The Board of Racing NSW has resolved to introduce a condition which requires wagering operators to take bets from all customers to ensure a fairer deal for punters. All wagering operators will be required to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds wager on NSW Thoroughbred races.
The minimum bet condition will be implemented following extensive consultation with wagering operators.
Racing NSW Chief Executive, Mr V’landys, said today:
“There have been frequent and persistent complaints by punters about wagering operators refusing to take their bets, particularly in circumstances where those punters have been successful.
“Accordingly, the Board of Racing NSW has decided to make it a condition of its Race Fields Information Use approvals that all wagering operators are required to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds wager on NSW Thoroughbred races.
“Racing NSW believes there is a current imbalance in favour of wagering operators at the expense of punters and this needed to be rectified.”
I have the attention span of a gnat. what has happened here, Can the corps bar people-? Do they have to be to a minimum? Are they playing shifties with odds?
I have the attention span of a gnat. what has happened here,Can the corps bar people-?Do they have to be to a minimum?Are they playing shifties with odds?
The odds for me on New South Wales races on the Centrebet website are now the same for me, whether I am logged in or not.
Peter V'landys had done a great job pulling the William Hill group into line. The two tier system is now gone.
The odds for me on New South Wales races on the Centrebet website are now the same for me, whether I am logged in or not.Peter V'landys had done a great job pulling the William Hill group into line. The two tier system is now gone.
Cheers, I will check them out. Only have Sportingbet left with them, but may look around if it is worth it. Do Will Hill have the same odds on their books, or are they just in charge of seperate "bookies"? I mean, are centrebet/sportingbet/tomwaterhouse all the same odds?
Cheers, I will check them out. Only have Sportingbet left with them, but may look around if it is worth it. Do Will Hill have the same odds on their books, or are they just in charge of seperate "bookies"? I mean, are centrebet/sportingbet/tomwate
NVM. Just opened up Kembla Grange. Nothing changed for mine. Still about 25% worse on offer whilst logged in vs (v's for lets elope) "indicative" prices.
NVM. Just opened up Kembla Grange. Nothing changed for mine. Still about 25% worse on offer whilst logged in vs (v's for lets elope) "indicative" prices.
Remember the days (as we all do) where we would run up to a bookmakers stand waving fist fulls with 10 other mugs all wanting to get the last of the attractive odds...
The bookie would say you.. you.. you ..ok that all!!!
Can only think that with technology the 10 others is now 1000 others.... again with technology I would have thought they could lay off any unwanted bets anyway ...
In any event BF has the best odds most the time anyway so ....Why go elsewhere ???
Has no effect whatsoever on me....Remember the days (as we all do) where we would run up to a bookmakers stand waving fist fulls with 10 other mugs all wanting to get the last of the attractive odds...The bookie would say you.. you.. you ..ok that al
Remember the days (as we all do) where we would run up to a bookmakers stand waving fist fulls with 10 other mugs all wanting to get the last of the attractive odds...
The bookie would say you.. you.. you ..ok that all!!!
bill would always let me on back in the queue (as a cash punter)
robbie not so often
Remember the days (as we all do) where we would run up to a bookmakers stand waving fist fulls with 10 other mugs all wanting to get the last of the attractive odds...The bookie would say you.. you.. you ..ok that all!!! bill would always let me on b
Bill was ALWAYS first up with a market .. bout 5 mins or so after the previous race completed ... never any longer
the rest of the rails usually followed before the up & down moves began
my issue with robbie was not price or getting on in a long queue ... but bookie to punter behaviour
he told me he was forced as an individual to be bound by the Rules Of Racing
that was 3 months to the day almost before the Fine Cotton saga surfaced
yes 114% was great ... Bill was ALWAYS first up with a market .. bout 5 mins or so after the previous race completed ... never any longerthe rest of the rails usually followed before the up & down moves beganmy issue with robbie was not price or gett
well a week is a long time in the modern punting world Joel (about 5,364 races lol)
in my day Sydney racing only on course a week was 16 races (8 on sat & 8 on wed )
well a week is a long time in the modern punting world Joel (about 5,364 races lol)in my day Sydney racing only on course a week was 16 races (8 on sat & 8 on wed )
20 Sep 14 05:08 Joined: 14 Feb 04 | Topic/replies: 22,262 | Blogger: Joel's blog
I had a personal experience with Robbie last week that still hurts today Scared
Rate reply:
Oh dear the mind boggles
Joel 20 Sep 14 05:08 Joined: 14 Feb 04 | Topic/replies: 22,262 | Blogger: Joel's blog I had a personal experience with Robbie last week that still hurts today Scared Rate reply:Oh dear the mind boggles
Today I attending a meeting with three official from RacingNSW, regarding the refusal to Tabcorp and Luxbet to bet me fixed odds on NSW Thoroughbred races.
Tabcorp and Luxbet used the rule below to exclude me from fixed odds on NSW Thoroughbred races.
(d) The approval Holder is not required to comply with its obligations in clauses 5.7(a) or 5.7(c) if.
(1) The bet is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange.
The truth of the matter is that Tabcorp refuses to bet me anything on NSW Thoroughbred races even if Tabcorp odds are less than Betfair odds. Everytime Tabcorp refuses to bet me fixed odds when Tabcorp odds are less than Betfair odds, is an obvious breach by Tabcorp against the Minimum Bet Rule.
When I login to LuxBet, the fixed odds for NSW Thoroughbred races disappear. Luxbet is in breach here using the rule below.
(c) The Approval Holder must not do any act of refuse to do any act to avoid complying with clause 5.7(a) including but limited to .
(5) Refusing to offer fixed odds to any backer when those fixed odds are displayed by the Approval Holder.
Today I attending a meeting with three official from RacingNSW, regarding the refusal to Tabcorp and Luxbet to bet me fixed odds on NSW Thoroughbred races.Tabcorp and Luxbet used the rule below to exclude me from fixed odds on NSW Thoroughbred races.
Tabcorp claim that all my bets are arbitrage bets, and are using the rule "the bet is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange" to reject any bet I try to make at fixed odds on New South Wales races, regardless of whether Tabcorp odds are greater or less than the Betfair odds.
RacingNSW told me they will probably reject my complaint unless I produce records from my Tabcorp accounts and my Betfair account to prove that all my bets are not arbitrage bets.
I will not be producing my records, because how I bet is my business only. but instead I shall be making a complaint to the ACCC to have the rule "the bet is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange" struck out.
The moral of the story is that Tabcorp are trying to bypass the Minimum Bet Rule, if they do not like the way that you bet.
CastironTabcorp claim that all my bets are arbitrage bets, and are using the rule "the bet is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange" to reject any bet I try to make at fixed odds on New South Wales races, regardless of whether Tabcorp odds ar
In my meeting yesterday with RacingNSW, I asked them about the two tier price structure at Centrebet, Sportingbet and Tom Waterhouse. Their reply was that it was being attended to. I got the distinct impressing that RacingNSW is taking the Willaim Hill group of companies to court.
In my meeting yesterday with RacingNSW, I asked them about the two tier price structure at Centrebet, Sportingbet and Tom Waterhouse. Their reply was that it was being attended to. I got the distinct impressing that RacingNSW is taking the Willaim Hi
Shouldn't need to be struck out. The only bet that it concerns is the bet made with TAB. Any other bet you make in any means has nothing to do with it.
Really, if they are offering odds as a bookmaker and you accept them, that is all they need to know.
Sounds to me like they are realising that their bookmaker is no better than any of the other corporates, but they are trying to protect them.
The whole "we don't want his business because we aren't the only ones getting it" siht shouldn't fly anywhere. As a consumer, it is your right to buy the best value product you can. If they offer stupid odds, it is hardly your fault.
Is the TAB paying us royalties for using our prices? I don't recall ever getting a payment for using my prices to determine the profitibility of their customers, so they really shouldn't have an argument. How exactly do they know what the BF prices are, and why are they allowed? Do Betfair and TAB have an arrangement that allows TAB to compare their prices? And if they do, WHY DON'T THEY FCUKING MONITOR THEIR MARKETS SO THERE IS NO ARBITRAGE OPPORTUNITIES. Gutless scum bookmakers want a free ride, and they are getting it.
Good that a select few won't simply roll over and cop it in the ass because they feel "it is their right". Bullsiht.
Shouldn't need to be struck out. The only bet that it concerns is the bet made with TAB. Any other bet you make in any means has nothing to do with it.Really, if they are offering odds as a bookmaker and you accept them, that is all they need to kn
As of 15th October, looks like they have changed the wording of it?
c) The Bookmaker is not required to comply with its obligations in Schedule 1 if:
1. The backer has not provided the Bookmaker with sufficient funds to pay for the bet; 2. The bet is placed prior to 9am on the day of the NSW Thoroughbred Race or 2pm for a night race meeting; 3. the Bookmaker has already accepted a fixed odds bet or number of fixed odds bets up to the limit in Schedule 1 on that horse from the backer and/or another backer (or other backers) as agent for that backer; 4. there has been an official price fluctuation or the Bookmaker own price fluctuation has changed, the Bookmaker is not compelled to accept any bet at the pre-changed price; 5. where the backer is not the beneficial owner of the bet with the Bookmaker and: i. the backer has not provided the Bookmaker with details of the beneficial owner; or ii. the Bookmaker has already accepted a fixed odds bet or number of fixed odds bets up to the limit in Schedule 1 on that horse from the beneficial owner and/or another backer (or other backer) with the same beneficial owner; 6. the Bookmaker has refused to accept the bet, done an act or refused to do any act due to: i. the backer being wanred off or disqualified; ii. the backer has engaged in fraudulent activity; iii. the backer has breached a material condition of the agreement with the Approval Holder; iv. the Bookmaker's statutory obligations including but not limited to The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (cth) and any responsible gambling legislation; v. any other integrity related reason.
7) Schedule 1 applies from 15 October 2014 or such later date notified to the Bookmaker by Racing NSW.
http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00000802-source.pdfAs of 15th October, looks like they have changed the wording of it?c) The Bookmaker is not required to comply with its obligations in Schedule 1 if:1. The backer has not provided
I am being denied service by Tabcorp regarding their Fixed Odds on Racing and Sport.
Whenever I ask for a Fixed Odds bet on any horse, trot or dog race, I always get rejected, even if the bet was for $1 at odds of 2.00. Tabcorp response is that these odds are only available to selected customers, not all customers.
On the 1st October 2014, I requested a bet of $800 @ 1.42 on Souths to win the Rugby League Grand Final. This bet was rejected completely. After I requested the bet, the odds remained at 1.42. Tabcorp response is that these odds are only available to selected customers, not all customers.
My complaint is that Tabcorp is offering a product for sale (Fixed Odds), that is not available to all members of the public, only selected members of the public.
This is the link to the ACCC complaints form.https://www.accc.gov.au/contact-us/contact-the-accc/consumer-complaint-formThis is my complaint to the ACCC.I am being denied service by Tabcorp regarding their Fixed Odds on Racing and Sport.Whenever I as
"(d) The approval Holder is not required to comply with its obligations in clauses 5.7(a) or 5.7(c) if.
(1) The bet is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange."
A simple reading of 5.7(d)(1) renders it non-sensical. Two different market places, two seperate distinct bets governed (graded/settled) at least in part under different rules ie reductions for late scratchings, commission fees etc.
Notwithstanding the above, if the exchange bet is placed AFTER the bookie bet then 5.7(d)(1) can not be invoked since the supposed corresponding wager does not yet exist.
In any event, it seems to me that a party that wishes to rely on 5.7(d)(1) must establish the facts. In other words, it is not for the punter to prove he/she did NOT do something. The bookie would have to establish 'some facts' on which to access the relief intended by 5.7(d)(1) not merely raise the matter and leave the opposing party to prove a 'prima-facie' non-existant fact.
I highly doubt ACCC can oblige NSWRacing to comply with any alternative interpretation of the subject Act other than which they wish to currently use (see my preceeding coments). However, shopping at Coles should not disqualify one from shopping at Woolworths.
..
"(d) The approval Holder is not required to comply with its obligations in clauses 5.7(a) or 5.7(c) if. (1) The bet is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange."A simple reading of 5.7(d)(1) renders it non-sensical. Two different marke
Thank you so very much for "http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00000802-source.pdf"
I find it very disappointing on the part of RacingNSW, that they did not inform of this to me yesterday.
BJTThank you so very much for "http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00000802-source.pdf"I find it very disappointing on the part of RacingNSW, that they did not inform of this to me yesterday.
The basis of your complaint would/should be adjudicated on the prevailing regulation (schedule) ie 5.7(d)(1) and so TABCORP would be entitled to rely on same. However, the very fact this clearly non-sensical "get out jail" clause has now been removed is telling. It is completely inaccesable as a matter of establishing the facts.
NSWRacing most assuredly should have informed you the offending 5.7(d)(1) has since been repealed. And furthermore, should now in turn compel TABCORP to establish the facts on which it intends to rely on 5.7(d)(1) even now it has been repealed. And lastly, what is stopping you from now betting with TABCORP into the future now that 5.7(d)(1) in it's previous form has disappeard?
..
The basis of your complaint would/should be adjudicated on the prevailing regulation (schedule) ie 5.7(d)(1) and so TABCORP would be entitled to rely on same. However, the very fact this clearly non-sensical "get out jail" clause has now been remove
I didn't know about it until I read your post and tried to find the full thing to check the wording, and there it was. I can only assume that is the new wording of what we are talking about? Removes betting exchanges altogether. Just seems strange that given you have recently conversed with them, they suggested they would reject it based on something that is no longer relevant?
I didn't know about it until I read your post and tried to find the full thing to check the wording, and there it was. I can only assume that is the new wording of what we are talking about?Removes betting exchanges altogether.Just seems strange tha
Is RNSW allowed to discriminate against those not wearing a coat and tie?
Do committeemen enjoy Roll of the Board?
Can Casinos employ coping mechanisms against Zeljko?
What makes Corporates different?
Is RNSW allowed to discriminate against those not wearing a coat and tie?Do committeemen enjoy Roll of the Board?Can Casinos employ coping mechanisms against Zeljko?What makes Corporates different?
You appear to have a good understanding of the law.
What chance of success do you think my complaint to the ACCC against has.
I am being denied service by Tabcorp regarding their Fixed Odds on Racing and Sport.
Whenever I ask for a Fixed Odds bet on any horse, trot or dog race, I always get rejected, even if the bet was for $1 at odds of 2.00. Tabcorp response is that these odds are only available to selected customers, not all customers.
On the 1st October 2014, I requested a bet of $800 @ 1.42 on Souths to win the Rugby League Grand Final. This bet was rejected completely. After I requested the bet, the odds remained at 1.42. Tabcorp response is that these odds are only available to selected customers, not all customers.
My complaint is that Tabcorp is offering a product for sale (Fixed Odds), that is not available to all members of the public, only selected members of the public.
BJTYou appear to have a good understanding of the law.What chance of success do you think my complaint to the ACCC against has.I am being denied service by Tabcorp regarding their Fixed Odds on Racing and Sport.Whenever I ask for a Fixed Odds bet on
brickie, you are no chance of getting anywhere with the ACCC, not a shower in hell. however your best course of action is with RNSW, its their product and it seems they can determine the rules and regulations regarding who bets on the product.
brickie, you are no chance of getting anywhere with the ACCC, not a shower in hell. however your best course of action is with RNSW, its their product and it seems they can determine the rules and regulations regarding who bets on the product.
There was a case taken to VCAT I believe against a NT mob, and they determined they were within their rights to hear the case, but ultimately dismissed it I believe. Would imagine it would go something like that, although if you are prepared to go through with it, I would.
Punter Takes on Sportsbet in the VCAT: MacMillan v Sportsbet – Can Bookmakers Refuse Bets From Punters? The VCAT Asserts Jurisdiction to Hear Claim by Punter Against Bookmaker and Finds Sportsbet not in Breach of the ACL Date : 18 December 2013 Author/s : Jamie Nettleton, Mary Huang Type : Focus Paper
Overview
Mr MacMillan, a customer of Sportsbet Pty Limited (Sportsbet), made a complaint to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that Sportsbet had breached the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by banning him from placing certain types of bets after he made a series of winning bets.
The VCAT held that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint but dismissed Mr MacMillan's claims as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.
Background
Mr Robert MacMillan had been a Sportsbet customer since 2005. All prospective Sportsbet customers were required to agree to Sportsbet's standard contractual terms and conditions by clicking "I agree" on the online application form. Mr MacMillan agreed to accept Sportsbet's contractual terms and conditions when he signed up as a customer.
Mr MacMillan alleged that, in late 2012 or early 2013, Sportsbet placed a restriction on the type of bets it would accept from him. This restriction prevented him from placing bets on "doubles" and other "racing multiples". Mr MacMillan also alleged that these restrictions were placed only after he had won $22,500 in just over a month.
Mr MacMillan filed a claim in the VCAT in which he sought $35,000 in damages as well as certain orders in the nature of corrective advertising.
Initial Hearing
The initial hearing focused on the jurisdictional issue.1 Sportsbet argued that the VCAT did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. Sportsbet's submissions were based on clauses 73 and 74 of its standard terms and conditions, which are set out below:
"These Rules shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the NT and each Member irrevocably submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the NT Courts in respect of any dispute or matter arising out of or relating to these Rules." (Clause 73); and "If any dispute cannot be resolved between Sportsbet and the Member ("dispute"), the dispute based must be referred to a representative of the NTRC. Any dispute can be referred to the NTRC via e-mail at gambling.disputes@NT.gov.au or post addressed to Gambling Disputes, GPO Box 1154, Darwin, Northern Territory, for final determination, and all bets will be adjusted accordingly. A dispute must be lodged with the NTRC within 14 days of the dispute arising. The decision of the NTRC is final and binding on Sportsbet and the Member. Nothing in this Rule precludes a party from seeking urgent interlocutory relief from a Court if such relief is reasonably required." (Clause 74).
Essentially, clause 73 requires that the Sportsbet customer submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Northern Territory Court in respect of any dispute or matter arising out of the standard terms and conditions. On the other hand, clause 74 provides that the Northern Territory Racing Commission (NTRC) has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine any disputes which cannot be resolved between Sportsbet and its customer.
The VCAT rejected Sportsbet's argument on the basis of:
Since the clauses were drafted by Sportsbet and imposed on its customers, the rule of contractual interpretation requires that any ambiguity in the clauses be read against Sportsbet; Clause 73 allows any dispute or matter covered by the clause to be litigated in a court of the Northern Territory or any other State or Territory with jurisdiction; and Clauses 73 and 74 make a distinction between "matters" and "disputes". The expression "all bets will be adjusted accordingly", as used in the context of disputes, implies that disputes relate to the entitlement to payment.2
Accordingly, the VCAT held that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by clause 74 only covers disputes and not matters. Mr MacMillan's claims were not a dispute within the meaning of clause 74 as they pertain to his inability to place a bet.
In conclusion, VCAT considered that it had jurisdiction to hear Mr MacMillan’s application.
Second Hearing
The second hearing focused on the substantive matters of the claim.3 The crux of Mr MacMillan’s claim was that Sportsbet had breached its obligations under sections 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 34 and 35 of Australian Consumer Law (ACL).4 These provisions of the ACL relate to:
Misleading or deceptive conduct [sections 18 and 34]; Unconscionable conduct [sections 20-22]; Unfair terms (in relation to imposing an unilateral term to avoid or limit performance of a contract or to terminate a contract) [section 25]; and Bait advertising [section 35].
The VCAT found that Mr MacMillan's claims were frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance within the meaning of section 75 (1) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (VIC).
In its decision, the following points were made:
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct – The VCAT observed that the Sportsbet website makes accessible easily, and links and displays clearly, its standard Terms and Conditions. These include clauses empowering Sportsbet to "ban" Mr MacMillan from placing certain bets. Since Sportsbet was not attempting to hide its standard Terms and Conditions, the VCAT held that it did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct; Unconscionable Conduct – The VCAT stated that the ACL provisions governing unconscionable conduct apply to transactions which have already occurred. However, Mr Macmillan's allegation related to future transactions. As a result, the VCAT did not consider the ACL unconscionability provisions applied; Unfair Terms - The VCAT accepted Sportsbet's submission that a contract is created only when a bet is placed. By declining to accept a bet, Sportsbet was declining to enter into a new contract with Mr MacMillan. Like any other party, Sportsbet was entitled to refrain from entering into a contract. This meant that these provisions did not apply. Accordingly, Sportsbet did not impose unfair terms in consumer contracts; and Bait Advertising – Section 35 of the ACL prohibits a person from advertising services at a specified price if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the supplier will not be able to supply the services at that price for a reasonable period. The VCAT found that there was no evidence that Sportsbet had advertised that its services can be offered for a specified price but then had withdrawn its services after raising interest amongst punters.5
As Mr MacMillan had not established his allegations, the proceedings were dismissed.
Implications
Although this claim involved an online wagering operator, the determination is applicable generally to all e-commerce businesses. Two significant points arise from these proceedings.
First, consumer-facing businesses wishing to ensure that disputes are determined exclusively by any one jurisdiction should:
review their current terms and conditions; and ensure that all types of disputes are captured under their exclusive jurisdiction clause.
The VCAT has made it clear that any ambiguity will be construed against the person who drafts the terms and conditions. This generally means that companies dealing with consumers will be at risk of having its contract interpreted in a manner adverse to its interests.
Secondly, consumer-facing businesses are entitled to refuse to enter into a new contract with consumers. This means that, if a transaction is structured in a way in which a contract is created only upon the transaction occurring, then each new transaction would be regarded as a new contract. In Sportsbet's case, it is only when a bet is placed that a contract is created. As a result, Sportsbet is entitled to restrict a punter from placing certain types of bets.
Despite the finding of the VCAT in the matter, it is clear that the VCAT is prepared to exercise jurisdiction in connection with contractual claims brought under the ACL. For this reason, it is important that care be taken to ensure that exclusive jurisdictions clauses are effective.
This determination will be of key relevance for Australian licensed online gambling operators. Three key principles emerge, namely:
exclusive jurisdiction clauses should be drafted in a manner which will minimise the risk of the VCAT and other tribunals claiming jurisdiction to determine contractual disputes; terms and conditions should be drafted in a manner which are readily understandable; and it is quite appropriate, and not necessarily a breach of the ACL for a bookmaker to refuse to accept bets from a customer.
There was a case taken to VCAT I believe against a NT mob, and they determined they were within their rights to hear the case, but ultimately dismissed it I believe. Would imagine it would go something like that, although if you are prepared to go t
I have been searching for "http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00000802-source.pdf" on the RacingNSW website, without success.
Under what menus did you find this.
BJTI have been searching for "http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00000802-source.pdf" on the RacingNSW website, without success.Under what menus did you find this.
I cannot get to this page from the RacingNSW website. Maybe it is hidden. This only applies to NSW Licensed Bookmakers.
TAB Limited is under the NSW Jurisdiction, while Tabcorp is under the VIC Jurisdiction. Seems like different rules apply to TAB NSW and TAB VIC.
BJTI cannot get to this page from the RacingNSW website. Maybe it is hidden. This only applies to NSW Licensed Bookmakers. TAB Limited is under the NSW Jurisdiction, while Tabcorp is under the VIC Jurisdiction. Seems like different rules apply to TAB
So join up with TAB NSW who offer exactly the same thing except they add the Number 1 club into the mix and give you nice Christmas bonuses...
It is definitely recent though and the same thing, but yes just for those licensed in NSW, which pretty sure is only the TAB. Either way, for all the bookmakers reading this thread, they now are aware of another way to screw us over and what the response will be from RacingNSW...
So join up with TAB NSW who offer exactly the same thing except they add the Number 1 club into the mix and give you nice Christmas bonuses...It is definitely recent though and the same thing, but yes just for those licensed in NSW, which pretty sure
Tabcorp has been using the rule below to exclude me from fixed odds on NSW Thoroughbred races.
(d) The approval Holder is not required to comply with its obligations in clauses 5.7(a) or 5.7(c) if.
(1) The bet is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange.
Everytime I have tried to place a bet with the NSW TAB for the last six months in all codes and states, I always get the message "Over Limit Try Later". At about 10:30 this morning,today I tried to place the following bets on Race 2 at Taree with NSW TAB. Everytime the message was "Over Limit Try Later"
I then emailed minimumbet@racingNSW with screenshots of these bets, along with the quotation below
Tabcorp can never invoke rule 5.7(d)(1), because Tabcorp will never have prior knowledge as to whether my bet with them is placed as part of a bet on a betting exchange.
My protest was upheld, I can now have bets on NSW races.
Tabcorp has been using the rule below to exclude me from fixed odds on NSW Thoroughbred races.(d) The approval Holder is not required to comply with its obligations in clauses 5.7(a) or 5.7(c) if. (1) The bet is placed as part of a bet on a
If anyone's bored here's a few articles that have a dig at the pommy corps set up in Oz...http://www.racenet.com.au/news/103787/Vale-the-greatest-Australian-racing-tradition:-A-fair-contesthttp://fairwageringaustralia.com/
This does not apply to TAB Limited. TAB Limited is licensed by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing
BJThttp://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00000802-source.pdfThis does not apply to TAB Limited. TAB Limited is licensed by the NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing
This is an extract of a letter I received today from TABCORP.
Dear Sir
We hereby notify you the Your TAB Account has been restricted. You are no longer able to place (or otherwise transact on Your TAB Account) via the internetor touch tone telephone (Prohibited Channels)
You may place bets (or otherwise transact on Your TAB Account) in person at retail outlets and via the person to person telephone service, which you can contact on 1800 887 074.
You are advised that should you place, or attempt to place a bet via a Prohibited Channel, pursuant to clause 9 of Part B of the TAB account Terms and Conditions, we may in our sole discretion, decide to cancel any such bet and refund that bet to your TAB account, suspend and/or close Your TAB Account.
You may access a copy of The TAB Account Terms and Conditions via the website www.tab.com.au.
Yours Sincerely Ray Bazouni
Accounts Administration Manager
This is an extract of a letter I received today from TABCORP.Dear SirWe hereby notify you the Your TAB Account has been restricted. You are no longer able to place (or otherwise transact on Your TAB Account) via the internetor touch tone telephone
I have received a similar letter today from Luxbet. Luxbet has baaned me from internet bets because I made a complaint to RacingNSW about the Minimum Bet Rule.
I have received a similar letter today from Luxbet. Luxbet has baaned me from internet bets because I made a complaint to RacingNSW about the Minimum Bet Rule.
its wrong Trot .. banned for complaining about the provider breaking a (betting) law
surely RNSW must use their legal team to address this not just for Bricky but for the provider intimidating anyone who might also lodge an objection to seek an independent ruling
its wrong Trot .. banned for complaining about the provider breaking a (betting) lawsurely RNSW must use their legal team to address this not just for Bricky but for the provider intimidating anyone who might also lodge an objection to seek an indepe
RacingNSW has just confirmed to me, that the will not be abiding by their own legislation, regarding rule 5.7(c)(4) which states.
The Approval Holder must not do any act or refuse to do any act to avoid complying with clause 5.7(a) including but not limited to:
(4) Placing any restrictions on a backer’s account.
RacingNSW has just confirmed to me, that the will not be abiding by their own legislation, regarding rule 5.7(c)(4) which states.The Approval Holder must not do any act or refuse to do any act to avoid complying with clause 5.7(a)
absolute joke and it clearly mount to what is effectively a restraint of trade,as long as you're not rorting or breaking any rules of racing they don't have any right to refuse your tote bet. You should look into that further and I would take it immediately to a media organisation especially around this time of year as they would love a story like that and the powers that be won't like being exposed as hypocrites
absolute joke and it clearly mount to what is effectively a restraint of trade,as long as you're not rorting or breaking any rules of racing they don't have any right to refuse your tote bet. You should look into that further and I would take it imme
agree lets, however the media are the biggest of all heyenas in this game, and they will not bite the hand that feeds them to the tune of over 200 million a year.
agree lets, however the media are the biggest of all heyenas in this game, and they will not bite the hand that feeds them to the tune of over 200 million a year.
I feel as though I had a big win today against TABCORP and Luxbet. The letters I received today will be invaluable evidence in my crusade for fairness in the Australian Betting landscape. I have been waiting for these letter since last Monday.
The ban by TABCORP today makes no difference to the way I bet. I have not had a Paramutuel bet for over ten yesrs, and probably will never have another Paramutuel bet in my life. I never had any intention of using that NSW TAB account again for betting Fixed Odds, because it would only allow me access to Fixed Odds on New South Wales races. You would be surprised at the number of people willing to sell you their ID's.
No matter what tactic TABCORP uses against me, I will keep taking their money.
I feel as though I had a big win today against TABCORP and Luxbet. The letters I received today will be invaluable evidence in my crusade for fairness in the Australian Betting landscape. I have been waiting for these letter since last Monday.The ban
I won't pretend to understand all this, but seeing that the is mainly for Internet Betting.
Phone betting is still allowed.
Tabcorp is probably entitled to make such a restriction, as there are KYC provisions.
Also if you use other peoples' IDs both you and and them are in breach of the regulations.
Tabcorp would surely be entitled to restrict any new customer making significant successful Fixed Odds bets.
I won't pretend to understand all this, but seeing that the is mainly for Internet Betting.Phone betting is still allowed.Tabcorp is probably entitled to make such a restriction, as there are KYC provisions.Also if you use other peoples' IDs both you
This is the rule TABCORP is now using to lock punters out of internet access
If Tabcorp has formed the reasonable belief that a transaction (including an electronic transaction) on your TAB account has occurred by way of an automated, and/or computerised, system (except for an approved automated, and/or computerised, system), Tabcorp may, at its sole discretion do any or all of the following:
a. restrict the operation of your TAB account, including restrictions on your ability to use one or more specific Channels;
b. suspend or close your TAB account;
c. decide to cancel any such bet and refund the bet to your TAB account; and/or
d. if appropriate, disclose details of the transaction, the TAB account and the TAB account holder to regulators or government agencies, including law enforcement agencies.
If you transact (or attempt to transact) on your TAB account via a Channel which you are not permitted to use, Tabcorp may, at its sole discretion, decide to cancel any such bet and refund the bet to your TAB account, suspend and/or close your TAB account.
This is the rule TABCORP is now using to lock punters out of internet accessIf Tabcorp has formed the reasonable belief that a transaction (including an electronic transaction) on your TAB account has occurred by way of an automated, and/or computeri
i would understand fixed odds barring ... but parimutuel ... doesn't make any sense at all
and i also wonder if their Shareholders are aware that potential profit via turnover is being rejected on a supposed whim (or petulance at being exposed as the filth they are by Brikky)
got me stuffed too Fizi would understand fixed odds barring ... but parimutuel ... doesn't make any sense at all and i also wonder if their Shareholders are aware that potential profit via turnover is being rejected on a supposed whim (or petulance a