Renaming "Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes" and making it non-googleable

lazza_w

I had been thinking that 'Bookmaker Introductory Offers Loopholes' would be a better name myself.

I think the 'gambling' part is too off-putting for most people - I only looked at the forum after it had been mentioned in another discussion on the site. The concept of mathematically locking in a profit whether a bet wins or loses take time to grasp, so I suspect that is enough to put people off itself.

Substituting 'gambling' with 'bookmaker' would hopefully have several benefits

1) It is less off putting - people are more likley to enter the forum and have a look around. It is then up to them if they want to get to grips with it

2) As gambling is not mentioned there should be fewer well meaning people putting tips on like 'Shergar in the 2.30 at Epsom'. Not a major problem, but shows people have misunderstood the purpose of the forum.

3) For the same reason arguments about gambling being immoral and therefore the thread should not exist may be slightly less frequent.

I think the wording under the title could be tweaked a little as well, maybe something like "This forum is NOT about gambling. Gambling only makes bookmakers richer. This forum is about manipulating introductory offers to make money"

Meher's comments about being greedy for some quick money and not letting other people find your tips on Google tend to suggest a misunderstanding of the whole processs. It is generally slow and tedious and not based on good tips (I don't care if Shergar is going to win or not) but on good maths.

I also disagree that it is a form of speculation rather than investment. Each introductory offer IS an investment where you know what percentage profit you are going to make before you make it.

All the regular posters on the forum offer their advice to others and a current thread discusses their experience of trying to get other people to benefit from these loopholes. I don't think protectionism is a trait of most people on the board. Spread the word!

chachi

Agreed - there was/is no protectionist intent behind the 'remove from google's spying eyes' request, just to prevent any further easy linkages being drawn

meher

Tim_L wrote: »

Even if Google were magically to forget all of its currently stored information, there are still plenty of sites with similar information whose owners are angling for affiliate referral cash. Personally I'd rather people found it here where no-one is trying to make money from them directly.

Quite right - I understand perfectly that's the appeal factor of this forum - it's not merely about introducing yourself to making some much needed money or pursuing an interest but also ethical in the aspect that there's no personal gain in the business sense from this chipping in and sharing ideas and skills.

Tim_L wrote: »

There's no evidence at all that having this information posted here leads to reduced offers. If anything there are better offers around now (Goodwood week) than this time last year. Bookies are not idiots and they know their offers get abused. Ultimately while marketing departments have separate budgets from the trading room these offers will continue.

Absolutely - I asked someone about their stance and they said that they think that the gambling market has the potential for further expansion. The bets offered are weighted in favor of the bookie, apparently the bookie always wins. He also said that everytime a winner tells a story it attracts more people among many of them turn out to be losers - effectively the investor get their dividends - so by no means are the business' or bookies at a loss.

lazza_w wrote: »

Meher's comments about being greedy for some quick money and not letting other people find your tips on Google tend to suggest a misunderstanding of the whole processs. It is generally slow and tedious and not based on good tips (I don't care if Shergar is going to win or not) but on good maths.

I also disagree that it is a form of speculation rather than investment. Each introductory offer IS an investment where you know what percentage profit you are going to make before you make it.

I might have gone slightly over the top using the word greed but that's an overall impression and I need no knowledge of gambling to say so - if you're not willing to allow maximizing the number of visitors to your board then I am genuinely unable to find any other rationale bluntly put. Although I rarely wander onto your part of the board apart from pinching some music posted over weekends to me it comes across as a fantastically run and efficiently facilitated board - your clarifying why names need to be changed therefore don't seem to be convincing.

And if it's ok to say so frankly there's no need to go on the defensive - it's the mindset of the person engaged in gambling to hold on to your knowledge you've acquired as valuable and don't want others to know of it - that's also about being gambler. But like Tim has pointed out - you all didn't work it out in a vacuum - it's almost a shared skill and more importantly you're not dealing with anyone with vested interests on that board.

skoop

It seems strange, meher, that you think matched betters want to exclude other people from their knowledge and regard this as being greedy, and yet you also believe matched betting is a dangerous slippery slope into real gambling. Why would you want us to encourage more people to do that?!

FWIW - I still don't see that most matched betters here want the board excluded from google for reasons of protectionism - some may, I don't know - but the majority are simply worried about posible negative consequences from the bookies.

As I said in my previous post I hadn't thought about the people googling for "matched betting" or "free bet" rather than for bookies names because that was not how I found the board. I do still think that a locked thread on this forum could contain these phrases, though, and then guide people to the appropriate section of the board rather than bookies names being highlighted on here in the top three of a google search. I wouldn't begrudge anyone new finding out about this lucrative hobby which I so recently found myself.

meher

skoop wrote: »

It seems strange, meher, that you think matched betters want to exclude other people from their knowledge and regard this as being greedy, and yet you also believe matched betting is a dangerous slippery slope into real gambling. Why would you want us to encourage more people to do that?!

I never said that and if you put words in my mouth then obviously I cannot clarify or justify my stance as they're your words - not mine.

skoop

But I thought you agreed that was the case with saucepot on another thread. Fair enough if you didn't though. I may be getting yours and saucepot's posts mixed up.