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.

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.

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.

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...isplay&id=15922

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/1015...o-be-frozen.asp


Cheers.

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.

Exactly as predicted unfortunately.

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.

"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

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

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

brain fade, ignore

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.

insane

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.

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.

"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.

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.