Fairfax Article: Online Betting Unmasked

[somethingrandom]

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

I totally agree.
I want to be able to bet live inplay with the click of a mouse, and it angers me that a small percentage of the population with no self control and a couple of overzealous politicians/religious groups prevents me from doing so.

As for bookie credit, I've never used it, but I don't have a problem with it. I think it would be easier and faster to use credit on a mobile phone than trying to make a deposit.
It all comes down to self control.

 

[d3ft]

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.

Fair from a legal standpoint and fair from an ethical standpoint are two completely different things.

 

[Willzzz]

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

Well I guess you could regulate (limit) a punter to the point where it is just about equivalent to an outright ban. I like the suggestion suggested by another member of bookies having to have a certain liability for each bet (ie. $1,000).

Didn't think of using bookie credit for that purpose Lenny.
I understand some high rollers would like having the ability to bet with bookie credit, with the ability to pay it back in a couple of days.

However, I still think that it sends the wrong message out to the general public. The biggest problem with gambling is people ruining their lives by betting money they don't have & by offering credit, it simply makes it easier for punters to go down that path, and in some respects, almost encourages people to bet with money they don't have.

Also, I personally don't have a problem with betting in-play, as there are so many games/events to bet on that if a punter was to 'chase', they could do it on the next sport/event. I would much rather see giving out credits being banned and making in-play betting online legal for Australians.

 

[checkraiseulite]

my account certainly not limited. seems like everyone on bigfooty is limited (lulz).

so if anyone wants to use my account to place big betz 4 vig let me know.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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.

Laughable isn't it?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I'm pretty open on it. If I'm running any business and I'm running customers on very very low or negative margin then I'll be getting rid of them pretty quickly.

Having said that like in the $18m example above, all industries have a responsibility to go to some reasonable length to ensure they're not dealing in stolen funds.

Getting over some (large) amount should require a bookie to gain some assurance of identity and means. Some random nobody starts betting over $10m and losing it all? That's just thievery by the bookmaker and they should be charged. They're an accessory after the fact.

Anyway if you're at the point where you're a consistent certain winner you might have to put your mind to getting around bookies.

Enemy Number 1 by Patrick Veitch is a great read on this. He won $10m+ over 10 years and obviously spent considerable time and energy doing major sneak jobs on bookies. It can be done!

 

[Anundsjo]

The thing that annoys me is that the government won't allow online in-play betting to supposedly protect the punter from losing, yet at the same time they allow bookies to only take bets off losing customers. Unbelievable.

 

[Anundsjo]

And to make matters worse these foreign companies will clean up whilst they can, then take their profits back to England and pump the money into their economy.

Australia as a whole is the loser here. It's not the bookies fault though, it's up to the government to step in and do something about it.

 

[Anundsjo]

I'm pretty open on it. If I'm running any business and I'm running customers on very very low or negative margin then I'll be getting rid of them pretty quickly.

Having said that like in the $18m example above, all industries have a responsibility to go to some reasonable length to ensure they're not dealing in stolen funds.

Getting over some (large) amount should require a bookie to gain some assurance of identity and means. Some random nobody starts betting over $10m and losing it all? That's just thievery by the bookmaker and they should be charged. They're an accessory after the fact.

Anyway if you're at the point where you're a consistent certain winner you might have to put your mind to getting around bookies.

Enemy Number 1 by Patrick Veitch is a great read on this. He won $10m+ over 10 years and obviously spent considerable time and energy doing major sneak jobs on bookies. It can be done!

It's getting harder and harder to get a bet on with the corps now though, regardless of how sneaky you are. These days they all employ full time staff to specifically weed out anybody who they think has a clue.

 

[GROTTO]

The thing that annoys me is that the government won't allow online in-play betting to supposedly protect the punter from losing, yet at the same time they allow bookies to only take bets off losing customers. Unbelievable.

Welcome to BigFooty

Over the weekend I missed out on live in-play bet because the book misheard my pin and by the time she asked me to repeat it and go through the process, the bet option was suspended. This is less likely to occur online of course. Oh and for the record, the bet would have lost, lol. I guess I had the last laugh!

 

[Anundsjo]

Welcome to BigFooty

Over the weekend I missed out on live in-play bet because the book misheard my pin and by the time she asked me to repeat it and go through the process, the bet option was suspended. This is less likely to occur online of course. Oh and for the record, the bet would have lost, lol. I guess I had the last laugh!

Know exactly what you mean mate, atleast you came out a winner on this occasion!

In the long term having to ring up as opposed to clicking a button will mean losing out though, maybe not with the corps so much I guess but certainly at Betfair. The amount of times in the past I've rang up only to get an inferior price...

I now live in New Zealand and being able to bet online has saved/made me a lot of $$$. The Oz governemnt simply doesn't understand that by being able to bet online you are actually able to manage your position on a market a lot easier.

 

[GROTTO]

I now live in New Zealand and being able to bet online has saved/made me a lot of $$$. The Oz governemnt simply doesn't understand that by being able to bet online you are actually able to manage your position on a market a lot easier.

It wouldnt surprise me if a lot of punters that are betting live are hedging their bets, which ironically implies they are trying to reduce/offset their potential loss and that the Government is actually hindering that process.

 

[lamaros]

The thing that I find most annoying is the concessions these gaming companies get in terms of taxation, etc. If they're allowed to prey on problem gamblers then they should at least meet social responsibilities in other areas.

However companies avoiding such taxation and other responsibilities is not a new thing, and not solely applicable to gaming companies.

 

[the harry]

The thing that I find most annoying is the concessions these gaming companies get in terms of taxation, etc. If they're allowed to prey on problem gamblers then they should at least meet social responsibilities in other areas.

However companies avoiding such taxation and other responsibilities is not a new thing, and not solely applicable to gaming companies.

Does anyone know the benefit, in terms of taxation, of having their registration in the NT?

 

[flylikeaneagle]

In regards to the ethical debates at hand, Australia is indeed one of the most over-regulated countries in the world, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't travel much. That's not to say that all regulation is superfluous.

If bookies want to offer credit, as long as the terms are clear, then let the individual make their own decision. There is little difference between taking credit from a bookie, a retailer or a bank.

When it comes to bookies limiting winning clients, one may argue, why should a business agree to a loss? I think the strongest argument against the way punters are limited, is that this is not mentioned at all in any of the dozens of gambling advertisements shoved in front of our faces everyday, or when creating an account. And for good reason, who would ever sign up to a betting agency with the disclaimer "any account that wins $2000 will be restricted/deleted immediately, you must be a net loser to bet with us". This practice would be the same as Woolies advertising 50c packets of Tim Tams, but when you attempt to purchase some, you're denied because you're not obese. Or when you attempt to buy the $30 cases of beer on offer, you're only allowed 1, whilst the alcoholic next to you can buy 50, simply because he's an alcoholic. Society wouldn't stand for this. Supermarkets and grog shops do of course advertise certain products with a limit per person, and betting agencies should do the same - just as they make sure to do when offering a "special" betting option during the footy show. If agencies wish to accept more from certain punters, let them do it, but if they're licensed to operate by federal and state governments and allowed to advertise on every medium possible, they should be forced to guarantee a minimum standard of service for every eligible member of society, not just their ideal clientele. The umbrella disclaimer of "we reserve the right to terminate your account at any time for any reason" is not good enough. The claims and advertisements made by gambling agencies are dishonest and deceptive leading to financial gain - otherwise constituting fraud.

Would a change to betting limits put any agencies out of business? Not a chance. Most successful punters are limited after winning mere thousands, whilst there is no limit on how much a problem gambler is permitted to lose - as evidenced by the $19 million mug punter. Profits will be slightly reduced, but the livelihood of these businesses would not be put in danger.

Australia's restrictions on live betting border on the absurd. Australia is the only country in the world that allows betting, and live betting, but prohibits it from occurring online (unless it's on horses, because horse racing was left out of the legislation for some reason). So the drunk fools at the TAB can bet live, but the pros at home can't. Go figure. And unfortunately it looks as though this won't be changing any time in the near future, despite the fact that the increase in turnover would result in increased taxes for state governments, and would have a marginal (at most) effect on problem gambling - losers would continue to lose, perhaps a little more because it will be easier to place that "half time" thought this is likely money they would lose anyway, but I couldn't see this attracting any new gamblers.

 

[kickazz]

I guess it depends how one defines a problem gambler.

Considering that fewer than 1% of gamblers turn a profit, the number of problem gamblers in arguably a lot higher than the reported figures.

When you go to the footy, movies etc you don't make a profit either, but I wouldn't say you have a problem - you are having fun.
Same with gambling, if you are having fun, it's not having an adverse effect etc then I would not say you are a problem gambler.

Indeed, you could be marginally turning a profit, but if your entire life is dominated by punting and you are neglecting friends, family, exercise, nutrition, etc, then I'd say you have bigger problem than the punter who loses say $50 a week on average but more or less has the rest of his life in balance.

 

[iluvparis]

When you go to the footy, movies etc you don't make a profit either, but I wouldn't say you have a problem - you are having fun.
Same with gambling, if you are having fun, it's not having an adverse effect etc then I would not say you are a problem gambler.

Indeed, you could be marginally turning a profit, but if your entire life is dominated by punting and you are neglecting friends, family, exercise, nutrition, etc, then I'd say you have bigger problem than the punter who loses say $50 a week on average but more or less has the rest of his life in balance.

Quality post.

 

[ricardogp]

When you go to the footy, movies etc you don't make a profit either, but I wouldn't say you have a problem - you are having fun.
Same with gambling, if you are having fun, it's not having an adverse effect etc then I would not say you are a problem gambler.

Indeed, you could be marginally turning a profit, but if your entire life is dominated by punting and you are neglecting friends, family, exercise, nutrition, etc, then I'd say you have bigger problem than the punter who loses say $50 a week on average but more or less has the rest of his life in balance.

Some good view in this thread, thanks all for sharing.

I think context has to be put around each opinion and all sides have to look for appropriate balance. I agree from a business context, that it's not the industry's problem to identify problem gamblers and intervene. Same as McDonald's intervening into problem eaters. Businesses provide a product for profit, and consumers have to face that. Call me cynical, but did McDonald's start offering 'healthy choices' 10 or so years ago because they wanted to prevent an obesity epidemic? Doubt it. Some highly-paid market analyst will have identified that the market for healthy food was growing and convinced the board that they could turn this into $$$. Businesses make money.

However I do also think that the bookies need to provide consistency to their customers; if they limit clued-up punters who are turning a profit in order to protect their their 'liability' or 'exposure' then they should also apply the same rule to the hopeless punters. I think in the original article there was a figure of limiting the businesses exposure to $200k. Now, if the $18m bank manager guy was dropping $50k on outside-chance horses, then surely this would have breached that exposure limit. If this is indeed the case then the bookie is a greedy hypocrite.

So that's the business side. On the other side of the context coin, there are people out there who are addicts and have gambling problems. I'm sure that the vast majority of society can identify their own limits and have the capacity to deal appropriately with losses (I know it took me about a year to get over a loss and move on instead of following a pathetic chase), but some people can't and they need help before they ruin their lives. Whether that is a problem for society as a whole is debatable, and I respect people's opinions. But if it was my son, daughter, brother, sister, friend etc I would certainly want to help them.

 

[iluvparis]

Problem gamblers still account for more than 2% of gamblers, and the average weekly loss of most gamblers is far greater than $50.

What % of drinkers are problem drinkers? What is the average weekly spend on alcohol for most drinkers?

 

[kickazz]

and the average weekly loss of most gamblers is far greater than $50.

Question that figure, where did you get it from? Sure there are some big bettors out there, But for that sort of number you would be looking at most gamblers betting 300 dollars a week (17% laverage oss on horse racing, better for pokies, worse for lotto). There would be planty that spend significantly more than this, but I recon most would fall comfortably below this amount.

Besides, the amount of 50 dollars was arbitrary, and not really the point; for some 50 is a lot and for others it is nothing. Needs to be assessed in the context of the impact on their life in general.

 

[kickazz]

What % of drinkers are problem drinkers? What is the average weekly spend on alcohol for most drinkers?

Relevance?

I guess it highlights the point that attributing an amount spent on a particular indulgence is not necessarily an effective means for measuring its negative impact on an individual.

 

[iluvparis]

Relevance?

The hypocrisy shown against gambling as a vice compared to alcohol. Both can be addictive, both can destroy individuals and families. One is demonised - the other is seen as some great Australian virtue.

It is a complete crock of s ** t.