Banned

[partypooper]

OK so new thread, how many of you have had an e-mail from a certain mob banning you , who offer " lay of the day" selections, both on Saturdays and now Wednesdays"?

Like, at this moment there is only little ol' me and "Mark",....... unbelievable considering that we are both LOSING on their selections, like why would they even put their magnificent minds to such paltry individuals? betting to a max PROFIT of $100? something far more sinister,.... me thinks!

[Chrome Prince]

Party, it's the act of using a promotional product to it's maximum. They deem this as a professional approach. Their promotion is simply a marketing tool to attract new business. They don't want people using it as a strategy.
Their last condition sums it up...
For recreational punters only

May has been a shocker for them, just look at their results:
<pre>Date Track Race Start Time Selection Unibet Odds Result
Sat 17th Doomben 6 3.05pm Arabian Gold $2.10 1st
Sat 17th Scone 5 2.40pm Atmospherical $3.50 1st
Wed 14th Canterbury 4 2.53pm Bridge Of Sighs $9.00 1st
Wed 14th Sandown 4 2.00pm Fantome Gris $4.40 1st
Sat 10th Rosehill 7 3.50pm Forster $3.00 1st
Sat 10th Morphettville 6 2.54pm Rhythm To Spare $3.70 1st
Sat 10th Flemington 4 2.22pm Backstedt $4.00 1st
Sat 10th Doomben 3 1.20pm Havana $2.15 2nd
Wed 7th Sandown 5 2:35pm The Thief $3.50 2nd
Wed 7th Warwick Farm 3 2:18pm Murphy’s Delight $6.50 3rd
Sat 3rd Caulfield 4 2:27pm Pressing $2.80 1st
Sat 3rd Hawkesbury 2 1:00pm Idyllic Scenery $7.50 Unplaced</pre>

You'll find any bookie that offers promotional products that punters use to the maximum, will be locked out as soon as they have a win, if not before.

The bookie doesn't individually sit down and think "I've had enough of this joker" their sophisticated software flags winners, large bettors and people that utilise promotional products above a certain limit. You are marked and chances are that info is shared amongst affiliated bookies, so you might get shut down very quickly elsewhere as well. I have long been of the opinion that these offers are the exploding briefcase for punters. Grab it and they know....you are one of the savvy punters they don't want.

It really is grubby business, and they have no right to call themselves bookmakers. They do not make books. They engineer their client base to only be fluid with casual mug punters.

[Chrome Prince]

It is also morally wrong, the mug punter has no chance to win at all.
Chance is removed, because I have first hand knowledge of losing decent sums at certain bookies and then having a largeish win, (but still losing long term) and I am locked out from ever winning again.

My advice is to milk them as hard as you can and move on when the fat lady sings, but let everyone you know, to follow suit. Cause some damage to their pockets, it's the only way to protest.

I'm aware of the bookie in question. I have a bookie folder in my Outlook box which is full of restricted or banned emails.

[Mark]

Funny thing is Chrome, I wrote an email of protest to which they quickly replied that most of my bets were using the promotion. My reply was I had had 26 bets since opening my account of which 5 were on the promotion....hardly most. No response. Racing Commission here we come again.

[UselessBettor]

Racing Commission here we come again.
Unfortunatly its a toothless tiger and backs up the bookies 100% of the time.

[Rinconpaul]

It's interesting if you read overseas based posts and articles, they've matured a little quicker than us, in that being banned by a soft bookmaker (encompasses all bookmakers except Pinnacle) is a NO BRAINER. Just part of life now, everyone accepts it. They're now down to ways to prolong your membership of a bookie and extend your life there from a day to a few weeks while you scalp them.

Some of the methods involve:
1/ Disguising your IP address
2/ Creating a very common browser fingerprint on a virgin computer to avoid detection
3/ Creating virtual machines
4/ Using other people and their computers to act as a team

It really is quite sophisticated, and when I became aware of it, it leaves you no choice but to use Pinnacle and Betfair for longevity, that's it! No point grumbling anymore, it's over. Either encompass all the latest techniques to avoid detection, which will only give you a limited breathing space, or find other niches.

[garyf]

It's interesting if you read overseas based posts and articles, they've matured a little quicker than us, in that being banned by a soft bookmaker (encompasses all bookmakers except Pinnacle) is a NO BRAINER. Just part of life now, everyone accepts it. They're now down to ways to prolong your membership of a bookie and extend your life there from a day to a few weeks while you scalp them.

Some of the methods involve:
1/ Disguising your IP address
2/ Creating a very common browser fingerprint on a virgin computer to avoid detection
3/ Creating virtual machines
4/ Using other people and their computers to act as a team

It really is quite sophisticated, and when I became aware of it, it leaves you no choice but to use Pinnacle and Betfair for longevity, that's it! No point grumbling anymore, it's over. Either encompass all the latest techniques to avoid detection, which will only give you a limited breathing space, or find other niches.

Seeing as this is becoming more of a problem,
Has anybody tried this link below as it is on our forum???.

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/showthread.php?t=28353.

Cheers.

[partypooper]

rinconpaul, lack of Computer skills is my main problem, I wonder if you would consider explaining those disguises in more detail? if so my e-mail is lumbasakabayo att hott male dott kom

[Rinconpaul]

Email sent Party

[partypooper]

Chrome, point taken though the Irony is that I was away in NZ for two weeks and missed all the winners, so the only winners I backed were the two last Saturday, that's why I'm flabbergasted.

[Chrome Prince]

It's interesting if you read overseas based posts and articles, they've matured a little quicker than us, in that being banned by a soft bookmaker (encompasses all bookmakers except Pinnacle) is a NO BRAINER. Just part of life now, everyone accepts it. They're now down to ways to prolong your membership of a bookie and extend your life there from a day to a few weeks while you scalp them.

Some of the methods involve:
1/ Disguising your IP address
2/ Creating a very common browser fingerprint on a virgin computer to avoid detection
3/ Creating virtual machines
4/ Using other people and their computers to act as a team

It really is quite sophisticated, and when I became aware of it, it leaves you no choice but to use Pinnacle and Betfair for longevity, that's it! No point grumbling anymore, it's over. Either encompass all the latest techniques to avoid detection, which will only give you a limited breathing space, or find other niches.

Yes it has a very limited lifespan because they pick up on the betting patterns. What's worse is, if you make a boo boo and accidentally forget the protocol they are under no obligation to pay you. If it's large sums involved, it could even go further.

[Mark]

Seeing as this is becoming more of a problem,
Has anybody tried this link below as it is on our forum???.

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/showthread.php?t=28353.

Cheers.

Yes have spoken to them and they can't help with what I do.

[blackdog1]

It's interesting if you read overseas based posts and articles, they've matured a little quicker than us, in that being banned by a soft bookmaker (encompasses all bookmakers except Pinnacle) is a NO BRAINER. Just part of life now, everyone accepts it. They're now down to ways to prolong your membership of a bookie and extend your life there from a day to a few weeks while you scalp them.

Some of the methods involve:
1/ Disguising your IP address
2/ Creating a very common browser fingerprint on a virgin computer to avoid detection
3/ Creating virtual machines
4/ Using other people and their computers to act as a team

It really is quite sophisticated, and when I became aware of it, it leaves you no choice but to use Pinnacle and Betfair for longevity, that's it! No point grumbling anymore, it's over. Either encompass all the latest techniques to avoid detection, which will only give you a limited breathing space, or find other niches.I could do all of that easily, but in the end you want your money out. How do you go about that?
Your winnings have to go to your account, or do you mean to set up new accounts? Hardly possible under Australian regulations with identity proof required.

Not quite clear to me.

[Pat123]

Why does the Government allow this, but then say "if you have a problem gambling call this number"? If you have no chance from the beginning, what's the point?

Legislation needs to be put in place whereby a Bookmaker must take on every customer to a certain liability each race/sporting event, regardless of whether they're positive or negative overall. The TAB used to take customers on but have recently decided they want even more profit so they ban/limit anyone that wins. Corporate greed at it's finest. There are an extremely small number left that still do this (and are probably getting increasing business as a result).

If their business model can't incorporate this then they have no place in the business of bookmaking.

[UselessBettor]

Legislation needs to be put in place whereby a Bookmaker must take on every customer to a certain liability each race/sporting event, regardless of whether they're positive or negative overall.
Most do give you a liability. Its about $5 that you can win which can mean bets of about 30c or less.

Interesting I have been to a lot of trade shows on data science and prediction and every single one of the bookies is there and are eager to find better techniques for identifying betting patterns.

[Pat123]

Most do give you a liability. Its about $5 that you can win which can mean bets of about 30c or less.

Interesting I have been to a lot of trade shows on data science and prediction and every single one of the bookies is there and are eager to find better techniques for identifying betting patterns.


Not in my case for fixed odds. All the big bookmakers including the TAB will take me on to win $0.00 lol.

[partypooper]

I'm confused if I walk into the TAB and place a bet I'm an anonymous punter arn't I? there's plenty of TAB outlets to make a spread, or can't you have a fixed odds bet in the TAB? wouldn't know, many years since I've used em'

As far as betting patterns are concerned, I've always used many different accounts, never placing many consecutive bets using the same account, but it appears that they are still a few steps ahead!

[Pat123]

You're anonymous until you have been in there a few times - then if you fall under their "not commercially viable" title, you'll be limited in a physical TAB center. They manage customers in there now too, it's crazy - it mainly started around Feb this year (there was a leaked TAB fixed odds document that explains it all).

[evajb001]

I went to my local footy club on sunday for what they call Ton Club, not sure if any of you are aware of what that is but basically you pay $100, drink free alcohol for 4 hours and have a chance at winning prizes. Anyhow while were standing there having a drink with 200 other people we start having a few fun bets. My mate sneaks over to put $50 fixed on Bossy Lad, Port Macquarie Race 5. Funnily enough i've put $10 on the same horse on the tote and neither of us knew, it runs second and i share my bet with everyone. My mate says to me oh really you were on that too, I tried to get on but this ticket came out and I missed it, never seen this before.

On the ticket it reads something like "Bet cannot be accepted, over betting limit" or something of the sorts, essentially because he's placed a $50 fixed bet on.

Now how on earth can Tatts not handle a $50 fixed price bet on a $7 horse from a random punter among 200 blokes at a footy club? They likely would've made a killing from the machine in our club that day anyhow with a bunch of drunks betting on just about anything.

Pretty sad state of affairs when you can't get a $50 fixed bet on something paying $7's when they can't even identify who you are just that your betting at that footy club. I don't think the machine operator even know what was going on with the ticket and what's even more funny is that the horse lost anyway.

[partypooper]

Most do give you a liability. Its about $5 that you can win which can mean bets of about 30c or less.

Interesting I have been to a lot of trade shows on data science and prediction and every single one of the bookies is there and are eager to find better techniques for identifying betting patterns.


UB, I agree with PAT123, I've said before they should have to accept bets up to say $1000 liability on any single event from ANY individual, I mean if they don't like it they can lay it off can't they?

When you think about it that's what being a bookmaker is all about isn't it; i.e. balancing a book, there's a winner in every race, if they have the numbers right they make (approx) 20% regardless, so there should be legislation in place definitely.

[Rinconpaul]

Party guess what??...due to popular demand that L of the Day promotion includes Wednesday's now!

[partypooper]

Rinconpaul, I got the same e-mail from them promoting the bluuu dee thing today! hard to fathom!

[Pat123]

I got the email yesterday. It was a good run for 1.5 years!

[Mark]

Unfortunatly its a toothless tiger and backs up the bookies 100% of the time.

Correct as predicted.
The response came back in record time, (overnight !!!, first one took around 3 months !!!!!) which suggests they are receiving a multitude of complaints and opting for the cut & paste reply.

[Pat123]

Can you copy the reply please Mark?

[partypooper]

Party guess what??...due to popular demand that L of the Day promotion includes Wednesday's now!

Rinconpaul, guess what now? they've shelved the Lay of The Day altogether,

looks like you were right Chrome; about em taking a caning! Never mind as one door closes another opens.

[Mark]

Party, might only appear for those that haven't been banned yet?

[Chrome Prince]

Nope....

"Lay of the Day will be going on a break. Thanks to all the punters who took up the challenge! Keep an eye out for more promotions and competitions from xxxxxx in the coming months."

Got taken to the cleaners :p

[Pat123]

Suck eggs. I probably made 2k from their lay of the days and 2nd and 3rd money back offers risk free. Was a good run while it lasted!

[partypooper]

PAT123, I had a good result today BR8 2, (exploiting money back 2nd , 3rd) but I have to tell you it was by default really, I dropped a clanger, i.e. I was exposed if it had run 2nd or 3rd........ as it happened, I had enough time to get out of the situation and all was well when it won.

But, I wonder if you can give me a pointer as to how to exploit this one , I just can't get my head around it? lumbasakabayo att hott male dott kom

[Pat123]

All I used to do with unibet 2nd/3rd was back the fav and lay it off on betfair at the closest lay price i could get. It worked a good number of times. At worst i'd lose a couple of dollars due to the price diff on betfair but it was well worth it. I remember Melb Cup last year when Tom W was offering money back to 5th place. I did this along with unibet and another bookmaker and ended up making $400 risk free - it was a fluke though as mu horse came 4th - this was the best possible outcome.

[Chrome Prince]

If it runs unplaced?

[Pat123]

Then I end up even +/- a few dollars, depending on the back/lay prices I took. Am I right in assuming everyone here doesn't do this? It's free money lol.

[partypooper]

Yeah I can't get past: OK if it wins, OK unplaced (as layed to win & place) but end up with a liabilty if it runs 2nd or 3rd) could be just my brain not working properly?

[Pat123]

It's not hard to work out.

I backed the fav on unibet or the 2nd fav then laid the horse off on betfair for the closest price i could get, then just sit back and wait. It comes 1st - you end up about even, same for 4th or worse. 2nd or 3rd and you're in the money (as you get a refund through unibet, but still win the lay on betfair). It's as simple as that.

[stugots]

sweet

[partypooper]

working example,

last night Spirit of boom $4.60 with a certain mob who were offering the 2nd 3rd deal. BF lay price was $5.90 (at that stage)

So $100 win on SOB
now lay it (what amount?) but if we lay it $100 @$5.90

This is how we stand:

If it wins = lose $490-$360 = $130 loss
If it runs 2nd or 3rd yes we win $100 less commission say $94 Profit
If it loses altogether , we lose $100 but win $94 so $6 loss

So doing it this way you're risking a loss of $130 for a possible gain of $94, which equates to having a $130 bet on a $1.40c favourite.

Having said all that I still feel there is a way to cover all and still make a small profit no matter what , but at a loss as to how to do maths. ?.... anyone?

[Pat123]

Why would you even be considering that? The back and lay prices are too far apart and it's too far out from the race.

[partypooper]

PAT123, we're on the same side, I would not consider doing that , and that's what I find when they are offering money back 2nd & 3rd, their price for the fav. is ridiculously low. IF you can get close yes a different proposition, but so far I haven't been able to make it work, apart from today when as I said I dropped a clanger but scrambled out of it reducing my liability, I was left in a position almost break even but a profit if it won; and it did I re-backed it @ $5.50 so saved the bacon!

PS. I like to get set Friday night if I can, sure I could do better (usually) if I really concentrated but if I'm locked in for a profit, I prefer that, then not sat in front of the comp like a stunned Mullet!

[garyf]

[QUOTE=partypooper]

last night Spirit of boom $4.60 with a certain mob who were offering the 2nd 3rd deal. BF lay price was $5.90

Hi P.P.

Was that certain mob the first one top left in green,
Where the analyst picked the winner?
I may be wrong.

http://www.racenet.com.au/breeding/pdfs/Bookies_240514.pdf

Cheers.
Garyf.

[partypooper]

garyf, nah sorry to disappoint but end result the same!!!!

[pjr]

SYDNEY Jun 12 2014



Wagering operators will be required to accept bets from all customers under a new condition agreed upon by the Racing NSW board.

The initiative has come in response to complaints from punters, usually successful ones, that they are being frozen out of the wagering market.

Peter V'Landys, chief executive of Racing NSW, said his organisation consulted with wagering operators before introducing the condition, which will require bookmakers to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds bet on a thoroughbred race in NSW.

"There have been frequent and persistent complaints by punters about wagering operators refusing to take their bets, particularly in circumstances where those punters have been successful," V'Landys said.

"Racing NSW believes there is a current imbalance in favour of wagering operators at the expense of punters and this needed to be rectified."


- AAP

[Pat123]

Is this for real?

[pjr]

From Sky Racing website.

Love to know how the NSW Racing Board are going to enforce this rule.

[Pat123]

Are they saying bookmakers have to accept all fixed odds wagers (to a certain liability) across every meet they offer to all customers no matter where they live in Aus?

If this is real it's big news...

[pjr]

To answer my own question.

"The Board of Racing NSW has decided to make it a condition of its Race Fields Information Use approvals that all wagering operators are required to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds wager on NSW thoroughbred races.

[Pat123]

So only races that take place in NSW? i.e. international races or those in QLD they don't have to accept your bet?

Can't wait to find out more about this.

[Pat123]

I sent Racing NSW an email:


"Hi there,

I was wanting to try and get some information on a Sky Racing article I just read. It was with regard to a new ruling about Bookmakers needing to accept fixed odds racing bets from all customers. Can you please give me more information on this?

A few questions I have are:

1) Will this be enforced to every bookmaker operating in Australia?

2) What will the liability be they are required to take each customer on to?

3) Will the rule apply to all races offered by a bookmaker, or only races held within NSW?

4) When will the rule be enforced?

5) Will this rule apply to all Australian residents or only NSW residents?


I ask because I am currently limited or completely barred from fixed odds bets (e.g. from TAB Vic) because I happened to win a few in a row.

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Regards,

Pat."

[Pat123]

http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=article-display&id=15874

Thursday, 12 June 2014

Racing NSW Board Acts To Give Punters A Fair Go
The Board of Racing NSW has resolved to introduce a condition which requires wagering operators to take bets from all customers to ensure a fairer deal for punters. All wagering operators will be required to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds wager on NSW Thoroughbred races.
The minimum bet condition will be implemented following extensive consultation with wagering operators.
Racing NSW Chief Executive, Mr V’landys, said today:
“There have been frequent and persistent complaints by punters about wagering operators refusing to take their bets, particularly in circumstances where those punters have been successful.
“Accordingly, the Board of Racing NSW has decided to make it a condition of its Race Fields Information Use approvals that all wagering operators are required to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds wager on NSW Thoroughbred races.
“Racing NSW believes there is a current imbalance in favour of wagering operators at the expense of punters and this needed to be rectified.”

[UselessBettor]

yay providing the minimum bet size is at least $1000 liability.

[Pat123]

Looking forward to finding out exactly what this means for us. Will post here if i get a reply from them.

[stugots]

PR stunt with a $50 limit?

We know what Vlandy think of punters (that they are basically imbeciles with a little spare cash) so I will wait for the fine print before breaking out the party hats.

[Tayjack]

It is NSW only.
The stand to lose on a fixed win bet will be around 3k
The stand to lose on a fixed place bet will be around 1700.

To take effect from July 1. These figures were just released as approximates only.

[Pat123]

So this only applies to bookmakers with a NSW license. Any with a northern territory license can do what they want still.

So them which bookmakers have a nsw license?

[UselessBettor]

From what I read it was any bookmaker who uses NSW fields. And it will apply to only NSW races.

But any and all bookies if they want to take bets on NSW races.

[Pat123]

Hi there,

My account ID is: --------


This is a courtesy email to let you know NSW racing has now made a ruling that all bookmakers must accept fixed odds bets from all customers, winning or not, on NSW thoroughbred races.

I am recently banned from fixed odds - please advise me once this has been lifted. If you would like to refer to this ruling, please see the official ruling below:

http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=article-display&id=15874


I look forward to hearing back from you.

Kind regards,

Patrick.


LUXBET:

Hi Patrick,

As outlined in this article, the minimum bet condition will be implemented following extensive consultation with wagering operators.

Please be advised that Luxbet are licenced under a Northern Territory wagering licence and not NSW.

The existing restrictions on your account stand as they are and no changes will be made at this time.

Regards,

Erika Mortensen
Customer Service Team Leader

[DR RON]

If we could only get the NT government to grow some cohunas then things might start looking up.

[evajb001]

Pat I doubt they are going to lift any restrictions yet.

The way I understand it, is that all bookies will need to accept a minimum liability on NSW races including fixed odds otherwise they won't be able to offer NSW races anymore. Also one of the articles states it won't apply in July 1, but i'd guess more will come out between now and then.

A step in the right direction at least.

[Pat123]

Yeah, I'm just giving them a nice little warning. Even if the restrictions are lifted I probably won't end up using them and any others that have restricted me. Got enough bookies atm that employ ethical business practices without the need to be forced to.

[UselessBettor]

Hit the unethical ones as hard as you can (I will be). Eventually they will have to stop offering NSW fields or learn how to be a good bookmaker.

Actually they probably will offer terrible odds on NSW as a consequence and not take many bets on it.

[Pat123]

They'll probably just apply a filter to previously limited customers whereby they knock back the bet and drop the odds.

[Chrome Prince]

They'll probably just apply a filter to previously limited customers whereby they knock back the bet and drop the odds.

I'd say that is precisely what they will do.
Any winning client can have as much as they want on at half the odds others offer.
A new and improved business model :(
This is exactly why some of Australia's largest punters employ runners on track to place the bets and rotate them regularly.

[Pat123]

Ladbrokes taking action:

Hi Patrick,

Re: Your Account - Ladbrokes.com.au
Unfortunately we wish to advise that as part of an account review, all accounts held under the Ladbrokes Digital Group have been closed due to commercial reasons.

We appreciate your understanding in this matter.

[Pat123]

https://soundcloud.com/rsn-racing/peter-vlandys-ceo-racing-nsw-1

[Chrome Prince]

Pat are you aware of the withdrawal fees and turnover limitations of Pinnacle?
I.E. rollover of deposit before ANOTHER charge is imposed as well as the withdrawal fee?

[Pat123]

Pat are you aware of the withdrawal fees and turnover limitations of Pinnacle?
I.E. rollover of deposit before ANOTHER charge is imposed as well as the withdrawal fee?

From Pinnaclebet:


"Withdrawals
Withdrawals can be made by direct bank transfer. There is no charge on withdrawals. Requests are processed every Tuesday and Friday if all identification requirements have en fulfilled and the request is made before 2.00pm AEDT on a standard business day. (Note: Some banks and credit societies may take over 48 hours to clear the funds to your account)."

[Chrome Prince]

Please note that any deposit made to an account which is not rolled over (risked) five times will incur a 3% processing fee and any applicable withdrawal fee.

This includes depositing and losing and then redepositing and losing and then depositing and having a win. Under those circumstances, client would have to turnover a massive amount or incur an additional 3% fee on the total amount of the deposits.

There is more information about this very situation on the SBR forum.

[Pat123]

I don't withdraw much so shouldn't bother me.

[Pat123]

Winners & Losers


Meetings will be held this week to eliminate flea bookmaking on fixed odds to enhance Racing NSW's efforts to get punters a better deal.
Negotiations regarding a minimum-to-lose amount of $3000 on the metropolitan races, $1500 on provincials and $1000 on country races is a starting point.
Because the bets are recorded, complaints can be investigated and the appropriate action taken.
Of course, on the old scale, certainly with city racing, they are paltry amounts but the bad habits introduced to Australian betting by the corporates sour many on horse playing.
Advertisement
"There have been frequent and persistent complaints by punters about wagering operators refusing to take their bets, particularly in circumstances where those punters have been successful," Racing NSW chief executive Peter V'landys justifiably pontificated.

Thus V’Landys intends to apply Race Fields Information Use approvals so “wagering operators are required to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds wager on NSW thoroughbred races”.

Punters and bookmakers at the meeting will be consulted on the best way to get a fair go; the move received a mixed reception from the Racenet forum.

“Positive step and sounds good on face value. Two points before we start getting too excited,” the Protagonist stressed. ”It means nothing if they continue to close accounts, and let's see how it affects the odds on offer ...

“It’s probably not possible but a Betfair exchange wholly owned by all Australian race clubs (with minimal take-outs) could kill off all these international corporates that have to pay a levy.”
Back in the early days of Betfair, before the invaders got a toehold on the market, former trainer Geoff Chapman made the same suggestion. Consider how much richer racing would now be if it had been adopted.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/racing-nsw-takes-up-punters-cause-with-corporates-20140615-zs8mi.html#ixzz34ieh8Q7y

[stugots]

I have pushed the idea of a local exchange a few times, but fear it is way to progressive for the racing industry who are basically still stuck in some time warp circa 1950's.

My only hope is that Packer & Co have the vision to negotiate heavily with various racing bodies to have their racing field fees applied fairly & correctly to the BF model which will enable the exchange to thrive & substantially benefit the industry as a whole in doing so with the added benefit of the para site hanger on corps suffering as a result.

[Pat123]

Reply:

Patrick, my name is Terry Griffin and I am the betting steward at Racingnsw and the inspectors have forwarded your email to me. I will attempt to provide some answers but let me make it clear that the details are still being worked out.

1) it will apply to all bookmakers who hold an approval via NSW Racefields legislation to bet on NSW racing. Basically all bookies who bet on NSW racing.

2) This is still being decided, however our current internet limits are $3000 for metro races, $1500 provincial races and $1000 for country races so this maybe a guide.

3) Only races in NSW

4) I am unsure what you are asking here but it is hoped to be cemented and in place by July 1 2014.

5) All Australian residents.



Hoping this assists and please stay tuned to our website in the next week or so to view the final details of this important iniative.
Yours Sincerely,

Terry Griffin

[stugots]

Sounds good.

I await with baited breath for VIC & QLD to follow suit...

[stugots]

Discussion I heard on radio this morning from Dr Turf was that the limits should be set around $500-$800, or else the corps will just kick up a stink & close all accounts betting above that & winning.

Well Doc in case you happen to visit here, they already do that & for much less, so what will change?

If they do stick to those limits, it does seem like a strategic move to get rid of the corps, at least out of NSW racing.

[Pat123]

Ladbrokes have already closed my account in wake of this news. The others will too if they can legally do it.

https://soundcloud.com/rsn-racing/richard-irvine-professional-punter

[Pat123]

Richard Irvine @riracing · 1h
Things are looking very positive for punters. Looks strongly like NSW will become the first state with a fair marketplace for punters.

[Chrome Prince]

But what stops them from just closing accounts or offering much lower odds to successful punters?

[Pat123]

Nothing currently. Ladbrokes already did it to me the other day when they got wind of the notion.

[aussielongboat]

But what stops them from just closing accounts or offering much lower odds to successful punters?

and they will say whats to stop you opening 10 accounts in friends names and using them and getting around the turn over limits.

its interesting regarding different prices to different customers - i think that may be against the trade practises act

[Chrome Prince]

IP addresses and browser settings.

[garyf]

IP addresses and browser settings.

A pro-punting mate of mine has used this for a long time.

It's not free.

There is a 14 day trial if you want.


https://anonymizer.com/anonymizer_universal.html

Cheers.
Garyf.

[stugots]

In the audio interview posted above they talk a bit about account closures & that it is an issue that needs to be addressed along with the min bet limits etc.

Surely there must be some consumer rights being violated with the current approach being taken by the corps - odd's are publicly advertised (for sale) but when certain customers decide to take those odds either they cannot 'buy' them at the advertised price or can only 'buy' them in such small amounts as to make the exercise pointless - when I buy a bag of peanuts at Wollies, I rightfully expect to be able to buy the whole bag, not have the checkout chick open the bag, empty 9/10ths into her pocket & hand me whats left when I go to pay.

& one thing I have never had happen is an on-course bookie reduce the odds on a horse after I have claimed those odds so I do not see why it is considered a fair practice for online corps to do so. Either the odds we see are truly available or else it is false advertising & must be a violation of consumer law.

As discussed in the interview, there should be legitimate reasons for account closures, fraud, multiple accounts etc.

[FredTheMug]

I wonder if these new minimum limits by Racing NSW are really just a disguised way to break the exchange model in Australia. Because, on Betfair, not everyone will be able to get on at the advertised price to win the minimum amount set by Racing NSW.

Depending on the wording, Betfair might be able to get around it by seeding it's markets at $1.01/$1000.

Surely the ACCC would protect Betfair if anything came to head.

[Mark]

In the audio interview posted above they talk a bit about account closures & that it is an issue that needs to be addressed along with the min bet limits etc.

Surely there must be some consumer rights being violated with the current approach being taken by the corps - odd's are publicly advertised (for sale) but when certain customers decide to take those odds either they cannot 'buy' them at the advertised price or can only 'buy' them in such small amounts as to make the exercise pointless - when I buy a bag of peanuts at Wollies, I rightfully expect to be able to buy the whole bag, not have the checkout chick open the bag, empty 9/10ths into her pocket & hand me whats left when I go to pay.

& one thing I have never had happen is an on-course bookie reduce the odds on a horse after I have claimed those odds so I do not see why it is considered a fair practice for online corps to do so. Either the odds we see are truly available or else it is false advertising & must be a violation of consumer law.

As discussed in the interview, there should be legitimate reasons for account closures, fraud, multiple accounts etc.

Have been all the way to the Discrimination Board stugots......they didn't want to know. It seems, at the moment, that punters have no rights. Unfortunately I cannot see this changing.

[Pat123]

Monday, 23 June 2014

Minimum Bets For Punters – Consultation Progress

Racing NSW last week continued the consultation process in respect of a Minimum Bet Limit requirement for bets placed on NSW races with Licensed Wagering Operators. The new condition will require the wagering operators to stand a horse to lose a minimum amount on a single fixed odds wager on NSW Thoroughbred races.
During the week of Monday 16th June to Friday, 20th June 2014, open consultation was undertaken with all licensed wagering operators and their representative bodies. Punters were also interviewed about the situation as it stands now and ideas exchanged re the introduction of the new requirement.
The wagering operators that were consulted included:
TABS:
• Tattsbet Limited as operators of Tattsbets Queensland, Northern Territory TAB, South Australian TAB & Tote Tasmania,
• ACT TAB Ltd - Canberra
• Tabcorp Holdings Pty Ltd as operators of TAB Limited NSW & TABCORP Wagering Victoria
• Racing and Wagering Western Australia (RWWA)
CORPORATE BOOKMAKERS:
• Sportsbet Pty Ltd,
• William Hill Pty Ltd as operators of Sportingbet , Centrebet & Tom Waterhouse NT
• Unibet Pty Ltd as operators of Betchoice
• Ladbrokes Digital Australia
• Hillside Pty Ltd as operators of Bet365
• Tabcorp Holdings Pty Ltd as operators of Luxbet
• Beteasy Pty Ltd
• Merlehan Bookmaking -TopSport
• Sportsbetting.com.au
• AWC - Australian Wagering Council - the representative body for its Corporate Bookmaker members
BETTING EXCHANGES:
• Betfair Australia Pty Ltd
BOOKMAKERS:
• ABA - Australian Bookmakers Association (on behalf of all licensed On-Course bookmakers who are members of their applicable State Co-operative or Association)
Racing NSW is considering the verbal submissions and ideas put forward in the consultation meetings by wagering operators and Punters. The consultation process is still ongoing and final confirmation of the minimum bet conditions will be published when all views and submissions have been considered by Racing NSW. All those that attended meetings have been invited to follow up with a written submission or additional ideas not canvassed in the meetings.
Any other interested parties who would like to make a submission or have their ideas considered should please make their submission in writing to - rf@racingnsw.com.au - by 5pm on Wednesday, 25 June 2014.


Source: http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=article-display&id=15922

[Pat123]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for sending that through. Does this mean bookmakers currently are still entitled to ban myself and others from Fixed Odds? Do i have to wait a bit longer before they will take my bets, and more importantly, what rights do i have with regards to them getting around this new rule by closing my accounts?

Ladbrokes found out about this rule and straight away closed my account!

Regards


Hi Pat,

Probably just a matter of watching this space (i.e. our website).

The consultation submissions close tomorrow afternoon so will probably have more news after it’s all been digested by the relevant parties.


Regards,

Mark Brassel

[Michal]

Hi All,

Obviously we are watching the situation unfold, holding our breath (and turning blue). Part of my submission:

Closing of accounts:

One way to not take any bets from a winning punter is to close his account; this circumvents the whole process. Unless fraudulent behavior is detected bets should be accepted and accounts should not be permitted to be closed.

Fixed prices / products on offer differ between clients:

Another way to circumvent the intent of this legislation would be to offer substandard odds or products. In this case the punter would not make the bet. One version of a product / odds should be available to all clients as advertised on the bookmakers website without being logged in (and discriminated against based on punters winning performance).

Our industry is one where people aspire to become winning punters, people do not come to the races with the intent to loose. The current practice of risk management by bookies where they eliminate winning punters fosters the decline of interest from existing and new clients to our industry.


To which the reply was short but very promising:


Dear Michal,

Thank you for your submission. The new Condition does include a clause to curb closure of accounts and restriction on clients’ accounts

Yours Sincerely,

Clare Wilson
Race Fields and Wagering Supervisor

[garyf]

Hi All,

Obviously we are watching the situation unfold, holding our breath (and turning blue). Part of my submission:

Closing of accounts:

One way to not take any bets from a winning punter is to close his account; this circumvents the whole process. Unless fraudulent behavior is detected bets should be accepted and accounts should not be permitted to be closed.

Fixed prices / products on offer differ between clients:

Another way to circumvent the intent of this legislation would be to offer substandard odds or products. In this case the punter would not make the bet. One version of a product / odds should be available to all clients as advertised on the bookmakers website without being logged in (and discriminated against based on punters winning performance).

Our industry is one where people aspire to become winning punters, people do not come to the races with the intent to loose. The current practice of risk management by bookies where they eliminate winning punters fosters the decline of interest from existing and new clients to our industry.


To which the reply was short but very promising:


Dear Michal,

Thank you for your submission. The new Condition does include a clause to curb closure of accounts and restriction on clients’ accounts

Yours Sincerely,

Clare Wilson
Race Fields and Wagering Supervisor


Will run you through a typical scenario that happens to me,
Re the fixed odds being displayed for all & sundry but when,
A winning punter (account not closed) wants to get a bet on.

Horse =A Current fixed odds showing $9.0 for everyone to bet.
Winning punter rings up (I have to bet on the phone with this corporate)

After giving my account details I ask for $500.00 on horse =A at $9.00,
Silence for a few seconds as my account details come up then the spiel.

I'm sorry "GARYF but we have laid that horse substantially early on,
And we don't want to risk that amount at those odds.

2 X scenarios are now offered to me.

I can have the $500 on at a drastically reduced price,
Or $20.00 on at the current $9.00.

They have refused my bet, but hopefully the rule is invoked,
That all bookmakers have to be bet to lose a certain amount I wonder,
If it will cover the above scenario, or just another way out for them.

Cheers.
Garyf.

[garyf]

What I should have explained is this.

Technically they have bet me the fixed odds of $9.00.

Also they have let me on for the rest of my bet.

So they have fulfilled both obligations haven't they?
But in a round about way that if invoked this rule,
Of betting all punters the price on offer to lose a set amount,
Would have to be re-worded in this scenario.

Bet all punters to lose a set amount at the fixed odds displayed,
For the "EXACT" amount the punter asks for providing that amount,
IS NOT EXCEEDED RE THE RULES GOVERNING THAT PRICE
AND RULE PERTAINING TO WHERE THE MEETING IS HELD.

Cheers.

[Chrome Prince]

So what will happen?

One of two things.
Either they will not cover NSW racing or offer substandard odds to ALL clients.
Top fluctuation will be removed and you'll be offered 130% markets like the QLD bookies. Can see it as plain as day.
They will have no arbers at all because the odds are so poor, and only the mugs will take the really poor prices.
Of course there will be all these new types of bets I'd imagine, where you lay the favourite vs the field at double the Betfair odds etc. Seen this creeping in already.

There is no way in this world that they are going to allow winning punters back on for set amounts at current prices - sad but true.

Online bookies are the new "Wiggles". Guaranteed.

[Michal]

I see it a little more rose-colored.

With NSW having this legislation in, other states will follow. Removing the ability to not cover meetings in the 'unfavorable' jurisdiction.

Regarding the bad odds and abandoning of the best punting products (remember that these are only available to loosing or small temporarily winning clients) well the market pressure should dictate, no one will bet on a bad price if better is elsewhere, and they all cant collude and offer the same bad price.

Remember that there are bookies that offer the real deal to punters already so it isn't like its all online/of-course bookies just have it their way. So their option may be to do form and be a bookie other then the accountants they are now or pack up as they wont be meeting turnover targets .....

Wishful thinking may be, but the market will sort itself out and if there is just a little justice and it isn't all one way like it is now, things will improve at least to some degree.

Although I do agree that the corps will be trying to have their present cash-flows (CASH-COWS) undisturbed.

[Chrome Prince]

Essentially, they cannot withstand knowledgeable punters who win on a consistent basis. The model will fail, it has to.
They will chase the mugs at reduced odds and that will be their market along with tiny bonuses.

[Michal]

There has always been successful punters, and wagering, so racing should go on, and if the corps fail because they really are just accountants, then its not our loss. I know that people rant on about choice and variety and options, BUT we all seen where that ends up. It will end up being the true bookies vs punters and the accountants will eventually fizle ????

I don't know the answer, and Im not disagreeing with what you are saying, but at the same time Im also not worried about them not surviving the new model.

[garyf]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already.

Interesting some of the opinions given from "JOE PUBLIC",
Down underneath.

http://www.racenet.com.au/news/101577/Corporates-call-on-proposed-minimum-bet-conditions-to-be-frozen.asp


Cheers.

[stugots]

are these clowns serious??

The AWC, which represents Paddy Power Group (Sportsbet and IAS), William Hill Group (Centrebet, Sportingbet and Tom Waterhouse), Ladbrokes, Unibet, Bet365 and Betfair, says more consultation is required with wagering operators before any new conditions regarding bet amounts on fixed price products are implemented.

"Any new policy affecting wagering must be developed in a way that properly assesses its impact on the long term viability of the racing industry; protects the integrity of racing and stems the leakage of customers to illegal and unregulated offshore providers."

The simple fact is that minimum bet restrictions will only apply to a very small proportion of customers but Racing NSW's decision may force online operators to change pricing for all customers," Downy said.

The AWC says as online wagering operators service their own clients they are "entitled to manage risk as they see fit".


Do everyone a favour & ******** off back to where you came from.

[Chrome Prince]

Exactly as predicted unfortunately.

[evajb001]

Surely betfair must be licking their lips at this? It provides a huge marketing opportunity for them if corps start offering 130% markets on NSW races and betfair stomp their prices all day long.

Same goes for pinnacle if they get their racing division off the ground and offer a decent market.

[stugots]

"Any new policy affecting wagering must be developed in a way that properly assesses its impact on the long term viability of the racing industry; protects the integrity of racing and stems the leakage of customers to bookmakers that have a pair & who realise & accept that in the bookmaking industry, risk is a 2 way street."

edit for accuracy

[Chrome Prince]

It may mean a couple of things, people will go to the track for a decent plonk, or Pinnacle will replace betfair as the backers preference.
Originally the overseas lads bought whizz bang software which to an extent was supposed to manage the book. It did so, so inefficiently that winners were beating the odds put up for large sums.
The book was not managed, instead they just dropped or severely limited the winners via accounting software which ran independently of the "book".

What they simply need to do is make money like they did before the internet.
Manage the book like Pinnacle do.
Offer odds up to a certain exposure and then drop those odds whilst winding out the odds on those horses at the other end of the market that are nearly 50% below true odds in most cases.

That's not going to happen anytime soon, because they have spent so much money on getting established here, inefficient bookmaking software, but efficient accounting software, so the door is wide open for Pinnacle and Betfair. In fact after commission and Premium Charges, Pinnacle are the best odds you can get. And if you get on at the right time in sports, you regularly get much less than 100% market as a backer ;)

[Pat123]

You can't come to our country and implement your unethical business practises and expect to get away with it. Will be interested to see what happens from here. Hope the greedy cants don't win.

Pinnacle have been around for ages and make a profit. Time these corps re-think their business models and give everyone a fair go.

[The Ocho]

So are these so called "bookmakers" trying to dictate terms to the racing industry? Don't put the cart (or sulky) before the horse because you could get trampled by those bookies offering better odds. That would be a real pity for them.

[stugots]

I fail to see what the corps think they can hold over the industry - the threat of reduced odds for all their 'clients' who will all run off to sign up with Vanuatu bookmakers, & in doing so decimate the racing scene?? Lol, wont happen.

Anyone else starting to suspect the arrival of Pinnacle in Aust & Racing NSW plans are not just a coincidence? & also the Packer buyout of BF Aust.

[Chrome Prince]

I actually thought of that stugots, I imagined a few lobster dinners at various casinos, because this issue of banning and limiting has been very well publicised. One would imagine industry leaders seeing a ripe opportunity at the right time behind closed doors. What we are starting to hear now, I imagine was well though out months ago if not earlier.

Or I could be dreaming, but Rene Rivkin always used to say "where there's smoke there's fire, and the first offer, is never the last." :D

[stugots]

brain fade, ignore

[Mark]

You can't come to our country and implement your unethical business practises and expect to get away with it.

Obviously they can and do.

I have had 1 losing bet of $100 today with BETSTAR, recently taken over by LADBROKES, and guess what??/ no more fixed odds for me. Same as being banned.

Complaint lodged with NT Racing Commission for what it's worth.

[stugots]

insane

[Mark]

I am in receipt of your dispute, Betstar now a subsidiary of Ladbrokes are no longer licensed in the Northern Territory and therefore do not fall within our jurisdiction. They are now licensed through the Norfolk Island Gaming Authority who can be contacted via the following link. http://www.gaming.gov.nf/



As an aside and by prefacing this with the fact your dispute is outside of this jurisdiction, I can however advise that the current case law in Australia regarding matters such as this supports the bookmaker’s right to accept or refuse business as they wish. In essence the law is that no person can force another to enter into a contract with them, the striking of a wager being a contract between parties. Just as they can’t force you to wager with them, you can’t force them to accept your wager.


Kind regards


xxxx xxxx
Licensing Inspector - Investigations, Gambling and Licensing Services


And there you have it. Punters have no rights whatsoever.
As for Norfolk Island, they didn't even bother to reply to a recent complaint. The whole system is a complete joke.

[Chrome Prince]

Correct. Before our shores were inundated with UK and IRE accountants, the overseas forums were rife with complaints about these companies.
There are only a couple of wholly Australian owned corporate bookies left and most of them have the same software.
The only way to get a decent bet on with a bookie these days is an on track bookie, although the price of admission and a meal is probably not even worth it.
The alternative is to have a phone account with Rod Cleary, Rob Waterhouse, or Mark Read himself, not IAS.

[blackdog1]

"In essence the law is that no person can force another to enter into a contract with them, the striking of a wager being a contract between parties."

This is coming from the laws governing the relationship between shopkeepers and customers, where any shopkeeper can refuse service.

The situation here is entirely different in my opinion.
By opening an account we enter into a contract to conduct wagering.

That is the contract.
The fact that it is written in a way to benefit one party only is the problem.
If the govmnt, benefits from license fees it should be able to dictate some contract terms to make it more equitable to punters.

[stugots]

As an aside and by prefacing this with the fact your dispute is outside of this jurisdiction, I can however advise that the current case law in Australia regarding matters such as this supports the bookmaker’s right to accept or refuse business as they wish.



So why haven't on-course bookies been doing this from day dot? Answer - because the terms of their licencing as bookmakers requires them to take on all comers. Would there be one on course bookmaker left in this country if that had not been the case? Of course not.

Why can the corps get away with what they are? Because a lazy, greedy NT Govt enabled all of the abhorrent business practices that now are a real threat to the industry. Buck stops there & despite what changes NSW make, the NT Govt need to face up to their responsibilities to the racing industry.