4666/17325
Up early with Phoebe, so I tried to persuade her to sleep a bit longer as well as grab a bit of extra sleep by lying down on the bed with her. My mind was racing with ideas of ways to improve the start of Happy Now? but I didn’t have access to a pen or paper or move from where I was and I thought that if I used my baby’s excrement to write comedy ideas on her face that my wife might get annoyed with me. I hoped I’d remember everything, but was nevertheless pleased. I have a long way to go before I can present a reasonable version of the show on Saturday, so I needed to have a fecund brain today.
Alas after this burst of brain energy, by the time I came to try to get on with some work there was nothing in the tank. I needed to write my little 70 word extra bit for the Metro tomorrow and couldn’t think of a thing to write about. In a way the 70 word bit is harder than the 600 word main section, as you have to make a point and come to a conclusion in two or three sentences. I sat staring at my computer for 90 minutes, looked through my blogs and tweets, before finally deciding to write about the Queen, Prince Charles and Louis XIX of France who reigned for 20 minutes (I am surprised I got that into 70 words).
I then took a long phone call from Ladbrokes. Last week I decided to play a bit of blackjack and roulette to see if I could make a quick, brief profit and then leave (I”d managed to turn a free £90 from Virgin into £190 the other week, so wondered if I could beat the odds again). I’d been offered a 50% bonus on whatever I deposited, and didn’t check the terms and conditions, assuming, as usual that I’d have to play that bonus money through two or three times before being able to withdraw any winnings. I put in £50 and got my extra £25, played for quite a while, had some good fortune and won £200. I had certainly made bets totally two or three hundred pounds by this time so thought that I’d be able to withdraw pretty easily. But I couldn’t take my money out.
As it happened a Ladbrokes employee had been messaging me on screen, asking if I was having any luck and suggesting other offers. I asked her why I couldn’t withdraw and how many times I’d had to play my money through to do so. She was a bit cagey, telling me I could check that in the T&C, but after some time I managed to wheedle out of her that I’d have to play both my stake and the bonus thought 20 times before I could withdraw any winnings. Which would mean having to gamble £1500 in total before I could benefit from the £50 I had put in. Although I acknowledged her statement that this was stated in the conditions of the offer., I still thought that this was a bit off. I suspect many people, as I had done, would assume a more favourable level of play through and although they had done nothing illegal (and another person I’d ended up talking to, weirdly, apropos of nothing stated that what they were doing broke no laws, even though I hadn’t suggested it did, almost like they knew they were taking the piss) it was a little unethical and I would argue bad business practice. Most casino games operate on a slight advantage to the casino but chances are nearly 50/50. If you don’t play too long and you get a bit of luck and are able to walk away you can make some money (as I would have done that day), but if you have to play your money through 20 times (and not just the bonus, but your own money as well) then you are pretty much giving the casino you initial stake money for the pleasure of playing their games. Which is how casinos already work, but they don’t need such a sharp gradient in their favour as they are certain to win anyway.
I found this offer laughably bad, said that I would attempt to gamble my £200 for long enough to win some money and told them that I might well write a Metro article about this, not because Ladbrokes were doing anything illegal - they seemed quite insistent that they weren’t, but because this is a very bad offer and I’d like to stop other people making the incorrect assumption that I did, that the website might be giving you a reasonable chance to think you might win (even though ultimately you probably wouldn’t, even with playing your money through once).
Someone rang me today (and they’d taken a couple of weeks to get back to me - though claimed they’d been trying to ring me all along - don’t think so, certainly no unexplained missed calls) and I again explained why I thought this was an awful deal and why it might be something that I’d write about (I told them I probably wouldn’t, but it was a possibility). The man said that a large number of people manage to make money on this offer and I questioned how that was possible, given the laws of probability, though conceded if a huge amount of people were taking it up, then a large number of people would still win, but an even bigger number wouldn’t. I asked for some percentages on how many people managed to turn this offer into actual money for themselves, but he said that information could not be given out. I wonder why.
It was quite insulting to both our intelligences that a man who works for a betting company would try to pretend that this offer was anything but severely balanced in the bookmaker’s favour.
I don’t bet a lot (though went through a period a few years ago when I did it a bit too much) and had only signed up with Ladbrokes so that I would bet on Tottenham winning 2-1, but I’ve found their website quite poor. You often have to login twice for no real reason and last year they kept sending me emails and texts that when I tried to unsubscribe or texted STOP would go to error pages or not stop.
The man wanted to make it clear that they have several bonus offers and not all of them involve playing through 20 times, but in a sense that makes it more confusing. You might have taken an offer of a more reasonable play through so would expect the same again. It doesn’t make good business sense to me to have an introductory offer that will result in your customers almost certainly losing. You’re trying to persuade them to use your site, so you know, let them have a bit of an extra chance for once and they will come back like the idiots that all gamblers, me included, are.
There are plenty of less unfair gambling websites out there, mainly because the horrible people who run them know they have a licence to print money, so why upset the apple cart. Personally speaking I won’t be using ladbrokes again, as I think that whilst they have legally covered themselves, that particular offer was somewhat morally questionable.
The trailer of Mosquito, the short film that I am in, is now available to view here. The whole thing should be available soon and then you can see why I look so ashamed.
It's the first bit of acting I've done since this short film from the noughties, which I think I am pretty good in for once (and managed to adlib some quite nice lines in, on top of what is already a good script). I like to take on one role every decade, to give the other actors a chance. It's not fair if I take all the parts.
