Don’t get me wrong, I really don’t like the way UK bookies go about their business. A refusal to stand anything approaching a reasonably sized bet should their customer show just the slightest inkling that they might not be a complete mug punter, and the ridiculously quick imposition of restrictions on accounts closely followed by full closure, is a far from admirable business practice. And that’s all before we even start to consider such grey areas as misleading advertising. But, as far as I’m aware, incidents of behaviour that may be considered as being outright fraudulent are thankfully rare.
From afar, by comparison the Asian betting scene can be seen as being a little “murky”. Stories of huge betting syndicates putting down large amounts of money and fixed matches are relatively commonplace. Unsurprisingly, the Asian bookmakers are wary. The likes of Pinnacle and SBOBet, in my experience, run their businesses remarkably efficiently, allowing large bets to be placed without negative consequences for account health and running to a much smaller overround compared to their European counterparts. Sure, offered prices tend to be more volatile as they react quickly to weight of money, but there’s nothing wrong with that!
It was with concern however that I heard allegations recently of unfair practices executed by the firm Singbet. Singbet are an Asian firm that can be accessed via a number of betting brokerages by customers living in countries that allow patronage. It is alleged that bets have simply been voided with no fair warning, costing the bettor the proceeds from winning bets placed in good faith.
Just be careful. My advice would be to stick to the firms that, over the years, have established a reputation for sound business practice. My own experience of Singbet (admittedly from a few years back) is that they don’t need too much to decide that money they see come in on minor league football matches is “dodgy”, and they therefore subsequently void the bet (which, I would guess, they are entitled to do in accordance with their terms of business). They often leave themselves open to smart money by dint of the fact that they are relatively slow in slashing their odds when money does come in for certain teams. Singbet lag behind many of the other main Asian firms in this respect who change odds very quickly indeed. This opens them up to a far higher level of risk exposure, vulnerable as this makes them to shrewd and knowledgeable value hunters.
Oh, dear. Things are as miserable as the current spring weather at present. Only four of the ten services are showing a profit through this month to date, and losing days are far outnumbering the winning days. The only highlight last week came from Jason James who picked out a ripsnorter of a bet when Rejahh came in at 33/1 at Cheltenham.
AH Edge: Staked 26pts, -4.564pts.
Football Service 1: Staked 9pts, -3.693pts.
Jason James: Staked 37.5pts, +17.687pts.
MVS (Lite): Staked 14pts, +2.75pts.
MVS (Multiples): Staked 17pts, +3.35pts.
Northern Monkey: Staked 31.5pts, -7.256pts.
Pilelist Racing: Staked 22.033pts, +3.668pts.
Racing Service A: Staked 10pts, +3pts.
Racing Service B: Staked 61pts, -37pts.
Racing Service C: Staked 37pts, -9.05pts.