"Big Punting Survey Returns: Will the Racing Post Finally Back Punters Over Bookmakers?"
Affordability checks, account restrictions, and a sport at odds with itself—can this survey spark real change, or will it just keep advertisers happy?
HORSE RACING
Ed Grimshaw
1/27/20255 min read


The Racing Post is back with its Big Punting Survey, the horseracing world’s equivalent of a group therapy session where punters pour out their frustrations about affordability checks, account restrictions, and the general indignity of being treated like a nuisance by the very bookmakers they keep afloat. Two years ago, over 10,000 punters dutifully responded to the first survey, only to watch their insights evaporate into the void, leaving bookmakers largely unbothered and punters still struggling to explain why betting £20 on a novice chase does not, in fact, mean they’re selling the family silver to fund a gambling spree.
But here we are again. The Racing Post is once more asking punters to share their views in the noble name of journalism and, er, “data production.” And while they promise to champion punters’ voices and deliver these findings to racing, betting, and political bigwigs, let’s not kid ourselves. The Post’s takeout merchant-in-chief, Tom Kerr, will no doubt continue to sidle up to the bookmaker overlords, reassuring them that no feathers will be ruffled as long as the advertising cheques keep rolling in.
Affordability Checks: Bureaucracy or Betting with a Chaperone?
Remember when placing a bet was as simple as picking a horse and hoping it didn’t treat the last furlong like a scenic detour? Well, those days are long gone. Thanks to affordability checks, having a punt now feels more like applying for a mortgage. Fancy £10 on the favourite at Sandown? Not so fast. Please upload three months of bank statements, a signed letter from your employer, and a DNA sample.
The Racing Post insists it’s on the punters’ side, championing the frustrations caused by these Kafkaesque checks. But has it actually done anything about them? Has it confronted the bookmakers who gleefully implement these hoops? Of course not. After all, the bookmakers bankroll the paper’s ad pages, and it’s hard to wage war against your meal ticket.
And let’s face it, affordability checks are about as useful as the steward’s inquiry at Lingfield. They’re designed to look like action, while in reality they just shift the blame and inconvenience onto punters. If the bookmakers were genuinely concerned about affordability, they’d start by not barraging problem gamblers with free bets and bonus offers. But that, of course, would require actual accountability—and where’s the fun in that?
Account Restrictions: Where Winning is the Ultimate Crime
If affordability checks are the velvet-gloved slap in the face, account restrictions are the sucker punch that follows. Win a few quid on a couple of lucky bets, and suddenly your account is about as useful as a BHA PR expert. You’re betting pennies while the bookmakers claim it’s all in the name of “business risk management.”
The survey’s last edition revealed that over a third of punters had faced account restrictions, but what came of it? Did the Racing Post storm the barricades, demanding answers from the bookmakers? Did it champion individual cases of punters being unfairly treated? Not quite. Instead, it offered the odd editorial tut-tut before retreating to its cosy corner of bookmaker-sponsored content.
And let’s not forget that restrictions are often hilariously petty. Win £50 on an outsider at Cheltenham, and suddenly you’re being treated like some kind of criminal mastermind who’s cracked the code of the betting universe. All that’s missing is a bookmaker spokesperson sneering, “How dare you!” as they slam your betting limits to 5p.
Tom Kerr: Sidling Up to the Bookmakers
Then there’s the Racing Post’s captain of cautious diplomacy, Tom Kerr, who’s perfected the art of looking concerned about punters while simultaneously keeping the bookmakers sweet. Kerr might talk a good game about championing the betting public, but his true talent lies in sidling up to the bookmaker controllers like a nervous butler, delicately balancing the trays of punters’ grievances and advertising revenues without spilling either.
You can almost imagine Kerr’s internal monologue during these moments: “Yes, yes, we hear you, dear punters, but let’s not upset the nice bookie chaps who pay for all those lovely full-page ads, shall we? How about we just…collect some data and call it a day?”
It’s this delicate dance—listening just enough to punters to seem credible, while doing just enough for bookmakers to stay solvent—that defines the Racing Post. No wonder punters remain sceptical about whether this survey will lead to any meaningful change. Just more PR from a paper thats now largely disconnected from racing professionals.
Punters: The Last Great Underappreciated Stakeholders
The bitter irony of all this is that punters are the ones who keep the sport afloat. Their bets fund the bookmakers, whose levies fund racing, whose prize money funds trainers and jockeys, whose antics fund ITV Racing’s questionable coverage. Yet punters remain the most overlooked and undervalued part of the entire ecosystem.
Bookmakers love to talk about “engaging with customers” while simultaneously doing everything they can to make betting more frustrating. Racecourses talk about making the sport more “accessible” while charging £12 for a pint of lager and forgetting to install enough toilets or mud free parking. And the Racing Post talks about championing punters’ voices while quietly pocketing bookmaker cash and letting the real issues go unchallenged.
The Big Punting Survey: Data or Distraction?
This year’s Big Punting Survey might still attract thousands of responses, but what good is a survey if its findings are little more than a polite suggestion in an industry that routinely ignores punters? If the Racing Post truly wanted to make a difference, it would go beyond data collection and start using its platform to actually hold bookmakers accountable.
That means taking up individual cases, naming and shaming the worst offenders, and demanding real changes to policies around restrictions and affordability checks. It means standing up to the industry’s takeout merchants instead of sidling up to them with a nervous grin and a hand outstretched for another sponsorship deal.
Final Thoughts: The House Always Wins
Ultimately, the Big Punting Survey is less a call to arms and more a reminder of racing’s enduring power dynamic: the house always wins, and punters are left picking up the crumbs. Sure, fill out the survey if you want to vent your frustrations, but don’t expect much to change.
After all, in a sport where the horses are the stars, the owners take the risks, the trainers do the graft, and the punters foot the bill, it’s the bookmakers and racecourses who walk away with the lion’s share—and the Racing Post quietly cheers them on from the sidelines.
Who knows? Maybe the survey results will finally spark change. Or maybe they’ll just end up as another set of data points, buried beneath another round of bookmaker adverts promising boosted odds on the favourite. Either way, punters, remember: the only thing guaranteed in racing is that the bookmakers are always one step ahead—and they’ve got Tom Kerr keeping the door open for them.