, you can get cut off the internet, etc., etc.) following a set of steps and correctly calculating the bet and lay amounts for given odds, doesn't mean people won't find it more appealing just to whack £50 on the 2:30 at Doncaster.

The fact is, in any case, 'matched betting' is actually suboptimal. Laying costs money, you will make more profit if you don't lay. So undoubtedly people are gambling, people are not bothering to lay, and yes quite a few of them will lose money.

I know it would seem odd but if only people who understood MB were able to contribute to this debate, it would be ten times more focused.

I couldn't agree more.

thelawnet

tobiascurious wrote: »

What does risk-free actually mean?

That's the problem.

In the roulette example you quote, these days most casinos would ban you for 'bonus abuse'. So it ain't risk-free.....

tobiascurious

thelawnet wrote: »

That's the problem.

In the roulette example you quote, these days most casinos would ban you for 'bonus abuse'. So it ain't risk-free.....

I think Martin was envisaging a no-deposit offer

I agree that if you have to deposit to get the free money then it ain't risk-free

thelawnet

tobiascurious wrote: »

I think Martin was envisaging a no-deposit offer

I agree that if you have to deposit to get the free money then it ain't risk-free

Well in that case you might as well put it all on black, or on number 36, or anything really. If it's free money, no-deposit required, then it's risk-free, by definition. Playing it so the amount of winnings is guaranteed is not necessary.

The point of the particular strategy, red/black/zero, is really to lock the win in when you have to put your own money down.