Talk:Bookmaker

message: ''
The bookmaker does not generally attempt to make money from the bets themselves, but rather profiting from the event regardless of the outcome.''
This phrase implies the presences of a betting fee, similar to stock trading fees payed to stock brokers, but does not explicitly mention such a fee.
Being ignorant of gambling myself I am loath to touch the actual article text. Funkyj 17:57, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
----
With a traditional bookmakers, there is no betting fee - by 'profiting from the event', what is meant is the profit arising from surplus remaining to the bookie from all the non-returned stakes on the losing horse/team/outcome, once all the winners have been paid  their winnings and had their stakes returned.
To put it another way, the bookies are gambling against the punters, not on the event itself. The punter is betting on x to occur. The bookie is betting the punter is wrong - they're not betting on x itself, as such.
However, the online betting exchanges do take a commission.  This is because of the 'service' they provide, in which they cut out the middleman, the bookie, by putting 'Backers' directly in touch with 'Layers' (q.v.).  Consequently, they make no money from the event, but nor are they betting against the punter. Online, punters are betting directly against other punters. Online betting exchanges therefore make their money from the activity surrounding the event, rather than the event itself.
--Paulredfern1 12:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  commission? 

message: The article mentions "Back and Lay bets". Since this is not explained anywhere, could this be expanded (or wikified, if I've missed the article)? 81.134.176.76 23:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back and Lay? 

message: I remember watching a BBC documentary on the history of UK gambling law and it stated that when bookmakers were first allowed they were regulated with some unusual requirements: They were not allowed to provide padded seats, could not make the place 'welcoming' and I think they were not allowed customer toilets. This was, according to the documentary, all part of regulation's plan to make bookmakers a place that someone would go to make a bet, but not stay for the afternoon. Obviously these laws have since been relaxed. If people think this is worthy of addition I may try and track down a source to back up my memory. ny156uk 09:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules and regulations UK

message: I was interested to read what's said about Betterbet. Does that mean that Betterbet don't run any owned shops, that they're in fact running a franchise? I'm interested to learn more about the company. Can anyone help? hjuk 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Betterbet

message: i am very much willing to be corrected regarding my input to this point in the general topic, however i feel it necessary to point out that canadas state-controlled gaming industry is run by a number of regional commissions.
they are actually known as:
    * Atlantic Lottery Corporation
    * British Columbia Lottery Corporation
    * Loto-Québec
    * Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    * Western Canada Lottery Corporation
sport select, and its various incarnations are simply products offered by these local regulatory bodies, in addition to more generic regional and national lotteries, plus 'scratch-and-win' style lottery tickets.
no ??
66.222.236.219 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  canadian lottery regulatory body(ies) 

message: oops !!
i guess one can always be more thorough in their researching a point, which is a lesson fully in effect re: all my additions to this discussion page, even after this addendum (sheepish ...).
in listing the aforementioned provincial entities, i neglected to include their parent figure in canada, namely:
    * Interprovincial Lottery Corporation
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery#Lottery_in_Canada
go on, tear me to shreds. maybe i'll learn something new !! ;^)
66.222.236.219 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  one additional canadian regulatory board 

message: This article is lacking citations, I don't really think you can claim something as substantial as "gambling debts in the uk are unenforceable" without a citation. Comrinec (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I understand "bookie" being redirected to this article but "booky" should be redirected to My Booky Wook. It's clear that this is the intended destination of the search term. The lack of betting Google Adword ads is also telling. Hazir (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Booky' redirect 

message: This section needs lots of work.
Most bookmakers in the United States bet merely on college and professional sports, though in the United Kingdom they offer a wider range of bets, including each-way betting on golf, football and tennis, and especially horse racing and greyhound events. They also specialize in novelty events such as betting the probability that it will snow on Christmas Day, the outcome of political elections and reality television contests such as I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!, Big Brother and The X Factor, or that aliens will be found on Mars.[citation needed]
*There's no such thing as 'bookmakers in the United States'. There are only Casino-based Nevada sportsbooks.
*Sportsbooks do not 'bet merely on [US] college and professional sports' and UK bookmakers do not offer a 'wider range of bets'.
I'm going to have a try at rewriting this section but just wanted to inform other WP members of my rationale. Hazir (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range of Events 

message: "Betting exchanges are universally disliked by the traditional bookmaker." Patently not true, at least not anymore. Most bookmakers now incorporate Betfair and other exchanges into their activities and use it as an online outlet for thier activities. If opinion-based statements like this appear in an article then at the least a citation should be required.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.83.74 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "Betting exchanges compete with traditional bookmakers" and moved the para up, since the one following suggests in more details the way traditional bookmakers use them and so are not, at least in that sense, disliked by them. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion 

message: Australian TABs (Totalizer Agency Boards) are not one singular authority. They are state based and a mixture of government and privatised agencies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.83.74 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pluralised it and changed it to "state-run agencies". I suppose that's not true if they're privatised, "state-governed agencies" might be better. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAB 

message: Here's a citation for legal decision from the Western Australian challenge of Betfair's operation in that state (if it's needed)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2008/11.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.83.75 (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Australian challenge of Betfair's operation 

message: I am removing the statement  In theory, discussion of mobile betting via SMS or email would be a relevant addition to this page but this statement isn't it. The "citation" is an attempt at advertising and the rest of the statement is uncited. "Poker and other sports are more suited to other media", according to whom? In what way? "As technology moves on" is a filler expression, and the rest of the claim is vague: who is "the gambling world"? What are "new technology operations"? SMS and email are unlikely to be considered new. How are they "ensuring" anything and what does it mean to be a "major player"? &c. &c. I'm only noting it here because IPs keep reverting edits to this section. - Procyonidae (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing statement