Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
just received this email and figured if i posted it here it was worth at least 10 recipients, so that the disclaimer wont haunt me, just 2 b sure i'll send it on too another 10 emails
Corporate Bookies Business Model is Ethically Flawed
I've had enough of the Australian Corporate Bookmakers attitude and business model regarding the closure and
restrictions to ridiculously small betting amounts.
Something has to be said and done.
These operations have been given a license to conduct their business in a highly sensitive and perceived highly
ethical and accountable industry regarding the community and political spectrum.
Since the UK/European Bookmakers have almost completely consumed the corporate Bookmakers in Australia,
they have imposed their unethical treatment of profiling clients accounts to the extreme. By their own admissions
they are all now (with few exceptions) closing members accounts that are winning, breaking square, not
betting in more than one sports code, that are perceived to find odds advantages and virtually any client/account
that their profiling considers NOT to be a LOSER.
This practise in my opinion is paramount to the proliferation of "Problem Gambling" by virtue of their actions.
They are only willing to accept and continue their service to Losing Clients !!
"Problem Gamblers" are predominately Losing Gamblers.
Their advertising is levelled at attracting the ill informed gamblers that lose, their incentives (cleverly disguised
by more fine print than is needed to operate heavy machinery) are aimed to induce the uneducated gambler
and then offer reckless and unscrupulous credit which is almost always increased upon request as long as
you keep losing and paying. This practise creates an unrealistic and unfamiliar situation with readily available
funds which fuels Problem Gamblers by removing the losing gamblers biggest hurdle, "Lack of Funds" to lose.
When does their profiling start to identify losing gamblers that have the propensity to become "Problem
Gamblers". Who has ever received a letter/email stating; "We are closing your account because you are losing
too much and we think you may have a gambling problem. Please seek help from a medical practitioner".
This will not happen, but the ink is still wet on the letters and emails flowing from the Corporate Bookmakers
closing accounts of clients that win or even break square according to their profiling.
Action must be taken! The State Gambling Authorities and Regulators need to set in place bet limits aimed
at the Bookmakers to accept a minimum liability from their clients. These same Bookmakers that shove their
products in our face 24/7, must have a duty and obligation to service their clients under their licensing
agreements. Bookmakers on track are obligated and enforced to bet clients to a minimum liability.
NSW Bookmakers on track; Country meetings $1000, City meetings on rails $3000 off rails $1000
Victorian Bookmakers on track; Country meetings $1500, City meetings on Rails $5000 off rails $1500.
It seems ludicrous that 90% of the fixed odds betting in this country has no such obligation.
Corporate Bookmakers have hidden behind the banner of recreational and hobby gamblers as their client
audience when infact behind closed doors their target audience is Losing Gamblers.
This whole practise by the Corporate Bookmakers is morally and ethically corrupt, and needs to be fixed.
DISCLAIMER:
THIS IS A CHAIN MAIL AND YOU MUST FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST 10 RELEVANT
RECIPIENTS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION.
FAILURE TO DO SO COULD RESULT IN A MERCILESS RUN OF BAD BEATS, UNFULL FILLING
SEX AND A GENERAL FEELING OF UNWELL.
Corporate Bookies Business Model is Ethically Flawed
I've had enough of the Australian Corporate Bookmakers attitude and business model regarding the closure and
restrictions to ridiculously small betting amounts.
Something has to be said and done.
These operations have been given a license to conduct their business in a highly sensitive and perceived highly
ethical and accountable industry regarding the community and political spectrum.
Since the UK/European Bookmakers have almost completely consumed the corporate Bookmakers in Australia,
they have imposed their unethical treatment of profiling clients accounts to the extreme. By their own admissions
they are all now (with few exceptions) closing members accounts that are winning, breaking square, not
betting in more than one sports code, that are perceived to find odds advantages and virtually any client/account
that their profiling considers NOT to be a LOSER.
This practise in my opinion is paramount to the proliferation of "Problem Gambling" by virtue of their actions.
They are only willing to accept and continue their service to Losing Clients !!
"Problem Gamblers" are predominately Losing Gamblers.
Their advertising is levelled at attracting the ill informed gamblers that lose, their incentives (cleverly disguised
by more fine print than is needed to operate heavy machinery) are aimed to induce the uneducated gambler
and then offer reckless and unscrupulous credit which is almost always increased upon request as long as
you keep losing and paying. This practise creates an unrealistic and unfamiliar situation with readily available
funds which fuels Problem Gamblers by removing the losing gamblers biggest hurdle, "Lack of Funds" to lose.
When does their profiling start to identify losing gamblers that have the propensity to become "Problem
Gamblers". Who has ever received a letter/email stating; "We are closing your account because you are losing
too much and we think you may have a gambling problem. Please seek help from a medical practitioner".
This will not happen, but the ink is still wet on the letters and emails flowing from the Corporate Bookmakers
closing accounts of clients that win or even break square according to their profiling.
Action must be taken! The State Gambling Authorities and Regulators need to set in place bet limits aimed
at the Bookmakers to accept a minimum liability from their clients. These same Bookmakers that shove their
products in our face 24/7, must have a duty and obligation to service their clients under their licensing
agreements. Bookmakers on track are obligated and enforced to bet clients to a minimum liability.
NSW Bookmakers on track; Country meetings $1000, City meetings on rails $3000 off rails $1000
Victorian Bookmakers on track; Country meetings $1500, City meetings on Rails $5000 off rails $1500.
It seems ludicrous that 90% of the fixed odds betting in this country has no such obligation.
Corporate Bookmakers have hidden behind the banner of recreational and hobby gamblers as their client
audience when infact behind closed doors their target audience is Losing Gamblers.
This whole practise by the Corporate Bookmakers is morally and ethically corrupt, and needs to be fixed.
DISCLAIMER:
THIS IS A CHAIN MAIL AND YOU MUST FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST 10 RELEVANT
RECIPIENTS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION.
FAILURE TO DO SO COULD RESULT IN A MERCILESS RUN OF BAD BEATS, UNFULL FILLING
SEX AND A GENERAL FEELING OF UNWELL.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 56
|
By:
The predication of the letter is as flawed as the bookies it seeks to hammer.
Essentially it criticizes bookies for not taking the bets of winners. If it took these bets the bookies would become- a problem gambler{ loser}.The very type the letter seeks to " protect "  Bookmaking is a business- not a charity.I fail to see why any business would continue to knowingly lose money. This entitlement mentality of " I am a winner and someone must pay me off " reeks of hypocrisy. They should only be required to take bets to the limits stated in the granting of their licence. |
|
By:
Mrben that response is flawed. Winners dont know the result of every race. Just because they have won in past doesnt mean they will be winners in future.
If they were real bookies they would price their markets & take all reasonable bets. The current corporate bookies (if you can call them that) rely mostly on kickbacks or commissions from the tabs. if they disappeared these so called bookies wouldnt have a business. |
|
By:
can't agree kye- as I stated, the idea that any business should be compelled to lose money is absurd.
if they were selling TV for 500$ that cost 700$ would you call them a business? Clearly no. Its no different. |
|
By:
How can you compare bookmaking to selling a TV? thats just stupid they are nothing alike
Winning punters dont know the result of each individual race. There is no guarantee the bookie will lose particularly if he prices the market right. |
|
By:
Further- I fail to see how compulsorily losing money is "ethical"?
the assertion that the bookies policy of banning winners is creating problem gamblers is even more absurd.The number od problem gamblers is in no way linked to the number of winning gamblers. get real. the letter is based on emotive arguments and not logic. |
|
By:
kye- bookmaking is a business, selling tv's is a busineess.
as im certain you are aware, as a punter you are under no obligation to accept the bookmakers prices if you dont like them. Why should the bookie take your bet if he does like them? as stated- the only obligation should be the limits required by the granting of the licence.no other. |
|
By:
he does like them? should read does'nt
|
|
By:
mrben they are both businesses but that is about the only similarity. your comparsion is ridiculous.
i didnt say they shouldnt be able to take bets from punters they think will win however if they were real bookies they would. their current business model is unsustainable & i think they will start to struggle in future years particularly if the kickbacks stop. |
|
By:
but that is not the thrust of the letter in debate.
the letter implies they should be compelled to lose in order to somehow prevent problem gambling? BS- big time. ps- the comparision is valid. |
|
By:
further- it criticizes bookies for " profiling " their clients.
what do you think coles and woolies are doing via their flybuys programmes? Woolies even has a credit card to further profile shoppers is that unethical? |
|
By:
Profiling isn't unethical but it's what they do with the profiles that's the problem. If Woolies refused to sell to anyone who wasn't a moron, mentally ill or drug affected would that be ethical?
If you offer a product surely it should be available to anyone who wants to buy it. If it's not available to everyone then please just let them BE UP FRONT about who you will sell to and who they won't BEFORE wasting their time filling out forms and ID checks and moving large sums of money around. It doesn't seem too much to ask. |
|
By:
those are good points khan.
perhaps bookies should be required to clearly state that taking your bets is optional or at their discretion. |
|
By:
Mr B
IMHO it's akin to Woolies reducing the price of their TV (to use your example) by 50% BUT to get that "bargain" you must contract to buy a TV from them every 6 months for a time period of their choosing. If you don't accept the terms you don't get the discount. At present these people are actively trying to only cater to clients who would be likely to have a gambling problem with either/or lack of judgement and discipline to not go in over their heads. IMHO it is akin to predatory pricing or monoply behaviour in the business world. As a further allusion to the world of business you could say that their "competitors", in this case winning clients, are barred from doing business with them. In other words potentially more efficent businesses (read "winning clients") are being barred from the marketplace. |
|
By:
one thing is abundtly clear...on-line bookies should be made to bet 'all-comers' a minimal amount as per the rules applying to on=course bookies.
this would stop them closing accounts they would simply have to adapt to a 'fairer' set of rules. secondly,they really should 'spend' a few dollars and employ smarter market assessors so that they don't get 'fitted-up' all the time. |
|
By:
Racing NSW and RVL adopting the turnover model for the race fields fee has also added to the problem. We now have a situation where traders have been banned from working on NSW races and winning punters are being banned by the corporates, all because of the impact to profitability.
|
|
By:
i think Ziggy is quietly correct in what the message was trying to say the bookies should have to accept a minimum liability at least to clients that have accounts with them, they will accept the same bet from an account that has a history of losing but not from a client that they beleive can find a winning bet
once again Ben u completely missed the point and it when right over your pumpkin head |
|
By:
logroller-wat point is it that i missed?
|
|
By:
SilverU
IMHO it is akin to predatory pricing or monoply behaviour in the business world." predatory pricing is used by companies with dominant market position to eliminate their competitors. I fail to see the correlation. monopoly- one supplier- many buyers. Absolutly nothing like a monopoly. Betting is optional in one life it is not a necessity. Businesses are entitled to make a profit how they see fit within the laws of the land. |
|
By:
logroller
20 May 12 09:03 Joined: 20 Feb 03 | Topic/replies: 1,628 | Blogger: logroller's blog i think Ziggy is quietly correct in what the message was trying to say the bookies should have to accept a minimum liability at least to clients that have accounts with them, they will accept the same bet from an account that has a history of losing but not from a client that they beleive can find a winning bet Why? |
|
By:
mrben if you want a business analogy. try a motor mechanic that will only deal with females to maximize their profits.
I have some doubts that some of their practices are legal however they certainly have a poor unsustainable business model. I wouldnt be buying shares in any of them. |
|
By:
IMHO it is akin to predatory pricing or monoply behaviour in the business world."
predatory pricing is used by companies with dominant market position to eliminate their competitors. ********as I said the corporate uses its dominant position ie it can refuse any bet to eliminate its competitors ie winning clients I fail to see the correlation. monopoly- one supplier- many buyers. Absolutly nothing like a monopoly. ***********If all corporates adopt the same policy (and share banning lists as has been inferred) as seems to be happening they have in effect formed a cartel if you don't like the work monopoly. Betting is optional in one life it is not a necessity. ******** I was wondering when you'd play this card. IMHO corporates are targeting those who do not have the abilty to make their betting and/or outcomes optional. You may argue all is fair in love and war as they say however laws exist in the business world to prevent similar practices that are seemingly being exhibited by corporates, the same levelling of the playing field should apply to corporates. You may wish a return to the days of the Robber Baron? Businesses are entitled to make a profit how they see fit within the laws of the land. ********* I haven't said corporates are breaking laws, just that the "laws of the land" needs amending in this instance. |
|
By:
hate to agree with him, but....
Businesses can pick and choose their clients if they wish. The problem cleary lies with the admistrators who don't apply the same restraints on corporates as they do on on course bookies. Businesses will always do whatever it takes to maximize their profits within the rules....The problem is The RULES |
|
By:
bookies have been betting "winning punters' for years ..
if they had half an idea they use there bets to there advantage Now they have people using a number of bowler accounts sure they pick up on them but after how long? why not know who is actually having the bet and work your way around that That is smart business Mr ben |
|
By:
whoopi- your best ever post
 nickw- I agree with your premise but in the age of rapid technology it may be hard to make it work. eg say winning punter waits till say 30 seconds before the race to place his bets.None or close to no chance to lay off or use that info by the bookie. I would say there is a possibility thats exactly what is happening with the 45 seconds delay some are refferring to. The bookie is looking to either lay the bet off or back it with another bookie or similarly make some kind of advantage. In any case- the issue of this "letter" is that bookies are "unethical" not to take a known winning punters bets.Absurd. |
|
By:
i agree with this post
unlike selling tv's don't you need a government granted licence to become a bookmaker? therfore, what is the point of the 'licence' if it means you can run your business whichever why you want, and to the detriment of the industry i.e banning successful punters obviously if the governement deem that a bookmaking licence is essential to the success of the racing industry, then they must place clauses on how they operate in this matter - otherwise scrap the licences and make bookmaking open to everyone |
|
By:
Many bookmakers employ a "vetting" program for all online bets. That is, they are able to reject ANY and all bets without reason.
If that is legal I'll eat my hat, but it has been done to me by Betchoice, Betstar and Sportsbet on occasion. In the case of Betchoice, they even rejected the bet then immediately changed the price. On course that would not be possible. In the interests of fair play, they need their sites to accept ANY bets under a certain limit without the waiting time, regardless of whether or not they later deem that price to be overs. |
|
By:
How anybody can defend corporate bookies practices is beyond belief.
On course bookies for the last century have been operating under the rules of racing bodies. If they didn't bet to the required ammount demanded by the punter, he would be punished. If he displayed the wrong odds on his board, he was made to bet the required ammount. Deductions are set nationally by racing officials. Why then do corporate bookies make their own rules, completely different to that set by racing officials? Yes they run a business to make a profit, but the same can be said for the on course bookie. They must be made to be competitive and abide by the rules of racing. They have cornered the gambling market and kept every mug punter in Australia with their bonuses and gifts. And now they sack every person they deem with any ability. Complaints against on course bookies are dealt with by an independent body. Corporate complaints are not. The problem lies with racing bodies who turn a blind eye with huge sponsorship deals from corporates, and let them do as they please. They have no concern for the everyday punter, but the greed for the dollar. In a couple of words.... FK THEM |
|
By:
Forgot to mention the recent court decision against Betty wasn't a victory against them.
It was a victory for the greed for NSW racing, and soon all other states will follow. And who pays for all this the punter. THE PEOPLE THAT KEEP THE INDUSTRY AFLOAT ARE THE ONES WHO GET SCREWED AGAIN. Hope you are happy P. VL. Maybe a nice bonus in your next pay packet compliments of the punter. |
|
By:
Let's get to the core problem here...
The wagering market has been destroyed because there is too much racing and the "mug" money is only slowly being won over by corporate bookies. The net result is poor liquidity. Bookies are NOT bookies when there is no liquidity. Bookies make a book to ensure a victory. So corporate bookies are not bookies, they are facilitators. As facilitators they need to concentrate on losing punters or they will lose themselves. Traditional (real) bookies would take all comers and rely on total liquidity to attain a win-win situation betting at 110-120%. I haven't explained that very well, but anyone that truly understands betting will know what I mean. And then here is the next step. The winning punters have to bet on the tote to get set (especially minor codes and country racing), but as more of the mug money moves to the corporate bookies over time, the winning punters will be betting against themselves on the tote and ultimately will whither and die. So it really doesn't matter if you like Betfair, hate Betfair, like corporate bookies, hate corporate bookies, like the totes, hate the totes, the current structure of the wagering landscape will, in time, implode on itself. |
|
By:
Stipey
You make some good points and much of what you say is correct I agree about too much racing which both lowers the quality of the racing and also spreads the money too thinly. At the same time I do think the bookies are being greedy. The UK bookies have banned all winners plus small losers for a long time. They could handle the winners but ban them out of greed. The bigger their profit margin the better is their thinking You are correct about the end result with the wagering landscape imploding on itself. Rebates paid to big punters have only made the problem worse. This will shrink tote turnover even faster and faster as time goes by as the rebate players act as an extra tax on the non rebated players If the people running racing had any brains they would force the corporate bookies to take bets from all comers and kick all the rebaters out of the tote pools. In other words make betting a level playing field. But they don't have any brains and so things can only go one way and that is turnover will fall as the years go by |
|
By:
Whilst I agree that dilution is a very real problem I cannot agree that poor liquidity is a symptom of this, but rather that corporate bookies have in fact created much of that poor liquidity by offering poor value and poor limits to real punters.
In the days when IAS was a REAL bookmaker, and not a joke, Mark Read bet high limits and relied upon strong turnover and an intimate knowledge of his code and his craft. The fact that his company could not gain traction in a public float should not have been a reflection of his ability and ethic as a bookmaker of some standing (I think he's a pr!ck but his bookmaking was always pacesetting). Matt Tripp offered high limits and a strong and flexible product. When he sold Sportsbet to Paddy Power it all went to hell. It is not just the model that is at fault. It is the behaviour of the raiders that have decided to create a low turnover, low risk model that are. Having a model which restricts the activities of successful punters in favour of idiots might seem like a good idea. But in a world of infinite dilution all it spells is demise for all concerned. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of pr!cks. |
|
By:
I know things change but when I was younger I worked as a bookies clerk in various forms. For one guy my entire job was to bet back when one particular punter bet with us. This guy was dynamite. Sometimes he'd had one bet a day, sometimes 5 but my job for that entire day was to wait for him to bet and then lay every cent back off. You couldn't beat this guy. Now the bookie could have said it was all too hard and saved himself the hassle and my wages, but his logic was that if he serviced this guy, his reputation as a bookie would soar. And it did and with it came lots and lots of losing clients. Bookmakers, totes, corporates are effectively in the service industry and they all fail miserably these days
|
|
By:
Why on earth can't 'real' on-course bookies offer odds online? It would be too convenient? It would keep racing alive?
|
|
By:
exactly khan .. great suggestion .. if the clubs think it's losing them 'entrance fees etc" .. then make the bookies on-line service a 'subscription service' ie $100 a year ... which all goes to the clubs
|
|
By:
Because it's not much good sitting in an ivory castle with no one there to look at you.imo..Had a Horse run a class record at Canterbury one day.... Then I received an invitation to a lunch at Rosehill to collect a small trophy for it....apparently they gather all the record holders for the month and treat them lol.....Well our table of record holders was 8 people ffs....and there must have been 30 fkn tables full of people ...all dignitaries from way up on high lol... They know how to spend it thats for sure.
|
|
By:
TB Khan have a look at bestbookies
|
|
By:
sounds about right lazza ...
and re the punter ... well you couldn't find another business anywhere ... that elects to treat their customer/punter worse than a fool |
|
By:
cheers elephant will do
|
|
By:
still looks like you have to bet with the corps tho elephant ... no point ... as they scrub you off the books ultimately
khan is suggesting ... (and why they dont do it is beyond me) .. is to allow legitimate registered ON-COURSE bookies ... to let you bet with them on-line rather than just at the track |