Wednesday, 13 July 2011

Who do they think they are?

I don't like hypocrisy. In fact, I hate it. I instantly lose respect for anyone when they do or say something that is undeniably hypocritical.

With this in mind, you can probably guess the reaction I had to the LloydsTSB customer service representative who was trying to explain to me why it was that their employer had prevented me from making two online payments, both to football tipping services.

I think I stayed remarkably cool - for ten seconds or so - but then the bluster and crap that I was subjected to became too much to bear. It probably wasn't Dawn's fault that my payments had been declined, but by golly was she going to cop an earful!

The bank had taken it upon themselves to act as my moral Protector you see. They obviously did not want me to succumb to the evils of gambling. I believe that they had conjured an image of me rising from the coal face in a South Yorkshire mining town, picking up my week's wages of two and sixpence, sinking a pint or two in 'The Carthorse' before stopping off at the bookies on the way home to fritter away most of what little remained of the family's income for the week on a couple of nags at Pontefract. Waiting at home for me would be my long-suffering wife (that bit's true, I guess), having to feed eight mouths with whatever pittance was left. The six kids would have to make do on cabbage soup for the week again, and two of them were showing signs of scurvy. And it was all my fault - all this was the direct result of my irresponsible gambling habit.

But hope was at hand. Those moral crusaders, the banks, had decided to intervene. And so it was that two of the finest football services in the land had to wait for their subs for next season whilst I sorted this mess out.

Seriously, the bank told me (through Dawn), that seeing attempted payments going out to "gaming" services had alerted them to potential breaches of security, and that said "gaming" services was on their list of undesirables. I pointed out that if they cared to look over my statements, every other transaction was either to or from a bookmaker. I also pointed out that this was the third time they had frozen my account, and that my levels of frustration were becoming dangerously high.

Dawn didn't sound too impressed with my reasoning. In fact, she sounded bored. Talk about red rags... I was off. How dare the bank attempt the moral high ground. I rather forcefully suggested that it was the "gamblers" employed by the invesment banks and those of the investment arms of the high street banks that had cocked up so magnificently that the world was facing it's biggest economic crisis in living memory. That it was because of the pension fund's "gamblers" making such a balls-up of investing my money for my future that I had to seek other sources of income to try and ensure that I don't spend my retirement in abject poverty. Stick that up your moral arse, I suggested to Dawn.

"Have you quite finished, Sir?", she said. "I've cleared your account and you will be able to make your payments now, Sir".


Today's Betting

The next time I decide I'm going to write a post sticking up for one of the services that is going through a lean spell, I shall stop a while and think. For it seems that by doing so for ProBandit the other night, I placed upon them a curse that inflicts a plague upon the ProBandit house. Today was a shocker for them.

Northern Monkey and The Market Examiner provided no returns, and Winning Racing Tips - which recommended an each way double - saw the first horse scoot home but the second finish a distant second, so a small loss there too.

A decent tip from On The Nose though (Suited And Booted ew - Lingfield - 14/1) which finished third and a return of just under a point.

Leaving the best until last though, PJA NH came up with the winner (Diamond Mm - Worcester - 8/1) and third (Bon Spiel - Worcester - 10/1) in the 9.10. Saved the day a little, that.

PJA NH: Staked 2.75pts, +3.375pts.
Northern Monkey: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
The Market Examiner: Staked 2pts, -2pts.
ProBandit: Staked 2.25pts, -2.25pts.
On The Nose: Staked 1pt, +0.9pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 0.8pts, -0.118pts.

Wednesday 13th July: Staked £259, -£33.12
Running total: -£501.49 (roi -19.08%).

Day off tomorrow. Any chance of sun?


  1. It's a funny thing. I closed an account with Barclays a few years ago when they blocked a deposit to Pokerstars despite having had literally hundreds of deposits and withdrawals to not only them but also a variety of other poker sites. It wasn't even in a foreign currency like FullTilt - they charged me £8 for my only deposit I made there.

    As for Lloyds, since I started moving gambling transactions through them in 2008 beyond one notice that they thought an unauthorised payment had been made I've had no issues. I think I could name atleast 1 and in most cases more people that have had problems with every bank in this manner. There is seemingly no rhyme or reason to it.

    Also I thoroughly enjoyed your post 'Decoy Runs'. It's all well and good taking a long-term view but some times you need to turn your attention to the present. You hear/read a lot of spiel from 'traders' that you need to have discipline in order to succeed and that this manifests itself in taking small losses where necessary. I'm personally of the opinion that it is a sentiment that tends to be born out of delusion rather than wisdom. However I do think that it makes perfect sense to cut out for a loss if you can see something going horribly wrong. Cut your losses and let your wins run etc. Ofcourse you suggest that ProBandit aren't losing so much but rather standing still. I don't know anything about the service, in particular around number of selections but 6 months seems pretty long-term to me. If these bets are placed on Betfair (for example) then you're likely only losing to commission. Back on point though - how many more months would you be willing to pay your subs for a service that was break-even at best? and how long would you be prepared to continue with a service showing a month-on-month negative FOI of say 10% or more? There are very few approaches that aren't susceptible to variance (and it could be argued that some of those that aren't, are not taking on optimal risk) however as they say, past performance doesn't guarantee future profit. I know you stated that your intentions were to keep with your services through thick and thin for 12 months, but a year is a long time for losses to build up.

    By the way I'm not suggesting you should consider dropping any services - you're not even 2 weeks in yet! Just interesting to know how flexible you are prepared to be.

    By the way I haven't forgotten that I was going to give you my opinions on your 'Ramblings' post I've just not found time to put fingers to the keyboard - too much time spent reading/commenting on your other excellent posts.

    All the best


  2. Hi Curly.

    If it's not the bookmakers playing funny buggers, it's the banks. Where will it all end?

    How long would I pay subs on a break-even service? That is a darned good question, and one to which in absolute honesty, I don't have a definitive answer.

    A lot of it would depend on whether a change in strategy had been spotted, or some other sign of weakness in the tipster (other than the results!). With ProBandit, I have spotted no such weakness, and it is noticeable that the majority of their selections have an SP shorter than the odds recommended at time of the selection being sent, which is a good sign. I must add too, that it isn't the weight of subscribers' money pushing the prices down.

    I guess I am a little wary of drawing a line too prematurely - a mistake I made with On The Oche.

    I'll give the whole subject of knowing when to admit defeat with a service some serious thought. Stay tuned!

    Cheers now,


  3. Ah yes Hipocrites
    I remember him well espana 1982 world cup. Majestic Brazilian midfielder.

    What a player EH!!! LOL

  4. lol!

    Alan - you here all week?

    I'll get your coat!