You can get odds on pretty much anything in the UK. Ladbrokes (and I assume William Hill etc) have (or had) a policy against offering odds on anything involving a death.
My old politics professor was not allowed to place bets on UK elections at any of the local bookies after the General Election he got something insane like 649 out of 651 seats right.
Britain has a long and glorious history of risk transfers. Just look at Lloyd’s and the Freedom Riders.
Do they still do the football pools results at the end of the evening news? It’s one of the things that made Britain British, to me.
Just try getting anything like that kind of money on with a big bookmaking firm, let alone on a joke bet like this! They might take $10 but there’s no way they would open themselves up to big liabilities on these markets.
As BDoors says, they’re purely for publicity purposes.
They don’t do it on the news, but they still give the pools points values on the Final Score results show on the BBC. Since the national lottery came into existence in 1994 though the popularity of football pools has plummeted.
So if you went to a sportsbook in a Vegas casino and told them you wanted to bet $10,000 on one of the gimmick bets during the Superbowl, they would just tell you no, it wasn’t allowed?
I don’t know how it works, but I didn’t know that they were able to turn away the bets that they don’t like.
(then again, the old “We reserve the right to refuse service…” is always in play)
Absolutely they can. And when you start placing large bets on something, it changes the odds of that - you may find they only accept $x at the listed odds, then the odds will come in for successive bets of $x.
You’d like the British system even less - all gambling debts are debts of honour and cannot be enforced in court. So even though your bet on Pie-O-My in the 4.20 at Kempton with Ladbrokes was perfectly legal to place, if your horse wins, they have no obligation to pay you your money. Which is why they make you pay the bet up front, because otherwise you could refuse to pay them.
Now this isn’t going to happen with Ladbrokes or one of the chains, because however big your win is, the PR cost to them of refusing to pay would outweight the cost of paying. But I have heard of it happening with some small independents.
Every table I have seen in Vegas has minimum and maximum of what you can bet. I wouldn’t be surprised that minimum and maximums exist for other types of bets.
This was true from the Gaming Act 1845, but it was repealed in the Gambling Act 2005. Gambling debts can now be pursued through the courts.
You know what… I knew that. Cannot believe it totally slipped my mind. Thanks for the pick up.
Although this was the case since about the year Dot, I believe that this has changed very recently.
Incidentally, I believe it’s the case that the law in Northern Ireland on gambling is much more restrictive than the law in Great Britain [sic].
ETA:
Ninja’d! Oh, well…
Good point, and one that didn’t occur to me.
95% of the casinos I have visited have been in Nevada, with a quick stop in a few others, like New Orleans or Deadwood, SD.
I have also stopped in a couple of casinos in Europe, (Barcelona, Prague, Berlin, etc.) but never actually gambled in them, at least that I can remember…
Until I visited casinos outside of Nevada, I assumed that all of them offered a sportsbook, when apparently Nevada is still the only state where you can bet on a game.
In British bookmakers, either physical shops or online, “large” bets will often be referred to a manager before being accepted. Often they will offer you shorter odds, or a reduced stake, and if you’re a known “winner” (i.e. someone likely to have inside info, or who has won too much from the bookie in the past) you will often be turned down flat.
I know people whose online gambling accounts have been restricted to 50p maximum bets when they’ve won too much. Unless you lose, you’re persona non grata.
(That’s why online betting exchanges are so great - they don’t care if you win or lose, as they get their commission either way.)