I know there have been IAS threads before, but the outcome of this thread is entirely different. I aim to make trouble for them, not just talk about how crap they are. Hopefully, we can compel the NT gov to revise their lack of control regarding bet limits and price advertising.
I've had enough of these Irish d!cks coming into our country and doing as they please so I am launching a campaign to put an end to their greedy and cynical approach to bookmaking (and possibly others regulated in NT). Not saying it will succeed but they are going to know they messed with the wrong bunch when they started pulling all their crap on our little band of merry men (and women?).
Just pulled this promo off their website and thought it was pretty funny:
Why bet with sportsbet.com.au?
We give punters a fair go! (as long as they don't win) We make betting fun! (as if we did it because it was painful) We offer more value! (but only to those too stupid to know it isn't)
What, are they kidding?
They spend literally millions on advertising every single month but won't bet small fry like me to lose $1k sometimes. Sometimes they bet, sometimes they don't. They are not compelled to bet to a limit, even when they advertise a price. What kind of regulatory black hole are they living in, where they do as they please and there is not one piece of legislation or any regulation to stop them?
It has to change, so I would propose a collective lobbying to the good people at gamblingdisputes@nt.gov.au, where you can email them and report your particular grievance/s pertaining to this company and their shoddy practices.
The more info we have here, the more I have to work with, so feel free to post your experiences. With a view to fair play I will encourage both positive and negative feedback, so feel free to offer a balanced view (even though you know mine isn't). If you know people outside of Betfair that would want an input, encourage them to contribute or bring their contributions here.
Let's at least attempt to fight back, not just retire meekly into the comfort of our lounge chairs (and not bet!)
P.S. To those that would warn me about the litigious nature of companies like this, we will not be openly libeling them without irrefutable evidence, so don't just come here and give them a spray. That gets nobody anywhere.
Yeah well his acting career's been in the toilet for sometime so the coin must be getting tight...
Disappointing reply you received CS considering as far as online bookies go, there really isn't many options to 'go elsewhere'
Yeah well his acting career's been in the toilet for sometime so the coin must be getting tight...Disappointing reply you received CS considering as far as online bookies go, there really isn't many options to 'go elsewhere'
Joined: 26 Jul 04 | Topic/replies: 1,890 | Blogger: CrazySnake's blog I dont follow, stars. Rate reply: | report block user
fck id love a dollar every time i thought that to
Joined: 26 Jul 04 | Topic/replies: 1,890 | Blogger: CrazySnake's blogI dont follow, stars.Rate reply: | report block userfck id love a dollar every time i thought that to
I was surprised and also quiet disturbed to read your reply to a punter regarding the treatment of his betting account by some online bookmakers under your jurisdiction, which was posted on a public forum.
"On-line bookmaking is an increasingly competitive industry and bookmakers should maintain best business practice. If a customer is unhappy with any particular bookmaker he/she has the opportunity to take their business elsewhere. The Commission is not in a position to advise bookmakers on how to run their business or what risk management strategies or client service they need to establish. It is up to each individual bookmaker to set their own risk management procedures and client service standards to ensure that their business is successful."
I would have thought "advising bookmakers on how to run their business" is exactly the Commissions position. Your number one position I would have thought, would have been to ensure the honesty, fairness and integrity of betting firms within your jurisdiction. Simply to say if you are "unhappy with any particular bookmaker to take your business elsewhere" is a joke and most unprofessional from the senior person of the Racing Commission of the NT.
If you can't see some of the disturbing facts surrounding some for your Bookmakers actions, let me point out the more obvious ones. Firstly, the refusal of a bet in it's entirety gives to much room for possible abuse against members accounts in regard to using such accounts as an information terminal to adjust betting odds to their financial benefit without any liability to the said Bookmaker. Secondly, by refusing bets to certain members accounts and then continuing to offer those same fixed odds and transactions to other account holders is clearly grounds for discrimination. Thirdly, there are laws regarding verbal contract that have certain obligations to both parties, the same may I add than binds on course bookmakers displaying fixed odds. This is only 3 examples of how the practice explained by your first enquirer regarding your bookmakers, is neither honest or fair and completely lacks integrity. It is your job Mr.Woods to ensure your gambling industry in your State is run according to best business practice and that the general public can have faith in the betting industry and that all is done above board in a complete transparent manner. It seems this may not be the case regarding the treatment of many account holders of betting accounts with NT bookmakers.
Dear Mr Woods. I was surprised and also quiet disturbed to read your reply to a punter regarding the treatment of his betting account by some online bookmakers under your jurisdiction, which was posted on a public forum. "On-line bookmaking is an in
Outstanding response, apart from the fact that it's probably going to piss him off royally that I posted his reply on a chat forum What have we got to lose? SFA in my opinion.
As the saying goes "Go hard or go home"
I was intending a response, but yours was right between the eyes so I might wait to see what happens.
Loggy,Outstanding response, apart from the fact that it's probably going to piss him off royally that I posted his reply on a chat forum What have we got to lose? SFA in my opinion.As the saying goes "Go hard or go home"I was intending a response, bu
Below is a copy of a letter that was posted on a public forum.
I was surprised and also quite disturbed to read your reply to a punter regarding the treatment of his betting account by some online bookmakers under your jurisdiction, which was posted on a public forum.
"On-line bookmaking is an increasingly competitive industry and bookmakers should maintain best business practice. If a customer is unhappy with any particular bookmaker he/she has the opportunity to take their business elsewhere. The Commission is not in a position to advise bookmakers on how to run their business or what risk management strategies or client service they need to establish. It is up to each individual bookmaker to set their own risk management procedures and client service standards to ensure that their business is successful."
I would have thought "advising bookmakers on how to run their business" is exactly the Commissions position. Your number one position I would have thought, would have been to ensure the honesty, fairness and integrity of betting firms within your jurisdiction. Simply to say if you are "unhappy with any particular bookmaker to take your business elsewhere" is a joke and most unprofessional from the senior person of the Racing Commission of the NT.
If you can't see some of the disturbing facts surrounding some for your Bookmakers actions, let me point out the more obvious ones. Firstly, the refusal of a bet in it's entirety gives to much room for possible abuse against members accounts in regard to using such accounts as an information terminal to adjust betting odds to their financial benefit without any liability to the said Bookmaker. Secondly, by refusing bets to certain members accounts and then continuing to offer those same fixed odds and transactions to other account holders is clearly grounds for discrimination. Thirdly, there are laws regarding verbal contract that have certain obligations to both parties, the same may I add than binds on course bookmakers displaying fixed odds. This is only 3 examples of how the practice explained by your first enquirer regarding your bookmakers, is neither honest or fair and completely lacks integrity. It is your job Mr.Woods to ensure your gambling industry in your State is run according to best business practice and that the general public can have faith in the betting industry and that all is done above board in a complete transparent manner. It seems this may not be the case regarding the treatment of many account holders of betting accounts with NT bookmakers.
I also am astounded at your response to a customer of these betting agencies.
I assumed it was your responsibility as listed on your licensing website to:
To protect and enhance the lifestyle of the community in a safe and regulated environment
resolving complaints and disputes, monitoring gambling systems, These UK owned companies have established their business in Australia , and offer misleading advertisments to become a customer. Unlike licensed on course bookmakers who are compelled to lose a certain sum , these bookmakers discriminate and make rules to suit their business , and as a representative of the government for the people , they should be investigated for misleading and unfair conduct
Dear Mr. Woods, Below is a copy of a letter that was posted on a public forum. I was surprised and also quite disturbed to read your reply to a punter regarding the treatment of his betting account by some online bookmakers under your jurisdiction, w
Good stuff guys, I'm going to draft my own enquiry asking just one question -
Why do the minimum bet acceptance rules that apply to on-course bookmakers not apply to online bookmakers licensed in your jurisdiction?
Good stuff guys, I'm going to draft my own enquiry asking just one question - Why do the minimum bet acceptance rules that apply to on-course bookmakers not apply to online bookmakers licensed in your jurisdiction?
I greatly appreciate your prompt attendance to this matter and your response, however disappointing. It may have come to your attention that I am speaking on behalf of a number of Sportsbet's clients who have received similar treatment, one of whom may already have corresponded with you. I am aware of his comments, and for the most part agree with them, notwithstanding his somewhat direct nature. I think he made some salient points I had not previously considered, particularly with regards to discrimination, and whilst this may not be directly within your jurisdiction, it's certainly a practice which in other industries would be viewed as a serious breach of consumer rights. In my own case I feel that my main point was not directly addressed, and so if I may, I would like to reiterate it in the hope that it can be clarified. The practice of offering odds on a certain event and then refusing to accept bets at that price is not illegal, but grossly immoral. What would happen if they had a special promotion in which they offered 5/1 to the first 200 customers for a limit of $50 about Usain Bolt winning the 100 Meters at the London Games (similar offers from other bookmakers and this one are not unheard of) but refused to accept a bet from only me at that price. Would you consider that to be fair and just? If I consider something to be of good value, as in this example, am I not entitled to expect to be able to buy a reasonable amount of it? The other point pertains to the ability of online bookmakers to refuse bets that on course bookmakers cannot. Presumably, the reason why the limits were put in place for on course bookmakers was precisely to prevent the kind of false advertising that is being perpetrated here. Why are online bookmakers not held to those standards? Lastly, to directly address your point that I have the option to go elsewhere if I am not happy with the practices of the said operator, there are not that many options out there that I can continually shift my custom and money, particularly when many of the other bookmakers available to me have the same prohibitive rules. How many times can I move on until there is nowhere else to go? And so, with that in mind I decided now was a good time to make a stand.
Sincerely,
My response:Dear Mr Wood,I greatly appreciate your prompt attendance to this matter and your response, however disappointing.It may have come to your attention that I am speaking on behalf of a number of Sportsbet's clients who have received similar
I realise that your reply below was to an individual only and may not have been appropriate to have been posted to a public forum.
However the issue here is a problem to a significant number of corporare clients and it would seem to me that noone with the possible power to address the issue has either
the will to do so
and/or
recognises that this issue is a hidden cancer afflicting the Australian Racing Industry
The frustration that this issue is causing a significant number of persons wishing to avail themselves of the services of all operators who stridently advertise themselves as fully and openly participating in the betting industry goes a long way to explaining the discussion of this matter in an open forum.
You stated
As rules can vary from one operator to the next, the onus has and always will be for the customer to familiarise themselves with the contingencies that they are wagering on. As a client of Sportsbet.com, you are deemed to have accepted these Terms and Conditions and Sportsbet’s Privacy Policy when registering a Betting Account and/or placing a wager with Sportsbet via the telephone or via the Sportsbet website. These rules which have been approved by the Racing Commission, the controlling body for NT licensed bookmakers, are clearly displayed on the website and can be obtained by contacting the bookmaker directly. If the client does not agree to all of the rules or does not understand any of the betting options, they should either contact the bookmaker for clarification or not conduct business with that particular operator.
On-line bookmaking is an increasingly competitive industry and bookmakers should maintain best business practice. If a customer is unhappy with any particular bookmaker he/she has the opportunity to take their business elsewhere. The Commission is not in a position to advise bookmakers on how to run their business or what risk management strategies or client service they need to establish. It is up to each individual bookmaker to set their own risk management procedures and client service standards to ensure that their business is successful.
The problem is that the industry is not "increasingly competitive", rather that competition has been reduced by the continuing buyout of smaller operators by a restricted number of larger firms whose business model is clearly based on restricting their clientelle to only those who are judged to have a reduced chance of being competitive. It may be considered simplistic but current practices, in my opinion, are akin to a supermarket barring certain customers from taking advantage of advertised offers saying they'd done so in the past or were only instore due to the offer and are perceived as unlikely to do further business more profitable to the store. In my opinion the posting of prices on the internet or other open media is exactly the same as the issuing of a store catalogue. These offers should be available to all rather than to chosen or favoured clients.
It also should be mentioned that operators are using their openly advertised offers to entice business from clients judged to be too adept, refusing that business when asked, but using the fact that a request by a client felt to be skilled to adjust markets by shortening prices without any actual transaction. I would say this is neither ethical nor fair to the client, whose expertise has been used without permission or the possibility of benefit. It is akin to abusing market power which is extremely "businesslike" however I feel it is not acting in the overall spirit of consumer law in Australia.
Please note that I am not writing this in response to having my betting accounts restricted by the practices referred to above. I am however very concerned at the increasingly restrictive nature of the corporate betting industry and wish to make my point before being affected by this practice. Also I wish to state that I am a client of firms within the jurisdiction of the NT authority
The very fact that an operator on course must service all comers for a significant mimimum amount makes it incomprehensible to me that the mere location of an operator offcourse would allow that operator to make rules for their exclusive benefit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thought I'd weigh in as wellDear Mr WoodsI realise that your reply below was to an individual only and may not have been appropriate to have been posted to a public forum.However the issue here is a problem to a significant number of corporare client
instead of long wound up letters which likely have him bored half way through it as really he could not give a fck why not keep it simple like below
Dear Mr Woods
Why is there a stipulation that on course bookmakers have to bet punters to win 5K but not one for online bookmakers?
Regards
instead of long wound up letters which likely have him bored half way through it as really he could not give a fck why not keep it simple like below Dear Mr Woods Why is there a stipulation that on course bookmakers have to bet punters to win 5K but
Honestly guys, I absolutely agree with you in theory, but I think there are a number of issues to be considered. The regulator is not responsible for the terms and conditions of the bookmaker. The regulator is charged with transactions in dispute, it is not in dispute that you agreed to the terms and conditions of membership. Basically you have waived any rights by in practice agreeing to those terms and conditions. So although Mr Wood's reply is disappointing, it is not in his charter to address the issues raised.
For what it's worth, why not raise these issues with problem gambling, the ACCC, and the Minister for Gaming. etc.
Failing that, a website needs to be built outlying exactly what's going on and naming and shaming. Not heresay, but actual evidence of emails and account history that cannot be disputed in a court of law. Full anonymous details of bet placement, restrictions etc. Originals to be supplied if required by a Court of law. The bigger it gets, the higher the website rank. The more members it gets, the greaqter the credibility it achieves and perhaps something will come of it, the least of which might be poor publicity.
Something needs to be done, but done professionally with all legal bases covered.
Honestly guys, I absolutely agree with you in theory, but I think there are a number of issues to be considered.The regulator is not responsible for the terms and conditions of the bookmaker.The regulator is charged with transactions in dispute, it i
So although Mr Wood's reply is disappointing, it is not in his charter to address the issues raised
it very much is his mandate, the regulators can tell the bookies to add or remove anything from their "Rules and Regulations"
it is a total cop out by Mr.Woods and he is trying to pass the buck
So although Mr Wood's reply is disappointing, it is not in his charter to address the issues raisedit very much is his mandate, the regulators can tell the bookies to add or remove anything from their "Rules and Regulations"it is a total cop out by M
Logroller, you misunderstand. They regulate the legitimacy of their licences and uphold the integrity of the actual bets, they have nothing to do with the legislation. It is a change in legislation that is required.
Logroller, you misunderstand. They regulate the legitimacy of their licences and uphold the integrity of the actual bets, they have nothing to do with the legislation. It is a change in legislation that is required.
This may help. They enforce the Act. The Minister is responsible for amendments to the Act.
http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/legislat.nsf/linkreference/Racing%20and%20Betting%20Act?OpenDocumentThis may help.They enforce the Act. The Minister is responsible for amendments to the Act.
If you log on to the dept of justice website you will read:
Our Work The Licensing Regulation and Alcohol Strategy division has three major functions:
Licensing and Regulation This function regulates and licences a range of industries including gambling, liquor, tobacco, private security, real estate and escorts. Responsibilities include:
•assessing licence applications for each industry sector, •resolving complaints and disputes, •carrying out audit and compliance checks, predominately in the liquor industry, •monitoring gambling systems, •regulates incorporated associations,and •supporting the Northern Territory Licensing Commission
Mr woods response by saying go to another bookie if your not satisfied does not resolve the complaint.
LoggyIf you log on to the dept of justice website you will read:Our WorkThe Licensing Regulation and Alcohol Strategy division has three major functions:Licensing and RegulationThis function regulates and licences a range of industries including gamb
Well nothing will be achieved if nobody understands who is responsible for what! May as well call it a day now. The bookmaker has done nothing wrong in terms of the Act, therefore Mr Wood can do nothing. The bettor has accepted the terms and conditions and the bookmaker has excercised his rights under those terms. Mr Wood has no ability to change the terms, the Minister can change the Act and Mr Wood can enforce it.
You're blaming the policeman because the law needs changing.
Strewth!
Well nothing will be achieved if nobody understands who is responsible for what!May as well call it a day now.The bookmaker has done nothing wrong in terms of the Act, therefore Mr Wood can do nothing.The bettor has accepted the terms and conditions
You are exactly right. In fact, I have approached the ACCC and am awaiting a response. The legislation needs addressing and perhaps Mr Wood isnt the right guy to pester, but I didnt like his attitude so decided to make his day a little busier As far as producing a website and naming and shaming those perpetrators, I am happy to monitor and edit the content. Does anyone have the skills to produce a website for us?
Cheers CS
BTOR,You are exactly right. In fact, I have approached the ACCC and am awaiting a response.The legislation needs addressing and perhaps Mr Wood isnt the right guy to pester, but I didnt like his attitude so decided to make his day a little busier As
Yes, CS I didn't like his reply either. I think he could see what was being raised and didn't want a bar of it. A more educated response would have been I am not the right person, but here is where you need to write to or something. As fare as a website goes, that's the easy part, I could build one easily, but a bit of though has to be done. Whomever, takes responsibilty for the domain potentially takes on a lot more than he/she bargained for.
Yes, CS I didn't like his reply either. I think he could see what was being raised and didn't want a bar of it. A more educated response would have been I am not the right person, but here is where you need to write to or something.As fare as a websi
Actually, for content I was thinking a more generalised approach, such as raising the specific issues contained within this and other threads. More of an educating the punter about why certain options are not viable, of poor value and why. A education forum with some specific examples to demonstrate the lessons.
Actually, for content I was thinking a more generalised approach, such as raising the specific issues contained within this and other threads. More of an educating the punter about why certain options are not viable, of poor value and why. A educatio
All that currently provides is positive reviews, presumably because they are on sweetheart referral deals. I doubt they would want us to post our negative comments and jeopardise their wonderful reputation (sarcasm intended).
SU,All that currently provides is positive reviews, presumably because they are on sweetheart referral deals. I doubt they would want us to post our negative comments and jeopardise their wonderful reputation (sarcasm intended).
Actually, I dug a little deeper and realised there are negative customer reviews contained within. However, they are well off the beaten track. Not really what I would call a balanced view. Anyway, I would like to do a website. I think it's a cracking idea, litigation notwithstanding. Anyone interested in helping it along should pm me.
Actually, I dug a little deeper and realised there are negative customer reviews contained within. However, they are well off the beaten track.Not really what I would call a balanced view.Anyway, I would like to do a website. I think it's a cracking
Somebody posted this earlier, "Firstly, the refusal of a bet in it's entirety gives to much room for possible abuse against members accounts in regard to using such accounts as an information terminal to adjust betting odds to their financial benefit without any liability to the said Bookmaker. Secondly, by refusing bets to certain members accounts and then continuing to offer those same fixed odds and transactions to other account holders is clearly grounds for discrimination. Thirdly, there are laws regarding verbal contract that have certain obligations to both parties, the same may I add than binds on course bookmakers displaying fixed odds."
1 So if I came on for a ten million dollar bet on something, the bookie should be forced to take it ? The reasonable answer is of course they dont have to take the bet in its entirety, so the principle of refusing a bet in its entirety cant be questioned. Consequently, we have to look for what is a reasonable amount to expect to get on, then it gets really complicated. By the way every bookmaker uses bets taken as information, if they didnt they wouldnt last 5 minutes. The trader that ignores a known source having a bet and NOT shortening the odds would be looking for a job very quickly. 2 Supermarkets have sales and limit customers to how many they can buy, they can say they want more people to have the chance of a price rather than one or two bug hitters. 3 You sign the terms and conditions for the internet bookies, and they are a totally different animal to on course bookies and comparing them is pointless.
We have had these arguments for years over here, and so far nobody`s come up with anything I havent seen before. The discrimination angle is interesting, but its not based on race, creed, or anything like that, its just business to them. Theres some eloquent stuff on here, and I will continue to follow with interest, and play devils advocate to help keep the debate going if thats ok.
Somebody posted this earlier, "Firstly, the refusal of a bet in it's entirety gives to much room for possible abuse against members accounts in regard to using such accounts as an information terminal to adjust betting odds to their financial benefit
They need to have the same rules in the Act as oncourse bookmakers. But there are two different Acts, regulated by two different bodies. That's the crux of the problem and why e-bookies are now simply casinos rather than bookmakers.
They need to have the same rules in the Act as oncourse bookmakers.But there are two different Acts, regulated by two different bodies.That's the crux of the problem and why e-bookies are now simply casinos rather than bookmakers.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Silver was not saying they should take ANY bet but that advertising a price should obligate them to take a bet of a fixed amount in the same manner that on course bookmakers are obligated. I don't know what that limit should be, but to reduce an account exposure until it is impractical to use is just a coward's way out.
Pounf,I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Silver was not saying they should take ANY bet but that advertising a price should obligate them to take a bet of a fixed amount in the same manner that on course bookmakers are obligated.I don't know
"We have had these arguments for years over here, and so far nobody`s come up with anything I havent seen before."
Let's see, a need for new ideas eh,....right I reckon all vehicles should have square wheels as we've had those boring round ones for faarrrr too long.
Back to your comment, IMHO that doesn't in any way invalidate the arguments, more an indictment of those who are supposed to be serving the interests of ALL participants in the racing game.
"2 Supermarkets have sales and limit customers to how many they can buy"....BUT the limit is not ZERO or at best, "well we'll sell you the power cord but not the appliance" which is happening here.
"By the way every bookmaker uses bets taken as information", yeah but they're NOT taking them.
"internet bookies, and they are a totally different animal to on course bookies and comparing them is pointless" in one way they are different because they are allowed to be different which is the point under discussion....they (supposedly) are both in the business of taking bets and in that aspect, identical, I would have thought.
There's being a devil's advocate and there's not addressing the problem, with the greatest respect for your intentions I fear you are going a bit out on a limb to justify/explain the corporates position
"We have had these arguments for years over here, and so far nobody`s come up with anything I havent seen before."Let's see, a need for new ideas eh,....right I reckon all vehicles should have square wheels as we've had those boring round ones for fa
I am subject to these restrictions, and its irritating, but because its not my living, or that financially important to me, I dont feel it like some. I am restricted by 8 bookmakers and had my account closed twice by 1 out of about 12 firms on oddschecker where I have accounts. In fact theres only a couple of firms I can get on with unrestricted, and they dont cover the sport I specialise in. So it affects me. In an ideal world it wouldnt happen, but it is what it is, and you have to get round it as best you can. As I said earlier I still bet with the firm who closed me twice, and am currently unrestricted on that account. I think everybody should get a bet, but to how much is the question. The bookies think one amount, we think another.
I am subject to these restrictions, and its irritating, but because its not my living, or that financially important to me, I dont feel it like some. I am restricted by 8 bookmakers and had my account closed twice by 1 out of about 12 firms on oddsch
Keep in mind if you do succeed in establishing a law-abiding minimum bet (and somehow the technology can prove to both you and 'plod' that your bet was in their queue prior to whichever bookmaker you choose lowers the odds hence your whole wish becomes an enforceable reality) this will lead to bookmaker's increasing the percentage they offer/work to so as to accommodate this regulation/cover their bottom line. After all you are discussing corporations who (news alert) only have profit at heart and will do whatever it takes to stay in the black. A bit like be careful what you wish for, it just might come true.
And also keep in mind that 99.9% of the population aren't arbers, don't profess to be pro's and don't only strike when the iron is hot and like it or not majority rules. Governments will stress that this whole sector needs to be treated as a form of recreation as the revenue from turnover far exceeds any possible income tax they could hope to receive from so called 'pro's'. Has anyone ever paid tax on gambling winnings? There goes that hope. Come to think of that - good luck to anyone here who considers themselves a pro and believes there is a bookmaker out there wanting your business. Bookmaking has rightly been described as the last bastion of free enterprise for reasons like this and I suspect long will it remain so.
BY all means create a website along the lines of Choice if you wish for others to be influenced and/or follow your example but a marketplace is a marketplace and over time custom and business will continue.
Keep in mind if you do succeed in establishing a law-abiding minimum bet (and somehow the technology can prove to both you and 'plod' that your bet was in their queue prior to whichever bookmaker you choose lowers the odds hence your whole wish becom
I would like to say I have only one word for you "Noooooooooooorrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm", but sadly I must rebutt.
If your assertion that they will only increase their take to accommodate the new rules is true, were they to be implemented, I think maybe you missed the part where the English bookmakers already have a much larger take than the Aussie bookmakers and when they get their way that will be a reality, minimum bet or not.
As for bookmakers not welcoming pros, you are quite wrong. There are a number of bookmakers that openly welcome pros, the most notable of them being Pinnacle Sports. It's only the English bookmakers that don't appreciate that it takes volume and correct pricing to make a book, not just parsimonious pricing and prohibitive rules. Beating the overround is a very difficult task, and by preventing the pros from rounding the books these glorified accountants think they are serving themselves. They won't have served themselves too well when they realise they have entered a much smaller and more discerning marketplace, paid over the odds for companies that operated on the principle of "live and let live" and prospered because they understood that turnover was the means to make a book work, not just selective screening. Many of the English companies that entered here won't get their money back. Of that you can be sure.
I would like to say I have only one word for you "Noooooooooooorrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm", but sadly I must rebutt.If your assertion that they will only increase their take to accommodate the new rules is true, were they to be implemented, I think maybe yo
Copied from http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/timeform-debate/simon-rowlands/simon-rowlands-why-the-racing-media-has-a-duty-to-be-more-sceptical-on-our-behalf-150812-43.html
The rise of Twitter, and the ability to hold to account those in positions of power, has not always been reflected by similar questioning in the racing media. Simon Rowlands explains why he feels things should change...
If you have not already become a Twitter user then you really should consider giving it a go. It's where it's at for the latest information, the hottest gossip and the most up-to-date blogs.
You can follow who you want, from the great to the unknown, and ignore who you want, too. Horseracing, in a rare example of moving with the times, is all over it.
Twitter is also a fabulous place to have an argument.
The 140-character restriction means that you seldom explain yourself as fully as you might wish but you seldom achieve total meltdown either.
And your argument is unlikely to remain entirely between you and your cyber-adversary. The rest of Twitter may be looking on and may decide to give you a piece of its mind.
It reminds me of those schoolyard altercations that start with a few punches over something trivial and descend into an all-out brawl, with onlookers chanting "fight, fight, fight".
25 bald men fighting over a comb, as Borges might have put it. And, as it is Twitter, his description might- almost literally- have been correct.
I was reminded of this when caught up in a Twitter spat with a bookies' representative the other day.
The source of our "dispute" was his company's reporting of a huge cash bet back in April.
This bet may or may not have existed. But the point is that, if its existence can neither be proved nor disproved by the public, it is to all intents and purposes inadmissable.
Without proof, anything, however fanciful, could be claimed.
As one Tweeter interjected, "I slept with (insert name of supermodel) last night: disprove that".
The same principle informs the reason why I, and possibly others, have not written at length about the darker side of bookies' activities, namely the widespread restriction and closing of accounts that are not just successful but that even threaten to be successful.
It sticks in the craw to be told that (insert name of multi-million pound bookmaker) has just laid a bet of £50,000 when your £200 bet on the same horse has been knocked down to a fiver.
Believe me, this sort of thing happens.
Or, rather, don't believe me: almost all such "evidence" is anecdotal and can neither be proved nor disproved. See above.
More generally, the role of the media in reporting as fact what might just be spin or anecdote deserves to be held up to greater scrutiny.
I got involved in journalism because I believed, naively perhaps, that it was a means for pursuing "the truth" (whatever that might be), and that one aspect of that was holding those in authority and those with a vested interest to account.
Unfortunately, horseracing long since seems to have sold its soul in this respect.
Watching either of the dedicated racing channels involves being subjected to incessant bookies' adverts and more insidious advertorials from bookies' reps, without whom, we are led to believe, neither the presenter nor the viewer could possibly make sense of what was happening in betting terms.
This situation reached its nadir at the last Cheltenham Festival, when RUK's roving reporter kept "accidentally" bumping into bookies' reps, who promptly and predictably were granted the opportunity to plug their companies' latest offers.
It is no exaggeration to say that I see more (albeit on the screen) of one particular bookies' rep than I do of many of my nearest and dearest. I half expect to wake in the middle of the night and see him lying next to me, beaming boyishly while telling me his firm is "going biggest price for the next 10 minutes".
The point is not that a media outlet should have no commercial links- I am keenly aware that this blog is coming to you on a Betfair platform- but that it should not simply become a commercial mouthpiece. Not unless it wants its readers/viewers/listeners to feel that their intelligence is being insulted, anyway.
"Broadcasters have a commercial contract with certain bookmakers", I have been told. If so, they should at least be upfront about it.
They also need to remember at the same time that they have a commercial contract with their viewers. Those viewers are entitled to expect accurate and impartial information. Accurate and impartial betting information and bookie spin are incompatible in this respect.
An important way to keep the viewers on board is to exercise a healthy scepticism rather than craven obsequiousness. That's the kind of healthy scepticism that requires the various PR stooges to put up evidence to support their claims or to shut up.
If nothing else, there is no shortage of healthy (and, it has to be said, unhealthy) scepticism on Twitter.
You can follow Timeform on Twitter at @Timeform1948 and Simon Rowlands at @Rowleyfile
Found this on The General Betting Forum.Copied from http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/timeform-debate/simon-rowlands/simon-rowlands-why-the-racing-media-has-a-duty-to-be-more-sceptical-on-our-behalf-150812-43.htmlThe rise of Twitter, and the ab
I did not receive a response as yet but the last time he responded it was on a Monday morning when I had written him the previous week, so I am guessing that is when he intends to respond, if at all.
I'll go look, cas, cheers.Truthful,I did not receive a response as yet but the last time he responded it was on a Monday morning when I had written him the previous week, so I am guessing that is when he intends to respond, if at all.
Add Bet365 to a long list of bookmakers who need to be shown that enough noise from the rank and file will cause you problems. Actually, based upon current indications, Bet365 might be the absolute worst of them all. I actually had a bet with Sportsbet this week and they took $500 at 2.30. So I am not banned, it's just everything I do goes through risk management, which is very annoying.
Add Bet365 to a long list of bookmakers who need to be shown that enough noise from the rank and file will cause you problems.Actually, based upon current indications, Bet365 might be the absolute worst of them all.I actually had a bet with Sportsbet
There was a feedback section within the closure confirmation email. For all the good it will do I sent them this:
Feedback: We would love to hear your feedback, please type in your reasons for closing below:
My account was restricted to the point where I couldn't bet freely on it anymore, and since I have a Sportsbet account with the exact same problem I decided there was no point having two accounts I couldn't use when one would be sufficient.
Loyalty should count for something in this world, but apparently it doesn't with your company. I had been a client of IAS for many years and have held an account with Sportsbet for more than 10 years as well. Change in ownership isn't a good enough reason to bite the hand that feeds you.
There was a feedback section within the closure confirmation email. For all the good it will do I sent them this:Feedback:We would love to hear your feedback, please type in your reasons for closing below:My account was restricted to the point where
Hopefully, you gave them such a fearful pounding that they figured you must be a leprechaun. I hope you took them for squillions. Not allowing mystery exactas is just a farce.
Brickie,Hopefully, you gave them such a fearful pounding that they figured you must be a leprechaun. I hope you took them for squillions.Not allowing mystery exactas is just a farce.
My couple of posts are clutter, but your posts, which is almost every 2nd post on this thread are not. Yes, I see your point now. I just popped into see what you were still crying on about. Your boo hoo emails to Mr Wood clearly show that you are amateurs at this caper, carry on.
My couple of posts are clutter, but your posts, which is almost every 2nd post on this thread are not. Yes, I see your point now. I just popped into see what you were still crying on about. Your boo hoo emails to Mr Wood clearly show that you are
Been banned by Australian bookmakers is easy and profitable to overcome. The are plenty of poor people out there who will setup you a bank account and provide identification for you for only $1000. There are at least $3000 in deposit bonuses and bonus bets with Australian bookmakers to be had. Its like buying $3000 notes for $1000. You just have to have the nerve to start asking. These people then tell their poor friends, and a snowball effect takes place.
Been banned by Australian bookmakers is easy and profitable to overcome. The are plenty of poor people out there who will setup you a bank account and provide identification for you for only $1000. There are at least $3000 in deposit bonuses and bonu
FREE $1,000 bonus! *PROMO CODE PUNTER Sportingbet are Australia’s largest bookmaker and offer the most competitive odds for all the major Sports, Racing and Entertainment markets - Their MaxiDiv bet is one of the most popular bet types which gives you the best of the 3 totes or the bookmakers Starting Price. This ensures you’ll always get the best odds available on any metropolitan race.
Sportingbet have operations worldwide and employ the latest security software so you can be sure your money is safe. Along with their unique services such as mobile phone betting, live scores and their excellent racing product, Sportingbet also offer Free Bets and many great Promotions to their customers.
Make an initial deposit when joining Sportingbet and they'll match it with a FREE bonus bet up to $1,000! Minimum $30 deposit required. Use promo code PUNTER on the registration form.
FREE $1,000 bonus! *PROMO CODE PUNTERSportingbet are Australia’s largest bookmaker and offer the most competitive odds for all the major Sports, Racing and Entertainment markets - Their MaxiDiv bet is one of the most popular bet types which gives y
I believe Sporingbet are also unique in charging you for depositing when using a debit card, unless you plonk a right chunk in which you then arent allowed to bet with !!
I believe Sporingbet are also unique in charging you for depositing when using a debit card, unless you plonk a right chunk in which you then arent allowed to bet with !!
Firstly (to borrow SEN radio parlance) I am virtually a long time listener, first time caller. Not exactly first time, as I've posted a few times before, but rarely and not for some time. Got to say though that I've always enjoyed reading this forum.
I'm a pretty small fish in the pond with my bets... I bet $50-$150 per week, mainly on AFL and rugby union. This is one of the reasons I don't post much... seems like I have very little to add compared to some of the well-researched, well-funded people on this forum.
But this is my real question: How is much is too much when it comes to getting your account throttled back? What sort of winner do you have to be before you get restricted?
I have 3 accounts... BF, Sportsbet & TAB Vic. As I said, my stakes are low but I like to shop around for the best odds. I don't bet big stakes but in the long term I win. I haven't put any money into any of my accounts in over a year and my son's "uni fund" has been benefitting from dividends of a hundred or two $$ every couple of months. So I'm having a lot of fun and making a bit of spare change, which goes to a good cause (my son's education). To look at my Sportbet account on its own, the balance has ranged between $79 and $270 over the past year, plus I took a $150 dividend recently. So given that I've made a paper profit of almost $200 in the past year, plus a realised profit of $150, am I at risk of getting reined in?
I'm interested in this whole discussion because I've heard of it happening a lot and wonder just how far down the chain the corps go when they "risk manage" their patrons?
Hi all, a couple of things...Firstly (to borrow SEN radio parlance) I am virtually a long time listener, first time caller. Not exactly first time, as I've posted a few times before, but rarely and not for some time. Got to say though that I've alway
well juzzola,its refreshing to hear someone who tells it as it is. big or small winning is great. i do think that a lot of closures are less to do with winning and losing. because they have sophisticated software that flag certain bets (shortners, exchange prices ect ect) i doubt anyone will monitor your bets until you hit these flags,then someone will go and look at the account. with maybe millions of customers the logistics of monitoring all accounts is not possible. that's why some people seem to be closed very quickly. in some cases long term losers might have an account closed after 2 or 3 bets that have hit these flags.
well juzzola,its refreshing to hear someone who tells it as it is.big or small winning is great.i do think that a lot of closures are less to do with winning and losing.because they have sophisticated software that flag certain bets (shortners,exchan
juzz.........the TAB will never sack or restrict your account and either will BF, and Sportsbet, well i dare say u dont turnover enough for your account to be even scrutinized, unless u have a ridiculous high strike rate of winning bets with sportsbet u will continue to slip under the radar
juzz.........the TAB will never sack or restrict your account and either will BF, and Sportsbet, well i dare say u dont turnover enough for your account to be even scrutinized, unless u have a ridiculous high strike rate of winning bets with sportsbe
Aachen, that makes sense. If I ever got caught up in such a pattern it would simply be through coincidence rather than through having huge insight. I like to research my bets but can't claim to have a deep scientific method like some here obviously do.
Logroller, no I'm hardly that on Sportsbet! Some weeks win $100, some weeks lose $50. Like I said though, in the longer term I am proud of coming out ahead.
Aachen, that makes sense. If I ever got caught up in such a pattern it would simply be through coincidence rather than through having huge insight. I like to research my bets but can't claim to have a deep scientific method like some here obviously
Don't know if this has been brought up on here before but it's well worth a look - amazing what these bookies think they can get away with...http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=1462
We already knew Bet365 was a scumbag bookie, like every single one that has come out of the UK and Ireland. Today I noted Sportsbet was offering odds on St Kilda, Essendon and Carlton to win the flag long after it was a mathematical impossibility. Unfortunately, I did not get a screen shot with a time stamp and missed the opportunity to send another delightful email to the NT Government.
We already knew Bet365 was a scumbag bookie, like every single one that has come out of the UK and Ireland.Today I noted Sportsbet was offering odds on St Kilda, Essendon and Carlton to win the flag long after it was a mathematical impossibility.Unfo
Hard to believe anybody takes bets on the pool (tote) betting on the dogs. Nobody in Europe does, stories of pool fixing over the years make it a no go area over here. Very surprised at this. They should have paid the guy, it`ll cost em way more in bad pr.
Hard to believe anybody takes bets on the pool (tote) betting on the dogs. Nobody in Europe does, stories of pool fixing over the years make it a no go area over here. Very surprised at this. They should have paid the guy, it`ll cost em way more in b
sorry if i missed some important infor between pages 2-5 but like a lot of punters I am either barred or restricted by all the majors. I lasted 10days with Bet365 before thaey closed my account and refunded my balance.I spoke to NT racing commission and was informed by them that the corporates MUST best you to win $1000 IF you can see a fixed price. With Sportingbet I can see the fixed prices on all metro meetings so they bet me to win $1000 but mid week or Sat provincials I do not get to see any fixed prices on their site so NO BET. This was told to me by the NT racing commission not some 3rd party. Also another point of contention. If I back a horse at $3 to win my $1000 and the horse drifts to $5 am I entitled to back it again in order to balance my odds. The corporates will tell you NO but again directly from the commission .. The moment a corporate changes the price then that becomes a totally different case scenario and you (the punter) are entitled to claim the bookie for another $1000. I was also told by the commission that if I was refused the second bet to photo the deatils of rejection and forward to the commission for them to rule on. I would suggest EVERYONE starts doing this and ulimately the corporates will need to change as the rules become better known. PS He did warn that if you take this action against a corporate that you run the risk of them closing your account permanately.
sorry if i missed some important infor between pages 2-5 but like a lot of punters I am either barred or restricted by all the majors. I lasted 10days with Bet365 before thaey closed my account and refunded my balance.I spoke to NT racing commission
Interesting stuff getitright, so regardless of the rules/regs it's still a case of doomed if you do doomed id you don't with these 'bookmakers(sic)' & ultimately a complete waste of time having any dealings with them unless one is a terminal looser...
Interesting stuff getitright, so regardless of the rules/regs it's still a case of doomed if you do doomed id you don't with these 'bookmakers(sic)' & ultimately a complete waste of time having any dealings with them unless one is a terminal looser..
If you do that they are entitled to close your account, apparently. Bet365 has been closing accounts citing "not economical" as their reason. Stupidest pile of sh!t I have ever seen.
getitright,If you do that they are entitled to close your account, apparently. Bet365 has been closing accounts citing "not economical" as their reason.Stupidest pile of sh!t I have ever seen.