Fairfax Article: Online Betting Unmasked

[the harry]

After reading the below article, I thought it would be good to have a discussion as to what each of you feel is actually reasonable with regard to the practices of closing/restricting accounts.

Should it happen? If so, at what point?

Is it simply lazy on the part of the corporates that instead of getting better at their jobs they stop the punter?

Is it a consequence of having competition in the market with smaller corporates apparently unable to sustained prolonged and significant liabilities?


http://www.theage.com.au/business/o...med-by-an-entire-industry-20140413-36leo.html

In ''Fixed Odds Liability'', a missive sent to its network of betting shops around Australia, Tabcorp identifies two types of customers: ''genuine customers'' - code for ''losers'' - and ''individual customers who are not commercially viable'' - code for ''winners''. Tabcorp's advice to outlets is to get rid of fixed-odds winners as customers by ''liability management'' and focus on servicing the losers.

''By helping to identify the individual customers who are not commercially viable you can prevent your whole venue from being managed,'' the document says. By ''managed'' Tabcorp means managed by head office. At present 100 of 2600 TABs are being managed.

As revealed here last year, the online wagering companies, now almost entirely owned by British multinationals, tend to take bets only from losers. Fixed-odds punters who win, even those who bet in small amounts, either have their bet sizes curtailed or their accounts frozen altogether


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/onli...re-industry-20140413-36leo.html#ixzz2ysl5oKnU

 

[GROTTO]

After reading the below article, I thought it would be good to have a discussion as to what each of you feel is actually reasonable with regard to the practices of closing/restricting accounts.

Should it happen? If so, at what point?

Is it simply lazy on the part of the corporates that instead of getting better at their jobs they stop the punter?

Great article for discussion.

The bookies should not have both ways, allowing losers to punt away their money but restrict/close off winners.

Maybe what should happen is the same principles that apply in the way they restrict winners should apply in reverse to constant losers where their accounts are closed as well.

I agree with your comments that the bookies should get better at their job before placing restrictions on constant winners. I got restricted at one bookie and I wasn't too happy about it. With that said its only one ATM, plenty of others to choose from.

I do believe though a condition of their license should be that they cannot close/restrict winners and that if they get to the stage where they are losing too much, they should close down instead of going into bankruptcy. However, I do believe that this should only apply to Australian residents only.

I'm sure Willzzz can offer his thoughts in this after being screwed by one betting agency and others as well.

 

[kickazz]

I like the comment about having equivalent restrictions for big losers as for big winners. They go on about only wanting 'recreational' or 'genuine' punters. So professional punters are not included in this? Fine, nor should mentally ill / problem gamblers be.

But we all know that is not the case. Basically they've done a Pareto analysis and they know restricting the top 20% of punters and encouraging the worst 20% will have a massive impact on their success.

Does anyone know if there are rules tied in with the licencing on what sort of %age they can take in the long run on their fixed price products?

 

[GROTTO]

I like the comment about having equivalent restrictions for big losers as for big winners. They go on about only wanting 'recreational' or 'genuine' punters. So professional punters are not included in this? Fine, nor should mentally ill / problem gamblers be.

But we all know that is not the case. Basically they've done a Pareto analysis and they know restricting the top 20% of punters and encouraging the worst 20% will have a massive impact on their success.

Does anyone know if there are rules tied in with the licencing on what sort of %age they can take in the long run on their fixed price products?

Its interesting you mention that about mentally ill or problem gamblers. Luxbet have incorporated this into their T&C, what I would like to know is that how many account have they closed because someone is mentally ill or a problem gambler. How do they define mentally ill or a problem gambler?

 

[kickazz]

Its interesting you mention that about mentally ill or problem gamblers. Luxbet have incorporated this into their T&C, what I would like to know is that how many account have they closed because someone is mentally ill or a problem gambler. How do they define mentally ill or a problem gambler?

In short, they can't. Only a doctor can diagnose illness. By looking at data though, you could probably generalise reasonably well where someone is off the rails. Perhaps this sort of data needs to be publicly available or at least overseen by gambling regulators.

Interestingly enough, on the one occasion that I myself exhibited markedly different to (my) normal betting behaviour (to wit, large bets in short succession) with one particular bookmaker, the response from them was to supply a pop-up offering me credit. Interesting to say the least.

 

[GROTTO]

Interestingly enough, on the one occasion that I myself exhibited markedly different to (my) normal betting behaviour (to wit, large bets in short succession) with one particular bookmaker, the response from them was to supply a pop-up offering me credit. Interesting to say the least.

I have never needed credit, but this is one thing that should be banned from our books in Australia. You either bet with money you have or you dont bet at all.

 

[Lensen]

I have never needed credit, but this is one thing that should be banned from our books in Australia. You either bet with money you have or you dont bet at all.

ridiculous

if you ban credit for moral reasons then logically you have to ban credit cards as a deposit form too. it's big government nanny statism, the same sort of rubbish that has us unable to bet online

we are adults. we can make decisions for ourselves. don't inconvenience 98% of people because 2% are problem gamblers

 

[kickazz]

ridiculous

if you ban credit for moral reasons then logically you have to ban credit cards as a deposit form too. it's big government nanny statism, the same sort of rubbish that has us unable to bet online

we are adults. we can make decisions for ourselves. don't inconvenience 98% of people because 2% are problem gamblers

Have to agree here. I am with GROTTO in that it just feels wrong, but looking at it logically there is little difference between bookie credit and depositing via credit card. In a sense bookie credit may be better in that there is no fee or interest (AFAIK). People can abuse credit in other ways too, such as racking up huge phone bills.

I'm not a fan and personally only bet with my money but logically it seems fine that they offer credit. What I did find poor was the predatory nature of when they offered me credit via pop up. They are clearly targetting someone who appears to be on tilt (I wasn't, but I digress). Why does the offer not come up at any of the times when my balance is low and I could use it?

 

[d3ft]

I've had about enough of people whining about aussie bookies. They're running businesses not charities. They have no obligation to treat you fairly. They're no worse than any other scumbag organisation trying to screw people out of a buck.

Arb off the huge bonuses and exploit the ridiculously easy to beat markets until they limit you, then head over to Pinnacle or betfair. Simples.

 

[GROTTO]

Have to agree here. I am with GROTTO in that it just feels wrong, but looking at it logically there is little difference between bookie credit and depositing via credit card. In a sense bookie credit may be better in that there is no fee or interest (AFAIK). People can abuse credit in other ways too, such as racking up huge phone bills.

I'm not a fan and personally only bet with my money but logically it seems fine that they offer credit. What I did find poor was the predatory nature of when they offered me credit via pop up. They are clearly targetting someone who appears to be on tilt (I wasn't, but I digress). Why does the offer not come up at any of the times when my balance is low and I could use it?

Agree +1.

One of the clear differences, is that with a credit card even if you do abuse it, at the very least you are getting some form of tangible benefit, whether it be buying a new car, paying bills whether they be groceries, rent, mortgage etc.

Gambling is a problem in society, lets not make it too easy for someone to go into debt by betting on a "guaranteed winner". As GWS and Melbourne have taught us - upsets happen.

Oh just with the phone bills, one of the best decisions I ever made was moving from a plan to prepaid where I get unlimited calls/messages etc, I pay a flat $40 per month. I have never looked back since.

 

[GROTTO]

Some "real facts" about problem gambling in our society.

http://www.problemgambling.gov.au/facts/


"The social cost to the community of problem gambling is estimated to be at least $4.7 billion a year.

The actions of one problem gambler negatively impacts the lives of between five and 10 others. This means there are up to five million Australians who could be affected by problem gambling each year, including friends, family and employers of people with a gambling problem.

One in six people who play the pokies regularly has a serious addiction.

Problem gamblers lose around $21,000 each year. That’s one third of the average Australian salary."

 

[terminators]

I like the comment about having equivalent restrictions for big losers as for big winners. They go on about only wanting 'recreational' or 'genuine' punters. So professional punters are not included in this? Fine, nor should mentally ill / problem gamblers be.

I wonder how much they would have allowed this bloke to win before limiting him

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364488821.html

 

[GROTTO]

I wonder how much they would have allowed this bloke to win before limiting him

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364488821.html

The mug punter who blew $18,998,309

Trying to recover $8 million he had already stolen and lost, Faithfull stole, bet and lost another $11 million to IASBet in six months

His average bet was around $20,000 but he went as high as $70,000. None of his bets were refused.

"Faithfull's bets were so erratic they were a joke - if they weren't so big. That made them scary," a former employee said. "He bet on up to 20 races on a Saturday. He'd put a lot of money on no-hopers at long odds. Sometimes two in the same race. On the card, they had no chance - but what if he fluked it and won? He'd clean us out."

This probably the summary of the whole article in a nutshell.

This below is what is amazing as well.

He lived modestly on his $45,000 salary in a bank-owned house with his partner and five-year-old son.

 

[Lensen]

do you advocate personal responsibility at all GROTTO or does the government need to hold everyone's hand at all times?

 

[terminators]

So many industries are incredibly heavily regulated now to protect the consumer. In finance bank's need to be able to prove due diligence if a loan is provided to a client. If there's an issue with the loan and the bank can't prove it has met all criteria in relation to responsible lending under the Consumer Credit Code it will be held liable for the debt, not the client.

Yet if corporate bookies see clearly irregular betting patterns for losing punters there is no regulation to hold them to account, bets just continue to be accepted.

I acknowledge that no business model should be forced to accept a state of play where they are required to trade in a consistent losing position with individuals, would be like a shop being forced to sell goods to certain people only below cost. That said, it needs to go both ways and corporates are happy to take bets from mug punters who could be problem gamblers or worse without consequence.

Interesting in that article Mark Read stated he was fully aware of who the client was. To lose 20mill with IAS he must have turned over north of 100mill. Read obviously knew his occupation as a banker on 45K pa yet did nothing to raise alarm bells with anyone that this guy was turning over millions. Yet if it was someone with strong inside info who was a regular winner there is south of zero chance he would be accepting bets at that level knowing it could break him. Moral responsibility = 0

 

[GROTTO]

responsibility = 0

Good feedback, Loved your comments and agreed whole heartedly.

I understand that the books are there to make money and don't have a problem with him doing it, but as I stated above the banning or limiting must be applied both ways.

 

[iluvparis]

Gambling is a problem in society, lets not make it too easy for someone to go into debt by betting on a "guaranteed winner". As GWS and Melbourne have taught us - upsets happen.

.

In that case you should also be banned from buying alcohol and cigarettes on credit. Let's not let individuals harm themselves with dangeorous product's that they can't afford anyway. Actually let's ban car loans too given how many accidents they cause.

 

[iluvparis]

Personally, I think they should operate under the same rules as bookies at the track. They must take a bet to lose a certain amount ($2,000-$5,000) on any price they put up. After that they can restrict you if they see fit.

 

[GROTTO]

In that case you should also be banned from buying alcohol and cigarettes on credit. Let's not let individuals harm themselves with dangeorous product's that they can't afford anyway. Actually let's ban car loans too given how many accidents they cause.

I appreciate the argument you are putting forward, but generally speaking the harmful affects of alcohol and cigarette consumption takes a period of time to transpire. Using a credit card online to gamble with money that you potentially do not have can have immediate ramifications of high interest rates (as I understand it credit card providers charge gambling as a cash advance) and the inability to be able to repay the loan in the short to long term future. This entire process can take place within 5 minutes. You could possibly financially cripple yourself for the rest of your life by not demonstrating good judgement in a 5 minute window.

I know you can and I can for that matter draw upon other examples as you have demonstrated above, but instead of going down that path for simplicity and given the nature of the forum I do not want to delve outside the scope of gambling.

In giving a balance approach to this argument, I do respect what you are saying and do not entirely disagree with you. However, all I am saying is that my preference is for a punter to actually have that money in their account as opposed to drawing upon a cash advance. You could logically argue that there is little difference to transferring money from your account using a debit card (aside from the exorbitant interest rates) but at the very least you are losing the money you have as opposed to money that you do not.

It is my opinion and preference and others are entitled to disagree and think I am wrong. In any case, I think most bookies if not all offer this as means of transferring money so my thoughts on this matter is irrelevant.

I do respect yours and others who disagree with me.

 

[GROTTO]

Personally, I think they should operate under the same rules as bookies at the track. They must take a bet to lose a certain amount ($2,000-$5,000) on any price they put up. After that they can restrict you if they see fit.

Could you please explain that a bit further with an example as I do not gamble at the track or on horses? A sports bet example would be great.

 

[the harry]

Could you please explain that a bit further with an example as I do not gamble at the track or on horses? A sports bet example would be great.

To operate as a bookie at the track you can't actually completely refuse a bet (as the corporates do when they close your account). You must accept a bet with a minimum liability from any punter who desires to wager.

Currently, the corporates can close or limit your account if you are winning too much. To limit means placing a maximum win value for any bet you have. If you are betting on the EPL, and your limit is $500, you will only be allowed to place a $1k bet on a $1.50 shot. Anything over and your bet will not be accepted. There are instances of people only being allowed to with 100's or even less (this indirectly has the same effect as closing an account as people may want to bet to win more).

The suggestion is to forbid the corporates from engaging in such behaviour and forcing them to accept bets up to a certain level (to win $1,000+) for any punter that wishes to bet with them. If this was in place, you would be able to bet $2k on the $1.50 EPL bet before they can reject your bet.

 

[kickazz]

To operate as a bookie at the track you can't actually completely refuse a bet (as the corporates do when they close your account). You must accept a bet with a minimum liability from any punter who desires to wager.

The suggestion is to forbid the corporates from engaging in such behaviour and forcing them to accept bets up to a certain level (to win $1,000+) for any punter that wishes to bet with them. If this was in place, you would be able to bet $2k on the $1.50 EPL bet before they can reject your bet.

Essentially this is what it comes down to. If such rule existed at the track, a bookie could refuse your bet, but they'd have to remember who you are. Online they can record everything and its easy to identify winning punters and restrict them. They do this because they can, and it is more profitable for them. In a sense this benefits the mug punter as well as in theory it frees up money so that better prices and promos can be offeed so the mug loses his money more slowly.

If track rules for accepting bets applied online, they would have less wiggle room and so they'd probably increase their overround and decrease promos.

 

[Willzzz]

Interesting discussion here and good to see everyone voice their views.

Personally, I'm subscribe to the theory that we all take responsibility for your actions.

I think we shift our blame onto others way too much in this society & don't take enough responsibility for our actions.

To hear people sue fast good chains for their morbid obesity is just plain stupid. Sets a dangerous precedent as where does that stop and end? Do I sue my secondary school cause I didn't end up with the mark needed to get into my university degree?

Now onto this issue, I've thought about it and I understand the bookies have no obligation to be ethical or fair. Most of them are IMO, but that's probably cause they make so much from mugs betting with them.

I personally didn't like Luxbet limiting my account and voiced my anger here. However, I understand that bookies are a business and they need to make a profit.

There's not too many businesses out there that you can exploit and make thousands off.

I don't like bookies offering credit in principle. It's different to CC and loans in the sense that this doesn't give the impression that you are offering money only for them to bet.

Also those who bet and lose money they don't have, most likely have some other problem in their life and use betting as a release. Once again they should seek help, take responsibility & not bet.

It all comes down to taking responsibility for your actions. It's okay if you make mistakes, but then own up to it.

Off topic, but the no. of accused that plead innocent in this society is an absolute joke. I'm not saying they are all guilty and police don't make mistakes, but you couldn't tell me most of the accused are innocent.

 

[Lensen]

I don't like bookies offering credit in principle. It's different to CC and loans in the sense that this doesn't give the impression that you are offering money only for them to bet.

I'm ok with regulation of some description, but not outright banning. People need to understand that bookie credit - for those that use it right - is more as bankroll/money management tool than a loan to bet.

being able to bet on credit - with, most importantly, the requirement to settle weekly - means i can either have the money set aside for betting in my offset account or an interest bearing account, whilst also meaning i have the funds available to put into a differnet bookie should an opportunity arise to bet more than the credit limit. bookies also save by less deposits/withdrawals

 

[kickazz]

Now onto this issue, I've thought about it and I understand the bookies have no obligation to be ethical or fair.

Good post, but the above has been mentioned a couple of time and I don't really think this is true - bookies like any other business have to operate fairly, within the Trade Practices Act and any other regulation that applies. You are right in suggesting that they are free to push the boundaries though.