Betting websites

[FallingLiefs]

Agreed - but the punter needs to know before handing over their hard earned

most bookmakers have it in T+Cs that they dont have to and to be honest i have no problem with them banning people. im yet to see a genuine recreational punter complain of getting promos taken away, if you are going to play that game you ave to expect to get burnt at one point. Same with Arbs, you expect to make bets with no risk and then complain when they wont take your bets. please.

 

[iluvparis]

most bookmakers have it in T+Cs that they dont have to and to be honest i have no problem with them banning people. im yet to see a genuine recreational punter complain of getting promos taken away, if you are going to play that game you ave to expect to get burnt at one point. Same with Arbs, you expect to make bets with no risk and then complain when they wont take your bets. please.

This - the T&Cs basically say that its a promo you may or may not be eligible for - I don't think you'd have to leg to stand on if you said you bet on the horse purely because of the promo because then you wouldn't be recreational would you?

 

[scottyjc]

But shouldn’t you be advised if you’re eligible before hand?

I guess I just don’t like the way some of these guys operate, with no accountability and their “our way or the highway” thought processes.

Have no problem with them banning people if they feel they are abusing promos (don’t particulary love it however) - but do it openly and transparently - not retroactively, because honestly, I have markets where I’ll like something but am not 100% - if I see a promo I’m more likely to take the risk, does that me me a professional (ie non recreational)?

 

[iluvparis]

I think the problem is some punters view them as a right when really the bookies are treating them more like a bonus

 

[Lensen]

This - the T&Cs basically say that its a promo you may or may not be eligible for - I don't think you'd have to leg to stand on if you said you bet on the horse purely because of the promo because then you wouldn't be recreational would you?

hang on, what?

that's like saying it's ok to settle a $2 pop at $1.20 because if you bet on the horse purely because of the price then you wouldn't be recreational? the promo adding a bonus to the bet would have to have an impact on the decision to bet or else why would they do it?

no issue with them promo banning but you have to be told upfront

 

[iluvparis]

hang on, what?

that's like saying it's ok to settle a $2 pop at $1.20 because if you bet on the horse purely because of the price then you wouldn't be recreational? the promo adding a bonus to the bet would have to have an impact on the decision to bet or else why would they do it?

no issue with them promo banning but you have to be told upfront

Disagree with the argument that an offered price and promo offer are exact equivalents in this context.

 

[asanque]

This - the T&Cs basically say that its a promo you may or may not be eligible for - I don't think you'd have to leg to stand on if you said you bet on the horse purely because of the promo because then you wouldn't be recreational would you?

Forget the T+C's. These don't apply where it is contrary to consumer legislation.

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/misleading-claims-advertising/false-or-misleading-claims

I'd classify it primarily as 'bait advertising'.

Let's say you went to a golf store that offered a free putter when you bought a driver.

After you bought the golf club, they say, you are not eligible as you are not a recreational golfer (whatever that term means).

Would that be acceptable conduct?

Of course not.

If they change their past practice and a customer suddenly becomes ineligible for a promotion, bookies need to make that clear BEFORE they unilaterally decide you are not eligible for the promotion.

That is common sense and good practice.

In any event, it is now with the NT regulator, so will give you all a final update, no matter the final outcome.

Sidenote: I'd say 99% of us are recreational gamblers. 'Professional' implies that you are doing it full time as your primary source of income.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

apparently NEDS are going with BITCOIN

http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...n/news-story/c7f205179db98bb3a3403212efe914f4

 

[asanque]

What happened with them?

They still haven't paid me yet, so I will disclose afterwards.

It was a Brownlow Bet dispute that has been running for 5 months.

And Ubet still haven't paid out despite being asked to by the regulator.

 

[asanque]

apparently NEDS are going with BITCOIN

http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...n/news-story/c7f205179db98bb3a3403212efe914f4

When will they accept Beancoin?

 

[X_box_X]

They still haven't paid me yet, so I will disclose afterwards.

It was a Brownlow Bet dispute that has been running for 5 months.

And Ubet still haven't paid out despite being asked to by the regulator.

I an intrigued.

 

[FallingLiefs]

when did centrebet/Tom give up on their plan for odds/min bets? when williamhill decided to sell up?

 

[scottyjc]

I think the problem is some punters view them as a right when really the bookies are treating them more like a bonus

It is a right - until they tell you otherwise

If you’re banned and try to use a promo - tell your story walking

 

[puntking]

apparently NEDS are going with BITCOIN

http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...n/news-story/c7f205179db98bb3a3403212efe914f4

this is huge news first in Aus

 

[HeathySure]

ill just leave this without comment

EXCLUSIVE
February 3 2018 - 12:15AM
Save
Print
License article
Multi-millionaire John McGrath has $16 million debt to bookmaker William Hill

• Kate McClymont & Nick Toscano

1,361 reading now

• facebook SHARE
• twitter TWEET
• email
• google-plus
• linkedin
• reddit

It has been one of the worst kept secrets in the gambling world: prominent real estate figure John McGrath has a $16.2 million gambling debt to the Tom Waterhouse- run betting company William Hill Australia.

“This would be the biggest debt ever in gambling history by a single person to a single company in Australia,” said one industry insider.

• Share on Facebook SHARE
• Share on Twitter TWEET

Real estate agent John McGrath is said to have a large debt with William Hill. Photo: Louise Kennerley
Confirmation of his debts incurred on horse racing has come to light after a number of industry figures have run their rulers over the books of William Hill which is being offered for sale by its British parent company.

One particular figure has caught the attention of prospective purchasers: a $16.2 million debt which is owed by just one big-time punter.

Related Articles

• John McGrath facing tough times ahead

That punter, according to multiple sources, is the man dubbed “Mr Real Estate.”

Mr McGrath’s account at William Hill has been held in the name of “John Wilson” said one insider who added that the real estate figure’s last bet was in mid December, 2017, when Mr McGrath deposited $500,000 into his account at William Hill. The half a million dollars was not used to reduce his debt levels but allowed him to keep betting.

Advertisement
When asked about Mr McGrath’s debt to the company, William Hill’s CEO, Mr Waterhouse, said: “I am not aware of any individual client in terms of betting or whether they are a client or not a client whether it is Joe Bloggs or John whoever.”

Business AM Newsletter
Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.


By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

When it was put to him that if he had a single person owing more than $16 million he would have to know the identity of that person, Mr Waterhouse said, “If we had a debt of that amount, I couldn’t say to you whether that person was Joe Bloggs or Tim Smith or whoever.’

• Share on Facebook SHARE
• Share on Twitter TWEET

Tom Waterhouse has been running William Hill Australia. Photo: Andrew Meares
He also said that no “bookmaker worth their salt” would ever reveal the name of a client.

For his part Mr McGrath, 54, has previously denied having any gambling debts.

• Share on Facebook SHARE
• Share on Twitter TWEET

Illustration: Joe Benke Photo: Joe Benke
"I can assure you that I am neither a large punter...nor do I owe any funds to anyone," he said in a text message to Fairfax Media in 2017.

Mr McGrath did not reply to written questions put to him on Friday.

Turmoil at company
The real estate guru has other pressing issues to deal with at present. Only a fortnight ago the chief executive and entire board of the ASX-listed company he founded, indicated that they planned to quit over the coming weeks.

This will leave Mr McGrath to take over as executive chairman of McGrath Real Estate Ltd, having relinquished the role of CEO in 2016 as part of a management and board shake-up.

Mr McGrath’s reinstatement at the helm of the company has not provided a boost. As of Friday the share price had slumped to 48 cents, a far cry from the initial float price of $2.10 in 2015.

The company has a market value of $68 million which puts the worth of Mr McGrath's 26 per cent holding at about $17.6 million. He also has $10 million worth of REA shares.

It is not known whether Mr McGrath owns any property through corporate vehicles or trusts but in 2011 he purchased a penthouse and mooring in Walsh Bay for $6.95 million. The luxurious harbourside apartment has since soared in value.

According to industry sources, the notoriously private Mr McGrath was the high-profile bookmaker’s largest client when he was running his own online gambling business tomwaterhouse.com.

When the publicly-listed English betting giant William Hill UK acquired Mr Waterhouse’s own company and two other local companies Sportingbet and Centrebet in 2013, Mr Waterhouse was installed as CEO.

His friend Mr McGrath followed him to William Hill.

Two years later Mr McGrath’s debt had reached $3 million and insiders at William Hill have suggested that the UK parent company gave instructions that no further credit facilities should be offered to the particular punter until the debt was down-sized.

By early 2017 the figure had reached $13 million and now insiders claim Mr McGrath’s debt has reached $16.2 million.

The debt has become a widespread topic of conversation in the gambling industry with prospective purchasers going through the books of the struggling Australian subsidiary.

“So we know he owes $16 million, we don’t know how much he has turned over in order to lose the $16 million,” said one source of just how much Mr McGrath had been betting each year.

Credit betting push
Multiple sources familiar with William Hill Australia’s accounts said the company had an individual credit-betting client who incurred average gambling losses of about $10 million a year, and had not settled his debt for some time, leaving William Hill out of pocket by about $16 million.

Mr McGrath's reported pseudonym in the William Hill data base is not unusual in the industry, said one source.

Rather than being for privacy reasons, it is to stop employees trying to take major clients when they leave, the source said.

Of all the nation's major online sports-betting companies, the Waterhouse-run William Hill Australia is expected to be the hardest-hit by the Turnbull government’s incoming prohibition on digital bookmakers companies extending lines of credit to punters, a ban that takes effect from February 17.

William Hill has revealed “credit betting” accounts for as much as 30 per cent of its wagering volumes in the Australian market.

In a statement to the London Stock Exchange last month, the company hinted it may sell up or close down its operations in Australia, saying the looming credit ban was set to pressure profits.

The company said it would be “undertaking a strategic review of our Australia business”.

William Hill Australia has been at loggerheads with Australia’s other online bookmakers, such as Sportsbet, CrownBet, Bet365 and Ladbrokes, who have been widely accepting of a series of responsible-gambling concessions, such as bans on offering lines of credit and reducing advertising volumes during live sport.

Industry insiders say William Hill Australia is “wedded to credit betting”, and had been lobbying unsuccessfully for exemptions for its so-called VIP gamblers.

Investment bank Citi has been engaged by William Hill to advise on the sale of its Australian business, but sources suggest the indicated price tag of up to $300 million is considered excessive.

Following the $11 billion merger of Australia's two biggest gambling companies, Tabcorp and Tatts, and the introduction of new state-based taxes on digital bets, a wave of consolidation among the smaller, online-only wagering businesses is widely tipped to take place this year

Several major online bookmakers are considering buying the William Hill Australia business, but may be unwilling to take on the company's multi-million-dollar credit-betting debt.

A spokesman for William Hill Australia declined to respond to questions about Mr McGrath’s debt, saying all client activity was kept “100 per cent confidential”.

 

[Sabbathen]

The commission off a couple of 1 bed unit sales in Sydney should wipe out that debt pretty easily!

 

[54Dogs]

Think of the people who need your support. Gamble responsibly. William Hill Australia are committed to supporting Responsible Gambling.

 

[chunkylover]

Probably thought the chase the ace promo would bail him out of the debt

 

[Sabbathen]

Are people betting that big getting special odds? I cant understand why you would take shitty corporates odds when you are talking about that sort of money...

 

[IKnowtheDog]

this will cost a few sheckles

http://www.smh.com.au/business/form...against-crown-aristocrat-20180201-p4yz9y.html

 

[99 Problems]

Are people betting that big getting special odds? I cant understand why you would take shitty corporates odds when you are talking about that sort of money...

Where else are they going to bet in those sizes?

 

[Hamingja]

Yeah sure Tom you have no knowledge of such a big punter

It would be interesting though to know how they dealt with his bets as far as laying off etc. How much of that $16 million would be a paper loss and how much they've actually layed off on Citibet or wherever and are out of pocket for.

 

[Barralupo]

Anyone know if Australians can still bet with Pinnacle?

 

[Rocky Straight]

Yeah sure Tom you have no knowledge of such a big punter

It would be interesting though to know how they dealt with his bets as far as laying off etc. How much of that $16 million would be a paper loss and how much they've actually layed off on Citibet or wherever and are out of pocket for.

why would you lay off a losing punters bets?

Anyone know if Australians can still bet with Pinnacle?

yes thankfully

 

[HeathySure]

Yeah sure Tom you have no knowledge of such a big punter

It would be interesting though to know how they dealt with his bets as far as laying off etc. How much of that $16 million would be a paper loss and how much they've actually layed off on Citibet or wherever and are out of pocket for.

It is apparently in the books as a debt. It's not a paper loss yet....