It's now or never for in-play betting in Australia

Good to see another 'In Play" thread on the forum.  Logic says the should be relaxed for sports, but has Clubs Australia ever backed a loser?

* the law

Given in-play betting has being mentioned in the press every day for the last two weeks, surely it's a relevent discussion point?

There hasn't been a review of the Gambling Act since 2001, it's likely nothing will change re in-play betting but atleast it's being looked into. Every submission to Barry O'Farrell so far has mentioned in-play betting laws, both positive and negative.

And yes, I agree Clubs Australia's submission will carry the most weight

As regards the abc 7.30 report
It fulfilled the journalist creed of 'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story'
Forget the presenter as they are just the vocal mouthpiece,the reporter is your run of the mill from channel 7 to 9 to sbs to abc.
Now to the content
The players:
I.Fletcher  AWC-Australian Wagering Council
Dr C.Livingstone lecturer on Public Health and prevention based on gambling addiction,Monash uni
P.V'landys Chief Exec NSW Racing
M.Speed Businessman and former CEO ICC(InternationalCricketCouncil)

To give each person their due recognition in this charade i will play by charade rules.
Fletch started off with beads of sweat as he stumbled to verbally make sense of what he was saying.His performance and answers are not even worth repeating but to clarify his situation
as representing the AWC-Australian Wagering Council,it is worth noting that he was pushed forward as the unwilling puppet.
More importantly some of the other members of this AWC are
C.Barry rep for Sportsbet.
Tom (Colgate)W rep for William Hill.
P.Straunton rep UBet are we seeing a correlation yet ?
D.Moran rep Bet36Hello
So there are the other mouths of the AWC of which none,zero,naught spoke.nothing surprising in that here is the AWC trying to stop any In-Play options whose members have a vested interest in gamblers.

Doc Living made several good points.

Eddie Munster(Vdys) kept bashing the Integrity,scrutinize line and why ??? for Integrity and Scrutinizing ?? err no,it is not in his boards(nsw racing) interest to keep losing market share to other sports,simple as that.Again i wouldn't even bother explaining the pitfalls in his statements/answers as to do so would be giving them some amount of credence.

Speedy tried to return the yorkers by saying integrity issues are already in place,of which thanks to Betfair,yes,they are but of course none of the above mentioned that.

Overall 7+ minutes of tripe with the coveted "I'm shytting bricks like a Big Alsatian dog" award going to Fletch,see what happens, next time get the makeup dept to go extra heavy on the Base Rouge.
Special mention goes to Eddie M for his,i will defend my post with this chocolate gun no matter who attacks me.
So
what does it all mean and who gives a shyte what i think anyway,well
for the In-Play hopefuls i don't see it changing but as mentioned there are legal ways around it..to a point but yes if your a nail biter with a digit waiting to push the mouse as soon as something happens in a sports event i think you will remain disappointed.

Lastly i live by my sword but i would stop others doing the same,so Dr Livingstone get's my vote for his reasons why the new generations are on the verge of been infected by an epidemic which now numbers 2. drugs/alcohol and the Gamble.

Well, as you point out there are ways around it, like vpn's...

I'm probably one of the few people left who isn't using one so I guess most people don't give a **** whether the in-play law changes anyway

bf is pretty vigilant on people using VPNs, if you have Australian address.

Although not as generally vigilant as they were a few years ago. I'd informed them I would be overseas and betting in play. Not only did they want a contact number at my destination. They called me overseas to check if I was actually there.

I doubt we will get online inplay betting. Not that it concerns me. I had a couple of years of it at purple and found it was easy to get sucked into short term swings. I do much better placing bets pre-play, which forces you to think ahead.

Yeah that's true, people think that online in-play betting is just a ticket to making more money, which it isn't of course.

But it'd be nice to have the option. Losing money is never fun, but it'd be easier to take if you could blame yourself for making a mistake, rather than blaming the fact it takes so long to bet over phone and you can miss the price you wanted.

people think that online in-play betting is just a ticket to making more money,

It is when you are one of the players at the bar b que that set up the set play to get on the certainty....(sorry cricket fans..nrl fans / soccer fans / basketball fans etc etc etc)

Looks like the government is due to release their response to its review of the Interactive Gambling Act soon, possibly as early as late January

http://theconversation.com/vested-interest-the-safest-bet-as-online-gambling-reviews-release-looms-51991

Chark
As regards vpn's(dec 13) nope not the option i was meaning.

Anyway as to the upcoming release,I suggest(if anything)they might try to curtail what is already allowed.
I also suggest any changes will revolve around Wagering Companies offering Lines of credit,Advanced loans and unlicensed offshore gigs.
Yes pokies are the blight but you can only stuff so many coins into a machine but you can massage the Iphone/App and lose any amount in a click,so imo that will be the base reasoning to disallow any easements for On-line bettors.
Fair? Unfair? are wrong considerations.What affects the majority of Duds,Mugs and the A list will probably overrule the minority of so called betting disciplinarians.

Akin to a farmer whose crop(Australia) has been besieged by locusts(All Corps).
Does the farmer continue to buy more seed to counter the locust knowing the same end result is evident? or does he try to limit/eradicate/suppress the Locust.?

The price you pay as a 'Land of Opportunity' is yet to be Tallied.

Well I'm not sure what option you mean then eight ball.

Agree with most your points, reforms will more than likely be more restrictive than anything.

Though I would argue pokies are more dangerous than betting on a phone, given that the machines are designed to hypnotise people.

Another article in yesterdays Sydney Herald. Albeit it doesn't really add anything new

http://www.smh.com.au/national/bookmakers-and-the-gambling-industry-push-to-legalise-live-betting-20160107-gm18s8.html

I'm bringing back da dredge

http://www.afr.com/business/gambling/turnbull-government-must-be-game-to-ove...

Kevin, is that you Kevin?

WH still getting around the in-play restrictions...

http://calvinayre.com/2016/01/18/business/australian-open-in-play-betting-could-speed-up-iga-review/

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/tennis-bets-soar-as-gambling-giant-shrugs-off-controversy-20160119-gm9bbs

Where there's a Will

Though according to todays Melbournes Herald Sun the Vic Government if fuming that they're getting away with this loophole

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victorian-government-angry-over-australian-open-bookmaker-deal-as-police-examine-inplay-betting/news-story/f033b5139c4f85a74af26469dc502c6e

WH is furious with the Herald Sun, basically accusing them of making the story up

http://calvinayre.com/2016/01/21/business/william-hill-demands-herald-sun-to-retract-front-page-over-in-play-betting-claims/

But that hasn't stopped the Herald Sun from writing a follow up article lol

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorian-government-called-for-inplay-betting-crackdown-before-australian-open-sponsorship-concerns/news-story/59de3388d10f21915ec7fb872decf863

The tennis match-fixing saga and the attention that WH's sponsorship of Oz Open is getting have come at a bad time for anyone wanting positive changes to the IGA. WH may well be shooting themselves in the foot longterm by getting around the in-play restrictions now.

The way things are going, in-play betting might be lost altogether if the powers that be ban bookmakers from offering odds once events go in-play.

An interesting article in todays The Australian newspaper

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/everything-to-play-for-in-sports-betting/news-story/de8e6248040797bf60b633444239e2e2

Rick Wallace could be on the money with the following statement... In the spirit of this new Australia Day tradition of viewing events through a gambler’s eyes, the smart money is on a solution that pushes any decision on in-play beyond the next election, but comes down hard on restricting credit betting and restricting access to offshore betting shops

He's probably right, if the in-play law doesn't change in next few months it's difficult to see it happening in next 10 years atleast

The first hints that in-play betting could become a reality, according to the Sydney Telegraph atleast

http://calvinayre.com/2016/01/29/business/aussie-minister-hints-legal-in-play-sports-betting/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/inplay-betting-now-at-shorter-odds-as-momentum-for-gambling-change-grows/news-story/74348ab3f23249fb2cc7ac05fec003fb

A glimmer of hope maybe, let us pray for some common-sense to prevail and the shackles may be removed.

I still remain  sceptical because of the political difficulties of convincing an ignorant community that freeing up the rules of internet in-play will not cause the end of the world.

I do have a vindictive streak against clubs with their poker machines that might suffer and also racing clubs that think that to increase revenue all the tabs have to do is increase their take out from respective pools. Neither the clubs or racing authoritiesc give a sh1t about their customers.

Therein ends the sermon.

Maybe this Oz Open Tennis match fixing saga will actually be a good thing in the end.

It might be easier for the powers that be to convince the community that it's necessary to bring in in-play betting in order to regulate the industry properly and hence stamp out match fixing.

These tennis allegations are so old they've got cobwebs all over them. Just happened to be brought up on the eve of Aust Open.

They are Kamikazee, but 99% of the public are caught surprised by these allegations and the timing of this story is what's important.

The media has a big influence over the publics perceptions of the betting industry, and as Trotlover touched on the community is generally naive as to what in-play betting is and what it actually involves. So it doesn't help when a newspaper publishes an article with a title like this as it only increases negative perceptions...

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/tennis-australia-president-stephen-healy-concerned-about-matchfixing-and-inplay-betting-20160128-gmgmop

Tennis Australia president Stephen Healy is more concerned about in-play betting options that could lead to spot fixing, not on in-play betting as a whole. A point that seems to be lost on the writer of this article.

I don't suppose the recent spotlight on tennis match fixing by the press on the eve of the in-play legislation being examined is more than coincidence.

Haha maybe Trotlover, but would like to think it was a coincidence. Whatever the case, the match fixing saga has surely been blown out of proportion?

There was a good article in The Australian newspaper a few days ago. Basically suggests the mixed doubles match fixing saga was a load of rubbish...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/its-oddson-tennis-australian-open-fix-was-a-cockup/news-story/77ba70c036f8047c4c74a375dadb8f21

Kevin, is that you Kevin?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/northern-territory-backs-inplay-betting-20160...

Monica Monica

So many journalists make such a smooth transition from corruption to the in-play betting debate - yet they never get around to informing us what's so scary about it(IP betting).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/turf-thoroughbreds/racing-australia-ce...

Hope the AFL, NRL Cricket Australia etc are stirring the pot behind the scenes to have the rules relaxed.

Difficult position for them to be openly seen as supporting any form of gambling.

There's a sniff of desperation in Mcgauran words, almost as if his political contacts have told him the law will be changed.
Perhaps throwing one last pile of mud in the hope of protecting his industry from competition.

Perhaps a coordinated attack from the industry as the NSW Trainers & Jockeys ass. expressed a similar view last week, although they were keen to stress that in-play betting on horse-racing created perception issues for racing but did not actually lead to corruption, of course to claim other-wise would be to suggest that not all of their members were of good character.
Peter Mcgauran wasn't so kind.
   
Expect to see PV wheeled out in the coming days with some more tales of doom.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/offshore-giants-to-plunder-betting-sites/news-story/5f00e62728c27728b153d547677c8196

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/tabcorp-live-online-betting-legal-034110285.html

"The current situation is untenable and the federal government must act now to address it," according to Tabcorp CEO David Attenborough

He's right there, something has to give one way or another. And more than likely sooner rather than later

Unbelievable interview between Peter VDL and Ray Hadley today. Fairly certain not one thing VDL said was true and Hadley just knows nothing about it.

Here's that interview for those interested in listening to it...

http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/153476

What a intolerable arse-hat that man is.

thanks for that link, they belong together V'Landys is responsible for the decline in turnover and field sizes in nsw but gets a contract extension, gets his fat head out there any chance he gets.

Andrew Twaits

"This interview is just breathtaking. Played it for the whole family at dinner."

https://twitter.com/ajtwaits/status/696251142800408576

The anti in-play brigade are cranking up their efforts to prevent any changes being made...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/gambling-giants-step-up-lobbying-to-bring-down-inplay-betting/news-story/4e0569960fd702adb432eb2118f8ebcb

what's your gut feel Charkitz ?  cannot see any votes in relaxing the rules.

Think you're right Trotlover, it's doubtful the in-play legislation will change, too many big guns in the ears of the politicians asking (or desperately begging) for the restrictions not to be lifted. And the media continue to put a negative slant on it, which makes it much harder for the polis to convince your average Joe Blow of the merits of lifting it.

Having said that, there's still a much better chance now than at any time in the last 10 years or so. It'll be interesting to see what else comes out of the review too, we should know by end of this month

Good to see there's an article today focusing on the other side of the argument...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/sportsbet-fights-back-in-battle-for-inplay-betting-20160208-gmoiq6.html

And this is what I mean by the media putting a negative slant on it...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/inplay-betting-could-erode-confidence-in-sport/news-story/595bb88ef3fc374ac56cddcb04fedc49

Wow at this bit   At the most basic level, for spectators barracking for their preferred players or teams, the whiff of corruption would destroy confidence in football, cricket, basketball, tennis and other popular sports

Yet another article suggesting that liberalising in-play would lead to corruption, without actually explaining how

A bit more than another article, an editorial, looks like the The Australian has made up its mind.

Met a fella from a corp at a superbowl party yesterday and asked him what the gut feel was, said they were fairly confident, but by no means a done deal.

Looking likely in play betting won't be passed. What an absolute f%*kn joke this whole country is. Get in play betting going. Did I hear correctly that "racing I play betting" is allowed be caused under the act, racing wasn't considered a sport.

Surely the only change now to the law will be that WH's in play method will be banned.

At this stage they're only saying no to online in-play betting up until the election Ange. It's a temporary decision.

Which leaves the door open for making a permanent decision to allow online in-play betting post election. They know they'd lose votes come the election if they make an announcement before then. Surely if they weren't going to make any changes to the in-play legislation, they'd just make that announcement now...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/live-sports-betting-ban-until-federal-election/news-story/70a92b4407c2afdfe9932ed01e45a83d

http://calvinayre.com/2016/03/17/business/australia-govt-stall-online-in-play-betting-decision-after-election/

Australia does have in-play betting at the moment, just that it's stacked in favour of the Aus bookies.

In any case its a long bow being drawn to apply any out-of-date law to in-play sports betting imo.

Most bookies have too much money tied up in advertisements too have to adjust to the any in-play changes.

On the other hand, anyone winning consistently would probably have their bets limited anyway, so I dont know what their problem would be.

Maybe its more to do with out of touch politicians or maybe their a some politicians who are worried that poker machine tax revenue might take a hit.

so does anyone think in-play betting on the races may stop ? hope not its a good little earn for me, nothing huge but something.

Australia is the only country in the world that allows online sports betting, in-play sports betting, but not online in-play sports betting. Stupid, right? What's the difference between making a phone call, standing at a TAB machine, or sitting at home on your computer? New Zealand has it, why can't we?

The arguments against legalising it are that it will increase the number of problem gamblers, that it will allow problem gamblers to lose more money more quickly, and that some funds may be diverted away from the pokies and racing industry. And these are all moot points - the number of new problem gamblers will be negligible as they're all already gambling through the many mediums available, problem gamblers already lose as much as they can so any change to total losses would be negligible, and yes there would be a shifting of profits away from historic operators but that is simply indicative of changing times and operators that have failed to keep up.

The arguments for legalising it are that it would increase the productivity and efficiency of winning punters and the industry in general. Unfortunately given that winning punters are very few and far between, there are no major advocates who take heed of their concerns, so it is left up to the operators to try and convince politicians to bring about change, and with all the negative stigma associated with the industry, it's an uphill battle.

When the legislation was passed in 2001, online betting wasn't a very big thing, I've been told that the main purpose of the legislation was to prevent online casinos and poker machines from being able to operate in Australia, but that the bill was worded to be as widely encompassing as possible, including all sports and betting games (horse racing and lottery excepted).

Unfortunately the average layman/politician has no idea about the difference between informed and uninformed betting, everything gets lumped together - it's all fixed and corrupt and bad. But given the ease of access punters have to bookies all around the world, and with the government being rather powerless to monitor or control this, it would be extremely imprudent on their part not to give punters what they want, via a medium they can control and monitor and collect tax from.

Here's to hoping logic can win out.

Vlandys 150% right.   Offshore bookmakers is a bigger issue.  Its crucial prize money is protected.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/government-bans-inplay-betting-on-sports-dealing-blow-to-tom-waterhouse-20160428-goh0wp.html

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/online-inplay-betting-will-stay-illegal-loopholes-to-be-closed-says-coalition-20160428-goh930.html

All I take out of this is the following two sentences...

"The government does not intend to further expand the online betting market in Australia by legalising online in-play betting," Social Services Minister Alan Tudge said. "We think there's enough problems with gambling already,  before giving people the ability to bet on every moment of every sport across Australia from your living room."

So that's that then, unless the government suddenly change their tune post election (which is still a small possibility). I promise to not start another Oz in-play betting thread, shoulda known better!!

I know it sounds crazy Charkitz,even paranoid,but I can't help wondering if you're somehow to blame.

Lobby the Liberal Democrats.  They are campaigning this election to end the nanny state.

Here is their current policy on gambling :-

http://ldp.org.au/policy/gambling/

You never know, if they end up with few senate seats they might be able to weigh in on this issue.

More like a definition of head-in-the-sand
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) neither supports nor opposes gambling

The LDP does not consider problem gambling
After those eyebrow raisers,the policy does have some kind of credence.
Focusing on the 'Rake %'and House Edge is important but not a single mention of the Offshore illegal Gambling Companies(Locust)

Mar 22, 2016 -- 5:43AM, clint smoker wrote:

Australia is the only country in the world that allows online sports betting, in-play sports betting, but not online in-play sports betting. Stupid, right? What's the difference between making a phone call, standing at a TAB machine, or sitting at home on your computer? New Zealand has it, why can't we?The arguments against legalising it are that it will increase the number of problem gamblers, that it will allow problem gamblers to lose more money more quickly, and that some funds may be diverted away from the pokies and racing industry. And these are all moot points - the number of new problem gamblers will be negligible as they're all already gambling through the many mediums available, problem gamblers already lose as much as they can so any change to total losses would be negligible, and yes there would be a shifting of profits away from historic operators but that is simply indicative of changing times and operators that have failed to keep up.The arguments for legalising it are that it would increase the productivity and efficiency of winning punters and the industry in general. Unfortunately given that winning punters are very few and far between, there are no major advocates who take heed of their concerns, so it is left up to the operators to try and convince politicians to bring about change, and with all the negative stigma associated with the industry, it's an uphill battle.When the legislation was passed in 2001, online betting wasn't a very big thing, I've been told that the main purpose of the legislation was to prevent online casinos and poker machines from being able to operate in Australia, but that the bill was worded to be as widely encompassing as possible, including all sports and betting games (horse racing and lottery excepted). Unfortunately the average layman/politician has no idea about the difference between informed and uninformed betting, everything gets lumped together - it's all fixed and corrupt and bad. But given the ease of access punters have to bookies all around the world, and with the government being rather powerless to monitor or control this, it would be extremely imprudent on their part not to give punters what they want, via a medium they can control and monitor and collect tax from.Here's to hoping logic can win out.

im in new zealand, i cant bet on the sportsbook live because we are locked in with australia through that stupid  wallet thing, sportsbook is good if you wanns take mid match multis on soccer especially, so easy just to load the goals section and place bets in no time........another thing i find with aussie betting sites is providing id, you have to get documents signed by a jp or something similer, no where else does that happen ,im ok with a id pic and a copy of a recent bill but gee going to that extreme that is extreme.

eight ball - The policy clearly needs some work, but if you look at the overall LDP philosophy and policy of bringing an end to the "nanny state" you will see that it aligns with punters desire to be treated like adults in a open market with less (stupid) regulation.

Maybe if people lobbied them and helped them refine their policy then some headway could be made.....or you could just sh1t on my suggestion instead.  Whatever pleases you.