In-play getting closer???

Seems too good to be true. Let's hope so. Would be the best news Betfair have had in a while, and ensure their survival here.

This is nuts. One minute I hear they are seriously considering banning advertising of live odds on sporting events and the next I am reading essentially the opposite in its implication.
At least quotiing Xenophon gives the article some credibility. That's exactly what that idiotic zealot would say.

It's a promising development, let's hope they don't get spooked by the usual hysteria that accompanies the issue.

I'm pleased that the Australian Racing Board's self serving contribution to last years inquiry has been seen for what it was. They were calling for the IGA to remain unchanged except for the addition US style bank restrictions and also ISP blocking. All under the convenient guise of 'harm minimisation'. 

If the ARB was honest they'd have just said "We don't like competition, please ban them".

There's a survey posted on the BF forum that we should take the time to complete: http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/CFIDE/gamble/questions/en/index.cfm?CFID=24888&... I've just done it and made mention of in-play where possible.

I wouldn't mind if they banned live odds during telecasts. I can monitor odds myself, just give me the game. Unfortunate that this law has to be tied in with poker and casino games.

I also took the survey and mentioned in-play when I could. I also agree with you Jimmy re odds during telecasts, they could and should do away with it. A guy called SEN some time back talking about the constant display of odds during AFL games, and he hated the fact that he had to explain to his 5 year old daughter. Could not disagree with a single word he said.

Another year passes, and still nothing on this front...

Lampard to take it please.. please

GET INNN

it will get passed based on that article

the article was written before Abbott came out and said no

Political parties of all persuasions, break promises, especially those made when in opposition.

If the Libs are elected the lobbyists from the gambling industry, will be circling very quickly.

If there is one political party, that can be influenced by financial contributions, its the Australian Liberal Party. Remember they are the only party in Aust, still receiving substantial donations, from the Tobacco Industry.

There is more chance of change with Abbott being elected, than a Gillard . Gillard will always need the support of the minority parties in the Senate.

going to thailand for three weeks. gonna get a taste for click click live

Godspeed Poke my good man, godspeed... Where in Thailand? went to Phuket last year, horrible place to be honest, never again. Scenery on day trips were great but the rest was horrid.

I'm just grateful I've located ma spectacles! Was frankly horrified by Pokemon's last post

but.. I see things differently now ..all good

i'm allowed to like 'd1ck'.  i'm an aussie!!
just bangkok mainly, rhino. my mrs' bro is getting married. but i may be spending a couple days in some remote place with no power . very village.

I have sent the following letter to Senator Conroy.  Whether it will have any impact is uncertain; but Tony Abbot has made it unequivocally clear that he will not change the legislation regarding in play betting if he is elected - and that appears a very real possibility.  On that basis the window of opportunity for any change to the legislation is diminishing.  If large numbers of voters who bet and/or trade using the internet send Senator Conroy this letter - or something similar - it might make some difference. It's worth a try; so please contact Senator Conroy and your local Federal Member of Parliament urging them to amend the legislation.

Thank you
Knit One Purl One

Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne Vic 3002
Email: minister@dbdce.gov.au
Dear Minister,
As a recreational pastime I trade and bet on racing and sports events using the internet.  Trading on betting prices is almost the same as trading the stock market – you lay the low price, back the higher price and then hedge the resultant profit over the entire field so that you profit no matter what the result. Unfortunately, the current legislation in Australia contains a ridiculous anomaly – I cannot trade sporting prices (for example; Test Cricket matches) in play using the internet – yet it is legal to conduct that same trade by telephone.  Moreover, I am legally able to trade racing events in play in Australia.   
The current prohibition on trading sporting events in play (that is, once the match or event has started) is ostensibly based on minimising harm to problem gamblers; yet logic defies that reasoning.  The real issue with problem gambling is centred on internet-based casino games and an increasing availability of “arcade games” – both of which rely on pure chance rather than skill.
The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (“the Act”) regulates the providers of internet gambling services and currently restricts those providers from making in play betting or trading available to residents of Australia.  The legislation inter alia provides for the Minister to determine which in play betting forms will be prohibited or exempt from the restrictions of the Act.
Most traders and bettors who use the internet appear to be firmly opposed to allowing “micro betting” during an event.  An example of “micro betting” might be odds being offered by a provider on whether a wicket will fall during the next over in a cricket match.  The almost universal view though, clearly and vigorously supports the legalisation of betting on the final result of the event or match while the event/match is underway. An example of trading or betting in play on the final result of a cricket match (for example) would be to bet on whether Australia would win the match, New Zealand would win the match or whether there would be a draw.
It is clearly anomalous that the Act prohibits internet betting on the final result of an event or match in play yet allows that same bet to be placed by telephone!  Correcting that anomaly would also address the potential contravention of the principle of platform neutrality referred to in the various reports on the IGA.
Reading Section 8A of the Act appears instructive.  In summary, s.8A (1) excludes inter alia “sporting events” from the Act; whilst s.8A (2) then qualifies the previous exclusion by referring to the provision of in play services as follows:
“(a) the service relates to betting on the outcome of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event; or

(b) the service relates to betting on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event.”
The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 has been the subject of several reviews – including a comprehensive review undertaken in 2011 by your own Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBDCE) and by the Productivity Commission in 2010.
It has become apparent from the reviews and the resultant recommendations that the following is the preferred approach:
•    Continue the prohibition on in play “spot betting” or “micro-betting” by the internet.
•    Permit in play betting on the final result of a match or sporting event by the internet subject to approval by the relevant state regulator and the national sports governing body.
Whether the Act requires Parliamentary amendment to give effect to those recommendations – or those recommendations can be implemented by the Minister declaring an exemption might simply be a machinery issue.   The Opposition Leader has indicated he is strongly opposed to any changes in this area.  Voters who bet and trade using the internet urge you to address this anomaly to allow betting on the final result of a sporting event using the internet.
In summary, there has been no evidence that the current legislation has been effective in harm minimisation to problem gamblers.  Poker machine addicts and casino/arcade gamblers will continue to gamble beyond their means – the latter with unregulated overseas based operators who offer none of the probity guarantees of a provider such as Betfair for example.

I urge you to take whatever action is required to correct this anomaly.

Yours faithfully,

Name:  …………………………………………………………………�... …………………
Postal Address:  …………………………………………………………………�... …………………
…………………………………………………………………�... …………………
Date:  …………………………………………………………………�... ……………………
Federal Electorate:  …………………………………………………………………�...

Great effort Knitter
Unfortunately the letter will firstly be read by Conroy's secretary.
Then If it get's read by Conroy
this is what he will be looking for
Will it get me votes ?
Will it affect my electorate standings ??
Will it make any difference to my super payouts ??
If i refrain from any decisions will it affect my reputation ??
Would i dare do anything that might be against my Leaders policy ?.


Having said that knitter i will send it also
but i might add a small Flora Florist gift voucher to his secretary.

well done pearl

have to agree with the black ball, with adding one more point.

What do the owners of the big land base casino's in Australia want???

I've always wondered if the Crowns and Jupiters of Australia could set up trading rooms inside the casinos where we could do this. Would it be legal? The law was written to stop online casinos, irrelevant inside a casino, why not this?

Very good letter by the way.

Thats a well worded letter but unfortumatle Conroy couldn't organise a sausage sanga at a backyard BBQ

He is doing a good job with the NBN though

Well constructed letter Knit One. Good luck with it and hope you get plenty of support and a positive response.

G'day Ned,

you mkight remember me as Matthew 25 from another forum.

Hope you are in front.

Knit One Purl One

So nothing on this for a while now. Back when these latest posts were made I e-mailed Conroy and asked for an update and threw my 2 cents in... Finally gota response and the news is not good. After the standard rhetoric, the sentence that matters reads: 'The government has also announced it will not be pursuing the recommendations in the final report regarding a trial of online tournament poker or 'in-play' sports wagering'. At least try to do something you useless feckers

So after all that, reviews, submissions, reports, debate we are doing exactly the square root of feck all - zilch, nothing, nada. He also states he has written to the states to 'seek their commitment to develop and implement a national standard for harm minimisation and consumer protection that will cover all online gambling providers' What does this mean? No in-play at all perhaps, even over the phone? 

The final review was released March 12 this year, if you're interested - www.dbcde.gov.au/igareview

Fair play to him for replying (or/probably his staff) but really, what was the point of it all? How many dollars spent to do exactly nothing? At least the Libs say no straight out, it doesn't take them 18 months to go yeah, maybe and finally... sorry, we can't be arsed, too busy backstabbing each other to let something as trivial as running the country interrupt our day.

Long live the Nanny Nation.

More chance of getting change with any Government which holds the balance of power.Doesn't matter what flavour,as long as not appeasing "do gooder" independents.

The ALP wanted to censor the internet what chance they would set it free?Need a Government with a clear majority that can be "Persuaded" by the forces that be.

Conroy was easily "Persuaded" pre hung Parliament a day ticket and apres was a fair price for most favours.

your 100% wrong there kt22 - the reason the government hasn't proceeded with the recommendations, it planned to, is that Abbott said he'd vote against them

if you want in-play we need a Labor majority

You are kidding yourself if you think Abbott and the Libs are going anywhere near in-play.

It was Dr No Abbott that said "Every computer is a casino"

Zero, Zilch, hope of in-play under a Catholic Abbott led Gov't

In fact i'd be more worried about them winding back what we have now.

being catholic would have nothing to do with it - they love to gamble and drink piss
soon as they work out how to make some revenue from it, it will happen

it will not happen till big James P gets in the picture and wants casinos on line

May 14, 2013 -- 11:18PM, wombleoz wrote:

your 100% wrong there kt22 - the reason the government hasn't proceeded with the recommendations, it planned to, is that Abbott said he'd vote against themif you want in-play we need a Labor majority

Pretty sure you don't need Abbott on board one way or the other to conduct a trial. You might be right about the Labor majority but them wimping out is simply because they are wimps... Can't blame Abbott for it.

Haven't you blokes worked this one out yet?

They all got shares in Telstra, they want you to make the f'ken phonecall.

Rhino - the Interactive Gaming Act would need to be changed to allow a trial, Labor doesn't have the numbers and Abbott has said no

You need to change legislation for a trial to take place? Doesn't make sense, would a trial not be for the purpose of evaluating whether the legislation change is warranted to begin with? Not sure about that.

what the fck would a trial prove...ffs

the legislation would prevent the trial without it being amended to allow it

I undersand womble but if the trial is being conducted for the sole purpose of confirming whether that specific piece of legislation is changed, then surely they can bypass it? I remember the liquor licensing trial in melb a few years ago, no legislation was changed but the law was changed temporarily to coduct that trial, how would this be different? A temporary alteration pending legislation change. I'm not a lawyer, but I think they just wimped out womble, or couldn't be fecked, too busy plotting each other's demise

"your 100% wrong there kt22 - the reason the government hasn't proceeded with the recommendations, it planned to, is that Abbott said he'd vote against them

if you want in-play we need a Labor majority "

Like never have GST or Carbon tax type situation??Believe the rhetoric if it appeases you but the power happens behind the scenes.Having a majority just makes it less transparent.

true Rhino - could probably do it that way but something would most likely need to pass the parliament

it would be a bloody big backflip for Abbott to back in-play betting kt22, you're right it could happen but it would be easier if Labor wins and just puts it in

My thinking was the same as wombleoz, ie a trial would need some sort of parliament vote, but I'm no lawyer so not sure.

Assuming there was a "trial"  The call for a trial assumes that things could only get better, what if there is a trial and the trial finding/recommendation is that the ban on internet in-play should stay but also there should be a cap on how much internet punters can lose from their account each day ( a submission from Senator Xenophon).

I would love internet in play on sports but accept there is no wide community or political support for such a move.

Reluctantly I am willing to accept the status quo, rather than having the do gooders making further regressive changes to protect me.

So is Haleys Comet--In 2061 it will only be 123,000,000 miles away from earth.

you could be right Hal, maybe we should be fighting to hold ground rather than make it at the moment

Articles like the one below about concerns for the increase problem gambling caused by access to on line gambling are a concern.

The article also refers to

Tonight's Four Corners will investigate how children are being exposed to gambling through the integration of betting into TV sports coverage.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-20/study-finds-explosion-in-sports-gambling/4699680

scary that 3 of the top downloaded apps are pokie simulations

ban ads, ban spot betting - go too far and lose all control though

So with Abbott certain to get in, there goes all hope for in-play.

I had already given up hope. Would love to know how much cash they blew on the review. All for nothing.

Worse still Jimmy, i believe he has plans to amend the Interactive Gambling Act to ban all credit betting.
I have been betting on credit with some bookmakers for over 10 years, but due to the need to protect problem gamblers from themselves, I and others are to be inconvenienced.

Eliminating credit betting is an absolute must, purely self serving to assert otherwise

think it might be online credit betting ie using a credit card and not some private arrangement between a bookie and a punter

Jimmy it doesn't matter who gets into power, hell will freeze over before in-play happens in Oz. More likely to go the other way and introduce a complete ban on online gambling, ala the US

More likely to go the other way and introduce a complete ban on online gambling

... it seems the biggest worry for govts ... re on-line gambling .. is that the money goes off-shore to international companies

... i doubt the genuiness of the moral or safety issue from either major party ... (tho a few independents seem to have this as their cause and reason for living)

no chance on "in play betting" for at least 3-5 years, and Abbot want's to ban payment by credit cards and credit given by bookies to clients......................this by the way has been a major push by the TAB** for years because in will put a major hole in the handle by the corp bookie's.