Northampton_Loyalist
Well-Known Member
Why should a money making enterprise be compelled to accept a risk that they can lawfully reject?Give me the variable if me and Gary the Gambler want to put an online bet of £500 on a 4/1 shot in the UK?
And they accept Gary's bet because he's a losing gambler with a problem and reject mine because I win?
I've not once said shops shouldn't have worse odds due to costs?
Or different bookies can't price differently.
I simply can't buy into your argument here at all.
The point about tesco was nothing to do with shops and costs. A (tesco) get a pint of milk from a farmer at (for argument's sake) 10p. B, me, gets the same pint of milk off the same farmer for 50p to sell in my wee shop. Milk is regulated, so why should the farmer be allowed to sell the milk to one person for 80% cheaper than another? The answer is fairly obvious: Because I am not forced to buy my milk from him, the market is open and he is 100% allowed to charge who he wants, what he wants for his milk. He can set his prices to maximise profit and to minimise risk.
Why should gambling be any different? Online I am buying a chance at increasing my money by a set amount off the back of a result of one kind or another. I am in no way forced to do it, it is a free choice and I am fully aware of the odds offered and the amount I can bet. What someone else gets is 100% nothing to do with my transaction at all.